|
JIM & GREG:
Interesting post, Jim!
An activity or behavior that is simplifying ones life to one person is
laziness to another.
I find that whenever I hear or read the expression "Taxpayer", I think of the
ranks of "Angry White Males" that follow Rush Limbaugh. I do not consider
myself one of them, thinking that Government should be dismantled and the
poor be shot or shipped somewhere else at their own expense. Yet I did notice
myself reacting to your story. I am assuming that because the health care
assistance you are getting from the State is both cost-indexed to your income
level, and a rare commodity (there is a waiting list), it is a subsidized
program. My reaction went something like this:" I live in the same State as
Jim and his wife, and my wife and I work, our income is above the poverty
level. Therefore, we are subsidizing Jim and his wife's choice to work very
minimally and live below the poverty level".
--- In Canada, as you know, health care is provided by the government,
and as a "taxpayer", I'd say our system is among the best and most
economical in the world (even despite recent cuts). Many of us here
are horrified by tales of people in the US who lose their life
savings, and some even their lives, because they have no medical
coverage. Social expenditures of all sorts on the "prevention" of
social problems (health, education, food) are extremely economical
when you consider the downstream costs of NOT FUNDING PREVENTION
(destitution, hunger, children not reaching their potential, crime,
justice and incarceration system), and morally I'd much rather support
"prevention" because it goes to creating the sort of society I want to
live in.
Also, I wouldn't consider that I'm subsidizing someone who is
contributing less $ than I am for a couple of reasons:
1. Their ecological "footprint" may be much smaller than mine, and
their are serious social and economic costs associated with living on
"more" that are currently not accounted for by economists (considered
"externalities");
2. Regarding use of the health care system, I would suggest that a
considerable expenditure would go to treating people who have work and
stress-related illness. I am assuming that VS people have come to the
point that they are doing what they want to do with their life energy,
and would be less subject to such illness, and so would be less
expensive to maintain per capita (I've no real data to support this,
but have seen work-related illness). Also, I understand that children
of parents who stay home have less opportunity to catch illness (from
daycares, etc) and thus have fewer trips to the doctor. This has been
documented.
3. Many VS people do volunteer work, with the purpose of making the
world a better place for all of us to live in - this has significant
value.
I could probably think of more, but I'll stop there.
In response to someone else (John?) who said that VS people might get
less respect for their choice than others who have chosen to
consume/display more, I say also that perhaps seeing how little a
person really NEEDS to thrive makes some people uncomfortable with the
choices they've made (perhaps not even at a conscious level). Many
people don't really know what their own values are, and have a long
way to go before even considering a critical examination of them.
Donna
I have mixed emotions. On one hand I feel a little used, because you are not
part of the "truly needy", you have made this choice voluntarily, and have
decided to utilize the enforced generosity of the citizens of the State of
Washington as a feature of your frugal lifestyle. I guess I would feel better
if my family got a little subsidy from the State for our healthcare too. But..
I also believe that a profit-based healthcare system is stoopid, and that the
government or some other entity that is more benign than profit-motivated
insurance companies should be making health care decisions for us. I do belive
that the pooling of resources for the common good is highly desireable, as
long as I can trust who is administering it. So perhaps you are showing the
way for the rest of us.
I am curoius how others on this list are thinking about this.
I also want to acknowledge your point of our culture's fear of being poor, or
being labeled as such. I think you've hit on a key issue that goes right to
the core of this whole dicussion about voluntary simplicity and positive
futures.
Greg Bartell
_________________________________________________________________________
This message is from the positive-futures discussion list.
Mail public replies to: <positive-futures@igc.org>
Mail private replies to the author of the message, listed in the "From"
field in the internet header.
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to <majordomo@igc.org> with
the command unsubscribe positive-futures in the body of the message.
EcoNet is a private, non-profit online network which seeks to serve
the environmental community. Put your online spending to work
for the environment through EcoNet. For information, send a message
to <econet-info@econet.org>
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
This message is from the positive-futures discussion list.
Mail public replies to: <positive-futures@igc.org>
Mail private replies to the author of the message, listed in the "From"
field in the internet header.
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to <majordomo@igc.org> with
the command unsubscribe positive-futures in the body of the message.
EcoNet is a private, non-profit online network which seeks to serve
the environmental community. Put your online spending to work
for the environment through EcoNet. For information, send a message
to <econet-info@econet.org>
_________________________________________________________________________