Health Care! An actual policy debate, resilient cities, integral
Posted on Sep 15th, 2006
by 
ebuddha
ebuddha
I'm continuing this series on integral values - even though this is a rumination of one.
One of the most urgent issues in the United States, is the issue of health care. At one last count, there exists 46.6 million, or 15.9 percent, of citizens who do not have access to health care.
The article I point to above, shows that even of those who attempt to access private health, 9 out of 10 do not choose to - because of course, expense, not getting full coverage, all the exceptions for previous conditions, etc.
How would lack of health care, in such a rich nation, be viewed through the lens of integral values?
When a nation becomes wealthy enough, every nationa - EXCEPT the United States - has chosen universal health care.
And you can see why -
a. Practicality - health care is either crisis, or is fairly unnecessry. At any one time, 90% of people don't need health care. They just need to be taken care of when accidents happen, when they fall sick, and as old age approaches.
Given this, a shared pool of risk, is always the smartest way to go. And of course, a nation is a very large pool.
There are also a lot of savings in billing, dual coverage, fights with care provider, etc, that make private insurance simply impractical and expensive. This is borne out also, in the fact that the United States pays more per person than any other country, but in terms of overall health, is less healthy than the average person in other countries.
Ths particular analysis, looks at INTEGRAL cities - in some sense incorporating "green" values, into looking at how to build "resilient" cities, and then creates an "Urban Bill of Rights", that attempts to stand in for integral values.
Here is the Urban Bill of Rights:
The Urban Bill of Rights
1. The right to see significant greenery, the sky, and the sun from within one’s home.
2. The right to natural cross ventilation in one’s home.
3. The right to enjoy peace and quiet within one’s home with windows open.
4. The right to sleep at night without excessive artificial ambient light.
5. The right to be free in one’s neighborhood from pollution of air, water, soil, and plant life.
6. The right to be free from undesirable local environmental change caused by poor urban design, such as wind, shadow and noise canyons, excess heat caused by overpaving, etc.
7. The right to adequate space for storage, hobbies, and other personal activities in and around each dwelling unit, including play space for children in family housing.
8. The right to mobility, regardless of income. If automobile use is discouraged by prohibitive pricing, public transit must be adequate and low cost.
9. The right to parking space for each household.
10. The right of convenient access, on foot if possible, to basic daily needs, such as good quality food at reasonable prices, daily household and medical supplies, laundry facilities, etc.
11. The right of convenient access, by foot, private vehicle, or transit, to places of employment.
12. The right of equal access to the commons and to taxpayer-funded and other public facilities, such as government buildings, libraries, museums, bridges, and roadways.
13. The right of access within walking distance to nature, recreation, outdoor exercise, and discovery, including parks, open space, and areas inhabited by wildlife.
14. The right to equal and adequate police, fire, and emergency services, which shall not be infringed on the basis of income or neighborhood character.
15. The right to participate in and guide, through equitable, representative, democratic processes, land use decisions that affect oneself, one’s neighborhood, and one’s community."
So this is one communities attempt to be integral, which takes in a whole host of individual, environmental, social concerns, while keeping the eye on longterm practical survivability of a community.
Too pie in the sky?
Also posted at Integral Practice
One of the most urgent issues in the United States, is the issue of health care. At one last count, there exists 46.6 million, or 15.9 percent, of citizens who do not have access to health care.
The article I point to above, shows that even of those who attempt to access private health, 9 out of 10 do not choose to - because of course, expense, not getting full coverage, all the exceptions for previous conditions, etc.
How would lack of health care, in such a rich nation, be viewed through the lens of integral values?
When a nation becomes wealthy enough, every nationa - EXCEPT the United States - has chosen universal health care.
And you can see why -
a. Practicality - health care is either crisis, or is fairly unnecessry. At any one time, 90% of people don't need health care. They just need to be taken care of when accidents happen, when they fall sick, and as old age approaches.
Given this, a shared pool of risk, is always the smartest way to go. And of course, a nation is a very large pool.
There are also a lot of savings in billing, dual coverage, fights with care provider, etc, that make private insurance simply impractical and expensive. This is borne out also, in the fact that the United States pays more per person than any other country, but in terms of overall health, is less healthy than the average person in other countries.
Ths particular analysis, looks at INTEGRAL cities - in some sense incorporating "green" values, into looking at how to build "resilient" cities, and then creates an "Urban Bill of Rights", that attempts to stand in for integral values.
Here is the Urban Bill of Rights:
The Urban Bill of Rights
1. The right to see significant greenery, the sky, and the sun from within one’s home.
2. The right to natural cross ventilation in one’s home.
3. The right to enjoy peace and quiet within one’s home with windows open.
4. The right to sleep at night without excessive artificial ambient light.
5. The right to be free in one’s neighborhood from pollution of air, water, soil, and plant life.
6. The right to be free from undesirable local environmental change caused by poor urban design, such as wind, shadow and noise canyons, excess heat caused by overpaving, etc.
7. The right to adequate space for storage, hobbies, and other personal activities in and around each dwelling unit, including play space for children in family housing.
8. The right to mobility, regardless of income. If automobile use is discouraged by prohibitive pricing, public transit must be adequate and low cost.
9. The right to parking space for each household.
10. The right of convenient access, on foot if possible, to basic daily needs, such as good quality food at reasonable prices, daily household and medical supplies, laundry facilities, etc.
11. The right of convenient access, by foot, private vehicle, or transit, to places of employment.
12. The right of equal access to the commons and to taxpayer-funded and other public facilities, such as government buildings, libraries, museums, bridges, and roadways.
13. The right of access within walking distance to nature, recreation, outdoor exercise, and discovery, including parks, open space, and areas inhabited by wildlife.
14. The right to equal and adequate police, fire, and emergency services, which shall not be infringed on the basis of income or neighborhood character.
15. The right to participate in and guide, through equitable, representative, democratic processes, land use decisions that affect oneself, one’s neighborhood, and one’s community."
So this is one communities attempt to be integral, which takes in a whole host of individual, environmental, social concerns, while keeping the eye on longterm practical survivability of a community.
Too pie in the sky?
Also posted at Integral Practice
Access: Public
communities
May 2008