[Oe List ...] Fw: [Dialogue] What do we mean by a "right"?
ed feldmanis
edfeldmanis at gmail.com
Mon Aug 31 10:36:02 CDT 2009
Janice,
I really like your thoughtful ideas. I think they add a lot to the
discussion.
We have been told the the way life is is that we are either dominated by the
government or we are free and that there is no in between. Today there are
no or very few in the political arena that rise above the battles and ask
the question of "What is smart governance."
One approach was Kennedy's. Ted Kennedy died. He did a lot of good and
helped a lot of people. He was called a liberal. This is a kind of fiction.
There really is no hard and nailed down position called Liberal or
Conservative. These are ideas and as such they are also dynamics. It is
impossible to be Liberal without being Conservative and vice-versa. One
needs the other.
In our time the discussion is not really about philosophy but about who will
control things. In the far past, when people and the government thought that
they could not have health insurance over the great expanse of this country
private concerns sprang up as not for profit organizations to provide health
insurance. They were expensive but worked somehow and left people out.
They more or less substituted for government. Remember we also had
insurance companies called "Mutuals". What was blocking everything in terms
of national action was the idea that we could not do much because the
country was so big. Then there was something called States Rights and that
idea finally collapsed but more so than for any other reason this idea lost
out because of corruption in state governments.
Here is a historic example. There was a time in this country when people
believed we could not get past 1) the physical barriers in this country and
2) the Constitution to create the Interstate Highway system. Many thought
Ike's proposal was breaking the law and creating socialism. Ike had to say
it was for national defense. Today the country would be strangled without
the interstates.
We seem to have a situation today where companies think they are government,
at least defacto government. They have rights and they are as corporations
"citizens" in the law. Companies are not, of course, governments. And in
the current debate, economists tell us that the contribution of health care
companies in added value to health care and outcomes is zero. The companies
add nothing of substantial value and take huge salaries and deny many
benefits.
As far as rights go the Constitution does say the government will provide
for the general welfare. The original Bill of Rights was in and of itself
was a big question mark. A right is created or solidified when it is an
idea whose time has come. Then nothing can stand against that idea. For
the Bill of Rights it was a struggle and was accepted with time. We may be
in the process of creating rights.
Ed
2009/8/30 Janice Ulangca <aulangca at stny.rr.com>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- *From:* Janice Ulangca <aulangca at stny.rr.com>
> *To:* Colleague Dialogue <dialogue at wedgeblade.net>
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 30, 2009 11:45 PM
> *Subject:* [Dialogue] What do we mean by a "right"?
>
> What do we mean by a "right" - excellent question, Susan. Your comments
> raise the question of taking personal responsibility rather than having
> everything handed to us. And from Jim W., what are basic human needs, and
> who is the guarantor? We might more easily agree about the basic human
> needs rather than the question of "guaranteeing" their fulfillment.
>
> What about the role of government? Some of us may see government as an
> important part of the answer to fulfilling basic human needs. Others may
> see government as "big brother" ready to control every aspect of life -
> encouraging us to give up liberty so that we can be personally lazy. If the
> government has a role, does it mean that everyone sits back and waits for
> things to be delivered to their doors? Does this mean a government employee
> forcing everyone to have a yearly physical? No to both questions.
>
> I propose that "access" to being able to fulfill basic human needs is a key
> criterion, combined with maximum personal effort. These are times when huge
> systems of various kinds limit people's access - to food, to living without
> the terrors of war in their neighborhoods, to basic education, to finding
> at least minimal employment, to basic shelter, and to basic health care.
> Unless we begin to understand the systems and their effects on individuals,
> we cannot deal with the contradictions individuals face. Governments can
> surely provide unhelpful systems as well as being helpful. Corporations are
> generally more nimble and clever than governments, and their systemic
> effects on everything from the food supply, medications, employment, to
> making the case for war, are huge now, both for better and for worse.
>
> How do we ensure access so that every person is able through their efforts
> to meet the basic needs of themselves and their families? In our small city
> in the richest nation in the world the churches that work with feeding the
> hungry (increasingly families with children and 2 full-time low wage
> workers) are finding themselves close to being swamped with new folks,
> breaking records each quarter recently. Those who help them say these are
> not lazy people. Is it important to have individual charity? O yes. Is
> it important to have a safety net such as food stamps available for everyone
> who needs it? Yes again. Those in my community who are most involved with
> the charity of the free health clinic or the food pantries are very glad for
> government involvement in providing basic programs for folks in need. All
> systems need critiquing and participation towards improvement - and this is
> part of what we need to do as citizens, as Those Who Care.
>
> This means more than just making existing systems work more efficiently.
> It means asking questions about whether and how these systems need to be
> changed.
>
> Our present health care system is so broken in so many ways! Do we need
> compatible electronic systems for health records? Do we need to standardize
> and simplify health care billing? Do we need to look at the effect of
> lawsuit settlements on the cost of health care (tort reform)? Do we need
> to look at duplication of expensive diagnostic machines in the same city?
> Do we need to change incentives in the way that primary care physicians are
> paid? Do we need to be able to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical
> companies? Do we need to change incentives so that health insurance
> companies are not most "successful" - profitable - when they deny the most
> care? Do we need to look at providing incentives for preventive care? Do
> we need to look at hospital services in a given area - are there too many
> beds? Are emergency rooms swamped? As the healthcare provider of last
> resort, hospitals have to find a way to pay for serving the uninsured - is
> there a better way? What is the effect on businesses - especially small
> businesses- of the cost of health care? How do we stimulate cost-saving,
> innovative competition in health insurance?
>
> These are some of the questions being discussed. Lobbyists are working
> full-time to strategize the best deal for their clients. We may not have the
> money they do, but we can make a difference.
>
> Janice Ulangca
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Susan Fertig <susan at gmdtech.com>
> *To:* 'Order Ecumenical Community' <oe at wedgeblade.net>
> *Cc:* 'Colleague Dialogue' <dialogue at wedgeblade.net>
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 30, 2009 3:31 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Dialogue] [Oe List ...] Does the Big Sort give any clues?
>
> Perhaps I should explain that I do want everyone to eat, absolutely. I've
> spent much of my life working on that. Is it a right? No. I think we need
> to define what me mean by a "right" and whether it is government that
> fulfills all needs.
>
> Susan
>
> *Susan Fertig-Dykes*
> *tel: (703) 751-5956*
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] *On
> Behalf Of *James Wiegel
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 30, 2009 8:22 AM
> *To:* Order Ecumenical Community
> *Cc:* Colleague Dialogue
> *Subject:* [Oe List ...] Does the Big Sort give any clues?
>
> I found myself struggling with this in early July, near Jerusalem, in
> working with a pilot for bringing together the sides in the Israeli -
> Palestinian conflict. With people in violent conflict, it is not clear that
> there is anything "in common" on which to base decisions for the future. It
> was pointed out that using "rights" language puts people into the position
> of being ready to fight for what they see as justice, whereas using the
> language of basic human needs puts people in more of a place to inquire what
> is possible.
>
> Even so, what are these basic human needs and who is the guarantor? Even
> in the constitution they were stated as "self evident"
>
> Maybe there is something deeper going on in this shrill American debate? I
> wonder if anyone who has been studying The Big Sort might have a thought?
>
> Jim
>
> Coincidence is the spiritual equivalent of a pun. G. K. Chesterton
>
> Jim Wiegel
> 401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401
> +1 623-936-8671 +1 623-363-3277
> jfwiegel at yahoo.com www.partnersinparticipation.com
>
> --- On *Sat, 8/29/09, Susan Fertig <susan at gmdtech.com>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Susan Fertig <susan at gmdtech.com>
> Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] Bill Alerding
> To: "'Order Ecumenical Community'" <oe at wedgeblade.net>
> Date: Saturday, August 29, 2009, 11:35 AM
>
> No.
>
> *Susan Fertig-Dykes*
> *tel: (703) 751-5956*
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] *On
> Behalf Of *A.M. Noel
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 29, 2009 2:26 PM
> *To:* 'Order Ecumenical Community'
> *Subject:* Re: [Oe List ...] Bill Alerding
>
> Yes
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] *On
> Behalf Of *Susan Fertig
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 29, 2009 11:16 AM
> *To:* 'Order Ecumenical Community'
> *Subject:* Re: [Oe List ...] Bill Alerding
>
> Do we have a right to eat?
>
> *Susan Fertig-Dykes*
> *tel: (703) 751-5956*
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dialogue mailing list
> Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
> http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dialogue mailing list
> Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
> http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> OE mailing list
> OE at wedgeblade.net
> http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20090831/56aacb9f/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the OE
mailing list