Fun with Dry Ice

Thank you to that special someone who wishes to go unmentioned for surprising me with dry ice which enabled 30 mins of geeky fun.

Health Care for All: A Philosophical Argument For and Against Open Access to Publicly Funded Health Care

One can make an assertion that health care and in this question, specifically health care insurance which our society has chosen as the means in which one receives care, is not a public (government) responsibility but rather an individual responsibility.  The responsibility for the health of the individual should fall upon the shoulders of that individual.  They control their own diet, exercise, and other activities that impact the quality of health they will experience.  Additionally, neither the individual, nor society-at-large is responsible for health issues that arise out of genetic make up and therefore those costs should not be shouldered by the public, and be left as simply bad luck for the individual.  However, this philosophy, while arguably sound, is not appropriate for Modern American society.  The size of our population, the distribution of wealth, and previously established norms make health care the responsibility of both the individual and the public.  This is the situation our nation finds itself in and therefore one must conclude that publicly funded access to health care is a philosophical and moral imperative.     

John Locke, one of the more influential philosophers on the founders of this nation, placed much value in the individual exercising his/her individual responsibility; includes responsibility for their own food, property, and welfare.  People are given free opportunity to become educated, gainfully employed, and through education and employment, either earn enough to procure health care insurance individually or have it supplied by the employer.  People are free to make lifestyle choices that impact their health in both positive and negative ways.  The government does not have the responsibility to protect people from themselves if they choose to make destructive health choices. 

Classic Liberals such as Locke and modern conservative thinker Irving Kristol would state that the "basic premise of a liberal-capitalist society that a fair distribution of income is determined by the productive input of...individuals" based on each individuals own talents, and luck of circumstance.   It is not in the best interest of society to provide for each needy person's health and welfare because diversion of such resources would negatively impact the economic stability of society and eventually even society's ability to help the needy.  Rather resources should be put towards improving the economic well-being and the needy would benefit as a by-product of positive economic growth.  This would be a more sustainable way of supporting society's needy.  Since the uninsured are a relative minority, 45.7 million people   and of that likely an even smaller number actually need coverage due to current health issues, paying for those people on a as-needed basis using the by-products of economic gains would be the most beneficial to society-at-large.                  

The role of the government in a representative democracy is not to provide every service to the polis but rather to protect personal property, protect the state, establish rule of law, and when two parties have a disagreement about the breech of one of the established laws, to engage in law enforcement.   Nowhere in our founding philosophy does it provide for claiming that our government's responsibility is to provide and care for the needs of all.  Conservative and classical liberal philosophies state that government does not create rights, such as right to free-speech or a right to health care.  Government can only merely protect rights that existed in a pre-government state also called the natural state.  Does health care exist in the natural state?  Certainly one would say you had a right to medicate and heal yourself or seek the talents of a doctor to do it with you in the state of nature.  However, in the state of nature you did not have a right to expect someone else to provide the knowledge or services of a doctor.  It is not therefore the role of government to protect such a right by providing it at the expense of others.   

By trying to create an egalitarian society, something American has never pretended to be, we would be creating a greater injustice than we would be repairing, thus creating more harm than good.  It would be irresponsible for our representative government to sacrifice the economic stability of 250 million  for the sake of 40 million.  

Why such a philosophy is no longer prudent or economically feasible for our Modern American society is because of several factors.  First and foremost, we have through past actions, established a social contract that includes an expectation of public support for many services.  Secondly, we are no longer the nation of a few million living scattered independently in the wilderness.  Thirdly, we can, through the capitalist system, afford to do so without causing harm to the majority. 

The social contract is not a fix and unmoving entity.  Social contracts evolve with the needs of polis and in a liberal or representative democracy that is determined by elections, legislation, and the judiciary.   For a considerable length of time we have created, through legal and sound processes, various systems where the government has provided for the well-being of the people, and in particular the needy.  This has included health care coverage for the elderly and disabled. States, on an individual basis, provide some coverage for the lowest rungs on the social ladder.  With this the majority of people currently living in the country, have been born and lived here during this era of government support and therefore have tacitly agreed to this revised social contract.  It is morally bankrupt for a social contract to be altered in a abrupt fashion without the consent of the governed.                      

Most proponents of the "self-made" man classic liberal philosophy believe that one should enter the wilderness with their families and perhaps a few others and provide for themselves life's necessaries.  We are no longer live in that society.  We are larger and much more interdependent than those early philosophies could support.  There are therefore no more "self-made" men.  No one individual can achieve greatness unless their environment provides the necessary resources, and thus no achievement is “self-made.”  As a result, we ought to look to each other for support and determine what we can do to provide the best environment possible for the vast majority.  Good health care improves the productivity and well-being of society and therefore would be for the public good.  People have the right to health care but also an balancing duty to work if possible to help support the public programs.    

 

We have a very wealthy and productive society.  Some may argue that 47.7 million uninsured people is a small number, especially if you subtract those who would refuse any such care and those who are extremely healthy and would not need health care.  However, if you assume the United States has about 300 million people, and nearly 50 million do not have open access to health care, that is 1 in 6 Americans.  Statistically, that is a significant minority.  For us to ignore the potential suffering of fellow humans, is a moral shame.  We have the ability to fund access to health care, even access to a high standard as enjoyed by members of congress and federal employees, without causing an undue burden on the rest of our society's members.  There is no excuse for allowing unnecessary suffering to come to someone due to a lack of food, water, or medical attention.  

For these reasons, preventing the public access to health care is no longer a sound social philosophy.  There is a greater harm than good done when people are either prevented from accessing health care or are bankrupted by a health care system that does not account for ones ability to pay for service.  If we are to continue to grow and maintain our dominate role in the world, we need the healthiest, strongest population possible so they can become better educated and productive members of society.  

Version with Footnotes can be viewed in Google Docs at: http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0Ad4c-kaBHiqLZGY1bjlrdjdfMzFkZ2g0eHdobQ&hl=en

Twitter Down, Love Twitter Gadget's Down Image

As a Social Media Admin, this was an interesting morning...Set company up with Plurk Page just in-case. At least we still have Facebook.

Here are 15 things to do while Twitter is down:

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/05/08/twitter-is-down-15-alternative-things-to-do/

Eulogy for Homer Easterday

Below is a copy of the text I have written for my grandfather to read at his funeral service.

Eulogy for Grandpa, Homer Easterday

“Seeing death as the end of life is like seeing the horizon as the end of the ocean.” ~David Searls, Biologist/Philosopher

Loved by many as a friend, cousin, grandfather, and father, Homer has sailed on to the next leg in his journey beyond the horizon to uncharted waters. I am thankful for the many memories I have of my beloved grandfather. Grandpa, either directly or by example, taught my brother and I many great lessons about life, work, love, and play.

I remember the genuine kind and gentle manner in which he took on everyday tasks. The thoughtful way he lived his life, from the way he left closer parking spots open at Buehler's so others would have a shorter walk in, to the way he would never make someone feel bad about making a honest mistake. With this memory, I try be a person for others and do what I can to make their days better.

After returning from World War II, Grandpa became a Barber. He set up shop here in Coshocton and opened up a store on Main St. with Dale Parker. For over 50 years they worked together, up until just months ago, to provide not only a living to support his family, but also a wonderful and heartfelt service to the community. Grandpa loved Coshocton and Roscoe Village, and saw it as an honor to serve its many wonderful people. I often have run into people who tell me that he gave them their first haircut or he cut their hair for the prom or a wedding. I learned that no matter what you do for work, you need to give it your all and see that you are treating people fairly. He struggled with the thought of raising prices and was ever conscious of the changing needs of his customers.

One thing grandpa was great at was letting everyone, not just us kids, know how much they meant to him. While he was not a rather talkative person, but he was always willing to be there to listen to someone or to help them out. He taught me that love is not as much about the words (as important as they can be) but the actions you choose to take. Being in his presence one could feel loved by the way he acted with and around you.

Grandpa loved to have fun. Play and humor was an important part of his life. We played lots of games as a kid. I remember one of my first winter holidays with grandpa in Coshocton, playing a board game called "Don't Break The Ice" with him. As I got older he, along with my grandmother, taught us how to play Hausey and other card games. Grandpa's sense of humor was witty with just the right touch of sarcasm. Subtle little comments or expressions were his way of having fun. Right up to my final visit with him a couple of weeks ago, he had his sense of humor and we joked about busting out of Coshoton Care Center to get dessert at Bob Evans. I have taken from that a sense that no matter what situation one faces, you should hold on to your ability to laugh and play.

Grandpa was a special person to us as father, grandfather, and member of the Coshocton-Roscoe Community. He was so gentle and kind with every person he encountered in his every day life and at work as a barber. He spent much time with Ed and I, taking us for walks along the toe path and on day trips through the Amish country. In Judaism, the honorific (zichrono livracha) is used when someone has passed away. It means may his memory be for a blessing. Homer Easterday was one person whose memory will truly be a blessing for all.

Thank you.

What Value Does Society Place on Quality Education?

How do most industries reward exceptional performance? Higher wages and bonuses, right? Some industries even reward failing performance and reward senior employees just for being there. Why should teaching be any different?

There is a New York City charter school that is trying out increasing teacher salaries to match that of what similar professionals would earn. Teachers will be paid $120,000 a year in an attempt to demonstrate that teacher salaries have a far greater positive impact on the quality of education than small class size. This is not to say that giving this kind of salary to just anybody with a teaching certificate will net the gains sought. Rather by offering this salary, a school is able to draw a higher caliber of talent and some people with families to support could afford to teach where before it involved holding down a second job or opting to stay in a more lucrative field.

I have a belief that society does not place such a high value on teacher compensation for several reasons. Primarily, the public is very familiar with education. We all went through school, personally known teachers, and think we have a good idea of what a teacher does. Unlike doctors and lawyers, we all have experienced schools and therefore the perception is there is no mystery to the job...how to teach appears to be common knowledge. Society does not pay a premium price on jobs that are thought to be common knowledge. Jobs that if given sufficient time and motivation one could do themselves just as well as the next person.

Another reason I feel teaching has gotten a bad rap and compensation had stagnated is the way some (and I mean few) teachers work an act. They do not act professionally, they do not dress professionally, and they do not represent the industry well. There are lawyers and doctors who fail to act professionally and they are generally put out of business once enough clients are fed up. Bad teachers are not easy to get rid of and the standards for assessing a teachers work are not consistent.

I hope the NYC experiment works and demonstrates that higher pay does yield higher quality education. I believe it should. Teachers who are not over tired from working two jobs I am sure not only feel better but work better. Drawing into the classroom America's best and brightest will produce more bright students who have the skills needed to succed.