The National Debt Debates: When the Health of Americans Becomes a Luxury

debt

The national debt debate has uncovered a puzzling set of poor national priorities, where health access and equity for all doesn’t qualify as a need, but as a luxury that can be sacrificed in the name of balancing the budget.

The debt crisis has forced us to think fundamentally about what the role of government is, because those essential tasks, those that are absolutely essential to our well being as people, cannot be sacrificed.

What was supposed to be a discussion about how to make our government better equipped to act on behalf of its citizenry has descended into a debate for the sake of debate, as if there aren’t families who suffer when certain initiatives and programs are cut.

Yet, the fact that the wealthiest Americans, who could pay a fairer share (by percentage) of their income and suffer (literally) no lifestyle consequences still benefit from tax breaks tells us how serious we are about actually balancing the budget and ending the debt crisis– we’re not.

Career building and job securing is the name of the game in politics. Not actually governing.  For example, poor pregnant women without guaranteed free prenatal health care and millions of children going to bed hungry at night is a perfectly acceptable reality in America, solely because no one’s political career resides on the contentment of poor pregnant women and hungry children.

Why might this be? Its because health justice is a victim of one of its fundamental principles—representing the needs of America’s poor and communities of color.  Neither of these groups could be mistaken for influential political constituencies (historically speaking), and so political decisions made at their expense are considered acceptable.

The national debt discussions have accomplished one thing: they have told us which populations are expendable, and whose livelihood can be sacrificed.  It is political opportunism disguised as public policy and is savagery of the highest order.

The incuriousness of the national debt debates should not serve to deter the actors in the health justice movement.  These debates, alternatively, serve as a barometer, a measuring stick for what Americans, or the politicians that we elect, think is an important use of political energy.

The fact that  the health justice movement’s agenda is not on the national table should affirm the grassroots approaches that health justice advocates have employed. America is simply not ready for elaborate bill packages and major structural overhauls that would guarantee health equity for all.

This suggests a continued need for community engagement, for documentation of disparities (through art and journalism), and evidence-based approaches to illuminating the dire consequences of health inequities.

Through the work of the health justice movement’s many dedicated change agents, health inequity will eventually become too visible an issue to ignore, and will then push its way onto the national table of absolute necessities, up from its current place among the expendable luxuries.

Please login to post comments. Please review our commenting policies if you have questions.

  • Anonymous

    While I agree with everything that was said above, this observation begs the question, ‘How do we engage pregnant, poor women into the political agenda? How do we instill the great severity of our socio-political situation in this State as it relates to health disparities to those who have the most to lose in this debate?
    Yes, it is true that if we use Maslow’s hierarchy of basic needs being involved politically may come dead last as a something not to be concerned with when compared to basic needs such as shelter and food. However, we cannot expect those who are so far removed from this issue to voice the concerns of the seemingly voiceless. Where are the voices of the mother who cannot access a competent culturally linguistic doctor to provide pre-natal care. Or the father who is suffering from diabetes and high blood pressure but cannot access equitable preventative care because he works second and third shift. While all of this is common, disenfranchised communities of color must become politically involved. Only then will our concerns become concerns of the majority. It is important and essential to have ally’s in high places but the shouts screams and cries have to come from down low in order to be effective. We have to get politically organized. Delegate representatives by community; by block or street. Send someone to each city council meeting to represent these concerns. Health equity in Connecticut will never be realized without representation from those who are so harmed by the disparities that exist in our State. This is not to say that there isn’t much involvement around the State but so much more needs to be done.

    • http://twitter.com/biosophist Chike Brandon

      Betablocker1026-

      Fantastic point.  While my piece was a tad doom and gloom, I think your point highlights where the opportunities for intervention reside.

      Poor, pregnant women in danger of losing services because of budget cuts are, as you highlight, occupied with matters more pressing than the sophisticated political dialogue surrounding the national debt.

      I think improving their representation involves a two-pronged approach.

      a) Increasing their political representation. This includes electing individuals who better advocate for their concerns at all levels of government.  This approach has been illustrated in good detail. There is no substitute for grassroots activism, community engagement, advocacy and community education.

      You nail this point with this:

      “We have to get politically organized. Delegate representatives by
      community; by block or street. Send someone to each city council meeting
      to represent these concerns. Health equity in Connecticut will never be
      realized without representation from those who are so harmed by the
      disparities that exist in our State.”

      That’s right on the money.

      b) It involves monitoring, regulating and limiting the forces which actively suppress and limit their voices: lobbying, special interests, corruption and lack of transparency.   This is where the legal crowd who expose and litigate these cases is essential — the public’s tolerance for the influence of special interests on political decisions is declining.  This also includes monitoring the pharmaceutical industry’s undue influence on the government’s healthcare decisions.  This is both a grassroots and a white collar battle, and its spirit is at the very core of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

      Public displays of disdain for biases (toward the very wealthy) in our political decisions and courageous politicians, attorneys and academics who challenge these institutions at higher levels also help.

      Even movements that appear to be silly and playful in nature, like the Steven Colbert Super Pac are effective in exposing how silly and immoral special interests are (ironically, of course).

      http://www.colbertsuperpac.com/

      I mention this to highlight how journalists and even entertainers can contribute–Colbert’s efforts have taught millions about the institution of special interests and all the nonsensical loopholes that exist to protect their influence.

      So yeah, I’m a fan of two-pronged attacks.  Certainly innovation is needed in both of these spheres, but there’s no substitute for the grunt work.  I definitely agree with you and appreciate your contribution.

  • Allyn

    What do you believe needs to done to put health justice issues on the political map? Innovations and a sound cost-saving strategy will develop some political traction, but the challenge is finding what that is.

  • Anonymous

    Excellent post.

    “Its because health justice is a victim of one of its fundamental
    principles—representing the needs of America’s poor and communities of
    color.  Neither of these groups could be mistaken for influential
    political constituencies (historically speaking), and so political
    decisions made at their expense are considered acceptable.”

    Couldn’t agree more. Government actions which disproportionally effect poor communities and POC do not receive the kind of attention and platforms that the wealthy enjoy. I think we need to mobilize sustained, grassroots action to demand a more equitable system- both financially and in terms of healthcare. We’ve seen the devastating effects that the social determinants of health can have, yet these effects are largely ignored or the victims are blamed. Those who advocate a “Free Market” decision are essentially just telling us “stop being poor”.

    Systemic change is needed, and it’s time to start getting at the roots of these problems. This isn’t a new struggle…