My welfare check doesn’t cover the iPhone plan

Soapbox alert: This post has a deceivingly fair and balanced beginning.

Sorry for yet another post of socio-political musings, but at least I came up with a somewhat interesting title. The thought has crossed, and continues to cross my mind that the richer America has become, the more its citizens expect as a fundamental standard of living.

Perceptions about a “basic” standard of living (is this term redundant?) are affected both by time and space. Air-conditioners, weekly (or daily) fast food, cable television, cellular phones…these are all things that fifty years ago would have been considered amazingly luxurious (if they were even around), but are all things that now, I suspect, can easily be had with a typical welfare check. Even moving from Texas to New York City where the cost of living is much higher, I notice people doing without (no car, no air conditioner, no spacious apartment, no dishwasher, no in-apartment washer and dryer) and not complaining about it. Granted, unless you happen to live on Central Park West, these concessions are out of necessity. But the point remains that just as in this time period, geography factors into basic standard of living, so too within a set geographical domain (the United States), the time period affect the expectations of standard of living.

As a side note, looking historically just a generation or two will show our grandparents doing with less sugar and fewer pairs of pantyhose during World War II in order to focus our nation’s resources and attention to where they were needed most. The idea of going without, however, is entirely unknown to Generation X’ers like me. Like it or not, we’ve been fighting a war for the last four years in Iraq, but our standard of living has changed not one bit. True, this probably reflects a richer country, but it also means that societal economic sacrifice is about as foreign to me as sacrificing a goat at city hall.

But should time and geography affect our perception of whether we are barely getting by or whether we have an abundance? The poor in Africa are just as poor today as they were in 1950. The rich here are far richer. So should the poverty level be an absolute (food, clothing, shelter) or a relative index? I think I could argue effecively either way, but perhaps it should be both. Or one tempered by the other, if that makes sense.

In other words, the thought that a family can afford an SUV, cable television, a couple cellular phones on a family plan, year-round home temperature regulation, monthly movie tickets, and weekly (daily?) restaurant visits, but cannot afford basic health insurance is absurd, especially when viewed from the historical and geographical perspectives I mentioned above. Anyone who can afford all of the above is incredibly wealthy both historically and compared to all people living today. Hence, this situation is not one of wealth versus poverty, but one of wise versus misplaced priorities.

I want you to remember this the next time the discussion of universial health insurance comes up, or the next time you’re tempted to complain about the $20 co-pay for your visit to the doctor.


Filed under Health care, Musings

4 responses to “My welfare check doesn’t cover the iPhone plan

  1. Anonymous

    Very good point.

  2. Anonymous

    I agree that priorities are way out of wack. Many can “afford” to have poor diets and poor lifestlye habits because they “have insurance” and assume that when they are older the government programs will take care of it. And yes, “poverty” in the US is a loose term.

    Do those of us without health insurance (who exercise 4-5 times week, don’t use aircon, no cable, and hardly ever eat out) have a a right to complain when we pay full price out of pocket when we know insurance companies do not compensate 100% and thus get a nice “discount”?

  3. Jonathan

    Obama, is that you?

    By putting “have insurance” in quotation marks, I’m not sure if you really mean having insurance, or mean it facetiously, e.g., “The government will take care of me anyway.” I’m assuming the latter, given your use of “afford.”

    Wow–anonymous, kudos to you on your lifestyle. I’m not sure it’s in my power to grant you a right to complain, however. By choosing (?) not to have insurance, it sounds as if you might be saving money by simply paying out of pocket for your basic health needs.

    You raise another interesting point, however. Health insurance companies are in business not for the good of the common man, but to make money. Should it be that way? Perhaps a universal Medicare-type system would be more efficient. Wait, I just realized how absurd that sounds. *sigh*

  4. Anonymous

    Are doctors in business to make money or for the good of the common man? (Did Aaron Copland write fanfares…?)

    If the goals aren’t mutually exclusive for doctors, why not also for insurance?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s