-Apples
-2 bottles of diet soda
-Pink lemonade
-Butter
-Jelly
-Salad dressing
-Tomatoes
-Capri Suns
-Various Vegetables
-Grapes
-Pickles
-Cold cuts
-Mayo
-Mustard
-Cream Cheese
I think my fridge is a typical "American" fridge. My family tries to eat healthy and tries to eat together. My mom makes my sister a sandwich everyday for lunch which I think is a pretty typical thing to do for an elementary school child. This shows me how much meat Americans actually consume. I also feel that Americans try and eat healthy, but end up just forgetting their "commitment" because I am really the only one in my family who eats the fruit. My mom buys a lot of it, but no one else really eats it and they eat other less healthy things. I think that Americans really don't care what they eat, they just care if it tastes good and if it'll help them to not be hungry because that's personally all I care about.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Health Care Paper
Health care in America is far from perfect. Based on the Information we learned in class, I conclude that our society is based on the priorities of those in power. Those who have the most money and most authority create the laws of our society and none of us really realize it. There are those people who realize what the government is doing and try and regain some form of power by means of populism (uniting people under the same topic to fight for an idea). People like Michael Moore feel the urge to unite people based on their needs for health care and the fact that it is so much better in many other circumstances. For example in Cuba, the doctors treat their patients with a lot more care than American doctors do. It was shown in that in America, people who cannot pay in hospitals are put into a taxi and taken wherever the doctor decides to send them. Often times the patients are not fully conscious or aware of what is going on and therefore have no idea where they are or where they are going. In an interview, Michael Moore discovered that sometimes patients are kicked out of hospitals with IV's still in their arms and in one particular case a woman still had unhealed stitches and broken bones when she was kicked out of the hospital.
This problem lives on while in Cuba, there is a pharmacy and/or hospital available on almost every block. The medication prescribed to Cuba's patients is much less expensive than the exact same medication would be were it have been bought in America. Moore talks about how people have problems with health care such as the 9/11 workers who now have lung problems and other physical and mental issues. These people have health care, but they are having difficulty paying for the doctors and the treatment they need or receiving approval for care from the doctors and health insurance companies. One of the woman that Moore brought with him to Cuba had extreme lung problems where she had a terrible cough and extremely inflamed lungs. In order to reduce inflammation and the overall status of her lungs, she had to purchase a certain asthma pump that would help to heal her lungs. In America she had had to pay around $120 per pump where as in Cuba she only had to pay 5 cents a pump. This was an extremely upsetting fact for the woman because she didn't understand why in a country that was supposed to be America's enemy, she was receiving better care than her own country would provide for her.
When we look at how the wealth is split in this country, we may be able to understand why there is such a difference in medication. For example, our simulation of wealth using chairs.When playing musical chairs, i feel that it was a little easier to understand what poverty is like. The 1st version of musical chairs was a normal version of musical chairs and although just a game, it gave me the perspective that in America, people have to fight each other to get what they need to survive. When they needed to get to a chair quickly, people would do anything possible to get to the chairs such as jump over them or push people out of the way in order to fend for themselves. This signifies how in the work place or in life in general, we have a system where the strong and "cunning" people who know how to play dirty and manipulate will prosper. Some people were very into the game, but they wanted to be sure they didn't hurt anyone by pushing them out of the way and even some of those people knew that they could not fight certain people for a seat because they would lose. This, to me, signifies how some people in the workplace try to play fair and worry about the well-being of others and this of course led them to get stepped on and thrown out of the game which can only tell us that niceties and fairness can only get you so far in America which turns out to be not that far at all. The last category of people were the people who were just too tired to take part in the game. These people either sat on the sides and watched or played the game, but walked really slowly around the circle and when it came to finding a seat, they would walk to the nearest seat and if they couldn't find one then they would just sit out. This represented those in America who are too lazy or just don't see the point in working so they give up which eventually leads to poverty. This isn't always the case of course. There are always people who are hurt and can't work or too old or something, but in this case we just had lazy people because no one was hurt or too old to play the game. Yet there are people who in the beginning of the game tried to say "my leg hurts" or "I cant play I'm sick" which then gives us an example of those who pretend to be sick in order to not do any work which happens a lot in America.
While playing the second simulation of musical chairs, people started playing like normal, but then we started to see a change when it came to our classmates owning the chairs. Everyone was playing like normal and then some people started to own chairs and the students who were in the "owned" chairs got kicked out of the game. As the amount of owned chairs increased, the people playing decreased. There were a few ways that people stopped playing the game. Some people tried really hard to stay in the game and get empty chairs which led to these few people fighting over the spots and those who played "dirtier" were able to get a chair and those who were fair and played to everyone's benefit got kicked out because they couldn't keep up with those around them. Once people understood how the game worked, there were people who just decided there was no point in trying because they knew that in the end, the owners of the chairs would just take them away. The people who knew they owned chairs walked around without a care and knew that they were safe and wouldn't have to worry about fighting anyone for a chair. It was to the point where some of the people walked around the circle texting and walking slowly because they knew that they wouldn't have to fight anyone because they owned so many chairs. In the end though, no one could win because the people who owned chairs would never give them up and there was never 1 chair left because all the owners of the chairs would always be able to sit.
Thinking about this, we can relate it to America perfectly. In terms of people giving up on the game, we see in America all the time how we just feel defeated and give up. We see things that are corrupt about our government and people and laws yet many of us just sit down and say this is our world there's nothing we can do to change it because what authority says goes. So we all just sit back and let those in power make living conditions worse for us because they don't know what it's like and frankly I feel they don't really care. They know that they have enough to support themselves and whatever family they have that they need to care for and that's it. We as Americans feel angry and upset, but we sit back and say there's nothing we can do and so nothing will ever get changed. The people who are on top and own everything sit back and don't do much because they know they don't have to and they let the "lesser people" fight over wealth and such. Those who see how the game is played give up and then if conditions are as bad as they truly seem end up in poverty. Yet there are those who see how the game is played and decide to try and fight the system. These people see those in charge and fight all they can to try and have conditions changed and sometimes it works and sometimes not.
From all of this information I can see that there is a valid argument in saying that there aren't enough chairs because it is true that there aren't and this isn't poor people's part because wealth is a lot of times inherited or stolen, but there are also ways to create your own wealth and it is hard, but it is the fault of those who don't even try that they are poor. If I think about the other chair simulation, I can see how the wealth is not evenly distributed. 1 person had a lot of chairs and then further down the line, the amount of chairs that people owned git significantly lower. Some people had to share chairs. Then towards the end of the line, people were piled up on 2-.5 chairs. On the last chair they were only allowed half of the chair yet there were still a lot of people for that half a chair. This signified how little wealth there is for the poorer people to share and this isn't the poor people's fault, but if they don't fight for it then it becomes there fault.
Amanda did an interesting thing that could be seen as a poor person fighting for wealth. When Andy was sitting across 4 chairs and he got up to talk, Amanda said "this is bullshit I'm gonna be the rich person" and took his chairs. Although it is NEVER this easy in real life, her actions were valid. When Andy got careless and left his chairs, Amanda took over which is essentially what happens a lot in our society even if it's not between the two extremes of really really rich and really really poor. Americans steal and fight their way to better possessions except for when it really matters because those people who were a lot more poor than Amanda didn't think to steal anyone else's chair. This makes it people's fault that they are poor.
Here we see that there isn't much wealth to split and those who have the wealth don't really pay attention to others to help them. Yet for some reason in other countries such as Denmark, their programs are a lot better and they actually want to help their people. America's welfare system is set up in a way in which people can get a lot of help, but the problem with this is that they don't always get every benefit they can have. People can go to the welfare office, go to the website or call in and speak with someone about their situation. They answer a series of questions such as where do you live, do you have a child, where do you work etc. Based on these answers, people are given a list of benefits they are eligible to receive. There are programs that enable people who are looking for a job to find work in various places to get them started. There are also benefits that allow single parents who have no one to help them care for their child find day care centers or send people to care for the child at the families home. Food stamps can help those on a tight budget. Not only does America have the welfare system, but we pay taxes. Americans pay taxes on clothes, food and annual taxes as well. These taxes depend on the income of the family and the amount of children a family might have. There are also health care benefits and social security etc. (to tell the truth I honestly know nothing about taxes and such).
In Denmark, there are some differences. Children go to school until about 10th grade and if they decide to continue school, they get paid to go to school (college) instead of paying to go to school. All education is free unless people decide to go to a private school. They also have specific cards that are given to people so they can show it to officials and those people don't have to pay taxes. The government helps their people as much as they can. There are health care benefits and daycare benefits where people can come to the families house and care for the children. Should a person be fired from their job, they would be given money by the government in order to help them live and get the essentials they need to survive. It seems to me that in Denmark, they try their hardest to make sure their people do not end up in poverty and homeless. The kids that spoke to us told us that there weren't that many poor people in Denmark and poverty wasn't big and those who did suffer from poverty were given a lot of help and it was not as visible as it is in New York.
In terms of having a "working" tax system, I think that a mixture of our system and the system in Denmark would work to benefit for everyone. If the government took care of its people like Denmark's government then we would have a better chance of decreasing the poverty rate, but I also think that it would be important to make the rich people pay more taxes than the poor people which we don't really do right now in America, but we do pay taxes. Taxes are good because it can help the government and the state, but I think if people are really poor then they should pay less taxes.
This problem lives on while in Cuba, there is a pharmacy and/or hospital available on almost every block. The medication prescribed to Cuba's patients is much less expensive than the exact same medication would be were it have been bought in America. Moore talks about how people have problems with health care such as the 9/11 workers who now have lung problems and other physical and mental issues. These people have health care, but they are having difficulty paying for the doctors and the treatment they need or receiving approval for care from the doctors and health insurance companies. One of the woman that Moore brought with him to Cuba had extreme lung problems where she had a terrible cough and extremely inflamed lungs. In order to reduce inflammation and the overall status of her lungs, she had to purchase a certain asthma pump that would help to heal her lungs. In America she had had to pay around $120 per pump where as in Cuba she only had to pay 5 cents a pump. This was an extremely upsetting fact for the woman because she didn't understand why in a country that was supposed to be America's enemy, she was receiving better care than her own country would provide for her.
When we look at how the wealth is split in this country, we may be able to understand why there is such a difference in medication. For example, our simulation of wealth using chairs.When playing musical chairs, i feel that it was a little easier to understand what poverty is like. The 1st version of musical chairs was a normal version of musical chairs and although just a game, it gave me the perspective that in America, people have to fight each other to get what they need to survive. When they needed to get to a chair quickly, people would do anything possible to get to the chairs such as jump over them or push people out of the way in order to fend for themselves. This signifies how in the work place or in life in general, we have a system where the strong and "cunning" people who know how to play dirty and manipulate will prosper. Some people were very into the game, but they wanted to be sure they didn't hurt anyone by pushing them out of the way and even some of those people knew that they could not fight certain people for a seat because they would lose. This, to me, signifies how some people in the workplace try to play fair and worry about the well-being of others and this of course led them to get stepped on and thrown out of the game which can only tell us that niceties and fairness can only get you so far in America which turns out to be not that far at all. The last category of people were the people who were just too tired to take part in the game. These people either sat on the sides and watched or played the game, but walked really slowly around the circle and when it came to finding a seat, they would walk to the nearest seat and if they couldn't find one then they would just sit out. This represented those in America who are too lazy or just don't see the point in working so they give up which eventually leads to poverty. This isn't always the case of course. There are always people who are hurt and can't work or too old or something, but in this case we just had lazy people because no one was hurt or too old to play the game. Yet there are people who in the beginning of the game tried to say "my leg hurts" or "I cant play I'm sick" which then gives us an example of those who pretend to be sick in order to not do any work which happens a lot in America.
While playing the second simulation of musical chairs, people started playing like normal, but then we started to see a change when it came to our classmates owning the chairs. Everyone was playing like normal and then some people started to own chairs and the students who were in the "owned" chairs got kicked out of the game. As the amount of owned chairs increased, the people playing decreased. There were a few ways that people stopped playing the game. Some people tried really hard to stay in the game and get empty chairs which led to these few people fighting over the spots and those who played "dirtier" were able to get a chair and those who were fair and played to everyone's benefit got kicked out because they couldn't keep up with those around them. Once people understood how the game worked, there were people who just decided there was no point in trying because they knew that in the end, the owners of the chairs would just take them away. The people who knew they owned chairs walked around without a care and knew that they were safe and wouldn't have to worry about fighting anyone for a chair. It was to the point where some of the people walked around the circle texting and walking slowly because they knew that they wouldn't have to fight anyone because they owned so many chairs. In the end though, no one could win because the people who owned chairs would never give them up and there was never 1 chair left because all the owners of the chairs would always be able to sit.
Thinking about this, we can relate it to America perfectly. In terms of people giving up on the game, we see in America all the time how we just feel defeated and give up. We see things that are corrupt about our government and people and laws yet many of us just sit down and say this is our world there's nothing we can do to change it because what authority says goes. So we all just sit back and let those in power make living conditions worse for us because they don't know what it's like and frankly I feel they don't really care. They know that they have enough to support themselves and whatever family they have that they need to care for and that's it. We as Americans feel angry and upset, but we sit back and say there's nothing we can do and so nothing will ever get changed. The people who are on top and own everything sit back and don't do much because they know they don't have to and they let the "lesser people" fight over wealth and such. Those who see how the game is played give up and then if conditions are as bad as they truly seem end up in poverty. Yet there are those who see how the game is played and decide to try and fight the system. These people see those in charge and fight all they can to try and have conditions changed and sometimes it works and sometimes not.
From all of this information I can see that there is a valid argument in saying that there aren't enough chairs because it is true that there aren't and this isn't poor people's part because wealth is a lot of times inherited or stolen, but there are also ways to create your own wealth and it is hard, but it is the fault of those who don't even try that they are poor. If I think about the other chair simulation, I can see how the wealth is not evenly distributed. 1 person had a lot of chairs and then further down the line, the amount of chairs that people owned git significantly lower. Some people had to share chairs. Then towards the end of the line, people were piled up on 2-.5 chairs. On the last chair they were only allowed half of the chair yet there were still a lot of people for that half a chair. This signified how little wealth there is for the poorer people to share and this isn't the poor people's fault, but if they don't fight for it then it becomes there fault.
Amanda did an interesting thing that could be seen as a poor person fighting for wealth. When Andy was sitting across 4 chairs and he got up to talk, Amanda said "this is bullshit I'm gonna be the rich person" and took his chairs. Although it is NEVER this easy in real life, her actions were valid. When Andy got careless and left his chairs, Amanda took over which is essentially what happens a lot in our society even if it's not between the two extremes of really really rich and really really poor. Americans steal and fight their way to better possessions except for when it really matters because those people who were a lot more poor than Amanda didn't think to steal anyone else's chair. This makes it people's fault that they are poor.
Here we see that there isn't much wealth to split and those who have the wealth don't really pay attention to others to help them. Yet for some reason in other countries such as Denmark, their programs are a lot better and they actually want to help their people. America's welfare system is set up in a way in which people can get a lot of help, but the problem with this is that they don't always get every benefit they can have. People can go to the welfare office, go to the website or call in and speak with someone about their situation. They answer a series of questions such as where do you live, do you have a child, where do you work etc. Based on these answers, people are given a list of benefits they are eligible to receive. There are programs that enable people who are looking for a job to find work in various places to get them started. There are also benefits that allow single parents who have no one to help them care for their child find day care centers or send people to care for the child at the families home. Food stamps can help those on a tight budget. Not only does America have the welfare system, but we pay taxes. Americans pay taxes on clothes, food and annual taxes as well. These taxes depend on the income of the family and the amount of children a family might have. There are also health care benefits and social security etc. (to tell the truth I honestly know nothing about taxes and such).
In Denmark, there are some differences. Children go to school until about 10th grade and if they decide to continue school, they get paid to go to school (college) instead of paying to go to school. All education is free unless people decide to go to a private school. They also have specific cards that are given to people so they can show it to officials and those people don't have to pay taxes. The government helps their people as much as they can. There are health care benefits and daycare benefits where people can come to the families house and care for the children. Should a person be fired from their job, they would be given money by the government in order to help them live and get the essentials they need to survive. It seems to me that in Denmark, they try their hardest to make sure their people do not end up in poverty and homeless. The kids that spoke to us told us that there weren't that many poor people in Denmark and poverty wasn't big and those who did suffer from poverty were given a lot of help and it was not as visible as it is in New York.
In terms of having a "working" tax system, I think that a mixture of our system and the system in Denmark would work to benefit for everyone. If the government took care of its people like Denmark's government then we would have a better chance of decreasing the poverty rate, but I also think that it would be important to make the rich people pay more taxes than the poor people which we don't really do right now in America, but we do pay taxes. Taxes are good because it can help the government and the state, but I think if people are really poor then they should pay less taxes.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Break Homework
Our families experience with health care is currently a good one. But a few years back we had some problems. In the beginning, my mother and father had 2 separate health insurance policies because of both of their jobs, but my mother had several miscarriages and therefore some problems. Eventually she got pregnant with me and had to stop working in order to take care of herself and insure the safety of her baby. This caused a problem because she then lost her health insurance coverage from her job and the only had 1 health insurance plan. My father's health care plan was a union health care fund which at the time meant they could go through the union's clinics which were extremely far or they could pay at a doctor of their choice out of pocket and then submit for reimbursement. It would then be reviewed and the union would say how much they thought the visit was worth. This was a disadvantage because the union's fee scales seemed to be outdated and current fees were very much above what they were offering. They only offered a certain percentage of what the visit was actually worth. The doctors discovered my mother was high risk and said that she needed more care then what she was being offered. It was estimated that her pregnancy and birthing process would cost her $6,000 - $8,000 when the union was only willing to pay $1,200 - $1,900. They got lucky and found that there was a clinic in New York hospital that would accept whatever the union paid them and would give them the best possible treatment as long as they were willing to see a different doctor at each visit. Because they had miscarriages, my mother was considered a high risk case and therefor had to have many specialist work with her to find what was wrong. They paid for nearly everything however it still costs them $6,500 or more and by the time I was born the union coverage was a little better so I was able to see a pediatrician. The only problem was that my parents had to pay for vaccines because the union didn't cover well child care. This meant my parents had to pay for the vaccines out of pocket.
When I was 2 years old my mom was pregnant again and the insurance was a lot better and they only had to pay 20% of the obstetric care. Because she was still high risk, however, it still cost them around $2,000. The good thing was they only had to pay $20 every time they saw a doctor in addition to the $2,000. By now the union started to pay well child care, but they still had to pay 20% of doctor visits. This was better than what they ever had. They dropped the 20% charge when I was about 5, but through this time, my doctor told my family not to worry about payments, because she needed to see us and we needed our vaccines. We had had to stop coming for a while because we couldn't afford the vaccines until our doctor told us she would handle it. A few years later, health care was a lot better and my mother got pregnant again. This time she was under blue cross blue shield and still high risk, but it only cost them $15 a visit and there was no charge for specialists or tests. So they had my sister and by then well child care costs them nothing and sick visits were $10. This was 10 years ago. Presently now that the rates have gone up, we have to pay $15 co-pay as long as we went to a doctor through blue cross blue shield and there is no fee for well child care. Now my mother sees a hematologist and they are very happy to have health insurance because each visit is approximately $3,200 a visit. The insurance negotiates with the doctor's office and they pay approximately $900 - $1,000 a visit and she only has to pay $15 co-pay.
This is different if we compare it to the movie "Sicko" by:Michael Moore. In this movie, Michael Moore talks about people in America who have health care and yet still have problems with their physical illnesses. He talks about how people have problems such as the 9/11 workers who now have lung problems and nightmares. These people have health care, but they are having difficulty paying for the doctors and the treatment they need. There was a women who had a husband who was a fire fighter and he had a serious illness that even though they had health care was hard to treat because the health care company wouldn't okay the necessary treatment. In our case, there really wasn't any problem we were just dealing with the changing times of health care and we got really lucky and had a good health care program.
When I was 2 years old my mom was pregnant again and the insurance was a lot better and they only had to pay 20% of the obstetric care. Because she was still high risk, however, it still cost them around $2,000. The good thing was they only had to pay $20 every time they saw a doctor in addition to the $2,000. By now the union started to pay well child care, but they still had to pay 20% of doctor visits. This was better than what they ever had. They dropped the 20% charge when I was about 5, but through this time, my doctor told my family not to worry about payments, because she needed to see us and we needed our vaccines. We had had to stop coming for a while because we couldn't afford the vaccines until our doctor told us she would handle it. A few years later, health care was a lot better and my mother got pregnant again. This time she was under blue cross blue shield and still high risk, but it only cost them $15 a visit and there was no charge for specialists or tests. So they had my sister and by then well child care costs them nothing and sick visits were $10. This was 10 years ago. Presently now that the rates have gone up, we have to pay $15 co-pay as long as we went to a doctor through blue cross blue shield and there is no fee for well child care. Now my mother sees a hematologist and they are very happy to have health insurance because each visit is approximately $3,200 a visit. The insurance negotiates with the doctor's office and they pay approximately $900 - $1,000 a visit and she only has to pay $15 co-pay.
This is different if we compare it to the movie "Sicko" by:Michael Moore. In this movie, Michael Moore talks about people in America who have health care and yet still have problems with their physical illnesses. He talks about how people have problems such as the 9/11 workers who now have lung problems and nightmares. These people have health care, but they are having difficulty paying for the doctors and the treatment they need. There was a women who had a husband who was a fire fighter and he had a serious illness that even though they had health care was hard to treat because the health care company wouldn't okay the necessary treatment. In our case, there really wasn't any problem we were just dealing with the changing times of health care and we got really lucky and had a good health care program.
Understanding of Poverty
When playing musical chairs, i feel that it was a little easier to understand what poverty is like. The 1st version of musical chairs was a normal version of musical chairs and although just a game, it gave me the perspective that in America, people have to fight each other to get what they need to survive. When they needed to get to a chair quickly, people would do anything possible to get to the chairs such as jump over them or push people out of the way in order to fend for themselves. This signifies how in the work place or in life in general, we have a system where the strong and "cunning" people who know how to play dirty and manipulate will prosper. Some people were very into the game, but they wanted to be sure they didn't hurt anyone by pushing them out of the way and even some of those people knew that they could not fight certain people for a seat because they would lose. This, to me, signifies how some people in the workplace try to play fair and worry about the well-being of others and this of course led them to get stepped on and thrown out of the game which can only tell us that niceties and fairness can only get you so far in America which turns out to be not that far at all. The last category of people were the people who were just too tired to take part in the game. These people either sat on the sides and watched or played the game, but walked really slowly around the circle and when it came to finding a seat, they would walk to the nearest seat and if they couldn't find one then they would just sit out. This represented those in America who are too lazy or just don't see the point in working so they give up which eventually leads to poverty. This isn't always the case of course. There are always people who are hurt and can't work or too old or something, but in this case we just had lazy people because no one was hurt or too old to play the game. Yet there are people who in the beginning of the game tried to say "my leg hurts" or "I cant play I'm sick" which then gives us an example of those who pretend to be sick in order to not do any work which happens a lot in America.
While playing the second simulation of musical chairs, people started playing like normal, but then we started to see a change when it came to our classmates owning the chairs. Everyone was playing like normal and then some people started to own chairs and the students who were in the "owned" chairs got kicked out of the game. As the amount of owned chairs increased, the people playing decreased. There were a few ways that people stopped playing the game. Some people tried really hard to stay in the game and get empty chairs which led to these few people fighting over the spots and those who played "dirtier" were able to get a chair and those who were fair and played to everyone's benefit got kicked out because they couldn't keep up with those around them. Once people understood how the game worked, there were people who just decided there was no point in trying because they knew that in the end, the owners of the chairs would just take them away. The people who knew they owned chairs walked around without a care and knew that they were safe and wouldn't have to worry about fighting anyone for a chair. It was to the point where some of the people walked around the circle texting and walking slowly because they knew that they wouldn't have to fight anyone because they owned so many chairs. In the end though, no one could win because the people who owned chairs would never give them up and there was never 1 chair left because all the owners of the chairs would always be able to sit.
Thinking about this, we can relate it to America perfectly. In terms of people giving up on the game, we see in America all the time how we just feel defeated and give up. We see things that are corrupt about our government and people and laws yet many of us just sit down and say this is our world there's nothing we can do to change it because what authority says goes. So we all just sit back and let those in power make living conditions worse for us because they don't know what it's like and frankly I feel they don't really care. They know that they have enough to support themselves and whatever family they have that they need to care for and that's it. We as Americans feel angry and upset, but we sit back and say there's nothing we can do and so nothing will ever get changed. The people who are on top and own everything sit back and don't do much because they know they don't have to and they let the "lesser people" fight over wealth and such. Those who see how the game is played give up and then if conditions are as bad as they truly seem end up in poverty. Yet there are those who see how the game is played and decide to try and fight the system. These people see those in charge and fight all they can to try and have conditions changed and sometimes it works and sometimes not.
From all of this information I can see that there is a valid argument in saying that there aren't enough chairs because it is true that there aren't and this isn't poor people's part because wealth is a lot of times inherited or stolen, but there are also ways to create your own wealth and it is hard, but it is the fault of those who don't even try that they are poor. If I think about the other chair simulation, I can see how the wealth is not evenly distributed. 1 person had a lot of chairs and then further down the line, the amount of chairs that people owned git significantly lower. Some people had to share chairs. Then towards the end of the line, people were piled up on 2-.5 chairs. On the last chair they were only allowed half of the chair yet there were still a lot of people for that half a chair. This signified how little wealth there is for the poorer people to share and this isn't the poor people's fault, but if they don't fight for it then it becomes there fault.
Amanda did an interesting thing that could be seen as a poor person fighting for wealth. When Andy was sitting across 4 chairs and he got up to talk, Amanda said "this is bullshit I'm gonna be the rich person" and took his chairs. Although it is NEVER this easy in real life, her actions were valid. When Andy got careless and left his chairs, Amanda took over which is essentially what happens a lot in our society even if it's not between the two extremes of really really rich and really really poor. Americans steal and fight their way to better possessions except for when it really matters because those people who were a lot more poor than Amanda didn't think to steal anyone else's chair. This makes it people's fault that they are poor.
While playing the second simulation of musical chairs, people started playing like normal, but then we started to see a change when it came to our classmates owning the chairs. Everyone was playing like normal and then some people started to own chairs and the students who were in the "owned" chairs got kicked out of the game. As the amount of owned chairs increased, the people playing decreased. There were a few ways that people stopped playing the game. Some people tried really hard to stay in the game and get empty chairs which led to these few people fighting over the spots and those who played "dirtier" were able to get a chair and those who were fair and played to everyone's benefit got kicked out because they couldn't keep up with those around them. Once people understood how the game worked, there were people who just decided there was no point in trying because they knew that in the end, the owners of the chairs would just take them away. The people who knew they owned chairs walked around without a care and knew that they were safe and wouldn't have to worry about fighting anyone for a chair. It was to the point where some of the people walked around the circle texting and walking slowly because they knew that they wouldn't have to fight anyone because they owned so many chairs. In the end though, no one could win because the people who owned chairs would never give them up and there was never 1 chair left because all the owners of the chairs would always be able to sit.
Thinking about this, we can relate it to America perfectly. In terms of people giving up on the game, we see in America all the time how we just feel defeated and give up. We see things that are corrupt about our government and people and laws yet many of us just sit down and say this is our world there's nothing we can do to change it because what authority says goes. So we all just sit back and let those in power make living conditions worse for us because they don't know what it's like and frankly I feel they don't really care. They know that they have enough to support themselves and whatever family they have that they need to care for and that's it. We as Americans feel angry and upset, but we sit back and say there's nothing we can do and so nothing will ever get changed. The people who are on top and own everything sit back and don't do much because they know they don't have to and they let the "lesser people" fight over wealth and such. Those who see how the game is played give up and then if conditions are as bad as they truly seem end up in poverty. Yet there are those who see how the game is played and decide to try and fight the system. These people see those in charge and fight all they can to try and have conditions changed and sometimes it works and sometimes not.
From all of this information I can see that there is a valid argument in saying that there aren't enough chairs because it is true that there aren't and this isn't poor people's part because wealth is a lot of times inherited or stolen, but there are also ways to create your own wealth and it is hard, but it is the fault of those who don't even try that they are poor. If I think about the other chair simulation, I can see how the wealth is not evenly distributed. 1 person had a lot of chairs and then further down the line, the amount of chairs that people owned git significantly lower. Some people had to share chairs. Then towards the end of the line, people were piled up on 2-.5 chairs. On the last chair they were only allowed half of the chair yet there were still a lot of people for that half a chair. This signified how little wealth there is for the poorer people to share and this isn't the poor people's fault, but if they don't fight for it then it becomes there fault.
Amanda did an interesting thing that could be seen as a poor person fighting for wealth. When Andy was sitting across 4 chairs and he got up to talk, Amanda said "this is bullshit I'm gonna be the rich person" and took his chairs. Although it is NEVER this easy in real life, her actions were valid. When Andy got careless and left his chairs, Amanda took over which is essentially what happens a lot in our society even if it's not between the two extremes of really really rich and really really poor. Americans steal and fight their way to better possessions except for when it really matters because those people who were a lot more poor than Amanda didn't think to steal anyone else's chair. This makes it people's fault that they are poor.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Poverty: Questions and Answers
http://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/FileLib/PDFs/nyhomelessness_factsheet_2008.pdf
1. What Percentage of Homeless people actually seek out help from shelters and such?
109,000 and the population of shelters has increased by 2/3.
2. How often do these people actually receive the help they need?
109,000 people resorted to shelters.
3. How often do people get discriminated against based on their race and not get the benefits they need to survive?
4. What is the percentage of homeless families?
15,884 families were recorded in homeless shelters.
5. Percentage of Homeless children?
Nov. 2008- around 16,000. Was extremely high, but then kept decreasing and increasing.
1. What Percentage of Homeless people actually seek out help from shelters and such?
109,000 and the population of shelters has increased by 2/3.
2. How often do these people actually receive the help they need?
109,000 people resorted to shelters.
3. How often do people get discriminated against based on their race and not get the benefits they need to survive?
4. What is the percentage of homeless families?
15,884 families were recorded in homeless shelters.
5. Percentage of Homeless children?
Nov. 2008- around 16,000. Was extremely high, but then kept decreasing and increasing.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Denmark Taxes
America's welfare system is set up in a way in which people can get a lot of help, but the problem with this is that they don't always get every benefit they can have. People can go to the welfare office, go to the website or call in and speak with someone about their situation. They answer a series of questions such as where do you live, do you have a child, where do you work etc. Based on these answers, people are given a list of benefits they are eligible to receive. There are programs that enable people who are looking for a job to find work in various places to get them started. There are also benefits that allow single parents who have no one to help them care for their child find day care centers or send people to care for the child at the families home. Food stamps can help those on a tight budget. Not only does America have the welfare system, but we pay taxes. Americans pay taxes on clothes, food and annual taxes as well. These taxes depend on the income of the family and the amount of children a family might have. There are also health care benefits and social security etc. (to tell the truth I honestly know nothing about taxes and such).
In Denmark, there are some differences. Children go to school until about 10th grade and if they decide to continue school, they get paid to go to school (college) instead of paying to go to school. All education is free unless people decide to go to a private school. They also have specific cards that are given to people so they can show it to officials and those people don't have to pay taxes. The government helps their people as much as they can. There are health care benefits and daycare benefits where people can come to the families house and care for the children. Should a person be fired from their job, they would be given money by the government in order to help them live and get the essentials they need to survive. It seems to me that in Denmark, they try their hardest to make sure their people do not end up in poverty and homeless. The kids that spoke to us told us that there weren't that many poor people in Denmark and poverty wasn't big and those who did suffer from poverty were given a lot of help and it was not as visible as it is in New York.
In terms of having a "working" tax system, I think that a mixture of our system and the system in Denmark would work to benefit for everyone. If the government took care of its people like Denmark's government then we would have a better chance of decreasing the poverty rate, but I also think that it would be important to make the rich people pay more taxes than the poor people which we don't really do right now in America, but we do pay taxes. Taxes are good because it can help the government and the state, but I think if people are really poor then they should pay less taxes.
In Denmark, there are some differences. Children go to school until about 10th grade and if they decide to continue school, they get paid to go to school (college) instead of paying to go to school. All education is free unless people decide to go to a private school. They also have specific cards that are given to people so they can show it to officials and those people don't have to pay taxes. The government helps their people as much as they can. There are health care benefits and daycare benefits where people can come to the families house and care for the children. Should a person be fired from their job, they would be given money by the government in order to help them live and get the essentials they need to survive. It seems to me that in Denmark, they try their hardest to make sure their people do not end up in poverty and homeless. The kids that spoke to us told us that there weren't that many poor people in Denmark and poverty wasn't big and those who did suffer from poverty were given a lot of help and it was not as visible as it is in New York.
In terms of having a "working" tax system, I think that a mixture of our system and the system in Denmark would work to benefit for everyone. If the government took care of its people like Denmark's government then we would have a better chance of decreasing the poverty rate, but I also think that it would be important to make the rich people pay more taxes than the poor people which we don't really do right now in America, but we do pay taxes. Taxes are good because it can help the government and the state, but I think if people are really poor then they should pay less taxes.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Natural vs. Normal Essay
Midwives are uneducated, unhygienic minorities who are unable to complete the proper procedures necessary for a successful birth. Yet doctors are overbearing, power-hungry people who want nothing more but to fill a hospital bed. These two harsh stereotypes have formed the foundation for women for years about how they would go about the birthing process. For years, men and women have debated over the advantages and disadvantages in “Normal” and “Natural” births. It is said that women rush to the hospital because they fear pain, but many people say that they choose midwives because the doctors in the hospital want to take over women’s bodies. Both of these are valid points so I feel that, women should all have a choice in how they decide to birth their child. Women own their bodies and have been through the birthing process many times over the course of years, but it is also important that a doctor who is properly educated in the birthing procedure is available should the mother want and or need medical assistance.
While watching the movie, I kind of got the sense that birth didn’t hurt as bad as everyone was saying because of the way that the women were acting in the movie. The women weren’t screaming as much as they would in a hospital and they seemed much more relaxed. This made me feel like maybe having a home birth wouldn’t be so bad. I don’t really think that the EHM is that helpful for the women because it kind of cripples the mother and disables her to do what her body is telling her to do. The movie said that “In the 1900’s, 95% births took place at home” and I wonder what changed this. If births were going so well and “everyone was doing it” I wonder why people switched.
When people went to the hospital, they were pumped full of chemicals and that, to me, seems wrong if the mother didn’t ask for those chemicals. Those chemicals also sometimes cause C-sections to become a necessary thing and that hurts women. People in the Netherlands lose fewer mothers and babies and have planned home births where things go perfectly fine but in America, we spend twice as much money on births and more negative side affects and deaths occur. Doctors rush the birthing process for their own personal gain and to “fill the hospital beds.” They rarely let the women decide and based on all of the guest speakers we have had come into our class, it seems that the women know what to do because their body tells them.
The women say that they are able to decipher when they have to push and when they have to move a certain way, which would be an extremely good idea if the doctors would just cater to the mother’s needs. In a specific case that we heard about when a guest speaker came in, the mother knew she needed to start pushing and she knew what was the most comfortable for her and she felt that what the doctors were trying to do was wrong for her body and she shouldn’t have to be put through this. The doctors however did what they pleased and didn’t listen to her wishes. This is a good example of how for years, men have been trying to take over the women’s birthing rights and have the power when labor is in process.
In the 1950’s women were strapped to their beds and forced to have certain chemicals injected into their bodies to “help them through labor.” There was really no alternative because those who resorted to home birth were seen as outcasts because midwives were being portrayed as horrible and abnormal. In the article that I read in class, it talked about how a woman was a gynecologist and she chose to have a home birth with a midwife even though she worked in the medical field. This was seen as abnormal to her colleagues because they were all working in a hospital and knew how the birthing process went. She decided to go through with the natural birth anyway because she knew that it was right for her. Through every woman that has experienced a birth, they have all said that they felt when things were right for them so again I say that the reason that I disagree with hospital births are because they leave little choice for the mother and what to do with her body.
This does not mean however that hospitals should never be used and I disagree with them completely. I feel as if hospitals are necessary in the event that a woman should experience a complication and her body responds the wrong way. Doctors have the experience necessary to help a mother in need, but they automatically decide that the woman cannot do things by herself before they even learn her specific case. They assume that the woman is in desperate need of medical attention right away and that’s where complications can sometimes stem from.
Hospitals can be extremely helpful should the mother or the child (or both) experience a complication during labor. In special cases, this occurs in women who have previously had a C-section and for their second birth want to have a vaginal birth. In the event that the woman’s uterus should rupture, the baby and the mother could both be facing fatal circumstances. This is where a doctor would not be such a bad idea. They are trained to do what is best for the mother and the baby and what will keep the two healthy and ultimately alive. It is also important to keep in mind the fact that midwives don’t have the proper tools in order to perform an emergency procedure in the event of a mishap.
It is also possible to have a normal birthing experience in a hospital. Hospital births can sometimes be quick and semi-painless. A woman in severe pain is asked if she’d like an epidural and in the event that she would like one, the doctors will administer it and the patient will be in less pain and can thereby try and understand what is needed from her from that point on to have a successful birth.
I feel that hospital births are something that we are exposed to from a very young age and this is why we all think that the proper way to have a child would be at a hospital. We as children ask where we were born and most of us receive the answer of a specific hospital. So from a very young age we believe that because our mothers and grandmothers and great-grandmothers have had their babies in a hospital that it is only normal for us to have our child in a hospital as well. This makes it hard for women to acknowledge the fact that they have other options and I think this is the reason why home birth rates have decreased. Women are many times automatically pushed to hospitals because they know nothing else.
For the women that do know about midwives and home birthing, I think it is important that they know they have a choice and why that choice is the best one for them. Women have undergone the birthing process since the beginning of time and never really had that much help from anyone so they should be able to choose to do things on their own and know what is best for their bodies. It is also important that should a women feel she is not capable of completing such a task as birthing a child, that she has experienced doctors on hand that are ready willing and able to help her. Sometimes women feel that their bodies aren’t strong enough to undergo such a giant feat as childbirth and this is where having a doctor comes into play. For those women who are afraid of the pain or are afraid that things might go wrong, it is a good thing that we have doctors that are able to work with the patient to let her know that she can do this, but at the same time, doctors also just want to fill hospital beds.
While watching the movie, I kind of got the sense that birth didn’t hurt as bad as everyone was saying because of the way that the women were acting in the movie. The women weren’t screaming as much as they would in a hospital and they seemed much more relaxed. This made me feel like maybe having a home birth wouldn’t be so bad. I don’t really think that the EHM is that helpful for the women because it kind of cripples the mother and disables her to do what her body is telling her to do. The movie said that “In the 1900’s, 95% births took place at home” and I wonder what changed this. If births were going so well and “everyone was doing it” I wonder why people switched.
When people went to the hospital, they were pumped full of chemicals and that, to me, seems wrong if the mother didn’t ask for those chemicals. Those chemicals also sometimes cause C-sections to become a necessary thing and that hurts women. People in the Netherlands lose fewer mothers and babies and have planned home births where things go perfectly fine but in America, we spend twice as much money on births and more negative side affects and deaths occur. Doctors rush the birthing process for their own personal gain and to “fill the hospital beds.” They rarely let the women decide and based on all of the guest speakers we have had come into our class, it seems that the women know what to do because their body tells them.
The women say that they are able to decipher when they have to push and when they have to move a certain way, which would be an extremely good idea if the doctors would just cater to the mother’s needs. In a specific case that we heard about when a guest speaker came in, the mother knew she needed to start pushing and she knew what was the most comfortable for her and she felt that what the doctors were trying to do was wrong for her body and she shouldn’t have to be put through this. The doctors however did what they pleased and didn’t listen to her wishes. This is a good example of how for years, men have been trying to take over the women’s birthing rights and have the power when labor is in process.
In the 1950’s women were strapped to their beds and forced to have certain chemicals injected into their bodies to “help them through labor.” There was really no alternative because those who resorted to home birth were seen as outcasts because midwives were being portrayed as horrible and abnormal. In the article that I read in class, it talked about how a woman was a gynecologist and she chose to have a home birth with a midwife even though she worked in the medical field. This was seen as abnormal to her colleagues because they were all working in a hospital and knew how the birthing process went. She decided to go through with the natural birth anyway because she knew that it was right for her. Through every woman that has experienced a birth, they have all said that they felt when things were right for them so again I say that the reason that I disagree with hospital births are because they leave little choice for the mother and what to do with her body.
This does not mean however that hospitals should never be used and I disagree with them completely. I feel as if hospitals are necessary in the event that a woman should experience a complication and her body responds the wrong way. Doctors have the experience necessary to help a mother in need, but they automatically decide that the woman cannot do things by herself before they even learn her specific case. They assume that the woman is in desperate need of medical attention right away and that’s where complications can sometimes stem from.
Hospitals can be extremely helpful should the mother or the child (or both) experience a complication during labor. In special cases, this occurs in women who have previously had a C-section and for their second birth want to have a vaginal birth. In the event that the woman’s uterus should rupture, the baby and the mother could both be facing fatal circumstances. This is where a doctor would not be such a bad idea. They are trained to do what is best for the mother and the baby and what will keep the two healthy and ultimately alive. It is also important to keep in mind the fact that midwives don’t have the proper tools in order to perform an emergency procedure in the event of a mishap.
It is also possible to have a normal birthing experience in a hospital. Hospital births can sometimes be quick and semi-painless. A woman in severe pain is asked if she’d like an epidural and in the event that she would like one, the doctors will administer it and the patient will be in less pain and can thereby try and understand what is needed from her from that point on to have a successful birth.
I feel that hospital births are something that we are exposed to from a very young age and this is why we all think that the proper way to have a child would be at a hospital. We as children ask where we were born and most of us receive the answer of a specific hospital. So from a very young age we believe that because our mothers and grandmothers and great-grandmothers have had their babies in a hospital that it is only normal for us to have our child in a hospital as well. This makes it hard for women to acknowledge the fact that they have other options and I think this is the reason why home birth rates have decreased. Women are many times automatically pushed to hospitals because they know nothing else.
For the women that do know about midwives and home birthing, I think it is important that they know they have a choice and why that choice is the best one for them. Women have undergone the birthing process since the beginning of time and never really had that much help from anyone so they should be able to choose to do things on their own and know what is best for their bodies. It is also important that should a women feel she is not capable of completing such a task as birthing a child, that she has experienced doctors on hand that are ready willing and able to help her. Sometimes women feel that their bodies aren’t strong enough to undergo such a giant feat as childbirth and this is where having a doctor comes into play. For those women who are afraid of the pain or are afraid that things might go wrong, it is a good thing that we have doctors that are able to work with the patient to let her know that she can do this, but at the same time, doctors also just want to fill hospital beds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)