18 March 08 - 10:18The Young Invincibles

I just re-read The Young Invincibles, which profiles a bunch of people without health insurance. It's a very good article, and I recommend it. It also brings three things to mind.

---

1. It creates a kind of "urban health defense" mindset. People who are constantly watching their back because they don't have insurance. Perhaps someone could offer courses - they'd surely be cheaper than insurance
2. The Market Fundamentalist economic policies that give us a privatized health insurance system have the perverse effect of "conservatizing" society, in a way that many Social/Religious conservatives (Theocrats, idealized 1950s America fanatics, etc.) would approve of. These policies are forcing many to avoid all sorts of "risky" behavior that wouldn't be a big deal with a real public health care system; snowboarding, skateboarding, open sexual behavior, skydiving - even regular partying become serious risks to the uninsured. Additionally, it forces those who do have health insurance to stick with their current job - even if they hate it - because they need the insurance. They also helps create "Boomerang Kids" and recreates the extended family paradigm that existed in this country for so long. Since you cannot depend on society, you have to go back to depending on family and friends for "insurance". These are yet more examples of "stay in line" behavior forced on us by these policies, which would make many a Leave it to Beaver fanatic happy. Not terribly "liberating". *
3. Friedman believed that unfettered Free Market Capitalism and "Freedom" were an indivisible part of the same project. If you're forced to stay with the same job to keep your insurance or pay your education debt, and hence are unable change careers (or just jobs), open a business, or pursue your art, how exactly are you more free? You aren't. "Shared risk" systems encourage risk taking, whereas privatizing risk discourages it.

The ideology (and ultimately, policies) of "Rugged Individualism" - Libertarianism - which helped birth our current Neoliberal ideology, has the perverse effect of making people less, not more independent. This flies in the face of the "every man for himself, making it on his own" idea which permeates Libertarian thought. When people cannot depend on society and government, they turn to friends and family. This is the opposite of independence.

* What makes this interesting for me personally is the fact that many of the Libertarians I know in real life would find these things repulsive. They're attracted to Libertarianism for the Civil Liberties/Government Stay Out of My Private life ideas (Social Libertarianism). They tend to be somewhat rebellious and usually sexual adventurous. Unfortunately, they don't see the very strange forces exerted by Libertarian Economics. So while the social side of Libertarianism says "do whatever you want", the economic side says "you cannot afford to risk it". Funny, that.

sth - default - / No trackbacks - § ¶