In class last night we began a discussion, once again, of how to fix the problems of poverty and segregation in the inner city. Many people living in suburbs, who tend to be white and middle to upper middle class, seem to gain an attitude with their flight of "its not our problem". People that have the financial ability to leave do so, instead of trying to help fix these problems that plague the inner city. If this is the attitude of so many, how can we convince them to stay, to rebuild, or to simply give a helping hand?
I don't know. What I do know, however, is that it is people like Kuruvilla George, the now unemployed VP of Operations at Carraway Hospital. In this week's Birmingham Weekly I read a little blurb that I think deserves much more recognition. The facility is located in a declining neighborhood, much like the inner ring suburbs that we have discussed in class. It was also a hospital dedicated to charity, providing service regardless of one's ability to pay. These two factors are said to have led to the demise of the hosipital, as giving charity and remaining in a poor neighborhood are money losers.
In the last months of Carraway's life, George recognized the problems the hospital, as well as the surrounding area, faced. He knew this hospital provided care to the poor and jobs to many. Instead of fleeing the situation to a better job in a prospering area, which he very well could have done, George decided to help. He bought $9,000 worth of supplies for the hospital out of his own pocket.
While this did not save Carraway Hospital, it is the most refreshing act of dedication and kindness that has come out of Birmingham in a long time. It gives hope that there ARE people who are willing to stay put and sacrifice for the greater good of the community.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
The Debate
As I was watching the final debate between Obama and McCain last night, something we discussed in class the previous week began to creep into my mind.
While talking about the article "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures", we began to discuss the benefits to having many different municipalities that provide different levels of public services, allowing a citizen to choose the community that best meets their needs. This gives people a choice to live in a place that meets their standards and provides the best living environment for THEM. People can express their preferences and move to an area that matches those preferences.
An example was given in class: If Tiger Woods held a leadership position, and wanted every resident in all of greater Birmingham to pay $5000 in dues for a public golf course, is this fair? Well, no. This is not fair because not all residents play golf, or have an interest in funding a golf course, therefore, they should not be required to pay.
On the other hand, if all of the municipalities in greater Birmingham had different leaders, and Tiger Woods was the leader of one, and required the residents of his community to pay dues for a golf course, is this fair?
Well, yes. This is fair because if one has an interest in playing golf and funding a golf course in their area, they can move to the community that Tiger Woods leads. If they do not want to be a part of the golf course, they can move elsewhere. This gives people the CHOICE to live in the area that best meets their standards, and the choice to live in an area that values certain public services over others.
The topic of health care came up in the debate last night. McCain stressed that he did not want to require everyone to have the same health care plans, he wanted to give people choice. Obama talked about a national health insurance plan, allowing everyone the chance to have appropriate health coverage.
I began to find a parallel between the views of the candidates and the "Tiger Woods" example. Obama would like to promote a national health care system, having everyone receiving the same type of health insurance, without the option of making a choice based on ones own standards. This sounds like the first part of the example, in which Tiger Woods forces everyone in greater Birmingham to pay for the golf course, no one has a choice. The residents can't move somewhere else, because they will still have to pay the dues. With health care, citizens of the U.S. will not have the choice to move elsewhere to escape this plan, health care will be the same everywhere.
McCain, in theory of course, wants to give people a choice of health care plans. To me, this sounds like the second part of the example, allowing people to move to their choice location that meets their standards and needs of public service.
What is funny to me, is that in class I agreed with giving people a choice. It is not only right, but it reduces social welfare loss. However, with the debate, I agree with a national health care system, which, technically, does not allow for choice. Hmmmm...something to think about.
As a side note, I am voting for Obama.
While talking about the article "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures", we began to discuss the benefits to having many different municipalities that provide different levels of public services, allowing a citizen to choose the community that best meets their needs. This gives people a choice to live in a place that meets their standards and provides the best living environment for THEM. People can express their preferences and move to an area that matches those preferences.
An example was given in class: If Tiger Woods held a leadership position, and wanted every resident in all of greater Birmingham to pay $5000 in dues for a public golf course, is this fair? Well, no. This is not fair because not all residents play golf, or have an interest in funding a golf course, therefore, they should not be required to pay.
On the other hand, if all of the municipalities in greater Birmingham had different leaders, and Tiger Woods was the leader of one, and required the residents of his community to pay dues for a golf course, is this fair?
Well, yes. This is fair because if one has an interest in playing golf and funding a golf course in their area, they can move to the community that Tiger Woods leads. If they do not want to be a part of the golf course, they can move elsewhere. This gives people the CHOICE to live in the area that best meets their standards, and the choice to live in an area that values certain public services over others.
The topic of health care came up in the debate last night. McCain stressed that he did not want to require everyone to have the same health care plans, he wanted to give people choice. Obama talked about a national health insurance plan, allowing everyone the chance to have appropriate health coverage.
I began to find a parallel between the views of the candidates and the "Tiger Woods" example. Obama would like to promote a national health care system, having everyone receiving the same type of health insurance, without the option of making a choice based on ones own standards. This sounds like the first part of the example, in which Tiger Woods forces everyone in greater Birmingham to pay for the golf course, no one has a choice. The residents can't move somewhere else, because they will still have to pay the dues. With health care, citizens of the U.S. will not have the choice to move elsewhere to escape this plan, health care will be the same everywhere.
McCain, in theory of course, wants to give people a choice of health care plans. To me, this sounds like the second part of the example, allowing people to move to their choice location that meets their standards and needs of public service.
What is funny to me, is that in class I agreed with giving people a choice. It is not only right, but it reduces social welfare loss. However, with the debate, I agree with a national health care system, which, technically, does not allow for choice. Hmmmm...something to think about.
As a side note, I am voting for Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)