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

The key point that I got from the reading was that the CCT programs have exponentially positive effects in poorer countries and the effect on richer countries can be variable. Yet the programs seem so effective, so wonderful at reducing poverty rates. I could not help but think of ways that these programs would not work in America. America does have a self determination culture as we have been talking about in class and these program would directly target the poor. The poor would be put on display to be further stigmatized and blamed for their conditions, unless mass media begins to change the way the poor are painted as lazy, ungrateful, and leaching off of the government and tax payers money. Admittedly, it is not many people who feel this way but media does portray it as such from a conservative republican side at least. The vocal minority was a concept we spoke of in class and I do believe that if CCT programs were brought up on a national scale, the vocal minority would be ready to strike.
The chapter read “The programme emphasizes opportunities for greater well-being rather than punitive measures for poor performance” which does not sound like America’s way of coping with situations. There is also the issue of bureaucracy that was cited as a reason that Brazil was having problems with their CCT programs; there were high administrative costs, people were not able to have access to what they needed quickly. This already sounds like our healthcare system as we also mentioned in class earlier. The highest amount of money spent by insurances is done on administrative work to make sure claims are filed properly and timely and directly in line with what is required of doctors, nurses, and patients. How would this equate to the CCT programs on such a massive scale? What would be the condition through which these cash transfers would occur? We do not have rampant child labor problems and most children are placed in school. Under what condition would they make people work, something similar to mandatory volunteering? These are just a few of the questions I have and reasons as to why it could not work in America.

Regardless, I believe the plans themselves are wonderful at creating a sense of community and civic responsibility while at the same time benefitting the poor. The difference would have to be which of the poor can receive the benefits as many of the people who require resources the most are unable to get them, as seen with the requirement of birth certificates, marriage papers, and the like.

There were two lines in this reading that I found of particular interest. The first line stated that according to the World Health Organization, “the US healthcare system was one of the worst in developed countries in terms of death rates and reduced suffering.” For a country that stakes its claim as a country of freedom and opportunity, how can there be this little regard for it’s citizen’s health? What freedom and opportunity can their citizens claim when they are struggling to pay for doctors and medications? In all fairness, I do have to remind myself that what goes into policy making is much more complex than the picture the book presents and the way budgets are divided differs based on each country’s needs. I wish I had a greater understanding of why banks are allowed to be bailed out in our country and the poor are left alone for the most part. I wish I knew why Iceland was capable of acting as a democracy.

The second line was found all the way in the conclusion and related to the oath that doctors take to do no harm. This concept would imply that policy makers must review other effects aside from the economics and finally begin to factor in people. I also thought it was witty that the writers related it back to health that way. It was great.

The homeless people chapter was moving as well but I had a concern of how exactly new immigrants were affected by austerity. In Greece they were scapegoated but in America what happens? What health risks do they receive and what funding are they cut from? It was mentioned that first generation immigrants usually have the expected life time of the country from which they came while the children do not so how does public health policy in America impact this?

There is a sense of happiness and comfort while reading about countries with massive public spending on their citizens. It is great to see healthcare for all and social safety nets. What is not great is the IMF constantly making wrong decisions for entire countries. You would think that they would learn from their previous experiences that austerity is not the proper choice for every country and in this part of the book they mention the same concept. The IMF does not even use hard data to calculate things for each individual country and instead standardizes and oversimplifies policy to get to austerity. One of the Icelandic officials was complaining that the people having a right to choose what happens with their economy was wrong and the results should be left to either a computer or a few elite intellectual few. I am sorry, but is that supposed to be the IMF? Are they the “elite” and “intellectual” because their track record indicates otherwise. To see Iceland reject the IMF policy and continue to fund public healthcare except on even grander scales was amazing! The recession even managed to allow leisure time for their citizens, allowed for more sleep, and brought back an entire economy of fishing. Greece directly contrasted Iceland with their policies of austerity. The tumor story was startling to read and I had never even heard of an underground Robin Hood network of doctors. A 40% unemployment rate in youth was to me unheard of. The way they continued to lie about their citizen’s healthcare and lack a choice with democracy, the more upsetting it was to read about Greece.