Thanks to @denadu8pbb for tweeting this old post of mine. When I reread it I thought it bears reposting. One thing about a single-payer health care system. People say that it will cause an unhealthy relationship between people and the government. But my question is this: Doesn't the fact that we currently depend on major international corporations for our health care mean that we already have an unhealthy relationship with the corporations, one that requires us to continue to consume if we want the providers of our health care to survive? Isn't there something backwards about this? That's what this post is about.
Back in July, I posted the above diagram under the title Exchange of Love. The point of the diagram is that economic policy in the modern world is generally about strengthening the bonds between corporations and individuals, rather than the other, potentially more meaningful, relationships.
Under the current paradigm, this is important because it is from corporations that we get our health care, our salaries, our retirement benefits.
The problem is, that when the economic tide goes out, the corporations shrink and--by a variety of mechanisms including layoffs and plunging stock prices--so do the benefits our relationships with them offer. Because the relationship between the corporation and the individual is entirely fiduciary, loyalty and longstanding relationships don't really factor. A decision at far-away head office suddenly decimates an entire community.
Meanwhile, because we have invested so much in the relationships with corporations, the other relationships are weakened, which means that they can't provide sustenance when the corporate bond breaks. Why would neighbors help neighbors when they barely even know each other?
So what if, instead of investing government money only in corporations to bolster that bond, President Obama also invested in strengthening local community and familial relationships? Suppose he invested in local farming and local business and general strengthening of bonds between people at the proximate level?
If he did that, when the crises came, and the corporations shrunk, wouldn't that mean that we might have the relationship with family, friends and local business that allowed us to rely on each other? Wouldn't that mean, too, that even if the boom money went away, we would still have the enduring satisfaction and support of a strong community?
And if we had those strong relationships, isn't there a chance that we wouldn't require so many planetary resources in form of "stuff" to have a good quality of life? In other words, if we could play more and rely more with and on each other, wouldn't we need fewer planetary resources and things to feel satisfied with our lives?
Colin Beavan (that's me!) is now leading a conversation about finding a happy, helpful life at Colinbeavan.com. If you want to know how people are breaking out and and finding authentic, meaningful lives that help our world, check it out the blog here and sign up to join the conversation here.