On July 26, a few hundred leftist LGBT activists and allies issued a manifesto entitled "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families & Relationships," stating they "hope to move beyond the narrow confines of marriage politics as they exist in the United States today." At over 3000 words, the document is far too radical, fails to focus on LGBT rights, is abysmally ill-timed, plays into the hands of the anti-gay right and reflects the old penchant of the gay left for building strategic bridges to nowhere.
The signatories are primarily from the liberationist wing of the LGBT movement. By contrast, those of us on the assimilationist side do not seek a revolution, we simply want equal rights. This dichotomy has existed since Harry Hay was expelled from the Mattachine Society in 1953. By long habit, the liberationists are using recent setbacks to portray us as a community under siege, as if we had not made astonishing progress and the polls were not shifting in our favor.
Some of the signatories, like Paula Ettelbrick, have long opposed the fight for equal marriage rights because they regard marriage as an oppressive patriarchal institution. Contrary to their static viewpoint, marriage and the rights of women have changed greatly over the past half-century, as reflected by landmark Supreme Court decisions like Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird and Roe v. Wade.
The manifesto decries "corporate greed" while ignoring the fact that the corporate sector has outstripped the public sector in granting domestic partner benefits. Indeed, the sweeping socialist rhetoric made me want to break into a hearty rendition of "The Internationale." Somehow, the grim and bloody history of utopian schemes does not discourage the True Believers, who seek to liberate us all from the most successful economic system in the history of the world because of its flaws. This reminds me of the Quentin Crisp line, "Never keep up with the Joneses. Drag them down to your level. It's cheaper."
To show that their proposal "is neither utopian nor unrealistic," they point out that "in the United States, a strategy that links same-sex partner rights with a broader vision is beginning to influence some statewide campaigns to defeat same-sex marriage initiatives." The radical right does claim that same-sex marriage will lead to an explosion of polygamy and other unorthodox arrangements, but how in the world do we advance the gay-rights cause by letting our enemies frame the discussion?
The manifesto's all-inclusiveness reflects the longstanding liberationist opposition to focusing primarily on LGBT issues, because, they say, all oppressions are linked. No other minority group has been so apologetic about working for its own interests. The same liberationists who make a fetish of diversity (instead of simply dealing with it as many of us have learned to do) also habitually denigrate white men, which suggests they are inspired more by guilt or revenge than by egalitarianism.
The manifesto touts a long list of issues, including health care, housing, Social Security, disaster recovery assistance, unemployment insurance and welfare assistance. How is all of this the special province of the gay community? Taking on every non-gay-specific issue only makes us a bigger target for our adversaries. Marriage equality and the incremental steps toward it will pose enough of a challenge for the next couple of decades.
Society is continually changing, though not all at once. Those who regard marriage as oppressive treat it as monolithic and unchanging, which ironically is precisely how our adversaries on the religious right see it.
On the contrary, allowing same-sex couples to marry is just one more reform enhancing a foundational institution of society. The liberationists object to the special status accorded marriage, citing (for example) the needs of poor non-traditional families, which are "disproportionately people of color and single-parent families headed by women." Not only do the manifesto writers show no interest in examining which taxpayer-funded solutions have worked and which have not, they treat the high number of broken homes in the black community as a mere lifestyle choice instead of a tragedy.
Another theme of the document is gender nonconformity. As someone who has worked in practical ways for transgender rights for many years, I see no need to spin all of society around every variation in order to defend diversity. Efforts by Queer Theorists to redefine "sex" and "gender" have obscured more than enlightened. While gender roles vary significantly from culture to culture, the division of the sexes into male and female is a result of biology, not a social construct. The fact that a small number of people fall between the two stools, and deserve protection, does not change this basic duality in our genetic makeup. The notion that tolerance requires abolishing our biologically derived categories is, well, perverse.
Unlike the manifesto writers, I do not consider myself part of a "queer" community, and I have no intention of accepting "gender queer" as a serious category. Mind you, I am a longtime gay rights activist; the average American voter will be even less receptive to the permanent revolution implied by these counterculturists who emphasize differences rather than common values, victimhood rather than inner strength, and entitlement rather than responsibility. Demanding equal legal status for every conceivable type of relationship, including polyamory, is a strategy for permanent outsider status.
The rallying cry about leaving no one behind brings to mind the overcrowded, un-seaworthy boats in which so many Cuban refugees have drowned. Flying the false flag of liberation, the authors of the Beyond Marriage manifesto would have us all climb aboard a ship of fools.
35 Comments for “‘Beyond Marriage’ — to Nowhere”
posted by tommi avicolli mecca on
Here in San Francisco we have something called the Eureka Valley Recreation Center. It’s located in the heart of the Castro. It was recently rebuilt, with a beautiful playground in the front for gay families and their kids. There’s even a sign that warns that adults can only enter accompanied by children. Passing there, you might think you’re in any middle-class white neighborhood in the USA.
A few feet from the play area is a door to a room in the Recreation Center. That room is space for homeless queer youth. They hang out there during the day, playing computer games, grabbing a meal (if anyone’s donated food) and sleeping on the couches. After the Center closes, they are on their own, meaning on the streets. A few years ago, when a homeless queer youth shelter (with beds and showers) was proposed at that very sight, LGBT neighbors went ballistic, complaining that their property values would plummet, their children would be unsafe and their street would be trashed by drug-crazed queer kids, most of whom had been thrown out of their houses for being queer.
Every Friday afternoon, I and some other folks from the Castro food program bring our leftovers to that room across from the playground. I am always struck by the contrast: the picture-perfect kids in the playground and the abandoned youth in the homeless room. It’s a snapshot of the new Castro: the haves and the have-nots side by side. Ever since the dot-com boom of the late 90s, the neighborhood has become wealthier and wealthier. Many of the working-class folks who used to live here are gone–victims of greedy landlords or realtors out to make a killing from the Silicon Valley crowd. The rest of us are hanging on for dear life to rent-controlled apartments.
That is the reason many of us question the gay marriage agenda. Because some kids are valued and others are not. Some kids get playgrounds and others a small room in a rec center. Some kids are considered “family” and others are not. The resources of the queer community here in San Francisco and nationwide should be going first and foremost to help homeless and poor youth in our community. But they are not. They are going to the struggle for gay marriage. More and more, gay family is being defined to exclude the homeless and poor among us.
That, to me, is the great tragedy of gay marriage.
Tommi Avicolli Mecca is a 35-year veteran of the queer movement. He is a working-class radical southern Italian performer, writer and activist living in the Castro.
posted by ETJB on
Tommi;
Your experience in the Castro fly in the face of this largely white, middle class ‘gay right’.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Paula Ettelbrick
Oh dear. On one hand she’s complaining that marriage equality is “limiting to those of non-conjugal orientation,” yet rather than call for getting the government out of the marriage business, she insists on continued second/third-class status for gay people.
Meanwhile, her other crusade du jour, opposing all criticism of Iran’s anti-gay pogrom with her buddy, fellow breathless cultural relativist Scott Long, has her claiming that liberationism and neo-liberal values are “cultural imperialism against Iran” and suggests that they’re part of a secret Bush administration plot to develop support for Iran.
It’s amazing to note that, either way, everyday gay people get screwed — American in the first instance, Iranian in the second. For a “liberationist,” Paula and her ilk are awfully good at justifying heavy-handed government oppression of gay people.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
That is the reason many of us question the gay marriage agenda. Because some kids are valued and others are not. Some kids get playgrounds and others a small room in a rec center. Some kids are considered “family” and others are not. The resources of the queer community here in San Francisco and nationwide should be going first and foremost to help homeless and poor youth in our community.
Two thoughts come to mind here:
1) Marriage equality creates stability and economic prosperity, which directly and positively impact the gay homeless youths you’re referencing;
2) The “queer socialist left” which despises gay families so much is not without resources. It has “creating change” conferences at four-star hotels. It has expensive fundraiser dinners with attendees walking around in the latest fashions, playing with their brand new $2,500 Apple laptops and printing their protests in glossy color brochures and posting them on fancily designed web sites.
Why isn’t the “queer socialist radical” community putting its money where its mouth is? I lived in San Francisco for years, and every time I proposed a private sector, voluntary effort to help those who are stuck on the streets — especially gay kids seeking a more liberated life — I got stymied by the left.
Job training? Well that’s awful because we shouldn’t train the kids for work, we should be making big welfare payouts.
Grants for housing and getting on the property ladder? No way, that’s anti-liberal, we should be building “free” government housing for the kids.
Your talk of bringing over left-over food and giving video games to the kids is so bloody typical of the left-wing mindset in dealing with these problems. Why are the kids playing video games instead of learning how to use Windows and Microsoft Office? Why isn’t there a requirement that in order to get help, they have to better themselves? Why isn’t there a job placement center or an effort by your “radical queer community” to work with the “greedy Silicon Valley crowd” in order to help create opportunities for these kids to get back up on their feet?
The “answers” you’re offering just foster and perpetuate dependency, despondency and despair. To truly help those kids, they need skills, job training, and some explanation of how the world works — which is that life is unfair, sometimes it sucks, and to win (or at least survive), you need to work hard to be good at something valuable and put it to work for yourself or an employer.
Why don’t your organizations ever promote this perspective? Why do your organizations seek to villify those gay couples who have succeeded, rather than seek to replicate their success with the downtrodden?
Why is it all about handouts instead of hands-up?
posted by Michael Ferrera on
As someone who would be considered by many to be a leftist, I am appalled by the stance of this group of my brothers and sisters. The problem with the marriage equality debate is that our community does not speak clearly or with one voice. This is not a debate about religion or a church-sanctified ceremony. As a Christian, my partner and I were married over 14 years ago by our church. There is not a gay person in America that I have heard from that is asking for Churches to be mandated to perform marriages. Our society has decided to extend over 1000 rights and priviledges to people who decide to form a relationship and keep a household. As an American citizen, I am entitled to those rights and priviledges for the family I choose to create. And we as a society have recognized that for purposes of buying homes, making investments, raising families and so forth that we will only recognize a relationship of two people. Anything more than that is a small business or an investment group which can do business by other means. So, save me the discussions about opening the doors to polygamy. Have straight marriage rights led to polygamy? Why do we get hooked into such conversations. They’re ridiculous. We need to make American arguments, which are backed by American values enshrined in our Constitution. Someone’s opinion about what it says in the Bible or about their personal values has no place in this conversation, and we should be calling our fellow Americans on this. Marriage Equality is not just about marriage, it’s about equal protection under the law for all Americans and about protecting minorities from having their rights taken away from radicals and those easily influenced by their severely flawed reasonings.
posted by Gary Palmer on
Thank you for your article. It reflects what I believe and have not always known how to express.
I have worked for years trying to create equality for our local LGBT community. I want to be part of my larger community. I do not want to destroy our culture in order to create a new society. I work toward an evolution of society, not a revolution.
posted by Sarah on
I sit on either side of this debate seeing valid points being made by many contradicting parties. I am a gender queer memeber of the gay community, but I work for a company involved in the marriage equality movement. I am thirty years old and have friends who are 62 years old and 16 years old. I would never get married and have never wanted children, but I certainly support the right of families within the queer community to be protected. The first time you have a friend whose partner dies and they can’t survive financially because they were never legally married you see the pain of these rights not being available first hand. The first time your partner is in the hospital and you are told you won’t be allowed in to see them because you ARE NOT family you will understand why some couples will fight long and hard for this most basic legal recognition. However, criticizing those who step outside the status quo, who are radical and believe there is something other than the system we are currently living is equally as lame. They have every right to talk about the possibilities for change and tranformation in the future. And we need these visionaries! Those who rioted at Stonewall were not middle/upper class suburbanite gays with 2.5 children, a corporate job and a Lexus, they did not assimilate into regular American culture. This is what gave them the passion and drive to fight for themselves. When you blend into American culture it is easy to criticize those who do not for their more “leftist and liberationist” opinions. My question is when are we going to begin valuing each other across the board? When are we going to respect that the world is made up of many complex personalities and lifestyles and that humanity will evolve only when each one of us is allowed to live with dignity, equality and freedom. I do not have to believe in getting married myself in order to support protections for those in my community who do! I also do not have to be a cacky pants wearing, joe normal professional, driving a BMW, owner of a home in a “nice area”, making sure I don’t offend any of the more conservative folks to be a contributing member of the Gay and Lesbian community. Geez-I wonder what would happen if our community didn’t spend so much time focusing on our differences.
posted by tommi avicolli mecca on
It’s not all about handouts. Many of us work everyday to promote a system in which people can provide for themselves. That’s why I work on community land trusts, living wage, universal healthcare and other things. As for your statement: “Marriage equality creates stability and economic prosperity, which directly and positively impact the gay homeless youths you’re referencing,” well, I didn’t know that gay married folks were adopting homeless youth. What I see are gay married folks buying houses and not wanting homeless kids in their neighborhoods to bring down the property values.
You say you lived in SF. I don’t understand your statement: “Every time I proposed a private sector, voluntary effort to help those who are stuck on the streets — especially gay kids seeking a more liberated life — I got stymied by the left.” I’ve lived here for 14 years. I helped found the queer youth shelters, I have advocated for job mentoring when I worked at A Different Light in the Castro (in fact we mentored a few homeless queer folks), I have pushed land trusts as an alternative to high rents and tenants having no control over their apartments, etc. I don’t know when you proposed your idea. Back when kids first started appearing in great numbers on the streets of the Castro, back as the dot-com boom hit, there were only a handful of us working on solutions. We opted for compassionate immediate fixes while advocating for the longer term. Where were you? We could have used your help.
I would love to hear your proposal. I am not against gay marriage (though I don’t believe the state should sanction any marriage, gay or straight). As long as there’s marriage there should be gay marriage as well. My point is that FIRST we need to provide for those in need in our community, whether through the private sector or the government. I don’t care. I’d rather give homeless folks a community land trust to live in, with a living wage job. But that ain’t going to happen anytime soon. Some of us are working on it here and we’ve managed to establish a land trust for a building of Chinese immigrants who were about to be evicted. We are currently working on a land trust for a building of low-income people with AIDS.
In the meantime, homeless and poor folks have to eat and have shelter. That’s the bottom line. So bringing food to them is vital, even as we struggle to find the permanently affordable housing controlled by the tenants, even as we push to enforce our city’s living wage laws and expand them to include every job, even as we win universal healthcare for all San Franciscans (which we just did). The latter was from a radical queer supervisor, Tom Ammiano, though our centrist mayor is now traking credit for it. Thanks to him, every person in SF, homeless or housed, will have access to healthcare!
Many of us Socialist types are doing more than handouts.
posted by Timothy Anderson on
I am a “radical assimilationsist” living in Pend Oreille County Washington. The population here, according to the 2000 census, is under 12,000 people and most of our economy is based on extraction industries such as forestry, mining, ranching and farming. If you read a newspaper anywhere west of the Mississippi, there’s a good chance the newsprint came from here, and a lesser chance that some of the wood pulp necessary to create it came off my ranch. I think I have a pretty good idea of what flies in Red State America.
When I think of the lack of common sense and the knee jerk political isolation that had to be at work to draft such an embarrassment, I am truly saddened. As an out gay man, I struggle to understand how anyone could hold these positions, unless they are lodged holed up in some liberal unaccountable think tank. I can’t understand for the life of me the world these folks live in.
Being working class, rural, and somewhat conservative, no one has to tell me about the realities we face in our day to day struggle for survival. But when I read a manifesto written by these out of touch activists, its beyond troubling. “Beyond Same Sex Marriage” is not a proactive manifesto pointing us beyond the current same sex marriage debate loses. Instead, it is nothing more than a step by step guide on how to construct a sinking ship.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Tommi,
I don’t understand why you overgeneralize from your experience, or why you assume that only people who agree with you politically support at-risk gay youth. As it happens, I have raised and contributed a good deal of money for DC’s Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League. I don’t see how what you have written responds to what I wrote.
posted by kittynboi on
Sometimes I wonder if much of this sort of stuff from the “gay” left is actually from straights who are just exploiting the gay left for their own benefit. More interested in bringing gay groups to fight for other causes and getting them to ignore gay rights.
posted by Terre on
This group is diverse, but of course. Gays no more think alike than do the members of any other group, whatever they have in common with each other.
Our common ground is inequality based on our being gay. That encompasses everything from teens being kicked out to couples being denied equal marriage benefits, to workers being passed over for promotions to a guy getting beat up in a bar. I don’t personally go to bars, but I recognize my connection to someone who was beat up in one because his attacker hates gays. His enemy is my enemy, if for no other reason than self-preservation – I’m gay, therefore it could happen to me.
Marriage equality is important for ALL of us who are gay because so many laws are based on marriage. Marriage is significant, a cornerstone of the legal foundation, whether you agree with it or want it for yourself or not. This is true throughout cultures and societies.
When gays can get married just like anybody else, thousands of related laws will have to change to remove the barriers to equality that all gays currently face. In ensuing years, that precedent will provide the muscle to roll over other laws that present other barriers. For black civil rights it was education; for gays it is marriage that is the catalyst for removing institutional discrimination.
Once gays have equality in marriage, social norms will adjust, as our society has largely adjusted to seeing women and blacks in positions of authority. In the 1960s something like 80% of the public was against interracial marriage, but now the figure is less than 15%. Fortunately for us, marriage equality for gays currently has much better statistics.
So this is why marriage equality is the big deal that it is among so many gays and gay organizations. It has the potential to pack the biggest bang for the buck, and it is the marriage equality issue that has driven gay visibility and wider acceptance over the past decade or so.
This is not to say that no more kids will get kicked out, or the Bubba’s won’t beat up any more gays. There will always be some people who will maintain their prejudices, whatever the root cause of their bad behavior.
This is not to say that those of us fighting for marriage equality don’t care about kids on the street, gay or otherwise, or the chasm and disparity between rich and poor. These are larger social problems that many of us have tried to help fix over the years, whether through being a foster parent, serving food in a homeless shelter, donating money, volunteering on Boards, planting trees, rescuing dogs, whatever. I’ve done all of that and more in 30 years of being a person who wants to make the world a better place. But being one person who also has to earn a living, I have to choose my battles and do the best I can to have the most impact I can.
The marriage equality fight is where I’m focusing my energy now.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
a system in which people can provide for themselves. That’s why I work on community land trusts, living wage, universal healthcare and other things
I don’t think you understand. Government handouts of land, “minimum wages,” socialist health care, etc. isn’t teaching people to provide for themselves. It’s turning government into people’s caretakers and providers. That doesn’t work. It never, ever works. San Francisco spends more per capita on such initiatives than any other American city, save New York — but also has one of the worst homeless problems of any city in the western world.
when kids first started appearing in great numbers on the streets of the Castro, back as the dot-com boom hit, there were only a handful of us working on solutions. We opted for compassionate immediate fixes while advocating for the longer term. Where were you?
I was there — from 2000 to 2003. Every time I tried to initiate private-sector programs (and not just in the Castro), I was stymied.
I don’t believe in socialism. Nor do I believe in all the left-wing political baggage which the “queer liberationists” always try to attach to efforts to bring people up from poverty — such as “solidarity with the Palestinian people,” “abortion rights,” etc.
I worked rather hard to get people to consider involvement by the private sector. I got a commitment from Sun and from Apple to donate computers for a training center, and also recruited over a dozen people who were willing to teach job skills and work on placement.
Guess what? *NONE* of the lefties ended up working with us because our politics weren’t “where they should be.” Most of us ended up taking our resources to GLIDE instead, which didn’t insist in ideological purity with some socialist utopian perspective in order to work with them.
How many dozen gay kids per year could have gotten a hand up, rather than a handout, if only the “liberationist lefties” hadn’t fucked away all help from the private sector? Quite a few, I suspect.
posted by tommi avicolli mecca on
Dear Northeast Libertarian:
I was very active in establishing the queer youth shelter and I don’t ever remember anyone approaching anyone with an offer from Sun and Apple. I would have jumped on the chance to set up a resource center for homeless queer youth with computers and such. I don’t know anyone who was on the committee for the shelter at the time who would have opposed that. We were trying to get resources for homeless youth. I have to question who you were dealing with in the Castro.
I think the gay marriage question comes down to one of resources. I don’t care about marriage personally. Being an ex-catholic I like living in sin. I don’t think the state should be sanctioning anyone’s relationship, a point of view I would think a Liberatarian would welcome. If folks want to get married, then they can invent any ceremony they want, they can go to a religious institution, whatever. But the state has no business validating anyone’s relationship and rewarding it with privileges I don’t have access to as a single person. That being said, however, I do support gay marriage in a society where straight people have that right. Just as I support the rights of queers to join the military as out queers, though I abhor everything the military stands for and work with anti-war groups toward a day when a department of peace can replace the Pentagon.
For me, it’s a question of priorities and resources. I would rather spend our limited resources on addressing the disparity between the haves and have-nots in our own community. However we do that, I think that should be numero uno. What I see is too much of our resources going into one issue, when so many other issues are begging for our help.
By the way, I really don’t appreciate the left- and radical-bashing that goes on in this site. I am an anarcho-socialist and yet I don’t bash Libertarians or anyone else for their ideology. I don’t need to be red-baited from other queers, I get enough of that in my daily work. Remember, it was communists such as Harry Hay who started this movement in the late 40s.
As for “handouts:” I think it is the role of government to provide things such as living wage, land trusts, universal healthcare. What else is government good for? The “anarcho” part of me wants to get rid of government altogether but the socialist part says we need it for a while longer to provide for all of us. Then, too, what’s the difference between the private sector doing handouts and keeping us all dependent on it for donations and resources and the government doing it? Do I want to be indebted to Mobile Oil or Apple computers? I worked for a nonprofit that got corporate handouts and when the corporations decided to cut off the money, the place went under. So much for that. A living wage for my labor, affordable housing, community land trusts, universal healthcare, these are not handouts, these are my rights as a human being!
posted by Drew on
I am stunned by the commentary here. Such manifestos are ill-advised. Five people write up a document and 5,000 people are suppose to grab it like marching orders. Real effective action does not work this way! If the GLBT and its supporters are to have any further impact, they need to have caucuses like political parties do. Such caucuses can be on the city level but would be best done on regional or state levels. Following a very simple statement of organizing for gay concerns, people would bring “resolves” or “proposals” to discuss and vote on. No, there is no real need to get complicated with Roberts Rules. However, when people debate these issues and discuss the issues, they form better thoughts as to what actions are needed and what support they have. When a series of resolutions are passed, the community has a list of actions to focus on. Unfortunately, this does not happen enough to help the GLBT change direction or address current problems.
posted by Greg on
NEL writes “That doesn’t work. It never, ever works.”
While I am in general sympathy with libertarians, a statement such as this over reaches and discredits you.
Some ‘socialist’ programs do in fact work, and sometimes pretty well. Relying entirely on markets can only said to ‘always’ work if one doesn’t care what it produces. If one believes that a working person should be able to eat, take care of his health needs and have a decent place to live, then the market fails. It does not provide a floor and so there will ALWAYS be people that fall below it.
One of the reasons that socialist programs fair so poorly here, and yet work fairly well other places is that programs here tend to be piecemeal, and significantly hobbled.
Socialism, as an ideology yields bad results. Capitalism as an ideology yields bad results. This is perhaps the reason that there are no capitalist or socialist countries in the world. Each is a mixture of the two.
Perhaps because each ignores one aspect of human nature, while elevating another to an absolute. Humans are both selfish and communal. A successful society must harness both of these characteristics.
The anarchists are right when they say that ‘property is theft’, but the capitalists are also right when they say that material progress requires that ‘property rights’ be honored.
It only makes sense that policies, to be successful, will take both concepts into account.
posted by Mark on
“The anarchists are right when they say that ‘property is theft’, but the capitalists are also right when they say that material progress requires that ‘property rights’ be honored.”
Theft is an ~action~ of unjustly taking possession of someone else’s property. Property, which has to be a physical object, cannot be an action. “Property is theft” is nonsense.And anarchists, by definition, are opposed to the government, not necessarily to private property.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Some ‘socialist’ programs do in fact work, and sometimes pretty well.
No they don’t. They fail. If they worked, San Francisco would have no poverty, homeless gay kids, or people dying on the streets of illness.
One of the reasons that socialist programs fair so poorly here, and yet work fairly well other places is that programs here tend to be piecemeal
Socialism doesn’t work anywhere. That’s not an extreme statement — it’s a statement of fact. I spend a great deal of time in Britain every year — in fact, I’m here right now — and Britain’s socialist health system is a wreck. People, given the choice, “go private” at every opportunity here. Three week waits to see a GP are common, especially in rapidly-growing parts of London.
Canada’s system is such a train wreck that it’s coming apart at the seams and being dismantled in court as angry people across the country state that the massive delays in service provisioning are a violation of their civil rights and demand the right to seek private care.
Implementing an NHS or Canada style “health system” in the USA will not help “queer youth” or anybody else. In fact, none less than Einstein stated that “insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
Socialism in provisioning of housing? We’ve seen that in San Francisco as well. When I was living there, the city had one of the most generous hand-out programs in the world for homeless people, paying cash and delivering vouchers for housing to homeless people. As a result, homelessness skyrocketed as ever more people came to San Francisco for the handouts.
Public education? Does anyone even dare to pretend that public school educations are adequate for career training anymore, especially in central cities and urban areas?
What about Social “Security” and other pension systems? Well, if you ran a “pension system” in the private sector which operated under the Social Security model, you’d be arrested and charged with fraud (specifically operating an illegal Ponzi scheme) and the SEC would also challenge your accounting practices. The system is mathematically unsustainable, with defaults a definite certainty, along with soaring payments. This is the situation not only in the USA, but around the world.
These expensive, pie-in-the-sky programs don’t work.
What creates weath? Education with practical economic applications, which creates a knowledgable and valuable employee, which creates job security and income for the individual. That means hands-up, not hand-outs. It means useful job skills training (you’d be amazed at how little is received in the $150K or so spent on each student by the socialist school system). It means teaching basic economics — microeconomics and macroeconomics. It means teaching maintaining and improving sustained competitive advantage and self-improvement so that skills don’t become obsolete, and so that income prospects improve.
None of these things are done by the “queer left” and they never will be. They prefer to aim to tear down the gay people who have the tools to succeed, rather than see the tools of success also delivered to the downtrodden through the initiative of individual citizens like you and me.
Those are the facts — and the results of those facts are sleeping on steam grates all over America’s cities.
posted by GREG on
NEL Pontificates “No they don’t. They fail. If they worked, San Francisco would have no poverty, homeless gay kids, or people dying on the streets of illness.”
Horse patuteys.
San Francisco is not socialist. Niether is England or Canada or France. All have some social programs. I don’t live and never have lived in SF, but the Central Florida I live in could hardly be called a socialist paradise, but we have LOTS of homeless people.
Health Care in the US is a train wreck. We fare worse than almost all of the social medicine country’s you deride. We may have short wait times, but that comes at the cost of a huge number of our people never seeing a doctor until they’re about dead.
Public education is what educates virtually the entire western world. There is no universal private education that you can point to. Nor will there EVER be. A private system means by definition that some will be left out and not have the opportunity to be educated. That doesn’t mean that the only possible universal system is one that has a single educator
It is countries with even more socialist education systems than ours that clean our clocks. Not those with less socialized systems.
Our roads are socialized, and of course business risk is socialized.
Does that mean that I think government should do everything? Of course not if something can be done privately AND competitively it generally should be. But bloviating that social programs never work, when in fact many do (even if perhaps not perfectly)indicates you are a fundamentalist, who prefers purity to reality.
The VA hospital system is very good. A great many people got higher education through the VA as well.
Social security is not well set up for an aging population, but its not its universal (socialist) nature that’s the problem, its the ‘ponzi’ set up that is. Though it worked very well for under the conditions that existed when it was set up.
Not to mention that the disability portion of the act is the only income many disabled folks have. How would a ‘non socialist’ system work here? Starvation perhaps? Lack of medical care?
The libertarian response is ‘private charity’ will provide for them. But there is no provision in a libertarian system to ensure that it will, which almost certainly means that at least sometimes it won’t.
Most Americans find that unacceptable.
posted by Jorge on
When gays can get married just like anybody else, thousands of related laws will have to change to remove the barriers to equality that all gays currently face. In ensuing years, that precedent will provide the muscle to roll over other laws that present other barriers. For black civil rights it was education; for gays it is marriage that is the catalyst for removing institutional discrimination.
That’s the best answer I’ve ever heard for why, of all the possible things to have a big to-do about, the focus falls on marriage.
I have too many doubts to have complete faith. Black civil rights has either been sidetracked into small potatoes or left unfinished, depending on one’s interpretation. Racism is not at all what it used to be, but somehow blacks are still screwed in so many ways. I hope that doesn’t happen to us.
posted by mick on
Have you all ever heard the old adage: “Divide and conquer”? The religious right would cackle with delight if they read this forum! The truth is that gay people like eery other group is diverse. What we do about that diversity will determine when we gain equlity. During the 60’s civil rights movement not all blacks were carbon copies of each other but they hung together on equality and made major changes in the system and in the perceptions of most white Americans. Not every black person who marched was democrat, not every one that marched was poor, not every one was religious (although they were led by a Baptist miister) and not every one who marched was even black— but they changed the nation! Because we do not agree on every issue doesn’t mean we can’t stand together in the fight for equality. I agree with Terre on that.
I believe that each person is res[onsible for taking care of them selves–providing that they are not mentally or physically handicapped to such an extent that it is impossible for them to do so. But I also believe that it is the reponsibility of the PEOPLE to be sure those who are unable to care for themselves are cared for. In our own history we have seen that it is NOT the private sector who is going to do that. Corporate America was the group who were working children who were as young as 5 in mines and sweat shops, they were who hired a man and if he left his place on the assembly line to use the bathroom he had no job, if he were injured on the job he was fired, and after the Dust Bowl, the growers in California threw away tons of oranges and potatoes while the “Okies” and their children starved. It was only through government intervention that the “have-nots” got any help at all. Social Security is in trouble, there is no question about that, but it has been mishandled throught the years. When FDR created it, it was a Godsend to people who had no other options. An old man in his 80’s and his equally aged sisster lived behind his family’s estate at Hyde Park. They lived in a house that had been the woodshed and at their age they were still trying to raise chickens and sell the eggs and the chickens to eke out a living. FDR had them in mind when he thought of SS. Minimum wage came about because people were working, giving a fir days work and companies weren’t paying a fair days wage–they couldn’t support their family even if they had been able to work 24 hours a day. And we again find ourselves where a man and his wife, both working at minimum wage can’t afford to pay the rent, the bills and feed their kids–and they certainly can’t afford to pay for health care for themselves or their children. In a nation that considers itself the greatest nation on earth that is a CRIME. WE need for government to giarantee a living wage, to guarantee health care to EVERY American, to guarantee that kids have access to eduacation to improve their lot in life.
On the other hand it is NOT the responsibility of the government or the people to support people who don’t want to work, who are lazy and feel like the world owes them a living. Socialism or communism that guarantees everyone an equal standard of living despite their differences in initiative, creativity, and willingness to work hard is equally wrong.
Marriage has always been a social construct that ws sanctioned by the government–so long as there have been governments. It’s purpose was to guarantee the orderly transition of property and mores. It guaranteed that a man had exclusive right to a woman, that he could claim any offspring (especially males) and they would help eith his crops/business and care for him in his old age. The government sanctioned this so it could collect taxes and be sure the offspring was taught the rukes of that particular society. It guaranteed women that their offspring would be supported and inherit and so would be able to care for them in their old age. Many think of it as a religious institution because originally the rulers (government) were the priests, seers, shaman, etc. As the government became secular the institution became secular as well and a social construct. It has always charged the participants with certain reponsibilities and granted them certain privileges. And that is the issue at present. Throughout history there have been heterosexual couples who have eschewed marriage but the majority wanted to the guaranteed rights that it bestowed. When we become a couple we often take on all the reponsibilities of marriage but then we are denied the privileges that it bestows. That is what we are seeking—and the sanctions of the government so we can carry out the responsibilities we have already accepted (providing for our partner: be it healthcare, inheritance rights, hospital visitation, etc.)
I’m sorry to sound so pedantic, each of you made some legitimate points but missed some others. And as I read I kept thinking if “divide and conquer” holds true, we are in trouble.
posted by KD on
Whoa!!! Does this queen have a chip on her shoulder or what? Doesn’t seem she even read the article she claims to respond. Manifesto, white man, liberationist, assimilationist. What?!! These are terms that aren’t even in the article yet were key concepts in the supposed rebuttal. Seriously, who the thinks like that? And this queen thinks she’s some representative of the common people?
Sorry dude. Can’t tolerate your negative, meritricious, half truths. I read this “manifesto” — your word, not their’s, I detect a tendency toward high drama. If you actually read it, seems you completely missed some of the thought provoking points made.
I used to think I was conservative because that’s the way I live my life. But I finally learned, that even though I live my own life conservatively, to appreciate, celebrate and support others for who they are makes me quite the leftist radical. Who knew this boring, nerdy, homebody was such a revolutionary?
Being the conservative guy that i am, I did find some of it a little too over the edge, some of it illegitimate, and some of it irrelevant. But the tone and the vision were positive and welcoming. All changes start with ideas and dialogue. The people you trash seemed much more open and willing to discuss. You, however, seem quite the Stalinist as it’s quite clear your need to shut down unapproved viewpoints.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
San Francisco is not socialist. Niether is England or Canada or France. All have some social programs. I don’t live and never have lived in SF
Nor France or the UK (England is just part of the UK) nor Canada. I have. I know of what I speak.
My ideas don’t grow out of ideology — they grow out of experience. Leftism doesn’t work. Neither does rightism, but that’s another discussion for another day.
Come back when you’ve had some time on the ground in San Francisco, Britain, France and Canada.
Does this queen have a chip on her shoulder or what?
You know, I’ve never understood how someone can demand tolerance and unity, but then refer to other men as “she” in order to somehow put the other person down. Such misogyny isn’t very “progressive” (nor conservative, for that matter).
quite the Stalinist as it’s quite clear your need to shut down unapproved viewpoints
That’a actually the point of the manifesto and the manifesto’s supporters — to jettison gay families and transform the movement from a gay equality movement into a subsidiary of the American leftist push for socialist medicine, etc.
Have you all ever heard the old adage: “Divide and conquer”? The religious right would cackle with delight if they read this forum!
The only thing worse than disagreement is false “unity” in order to appear a “united front” against other forces. The reality of the situation is that we shouldn’t allow various viewpoints to become accepted truisms sans debate simply because the religious right might score a few points.
Real, honest liberal movements are characterized by discussion, debate and disagreement. Any idea or concept should be unafraid of standing on its own merits and receiving critical analysis and insight, including from its own “side.” In fact, if an idea cannot weather such scrutiny and has to fall back on a “don’t analyze or criticize, it only helps our enemies,” then it’s probably an awful idea. The last example of this “logic” was Bush’s decision to invade Iraq.
posted by Greg on
NEL complains :San Francisco is not socialist. Niether is England or Canada or France. All have some social programs. I don’t live and never have lived in SF
Nor France or the UK (England is just part of the UK) nor Canada. I have. I know of what I speak. ”
I have spent time in France, the UK and Canada, considerable time in Canada, though I never took up residence there. They are most certainly not socialist countries. Each more socialistic than this one, but they are certainly not socialist.
It seems though that you don’t want to discuss the issue, just pontificate and then say that no one else is qualified to speak.
I’m sorry you find the world such a horrible place, I don’t find that to be the case. France is a lovely country, as is Britain, Canada’s a mite cold, which is why I moved south instead of north, despite Canada’s relative hospitality to folks like me.
Odd too, being such horrible places that by and large their residents don’t want to move here. It couldn’t be that their folks LIKE their social programs, must be that they are all too stupid to know how much better it is here.
I agree that leftism (as an absolute) doesn’t work, nor will rightism, nor any other ‘ism’ or ‘ity’ including libertarianism. It doesn’t follow though that simply because taken to the absurd extreme it won’t work, that it doesn’t contain ideas or notions that will work.
Your last two paragraphs I agree with completely.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
It seems though that you don’t want to discuss the issue, just pontificate and then say that no one else is qualified to speak.
Red herring.
I’m sorry you find the world such a horrible place
Non-sequitur.
France is a lovely country, as is Britain, Canada’s a mite cold, which is why I moved south instead of north, despite Canada’s relative hospitality to folks like me.
How do you know either way?
You’ve never lived there.
Speaking of Canada, there’s a rather amusing television show there called “Talking to Americans.” Google it sometime. The tagline of the show is “Americans have an amazing capacity to talk at length about things they have absolutely no clue about.”
Perhaps you should apply to be their next guest? 🙂
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
by and large their residents don’t want to move here
This is one of the examples of how not living in a country means you’re not really qualified to talk about things like this.
In Britain, I’m regularly asked by British nationals about how to migrate to the USA. Many express frustration that British people cannot apply to live in the USA under the Green Card Lottery because the USA issues so many visas to Britons that they’re disqualified. Every year, the island of Manhattan receives more immigrants from Britain than the island of Great Britain receives from the USA.
In France, advertising for the Green Card Lottery is everywhere, so much so that France is in danger of hitting its quota as well. (Ditto for Germany). If you speak French, you can head down to Paris and speak with recent business school students from INSEAD who despair at the lousy French economy and how hard it is to start a business in France — and they ask the same things. . . “How do I get to New York? How do I get to Silicon Valley?”
As for Canada, the flow of immigrants south of the border is so huge and sustained that it has created a demographic crisis which Canadians refer to as “the brain drain.” Canada’s young and upwardly mobile stream south of the border at a rate of between 200K and 300K a year. As a result, Canada’s population is aging, and immigration into Canada is not high enough to counteract the effects of the “brain drain.”
In the last election, as always, the brain drain to America was a major source of contention in the electoral campaign, and trying to convince young and innovative Canadians to remain in Canada has been a serious problem for the government. Recommendations to lower taxes and create a friendlier business environment have been suggested over and over by local business groups (who need talented employees themselves), but the political culture won’t hear of it.
If the demographic problems of Canada persist and they cannot get their immigration numbers to at least match their emigration numbers, Canada’s population will actually decline to under 20 million (from over 30 million today) in the next 20 years.
I’ve lived in Canada, France and the UK — these are everyday issues. The young, innovative, entrepreneurial people ready to earn money all go to the USA (if they can) or dream of doing so (if they lack the resources). Yes, even in the age of neocons and George W. Bush.
posted by DragonScorpion on
“Society is continually changing, though not all at once. Those who regard marriage as oppressive treat it as monolithic and unchanging, which ironically is precisely how our adversaries on the religious right see it.”
Very true. This seems to capture much of what has been growing for some time now ? radicals who are seeking to change everything in our society are making the overall debate not about the equal status of homosexuals to enjoy the same rights & privileges of heterosexuals, but rather, as the author pointed out, a “revolution”. One look no further than the title of the article, “Beyond Marriage” to see quite clearly what the “anti-gay agenda” conspiracy theorists have been frothing at the mouth over.
For years many have worked hard inside and outside of our community to establish us as not radically different but very much the same. Some of this has perhaps came from necessity as the larger, mainstream society has not taken too well to the “we’re here, we’re queer, get over it” and “queer is beautiful”. But then I think a great many of us really aren’t that radical, our lifestyles are not much outside that of many heterosexual couples, especially the more progressive types.
I’ve debated the issue of equality for homosexuals many times, and those opposed typically paint us with a broad brush of stereotypes, trying to portray us as radically different from them and their values as possible. While some are downright bigoted in their hatred for the very concept of same-sex relations, the majority will frame their argument in how different we are by drawing allusions to specific behaviors like promiscuity, polyamory, pedophilia, bestiality, or issues like STD’s, the ills of gay-parenting, indoctrination of children into “deviant lifestyles”. Taken at face value they can’t, or won’t make a case against us, they must use worst-case-scenario logic to rationalize it. For us to be denied equality we must be depicted in ways that do not fit us.
That is where they gain ground in their cause, pointing to the least attractive behaviors in people; the most radically opposite of the mainstream. I see attempts like this “Beyond Marriage” revolution as giving our enemies very lethal ammunition to use against us. This is making the Radical Right’s case for them: to give us one inch is to open pandora’s box, surrendering everything innocent, moral, & pure in society to the most immoral & debase of humanity. Even seemingly mainstream politicians utter such things as ‘protecting the sanctity of marriage’, as if their efforts are saving all of society from a band of murderous barbarians seeking to rape, pillage, & plunder. In time that cannot go unnoticed to smack of bigotry when we are seen more clearly as not unlike most everyone else.
While it’s rather difficult to get moderates in our society to see homosexuals in general as the ‘scum of humanity’ seeking to undermine everything good & pure, it is not difficult for them to make that leap to more radical elements, like polyamory & extremely promiscuous lifestyles. Our strength comes in proving that most of us lead lives far outside more radical lifestyles. The less this becomes how different we are and how much we are demanding to change, the more people outside our community find it easier to accept us. The more we talk about radical change & present a sort of unified front that “we’re all one big happy family” the easier it is to keep treating us like a scourge to the moral fabric of society.
While some might embrace this notion simply as a strategic tactic for victory ? which even radicals should as they will not see victory in their causes until the most moderate among us are accepted ? it is not a dishonest tactic because in truth the majority of us are not radically different and don’t want or need to be. Nothing about this effort for ‘assimilation’ is disingenuous.
Mainstream America really do not want gays to marry, yet. In time they might accept this, grudgingly, simply because it seems wrong to keep denying it to us, that is if we are seen largely as separate from the more radical elements. That effort is being undermined by these ‘liberationists’. They are jeopardizing the progress we’ve made over the past several decades, and at a time when the issue is the most polarizing and we face our most defiant and formidable enemy yet ? the radical religious right. While I don’t agree with their ideologies and where some of these people would like to take us, maybe attitudes about some of things need to change. Fine, then certain person’s can work for those causes, but these are separate issues. We need to keep working toward establishing our similarities with the mainstream, not our differences to it. If not just to win this cause, most of all because it’s generally true.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
As a conservative gay, I’d like to see us move away from speaking about gay marriage rights and use phrases of civil unions and marriage equality. My partner and I have a civil union, created by us with great care from a team of high priced attorneys, and we’ve embarked on building our family beyond 2. It’s working.
I appreciate that gay marriage is the shorthand that many gays use to describe marriage equality, but to the str8 community it is the “bloody shirt” and smacks of the in-your-face radicalism that grips the PR face of our community. We’ve followed the “advice” or lead of the GayLeft natl groups on gay marriage and it’s netted us little except animosity, new state constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage, domestic partner benefits and civil unions. It might be good for those natl GayLeft groups seeking to make legal fees in the courts… but it’s killing us in the homeland.
I think we need to step away from the failed strategy of our natl GayLeft leaders of the past 15 years and strike out for civil unions, keep Pride Parades on private property and out of the sight of the media, muzzle our more radical Left members who have highjacked our political future for the partisan interests of the Democrats, and seek compromise with a majority in the str8 community who are inclined to support us on civil unions today –not gay marriage in another 10 years… maybe.
One thing is for sure, the longer we allow just the natl GayLeft groups to dominate the discussion and set the strategy, the longer we’ll be in the loser seat –just like the Democrats.
posted by Greg on
NEL inquires:
“How do you know either way?
You’ve never lived there. ”
I’ve been there ALOT a spent half of my life living just the other side of the river. I know many Canadians, both there and here, and the ‘brain drain’ that you mention seems to be a figment of imagination.
http://www.straightgoods.com/Analyze/0018.shtml
Europe has more of an issue, though it seem concentrated primarily in academia, but Europeans as a whole are not leaving in droves, and have more immigrants than they know what to do with. And of course eastern europe complains that all their ‘brains’ are moving to western europe.
I’m all for open immigration though. Flow of people should be no more limited than the flow of capital. If that were the case, the US would quickly move to provide the services its low wage employees need (whether publicly or privately) or we would have none.
Again. You seem to want to shut down discussion. Only YOUR experience is of any value
Piffle.
A canadian friend of mine (living in FL) does not plan on becoming a US citizen, and plans to eventually move back to Canada, her parents retired here (because Canada is cold which is the same reason I emigrated from NY)and she was still mooching of them at the time so she came with them. I have a Brit working for me now that would rather be in Britain, but she has american children and so will stay here until they are ‘launched’ (she arrived to work at EPCOT for a year and then married an american). She has no close family in Britain, but she’d still like to go back.
I know a gay couple who live in toronto and winter here, and again don’t plan on becoming US citizens, or even residents. They like Canada very much until the mercury drops below 0. They do own a house here (as well as there of course)
Back to healthcare, Canadians are better served by their system at less cost and are just as happy with it as we are with ours. They also overwhelmingly favor some sort of public provision of healthcare (88%) and list universality as very important http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/pdf/romanow/pdfs/MendelsohnEnglish.pdf
This doesn’t mean that they think their system is perfect, they seem quite pragmatic recognizing overutilization as a problem and seem at least somewhat open to the notion of patient co payments to mitigate this.
The health of a society is best measured by the health (health here meant broadly not just medical) of its least well off. We fare pretty poorly among industrialized countries in this regard.
A libertarian would presumably favor removal of all government regulation of healthcare, all government payment of healthcare, all government payment for research, and let the market handle all that.
If we followed that prescription I don’t think we would find that our costs would decline tremendously, though I do think they would decline. It would mitigate the problem of over utilization and would stimulate innovation in service delivery. It would also mitigate the problem of the well off having to wait to have non emergency work done.
I don’t see how such a program though would ensure that ALL received healthcare. If not required to accept non paying patients by law, many hospitals would not and even that basic provision of emergency care would not be available to the poor. Those with lower incomes would find themselves unable to immunize their children, treat minor problems before they become worse receive routine preventive care etc.
The market, by itself, is incapable of delivery of healthcare unless we are willing to concede that many people receiving ‘none’ constitutes successful distribution of health care services.
That is not acceptable to me, and thankfully it is not acceptable to most.
The bastard system we currently have is arguably the worst of both worlds.
I am of the opinion that if a market can be utilized to acheive our social goals, then it should be. But it is a tool to be used to achieve goals, not some sort of divine decree of what they should be.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I’ve been there ALOT a spent half of my life living just the other side of the river
Living on the other side of the river isn’t living in Canada. It’s living close to Canada. You’re not participating in the economy or national dialogue.
the ‘brain drain’ that you mention seems to be a figment of imagination
Which is precisely why Canadian employers and citizens have come together to launch a web site entitled ReverseTheBrainDrain.com right?
Europe has more of an issue, though it seem concentrated primarily in academia
Quick — name me three successful European computer companies.
Name me two major European semiconductor companies.
Name me three large, global European software companies.
Took you a while to think of them — if not a quick trek to Google, didn’t it? And no big surprise, since there aren’t many of them. Most of Europe’s best and brightest in the industry either work for the European branches of US firms (or increasingly Asian ones), or move on over to the USA (especially Silicon Valley and New York).
Canadians are better served by their system at less cost and are just as happy with it as we are with ours
You obviously haven’t lived in Canada. Give a Canadian a choice between private care and public care, and many vote with their feet by crossing the border.
Give a Briton a choice between public care or private care, and private care wins — every single time. No Briton with access to private health care chooses NHS care over private care. Dems da facts.
I don’t see how such a program though would ensure that ALL received healthcare
Go to a government-operated hospital in Britain or Canada and hang out for a while. You’ll notice “all” don’t receive health care.
The waiting list for cancer treatment, for instance, is over 3 years in Canada and approaching 2 years in Britain. Many people simply die of metastasizing before they get their “free guaranteed care.”
And in Britain, the NHS is notorious for skipping out on paying nursing care for the elderly who require full-time care — happily liquidating their assets entirely before then paying for care. Some “free” care — especially considering the assets were built despite the massively higher taxes one pays for the NHS.
The market, by itself, is incapable of delivery of healthcare unless we are willing to concede that many people receiving ‘none’ constitutes successful distribution of health care services.
Special challenge for you: go try to get a 15 minute result HIV test in New York City for free, and a similar test in London for free.
In New York, the private sector funds charitable foundations who provide the tests. Anyone can walk in and after a 15 to 30 minute wait, get tested and his results.
In Britain, the tests are only available at two government-funded NHS “GUM clinic” centres in London, which fill up after 10 to 15 minutes. Most people who seek a test are turned away — and the test isn’t available in the private sector. To get an HIV test in the British public system requires weeks of advance scheduling for a “traditional” test, followed by weeks of waiting.
Private system? Free, instant results. Public system? High taxes, very little chance of getting instant results, long waits for an old-fashioned test with longer waits still for results.
it is a tool to be used to achieve goals, not some sort of divine decree of what they should be
Free markets not only work better, but they also don’t require stealing from the neighbors.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Here’s what a typical Canadian health care system delivers:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml?cmp=EM8705
A letter from the Moncton Hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient in need of an electrocardiogram said the appointment would be in three months. It added: “If the person named on this computer-generated letter is deceased, please accept our sincere apologies.”
. . . snip. . .
Americans who flock to Canada for cheap flu shots often come away impressed at the free and first-class medical care available to Canadians, rich or poor. But tell that to hospital administrators constantly having to cut staff for lack of funds, or to the mother whose teenager was advised she would have to wait up to three years for surgery to repair a torn knee ligament.
. . . snip. . .
The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in taxes each year, partly to fund the health care system.
. . . snip. . .
The federal government and virtually every province acknowledge there’s a crisis: a lack of physicians and nurses, state-of-the-art equipment and funding. In Ontario, more than 10,000 nurses and hospital workers are facing layoffs over the next two years
. . . snip. . .
Another watershed lawsuit was filed last year against 12 Quebec hospitals on behalf of 10,000 breast-cancer patients in Quebec who had to wait more than eight weeks for radiation therapy during a period dating to October 1997.
One woman went to Turkey for treatment. Another, Johanne Lavoie, was among several sent to the United States. Diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in 1999, she traveled every week with her 5-year-old son to Vermont, a four-hour bus ride.
“It was an inhuman thing to live through,” Lavoie told Toronto’s Globe and Mail.
Works better? Costs less? Happier people?
Well, yeah, people who are dead because of non-treatment cannot complain about it, so of course the overall population is going to be happy.
I’m not sure the average American would want a system where outpatient knee surgery has a three-year waiting period, or serious life-threatening conditions face waiting periods along with a letter saying “if you’re dead before we get to you, please accept our apologies.”
And increasingly, Canadians aren’t accepting it either — one reason why Canada’s system, as it reforms, is looking increasingly like the American system rather than the other way around.
posted by Greg on
Works better? Costs less? Happier people?
NEL misdirects “Well, yeah, people who are dead because of non-treatment cannot complain about it, so of course the overall population is going to be happy.”
The outcomes speak for themselves. Whatever warts you can find, and all systems have warts, they acheive better health for less money.
Markets are not God.
posted by Greg on
NEL States “In New York, the private sector funds charitable foundations who provide the tests. Anyone can walk in and after a 15 to 30 minute wait, get tested and his results.”
Which ones? Most charitable health related foundations get most of their aids testing money from the government. In GMHC’s case 42% of their funding comes from government grants, while 28% comes from private funding. That’s hardly a ringing endorsement of the ‘private sector’ solving the problem.
Which is not to say that involving the private sector isn’t important. But private funding is even more fickle than government funding, though it typically (but not always) comes with a lot less red tape.
Private funders are loathe to fund existing programs (its not impossible to find such donors, but they are few and far between), with the government being the major alternative as a funder.
Again not a ringing endorsement of a private system.
Perhaps it makes sense to have the government involved in healthcare? Since it is in every developed country, one should at least consider the possibility that its for good reason.
And are you suggesting that the Japanese don’t have socialized medicine? Since they do, what does that do to your implication that socialized medicine leads to industrial stagnation?
Taxes are no more theft than property is.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
KD, calling me a queen, suggests that I couldn’t have read the Beyond Marriage manifesto because in refuting it I dare to apply words to it and its authors that they themselves do not use. That’s an awfully silly complaint. Since my article is clearly keyed to perspectives and arguments in what it is perfectly accurate to call a manifesto, I can only conclude that KD is merely trying to distract us from KD’s own failure to address my arguments. KD calls my Stalinist, trotting out the familiar leftist trope that by arguing with the document’s authors I am trying to “shut down” their viewpoints. KD, if you are so interested in having a discussion on these issues, try participating in it more seriously and with greater intellectual honesty. I made several points in my article; explain for us how each of them is wrong.
posted by Anthony on
One thing I particularly enjoy about this web site is the fact that so many folks with differing points of view discuss a wide array of topics. It so happens this one is about gay marriage per se and whether gays should “move beyond” it as an aim or not. Several have offered their own personal experiences as a point of reference so I will do the same.
My partner and I have been together for six years. We embarked on legalizing our relationship to the extent that is possible by having a reputible and trusted attorney draw up wills and powers of attorney for health care and finance for us should we ever need them. We also have made arrangements to pass along life insurance dollars to each other and took advantage of the new Pension Protection Act (signed by that “homophobic” President Bush) and will now pass on our 401k money to the other if and when the time comes. All this hullabaloo surrounding the marriage question makes me wonder what the real issue is – are we demanding full marital equality or are we shooting ourselves in the collective foot when most Americans favor and support civil unions? My view is that gays should rally around civil unions. There are a multitude of reasons for my position, but the main one is pragmatic – we can win with this point, while full-blown marriage is still a very tough sell.
My partner and I live in Arkansas, a red state at least at the presidential level. Democrats here are just as conservative on social issues as the GOP. It is the only way they are able to sustain enduring majorities in our federal and state legislative delegations. I have maintained for quite some time that it is unfeasible to expect politicians to carry the banner for us as a community. We have much work to do in winning over hearts and minds one person at a time. I believe that is where the battle is to be won.
Those who advocate not supporting marriage have a perfect right to do so. I think they base their beliefs on a purely ideological bent but that’s another subject for another post.