The Chief Medical Officer’s Ten Tips for better health | Alternative Tips | |
| 1 | Don’t smoke. If you can, stop. If you can’t, cut down | Don’t be poor. If you are poor, try not to be poor for too long |
| 2 | Follow a balanced diet with plenty of fruit and vegetables | Don’t live in a deprived area. If you do, move |
| 3 | Keep physically active | Don’t be disabled or have a disabled child |
| 4 | Manage stress by, for example, talking things through and making time to relax | Don’t work in a stressful low-paid manual job |
| 5 | If you drink alcohol, do so in moderation | Don’t live in damp, low quality housing or be homeless |
| 6 | Cover up in the sun, and protect children from sunburn | Be able to afford to pay for social activities and annual holidays |
| 7 | Practise safer sex | Don’t be a lone parent |
| 8 | Take up cancer screening opportunities | Claim all benefits to which you are entitled |
| 9 | Be safe on the roads: follow the Highway Code | Be able to afford to own a car |
| 10 | Learn the First Aid ABC – airways, breathing and circulation | Use education as an opportunity to improve your socio-economic position |
| Source: DoH (1999) Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation. London: The Stationery Office | Source: Townsend Centre for International Poverty Research, University of Bristol |
25.3.10
On health inequalities
19.3.10
Health Care Reform
As most of you may already know, the topic of health care reform is extremely important to me. At an impersonal level, I spend a lot of my time doing work for a group that researches health inequalities at the global level. My participation in this group has helped me to understand the degree to which those of us who live in rich countries are privileged to have technology and health institutions that are capable of handling these types of issues. At a more personal level, this appreciation was enabled by a very serious health problem that I endured while living here in Spain. For those who do not know, last October I was rushed to the emergency room in a state of septic shock provoked by Lemierre's syndrome, an extremely rare and (if not diagnosed in time) deadly illness whose main cause is essentially bad luck and being young and healthy. I was kept in the ICU for about three weeks, in the hospital for a total of one month, and then passed on to home care, since I lived one block away from the hospital. All of this, including daily visits from nurses, was covered by Spain's national health care system because, in Spain, health care is a basic human right. Had this occurred in the U.S., I would be about a hundred thousand dollars in debt, if not far worse off. The experience changed my mind about a lot of things, the least important of which were certain aspects of my personal politics. To be brief, let's just say that I don't think a horizontal organizational and decision-making structure would necessarily have been as effective in treating me or any of the other people in the ICU as what actually took place.
This weekend, it appears that we will see the United States Congress come to a decision on what is being touted as "health care reform." The story goes that, while it does not declare health care a basic right or even include a public option, the bill in question will expand coverage to 30 million Americans (or 12 million or 15 million, depending on who you ask). There is even talk about how it establishes a framework from which we could work towards health care as a basic right for all Americans and a single-payer system. That said, many of the bill's self-described "pragmatic" supporters argue that, regardless of whether or not you believe health care to be a human right, expanding health care coverage to 12 million people is better than expanding it to none. Maybe if it were as simple as that, I would agree.
No sensible person would argue that numbers don't mean anything. Instead, process and legal precedent are what people tend to avoid talking about. No matter what, health care reform is going to entail the establishment of new precedents and new mechanisms because the U.S. Constitution doesn't declare health care a right or a duty. The question is, what is the mechanism for expanding access? One way to go, which is being completely dismissed by cynics who don't care for real democracy and which has been met with outright aggression by insurance company hacks, is an amendment which declares health care a basic right (like voting, which we've also expanded access to over the years via the federal government).
The other option, which is the one in the health care reform bill in question, is to federally mandate health insurance coverage, thereby obligating people to purchase coverage from private health insurance companies. Health care, instead of being declared a right, is now being declared a duty. I don't understand why this is viewed as feasible or even realistic; it is as radical a change as declaring it a right is. Furthermore, it gives fear shamans like Glenn Beck and Alex Jones more power when they manipulate working class peoples' inherent, healthy skepticism towards Big Brother. Besides, even if you want to say that it's perfectly fine to go with the mandate, how could you possibly do this when there is no baseline competition, such as a public option, to set the benchmark for pricing and quality standards? Paying out-of-pocket for the mildly reformed but still deeply shitty coverage typical of the status quo directly undermines the reasons for which it is argued that people need health care in the first place. The free market doesn't give people what they need or even want, it gives them whatever it can get away with giving them. The only imperatives are profit and growth, each of which go down any time an insurance company foots a bill. People who defend the view, even tacitly, that there is such a thing as a right to health care should not support this bill, because moral imperatives are not moral imperatives once they have profit motives.
This brings me to a final point regarding progressive politics. Too often, people with democratic values are content to hide their preferences for fairness beneath a facade of pragmatism. Given the nature of our economic system, the result tends to be that arguments are ultimately placed in terms of economic rationality, which is always motivated by self-interest. Hence, wars are argued against because they are "strategic blunders". Failing, cheating companies get obscene amounts of taxpayer dollars because they are "too big to fail". Military spending increases to maintain our "comparative advantage". Health care and pensions are progressively relegated to the private sphere because they are too "costly" for the government. And, of course, conservatives and religious people are "irrational" or "stupid" because they don't understand our "logic". Frankly, I'm tired of this type of argument because I can't make it honestly and I don't believe this type of reasoning justifies anything, especially when it comes to rights and liberties. I don't want to be involved in wars, arms dealing, bailing out con artists, leaving sick people to die, or insulting people because I think this is all just morally wrong. And, as a human race, it hasn't just been our economic systems or governing structures that have progressed; our morals have too. I mean, do you really think anyone today would argue that women shouldn't be able to work because their participation in the labor market has contributed to increased disparities in household incomes?
This weekend, it appears that we will see the United States Congress come to a decision on what is being touted as "health care reform." The story goes that, while it does not declare health care a basic right or even include a public option, the bill in question will expand coverage to 30 million Americans (or 12 million or 15 million, depending on who you ask). There is even talk about how it establishes a framework from which we could work towards health care as a basic right for all Americans and a single-payer system. That said, many of the bill's self-described "pragmatic" supporters argue that, regardless of whether or not you believe health care to be a human right, expanding health care coverage to 12 million people is better than expanding it to none. Maybe if it were as simple as that, I would agree.
No sensible person would argue that numbers don't mean anything. Instead, process and legal precedent are what people tend to avoid talking about. No matter what, health care reform is going to entail the establishment of new precedents and new mechanisms because the U.S. Constitution doesn't declare health care a right or a duty. The question is, what is the mechanism for expanding access? One way to go, which is being completely dismissed by cynics who don't care for real democracy and which has been met with outright aggression by insurance company hacks, is an amendment which declares health care a basic right (like voting, which we've also expanded access to over the years via the federal government).
The other option, which is the one in the health care reform bill in question, is to federally mandate health insurance coverage, thereby obligating people to purchase coverage from private health insurance companies. Health care, instead of being declared a right, is now being declared a duty. I don't understand why this is viewed as feasible or even realistic; it is as radical a change as declaring it a right is. Furthermore, it gives fear shamans like Glenn Beck and Alex Jones more power when they manipulate working class peoples' inherent, healthy skepticism towards Big Brother. Besides, even if you want to say that it's perfectly fine to go with the mandate, how could you possibly do this when there is no baseline competition, such as a public option, to set the benchmark for pricing and quality standards? Paying out-of-pocket for the mildly reformed but still deeply shitty coverage typical of the status quo directly undermines the reasons for which it is argued that people need health care in the first place. The free market doesn't give people what they need or even want, it gives them whatever it can get away with giving them. The only imperatives are profit and growth, each of which go down any time an insurance company foots a bill. People who defend the view, even tacitly, that there is such a thing as a right to health care should not support this bill, because moral imperatives are not moral imperatives once they have profit motives.
This brings me to a final point regarding progressive politics. Too often, people with democratic values are content to hide their preferences for fairness beneath a facade of pragmatism. Given the nature of our economic system, the result tends to be that arguments are ultimately placed in terms of economic rationality, which is always motivated by self-interest. Hence, wars are argued against because they are "strategic blunders". Failing, cheating companies get obscene amounts of taxpayer dollars because they are "too big to fail". Military spending increases to maintain our "comparative advantage". Health care and pensions are progressively relegated to the private sphere because they are too "costly" for the government. And, of course, conservatives and religious people are "irrational" or "stupid" because they don't understand our "logic". Frankly, I'm tired of this type of argument because I can't make it honestly and I don't believe this type of reasoning justifies anything, especially when it comes to rights and liberties. I don't want to be involved in wars, arms dealing, bailing out con artists, leaving sick people to die, or insulting people because I think this is all just morally wrong. And, as a human race, it hasn't just been our economic systems or governing structures that have progressed; our morals have too. I mean, do you really think anyone today would argue that women shouldn't be able to work because their participation in the labor market has contributed to increased disparities in household incomes?
14.3.10
Capricho Arabe
Andres Segovia is a pretty complicated figure to assess as a person; I don't agree with folks like John Williams that he is all that complicated to assess as a musician. Beyond his obvious technical skills, the degree to which his playing was unique, expressive and, above all, beautiful is something I don't think is really open to debate. I suppose being commonly referred to as "the greatest" at anything is always going to open one to criticism that is harsher than necessary. In any case, the following piece (his interpretation of Tarrega's "Capricho Arabe") is a personal favorite of mine:
On more than one occasion, Slavoj Zizek has referenced mystical poets who supported atrocities against the human race (in fact, new-age spirituality is a frequent target of his criticism). I was reminded of his view when I read about Segovia's five goals:
On more than one occasion, Slavoj Zizek has referenced mystical poets who supported atrocities against the human race (in fact, new-age spirituality is a frequent target of his criticism). I was reminded of his view when I read about Segovia's five goals:
- To extract the guitar from the noisy and disreputable folkloric amusements...
- I requested the living composers not in the field of guitar to write for me. This was the second of my purposes: to create a wonderful repertoire for my instrument.
- My third purpose was to make the guitar known by the philharmonic public of the world.
- ... to provide a unifying medium for those interested in the development of the guitar. This I did through my support of the now well known international musicological journal, the Guitar Review.
- I am still working on my fifth and maybe the last purpose, which is to place the guitar in the most important conservatories of the world for teaching the young lovers of it, and thus securing its future.
8.3.10
Ammon Hennacy
From Lovarchy.org:
On Thanksgiving Day 1949, Ammon Hennacy wrote:
LOVE without COURAGE and WISDOM is sentimentality,
as with the ordinary church member.
COURAGE without LOVE and WISDOM is foolhardiness,
as with the ordinary solider.
WISDOM without LOVE and COURAGE is cowardice,
as with the ordinary intellectual.
Therefore one with LOVE, COURAGE, and WISDOM
is one in a million who moves the world,
as with JESUS, BUDDHA, and GANDHI.
On Thanksgiving Day 1949, Ammon Hennacy wrote:
LOVE without COURAGE and WISDOM is sentimentality,
as with the ordinary church member.
COURAGE without LOVE and WISDOM is foolhardiness,
as with the ordinary solider.
WISDOM without LOVE and COURAGE is cowardice,
as with the ordinary intellectual.
Therefore one with LOVE, COURAGE, and WISDOM
is one in a million who moves the world,
as with JESUS, BUDDHA, and GANDHI.
Ammon Hennacy tells this story of an incident which occurred in the 1930s, when he was a social worker in Milwaukee. He had gone to the home of a man who was on relief, and the man pulled a knife on Ammon.
He would prance around and swing his fist at me to frighten me and breathe down the back of my neck and tickle me with the point of his knife. I was not frightened for I had learned in solitary not to be afraid of anything. He threatened me on for nearly an hour. I did not answer back a word nor hang my head but looked him in the eye. Finally he came after me more energetically than before and said that I had to do something.
I got up and said, "I will do something, but not what you think." I reached out my hand in a friendly manner saying, "You are all right but you forget about it. I am not afraid of that false face you have on. I see the good man inside. If you want to knife me or knock me cold, go ahead. I won't hit you back; go ahead. I dare you!" But I didn't double dare him...
He shook my hand, and with the other hand was making passes to hit me in the face. I did not say anything more. Slowly his grip loosened and he went to the door and opening it, pulled up the blind and put the knife away.
"What I don't see is why you don't hit back."
"That's just what I want you to see," I answered.
"Explain it," he demanded.
"What is your strongest weapon? It is your big fist with a big knife. What is my weakest weapon? It is a little fist without a knife. What is my strongest weapon? It is the fact that I do not get excited; I do not boil over; some people call it spiritual power. What is your weakest weapon? It is your getting excited and boiling over and your lack of spiritual power. I would be dumb if I used my weakest weapon, my small fist without a knife, against your strongest weapon, your large fist with a knife. I am smart, so I use my strongest weapon, my quiet spiritual power against your weakest weapon, your excited manner. And I won, didn't I?"
If I had told him, "Don't hit or knife this good Christian anarchist who returns good for evil," he would have laughed at me. When I showed no fear and dared him to do me up, it woke him up to the reality and took his mind off his meanness. The good was in him the same as it was in the warden and the District Attorney, but it had to be brought out by the warmth of love which I showed, and not by the blustering wind which provoked only more bluster.
"And when do I go to court?"
"You won't go to court. I don't believe in courts; you have learned your lesson."
When I left the house my knees were shaking from the strain although I had not wavered a bit all along.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)