2014 Shaping the Future of New York Fridays: 11:00-1:45 Boylan Hall, 2231

It’s a breath of fresh air to read this so soon after reading about austerity. In fact, it seems like the CCT programs are the near opposite of austerity. If austerity is a direct cut to health programs in order to preserve economic standing, CCT programs in Latin American countries are an indirect way to improve health conditions by bolstering the economic standing of the poor at taxpayer’s expense. I can understand some reasons why a program like this would not take off in America – the heavy influence of conservatives and the stigma against welfare recipients, for example – although the reading did indicate that such policies were implemented in New York, despite facing opposition on two sides. The conservative criticisms of Opportunity NYC made me laugh, given how predictably out-of-touch-with-reality the critics revealed themselves to be with their statements. However, I do think that the liberal critics had a point. I think that when you offer people rewards based on certain “behaviors”, you walk a fine line that could eventually fall into respectability politics. What is a “good” welfare recipient? Who is deserving of aid and who is not, even though they’re all poor and starving? How soon until the conditionalities start to become subtly dictated by race, gender, sexuality, and class? While the Brazilian and Mexican CCT programs showed intense amuonts of generosity, all it takes is one corrupt program director to turn everything on its head.

This is an even more legitimate fear, in my opinion, when you consider that in “developed countries” such as ours, availability of healthcare has little to do with health equality. The example they gave, for example, of New Jersey Asian women living to 91 and Dakotan Native American men living to 58. The reasons behind this are easily uncovered through a quick game of Oppression Olympics. Comparing the treatment of Native Americans historically to that of Asian Americans will tell you all you need to know. So in America, where so many policies are dictated by racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic ideology on a subtextual level, would CCT programs be able to take hold without also being dictated by such prejudices, especially with the anti-Blackness and misogynoir that has taken root in American welfare discussions since the Reagan era? It would probably require a complete refocusing of welfare and how we as a nation view it. But we’d have to get past the conservatives on that one.

Isn’t it funny how socialized healthcare is just so conducive to facilitating health? It’s uncanny!

I’ll be honest, before reading this section, I didn’t really understand exactly how healthcare worked, what the pros and cons were to privatized healthcare versus socialized healthcare, etc. After reading the first chapter of section three, my suspicions that America has a love affair with laissez-faire capitalism are pretty much confirmed. Why? Because they’re applying free-market self-determinism to something as rudimentary as people’s health. This is important because when you have this sort of privatized structure, the people who suffer are the ones who need it the most – the poor, the sick, or both. In fact, what was the most agonizing to read in this chapter, although also very sense-making, was the section that dissected how private insurance companies purged their clients. Those with higher income and less ailments received more attention so that the companies could capitalize on their premiums, and in order to cut costs, they reduced coverage for low-income people. This is austerity. This is also disgusting. This is also American healthcare pre-ACA. It’s saddening to read about how many people died of avoidable causes pre-ACA because insurance companies would discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions.

What is the rationale of conservatives who change an entire population’s living conditions in order to suit their own ideologies? Are conservatives egos really so fragile that they feel compelled to transform the world to fit into their narrow worldview? Wait, why am I asking this question? Of course they are (government shutdown, anyone?) This is why the privatization of the UK’s healthcare is so disheartening to read about. From how the book describes it, this system was working, quite well in fact. It even served to supplement the recovery of the UK’s economy. Apart from aligning the nation to their own conservative views, what purpose was there really for the Tory party to start to privatize healthcare?

ALMP’s seem like a fantastic idea. They’re a stark contrast to the sheer disdain most Americans seem to have towards those living on public assistance. In my opinion, fact that the emphasis is on getting people back to work shows that those who develop it are focused on sustainability. On a small scale, a single person can’t support a family without a job, and, according to statistics, will likely contemplate or attempt suicide. On a large scale, an economy cannot survive if a large amount of people are not working. Thus, it’s in everyone’s best interests to get people back to work.

I hope that the Affordable Care Act heralds a better future for health care in America. I know I’m going to have to sign up for Obamacare once I’m too old for my family’s plan. Hopefully through the ACA I can get decent coverage.