To the chagrin of my editors I rarely read or respond to comments on pieces that I write.
But my mom does. And she felt that it was imperative that I "clear my name," which was being "trashed" in response to my most recent post for TheLoop21.com, republished here as, "Mad at Greedy Insurers for this Health Care Mess? Then Why Aren't You Mad at Your Greedy Neighbors?" After taking a look, I don't think that I was being "trashed" per se, but I do think that some of my political beliefs have been mischaracterized.
Apparently my politics have been an issue of debate for a bit now. Recently a journalist who recognized me from television incorrectly stated that I was a Republican. I assumed she was confusing me with Michelle Bernard, or Amy Holmes or another African-American female pundit (hey, it happens). When I told her that I am a registered Independent, she said, that she had heard from others that I "lean Republican." I told her that the conservatives who sent me hate mail during the 2008 election, and Democratic Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, whose re-election campaign I ran back in 2002, might be surprised to hear that.
To clarify, I am not a Republican, but the responses to my post from many commenters on this site reinforced precisely why I am now an Independent, and happy to be one. I was raised a Democrat, albeit a somewhat conservative one, in Texas but while researching my book Party Crashing, about the changing politics of young Black voters (a third of whom are now registered Independents, and are Obama loyal but not Democratic party loyal) I found that I had much more in common with some of the subjects I was writing about than some of the liberals I had worked with and for.
My main gripe with both parties hinges largely on the issue of personal responsibility. While Republicans seem to be under the impression that every problem encountered by any American can be blamed on one's lack of personal responsibility, Democrats seem to think that no American problem can be blamed on personal responsibility. I believe that both positions are equally false and equally dangerous.
For those assuming that I am yet another person who has "made it" and has abandoned my liberal sensibility accordingly, nothing could be further from the truth. Like many of you I too am one medical catastrophe away from financial disaster. As such, I am just as much for reforming our health care system as the next person. The only difference is I want the right people held accountable so that a viable solution can be found, and if we're not allowed to talk honestly about who's to blame for the problem, we won't find an adequate solution. A doctor I spoke with the day after my piece appeared on this site said that while he and his colleagues "wholeheartedly support health care reform, nearly half of hospital admissions at [his] hospital are for preventable ailments," and there should be "more discussion of that." Although after reading the comments my post elicited he probably understands why there's not.
Though one commenter seemed to think that anyone who uses the term "personal responsibility" is engaging in coded racial language, (which I guess means I'm racist, although being a Black female I'm not entirely clear how that works) I find the idea that personal responsibility is racially, politically or class specific, insulting. My personal responsibility edict comes from my mom, one of the most inspiring women I know who had her first child, as an unmarried Black woman in the early sixties and yet never took a single dime from the government. Instead, she took jobs that most of you probably would not, cleaning houses and scrubbing floors. Despite the liberal myth, a woman who had absolutely every card stacked against her did not become some statistic, and didn't have to rely on her fellow taxpayers to avoid becoming one. As she often reminds me she made one bad choice, not two or three. And as she has told me on more than one occasion my family is not rich so I am essentially one or two bad choices away from becoming a statistic myself (like some of my family members have, unfortunately.)
So with that out of the way, I want to respond directly to some of the most pointed criticism this piece received.
UNFAIRLY TARGETING THE OVERWEIGHT?
A lot of you were angry because you felt that I was unfairly targeting overweight people and overweight people alone. That's not true, and anyone who took that away from my piece clearly did not read it in its entirety, or at least did not do so with an open mind. I say that because one of my closest friends admitted as much when he called to say that he didn't "entirely" agree with where I was coming from because "how can you legislate behavior?" When I mentioned specifically targeting the fast food lobby, he said, "that sounds like a good idea. You should have put that in your piece."
I did.
Apparently some of you (including him) were so busy disagreeing with me that you didn't bother to read that part. It should be easier for people to have access to healthier food choices. In New York, McDonald's is certainly cheaper than buying a piece of fresh fish and vegetables, so as I said, financial incentives and penalties need to target the dealer, not just the addict.
However, something important was inadvertently left out of the piece when it was republished on the Huffington Post, but was included when it ran in its first incarnation on TheLoop21.com. It was a link to a terrific article from The New York Times on trying to hold the fast food and soft drink lobby financially accountable. Forgetting to include it upon republication was clearly an error on my part. Here is the link. The next time you write your elected official about health care reform, might I suggest including it?
ALCOHOL
A lot of commenters mentioned alcohol, noting that if I am going to suggest that we tax fatty foods, and want to make people financially accountable for their personal choices, then shouldn't we do the same for alcohol, especially considering the high number of drunk driving injuries and fatalities, (something I have written about before.)
No disagreement from me here.
This came up so much that I began to wonder if some rumor was going around that I am secretly a lush and everyone assumed that playing the alcohol card was a surefire way to get me. (For the record, I'm not one although I enjoy the rare glass of champagne at New Year's.) Adding alcohol to a list of unhealthy, high tax goods doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. Although considering the number of DUI's among our elected officials I think we'll have better luck starting with fast food.
CHILDREN
A lot of commenters mentioned children as the "ultimate expensive choice," noting sarcastically that if we want to make people financially accountable for choices that affect us all then should we include the choice to become a parent? Phrases like "what about your choice to have a child Keli?" came up so much that I wondered if another rumor was going around that I have a Jon & Kate plus eight-type brood secretly hiding in my apartment. The answer is no. I don't even have a dog although I really want one.
Of course people should not be penalized for having children, but the rest of us should not be penalized for their choice to do so either. Sarcasm aside, the commenters who brought this up are correct. Having a child is ultimately a choice--the most serious choice a person can make and should be treated as such. Many of our world's problems would be solved--from poverty, to the environment and even violence--if people took the choice to have a child more seriously and children were born into loving, emotionally stable, financially secure homes. According to the latest stats as reported in the New York Times, it costs a minimum of $221,000 to adequately raise a child in America, not including college costs, and that's not just in New York. (Citing financial circumstances I wonder how many of you judged so-called "octomom" Nadya Suleman when her choice to become a parent is really no more questionable than a middle class couple that decides to have three children with little to no savings.)
Furthermore, choosing to have fewer children was recently dubbed by a new report as the single most important thing anyone can do to protect the environment. (A finding that I noticed seemed to go largely uncovered by the pro-environment, parent activists on this site.)
So yes, the choice to have a child whether you are poor, or middle class, or wealthy, is the ultimate example of when personal responsibility should matter, yet often seems to be an afterthought. If you know that you are not prepared, financially or emotionally, to care for or raise a child for the next eighteen to twenty-two years, then don't have one. That's why God gave us birth control. And if you choose to, which you have the right to do in a free country, then don't just expect everyone else to pick up the slack--financially or otherwise. There's nothing in the constitution about that.
WHAT ABOUT OTHER "HIGH-RISK" ACTIVITIES?
A number of you mentioned other high-risk activities, besides smoking, such as skiing and riding motorcycles. For the record, I recently went skydiving, and will probably go again, which I'm pretty sure constitutes a "high-risk," (or "crazy," in the words of my friends) activity. If someone asked me to pay a tax for the pleasure of engaging in such high-risk behavior, I would have no problem doing so. I may have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but no one says I have the right to make you foot the bill if my pursuits don't go according to plan, such as if my parachute decides not to cooperate.
Lastly, while my mother may be mad at some of you I am appreciative of every person who takes the time to read and the extra time to comment on anything that I write, even if we don't always agree, so thanks for reading.
Follow Keli Goff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/keligoff
Not only did God NOT give us birth control, depending on which church you belong to, it may be considered a sin.
That sounds like a really ugly thing for a mother to tell their child.
Responsibility is always a two-way street. Overweight is not as simple as not beginning to smoke or drink, but as a person who keeps my weight in the healthy range with unreasonable effort, I agree that individuals must do what they can. We are wrong to deny health care to those who behave unreasonably; those who behave unreasonably are wrong to do so. The real answer is to put social pressure on people to stay with healthy habits, and at the same time, support efforts to improve those whose habits are not so good.
As far a weight goes, it is not merely coincidental that healthy food is more expensive, and low income goes with higher weight. This is a good place for government action to improve the price distribution!
While obesity is primarily a preventable health issue, with it comes socially negative issues, but that doesn't change the essential nature of being overweight as primarily a result of behavioral choices. A lack of physical activity coupled with an unhealthy diet can be changed by the individual once the individual chooses to make the changes. People always have options in those regards, it's up to them to exercise them. I could stand to lose a few pounds myself, and it's not going to happen unless I make it so (I'm working on it). No one's going to do it for me.
Alcohol IS taxed fairly heavily in most parts of the US, and as someone who imbibes regularly, I've no problem with that. A fast food tax could do a bit to encourage healthier eating, though that's less of a cut and dried issue.
We are not debating HEALTH CARE.
We are debating HEALTH CARE INSURANCE, which pays for our health care.
And as long as we look at HEALTH CARE INSURANCE as an individual insurance against catastrophy rather than a societal insurance against catastrophy, we will continue to tolerate a system of health care reimbursement built on a for-profit model, where the only incentive the insurance companies have is to keep fees high, services cheap, oversight minimized and reimbursements to health care providers as low as possible.
This is the system we built, it's the system we used to own which now owns us. We think we have elected officials in Washington who can fight for us, but we are delusional. All of this "get healthy" talk is well and good, but it ignores the fact that whether we're healthy or not, there are TRILLIONS of dollars to be made off the the health care industry by the institutions which control its finances.
It's an immoral system. Every other wealthy, educated nation on the entire freakin planet has figured this out except for ourselves.
Wow...
...because we all know that those millions of children born into financially/emotionally unstable families are whose really responsible for their parents "poor choice". These kids should just suck it up & deal because god forbid some some of your hard earned money goes towards programs that might help these children. Why should good libertarian minded folk worry if a few poor kids starve or die of some preventable illness, curing them might just encourage them to get sick & feeding them might just encourage them to eat.
But seriously, You seem to forget that it's the kids who are going to suffer most when we as a society decides to leave them behind because some of us don't like the idea of "supporting" their parents "poor personal choice". Is this how we want society to view an entire class of Americans, who, by no fault of there own, were born into poor families or to single parents? Is referring to them as "mistakes" and "poor choices" a way to make those more fortunate feel morally superior when we as a society simultaneously abandon these kids?
great writing. fanned.
Governments intervene to take up the slack which the private sector cannot handle.
If governments didn't do this, then ONLY the wealthy would have healthcare, education, and food.
The next time you feel the need to channel Ronald Reagan with his "Government is the problem" mantra, think about ALL of the government services you take for granted ........
Police departments, Fire departments, the Armed Forces, the FDA, the CDC, the EPA, OSHA, FDIC, CIA, FBI, USDA, EEOC, the VA, FEMA, Air Traffic Control, Public Schools, Public Hospitals, Social Security, US Customs and Border Patrol, US Immigration ................ And the list goes on and on.
Are you prepared to give all of this up? ............. Are you prepared to pay, or able to pay, for ALL these services if they were put in the hands of PRIVATE companies?
Perhaps you can pay for example ------ Private fire department services, but your neighbor cannot afford the service ......So the neighbor's house catches fire which threatens your house (and you are not home to know what's happening) ........... What do you do?......... Lose your house because the neighbor can't afford PRIVATE fire services or be thankful that a government service is available to save your home?
If it's good enough for the members of congress, the senate and the president, then it's good enough for the rest of us.
I can't stand shallow "freedom" posturing. "Freedom Fries" do nothing for actual freedom, rights and liberties. (read the dec. of independence) the word "liberty" comes after "life", for the simple reason that one needs to preserve ones life (and the lives of fellow countrymen) in order to have liberty...To be perfectly blunt, it's kinda hard for one to have liberty and happiness in this world if you're dead.