7 posts tagged “elitism”

The other day, I had the misfortune to listen to Neal Boortz ranting about health care reform. 

Boortz believes that even employer-provided health insurance should be cut to the bone and not cover any type of routine medical care; that it should be reserved solely for complications from routine medical matters and catastrophic health problems.

As an example, he asserted that one's health insurance should not cover routine childbirth and prenatal care, because people "choose" to have children.    He estimated that a garden variety vaginal birth costs about ten thousand dollars nowadays and that if people cannot come up with ten grand over the space of nine months to pay for having a child, then they had no business having children in the first place.  He went on to say that with the cost of raising a child to age 18 estimated to be about a quarter of a million dollars (in his estimation), that ten grand is a "paltry" amount.

Where to begin?  For one thing, even if his estimate of the cost of raising a child to 18 is anything at all realistic, it wouldn't be that high for everyone and it's a cost that one doesn't have to come up with all at once.  Ten thousand dollars is a big chunk of change to come up with in a limited time frame for many people, even those in the middle class, 

Boortz betrays his elitism and implies a belief that only those above a certain income level have any business having children at all.  He's being rather shortsighted here, because I'm guessing he doesn't expect the little spoiled scions of the blueblooded families he so reveres to grow up to flip the burgers, fix the cars, drive the taxis, and so on.

He believes that people should save their money for routine health care and personally pay for such care out of their own pockets.  Never mind that people nowadays are having trouble paying their mortgages and even basic survival expenses in an economy beset by massive layoffs and cutbacks in the employment sector.  This might have been a valid argument in 1945 when my much-older brother was born and the entire cost of labor, delivery, and a ten day hospital stay for my mother was a whopping $73, but it's highly unrealistic today.

For more serious illness, he believes that everyone should buy private health insurance with a high deductible; five thousand dollars was his suggestion.  Again, he assumes that it's no big deal for anyone to come up with that sum, either not realizing or not caring that this would be impossible for many people.  I can only assume that he thinks those who cannot cough up five grand should do the world a favor and quietly crawl into a hole and die.

Boortz also has the curious convoluted belief that government supported health care is "stealing" parts of people's lives from them; in the form of the taxes they pay represented by the time it took them to earn the money that is paid in such taxes.   He views it as nothing less than putting a gun to the heads of taxpayers and taking their money.   I never hear Boortz make this argument about the taxes we pay to fund the military, for example.   I guess it's only an outrage when one's tax dollars go to help the less fortunate. It's fine with him when it comes to things such as the military, though the time spent to earn the tax money that is "stolen" is just the same.  It's the fact that it's going to help people that galls him about government assistance with health care costs.

He also went on a tear about his belief that a big reason why GM is going under is because of all the money they have to spend on health insurance for their employees, which in turn makes them less profitable and unable to compete with foreign automakers..

The man blithely stated this opinion, unaware that he'd painted himself into a corner with this reasoning.  Did it not ever occur to him that the employees of such foreign automarkers live in countries with GOVERNMENT provided health care and that it would help American automakers similarly if we followed suit with our own health care?

After this point, my head was about to implode from listening to him, so I didn't hear what else he had to say on the subject.

Thoughts?

As part of my habit of monitoring right wing talk radio as a method of knowing one's opposition, I regularly tune in to the Neal Boortz show.  As anyone who has read my blog regularly knows, I can't stand the guy.  He labels himself a libertarian conservative and his philosophy could be characterized as objectivism in the Ayn Rand vein.   But I just call him an elitist, as one of his favorite topics to harp on is what he calls "wealth envy", which is his particular spin on justifying selfishness and his disdain for poor people and others in unfortunate circumstances. 

But sometimes the man surprises me.  Recently, he's been getting a spate of callers of the tinfoil hat brigade variety who call in to rant about President Obama, saying he "hates America" and wants to "destroy our country."

To my surprise, and to be perfectly fair, Boortz always corrects such callers.  He tells them that the President doesn't hate America, nor does he want to "destroy" it, but rather that he's got a different idea from the caller (and him) on what makes America great.

True enough and a perfectly rational answer.  It's a shame he's not as even-handed about other topics with conflicting viewpoints as well.

But then he goes on to say that Barack Obama believes that government is what makes this country great, unlike himself and the caller who believe that America is great because of its people and freedom (which he defines primarly as economic freedom, especially from the perspective of the wealthy).  He implies that this also means that Obama believes the bigger the government, the better.

I find that highly misleading.  For one thing, all politicians, regardless of party,  "believe" in government in that they have been elected to it and seek to promote governmental policies that they believe are effective and useful.  They "believe in government in that they wish to effect changes by working within the system as elected representatives, instead of through the private sector.

And it doesn't logically follow that because Barack Obama is committing to working through the system to implement his policies on how to make our great country greater, that he would automatically think that simply making it bigger would be his goal.  Rather, he wants to work within the system to make government work better and more effectively, rather than simply increasing its size.

It's his perfect right to deride the role of government in our society, but unless the highly unlikely scenario occurs in that we turn into an anarchistic society, we will have a government of some sort.  It seems to me that it would be better to talk about ways of improving government, rather than denigrating its role in a civilized society at every given opportunity..

While listening to Neil Boortz the other day, he stated quite catgorically that "Health care isn't a right, it's a privilege".

I don't know about you, but I was brought up to believe that an essential tenet of morality is that anyone who is sick or injured deserves medical treatment, no matter who they are and regardless of their ability to pay.

Indeed, when I worked in law enforcement it was considered cruel and unusual punishment to deny sick or injured arrestees and jail inmates medical care.  Access to medical care most certainly is a right in this instance.

Providing health care to anyone who needs it is part of living in a civilized, humane society.  It's not just for those who can afford comprehensive health care,  Nor should it be limited to those whom the powers-that-be in this country consider as "worthy"; no one should have their character judged prior to being deemed eligible to see a doctor.  

To deny someone health care because they are poor or, as Boortz would have it, lazy and don't want to work, is nothing less than repugnant in my book..  No one should have to work hard to earn the right to see a doctor when sick or injured.

Driving a car is a privilege.   Getting medical assistance to maintain health and to live life free of pain and debility is not.  It's a basic human right.

Right wing talk show pundits are fond of wringing their hands about the "plight" of rich people having to pay higher taxes than less affluent people.  They complain the loudest about tax money being spent on social programs that help the less fortunate, with health care reform being one of their pet peeves..

They rail againt not being able to "keep every dollar they make", viewing it as being no more than government sponsored "stealing" of their "hard earned dollars".   They do this, conveniently ignoring the fact that even after paying taxes, they're still rich and still are living comfortable, privileged lives.   The real issue is that it just grinds their gears that their tax dollars are going to actually (gasp!) help other people, whom they believe are all undeserving losers who lay around smoking pot all day.

I find it rather interesting, though, that they never complain about their tax money going to fund an increasingly expensive and unpopular war, for example, or other programs that do not assist underprivileged people.  You didn't hear a word of complaint from them when the government spent more than $40 million for the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky investigations, to cite another example.

But taxes, like death, are inevitable and they're not going to go away, even if changes are eventually made in how they're collected.  The government is going to get the money it needs to operate, regardless.  I have no problem with my tax dollars going to help less fortunate people; it's just a part of life when one lives in a civilized society -- part of what gives any given society the right to be called civilized.   Given today's shaky economy, any one of us could one day (and sometimes suddenly) be one of the weaker members of society and need assistance.   

Thoughts?

Some time ago, when I was listening the Neal Boortz talk show, he was talking about the Fair Tax plan, lamenting that the richest Americans presently pay too much income tax, in his opinion.  I've not read his book about the Fair Tax proposal, so I'll not comment on its merits or lack thereof.

What he did say that I'll comment on was his view that rich people are rich because they are "high achievers"; that they earned it.  He also said in relation to his opposition to the Minimum Wage increase that those people who work in such jobs are "losers".

Where to begin?

While it is no doubt true that many rich people did indeed earn their money through their own achievements, we must not forget those who inherited their money, those who earned megabucks through criminal activity such as drug dealers and corporate sharks who made their bucks on the backs of people far down the ladder, and those whose jobs have insanely inflated salaries in relation to the actual worth of what they do for a living -- professional athletes, movie stars, and the like.  While I am in no way impugning all rich people -- there are many honest, decent wealthy people who truly earn and deserve their wealth -- I heartily disagree with Boortz' implication that all wealthy people are deserving simply because they are rich.

Nor would I have been so hard on him about this if he'd not painted all poor working people with the same brush as "losers".  He implied that people who work for low wages have those jobs because they are lazy, stupid, have no ambition, and thus deserve no better.

Of course, there are lazy, shiftless poor people, but most people who work in low wage, menial jobs work very hard for the pittance they are paid.  Many of these same people work 2 or 3 of these jobs to meet basic living expenses, and get to see very little of their families while awake.  Some people work these thankless jobs while attending college, if they are lucky.

Boortz implies that anyone who is willing to work hard enough can get one of these high paying jobs and anyone who can't or chooses not to is nothing but a loser.  I have two major problems with this view.

Some people eschew a high paid corporate job in order to pursue jobs they find more meaningful, despite their relatively low pay: teachers, nurses, fire fighters, police officers, and the like.  I dare anyone to call these people low achieving losers because they don't rake in the big bucks.

Secondly, there are a lot more low wage jobs available than positions in high-paying rewarding careers.  If, by some miracle, every American earned a university degree, qualifying them for a high paying career, someone would still have to flip the burgers, carry the bags, wait the tables, drive the taxis, clean the public restrooms, and so on.  The reality is that good jobs aren't available for every qualified person who wants one.  And I dare say that America would be a much poorer nation if there was no one willing to do these low wage, unglamorous, but very necessary jobs.

A person's value isn't contained in the type of job they have or how much money they make.  Everyone, rich and poor, deserves to be treated fairly, decently and not be taken advantage of.

Some months ago, I listened to a Neal Boortz broadcast where he stated that he believed that some people ought to be banned from voting, namely "idiots and dumbasses". He mentioned a woman who said she was going to vote for John Edwards because she liked his hairstyle as an example of a dumbass voter.

While we all might wish that politically uninformed and frivolous voters would do us all a favor if they stayed home on election day, there are few of us who would go so far as to advocate banning anyone from voting who currently meets the current criteria.

The obvious question is, of course, who gets to decide what the criteria are for classifying an individual voter as being a "dumbass"? Would it be limited to the frivolous voters such as mentioned above and, if so, how would we go about identifying such voters? I'm guessing that with Boortz and many others, a "dumbass" is merely a synonym for someone they don't agree with.

Boortz said that people should have to "earn" their vote; by having to take a test to prove the person has a basic grasp of the issues. Would everyone be required to be tested? Or would it, as I strongly suspect, be something that would target poor and/or minority voters, much as the now-illegal Poll Taxes were. Indeed, Boortz stated that he would exclude anyone on welfare, because they believes they don't "deserve" to vote, in the same way that convicted felons cannot vote. People may not approve of welfare, but being on welfare isn't a crime in this country.

If it ever came to pass that certain people were excluded from voting because of the "Dumbass Clause", then would such "dumbasses" be excused from paying taxes, being subject to any future military drafts, and so on, in order to compensate for the fact that they have no say in their government? I'm guessing that Boortz has no problem with using "dumbasses" as cannon fodder, even if he thinks they're not fit to vote.

When a caller pointed out the inherent unfairness of people who have committed no crimes having no say about their government and cannot advocate for their own interests, which would quickly lead to their marginalization in society, Boortz shot back that children cannot vote. The caller then pointed out that children have their parents to look after their best interests, that children also do not have the civic obligations that adults do, and they will not be children forever; they are "future voters".

In conclusion, I think we'd be better served by making civics a required course in high school, which would help to give everyone at least a rudimentary understanding of the issues, rather than creating an underclass of citizens by taking away their votes.

Thoughts?

Awhile back (This is a repost from one of my other blogs), I tuned into the Neal Boortz show in the hope that he would provide me with some blogging fodder.  I was not disappointed -- he was in rare form and I soon found myself pulling over to the side of the road to make notes for responding to his comments via this blog.

I entered the program already in progress, so any errors I might make in regards to his comments stem from this.

He was on a tear about labor unions in general, and about how some American workers get paid "too much money".  Naturally, he did not include the CEOs of major corporations in this estimation, as he was quick to point out to one caller, as not "just anyone" could perform those jobs. 

Concentrating on the auto industry as an example, and highlighting GM in particular, he voiced the opinion that auto workers make "too much money" and get "too many benefits" in relation to the actual tasks they perform on the job. 

Citing the law of supply and demand, he asserted that wages should be set according to the "brain power" and skills needed to perform a particular job.

Using the example of the worker who installs sound systems in SUVs, he said that nearly anyone straight out of high school could quickly learn to do this job, so the supply was greater than the demand, thus pay should be low for such jobs.  Granted, there is a larger pool of workers with the aptitude to do this job than jobs further up the education scale, but he's missing a few points here.

A listener called in and pointed out that such a job is very labor intensive -- the worker has sixty seconds to complete that task before the next unit reaches him, and it takes fully 55 seconds of that time to perform the task.  The CEO, on the other hand, spends a much lower percentage of his time during the work day actually engaged in work, and he's not doing it under a stopwatch. So, a job's worth isn't solely about "brain power".

An observer in a factory can see a routine, repetitive task being performed and think there's nothing to it.   And there isn't -- when you do it once and at your own speed.  But to do this same repetitive task quickly as you can, over and over, day after day, year after year, and it quickly becomes a rather onerous task, that many people soon burn out on and quit.  Combine this with the ubiquitous orthopedic problems that often occur after years of doing such deadening work, and the supply pool of workers who can not only do the job, but stay with it year after year suddenly drops dramatically. As is true anywhere else, you get what you pay for and if the wages are low, the turnover will be correspondingly high.   And companies lose money with "revolving door" jobs.

Boortz sneered at union members who lamented their jobs being taken overseas, saying that the jobs were not "theirs" to lose, but belonged to the company to hire, to fire, to downsize, and to import at will.  He told a caller that if Americans were willing to work harder for less money, then maybe the jobs wouldn't end up being imported to Mexico.  On a strictly technical level, he is correct that jobs belong to the company, but he doesn't get that the increasing trend of treating workers like disposable, interchangeable machine parts and away from an ethic of treating employees with loyalty as the most important asset that a company has is not good for the American economy or society as a whole.

He also pointed out, as if it were a bad thing, that GM's greatest expense is health insurance for its workers.  Not surprisingly, he's also against a national health insurance system, that would relieve this burden from the backs of employers, large and small.   Currently, one in seven Americans is uninsured, about 47 million Americans, a figure that Boortz believes is overstated (naturally!).  And there is a growing trend among employers who do provide health insurance, to change to plans that have higher premiums and offer less coverage.  So, in addition to the uninsured, millions more Americans are quickly becoming underinsured.  All the while, health care providers are hiking fees for their services.

To sum up, Boortz apparently believes that only highly educated and skilled workers deserve a living wage and decent health insurance.  If you perform a boring, mundane job that doesn't require higher education, then you don't deserve a living wage or access to adequate health care, because if you're being paid peanuts with no or inadequate health insurance, you certainly won't be able to afford to get it privately.

Is this the kind of America we want?  Do we want a feudal, Darwinian "survival of the fittest" society, with a large underclass of American workers having to work 2 or 3 jobs just to keep a roof over their heads, who have little or no access to preventive health care that would prolong their lives?  Does he think that it is a good thing that the American Dream is quickly becoming attainable for fewer and fewer Americans?

A healthy society needs people doing jobs at all levels -- our economy and standard of living would quickly grind to a halt if there was no one to flip the burgers, drive the taxis, build the cars, fight the fires, patrol our streets, teach the children, truck in the goods, and so on.  All these jobs are certainly more necessary than being a radio talk show host, to use him as an example.  And everyone deserves a living wage and the benefits that allow one to live a healthy, productive life with dignity, regardless of what kind of work they do.  It's good for Americans and it's good for America.

Thoughts?