Teens and Texting: They’ve Grown up Just Like Me

Many  Oklahomans have their gripes about the most prevalent teen habit right now—texting. Kids sit staring at their cell phones, punching buttons, and managing to convince us all that by the time they’re 25, they will be a gold mine for the carpel-tunnel-surgery-industrial complex.

In Our Day It Was Phones

The basics are not new. Texting is a way to say to everyone around, “You are not as important as the person receiving my text message.” For those of us who grew up in the pre-cell-phone world, there was the telephone. We could attept to ignore parents who wanted us to do homework by spending hours on the phone. In the 50’s there were songs about letters from boyfriends and girlfriends. Maybe someone out there can envision such a thing… that’s too far back for me.

So, Where Do Kids Get Ideas Like This?

Of course, we all feel we’ve taught our kids good manners and set a good example. And we know that kids learn more from what we do than what we teach them through our words. And there is a certain degree to which we all have to learn a little from our own mistakes even though parents and teachers try to save us from the most devastating mistakes.

I was reminded of the rudeness of teen texting just recently. I walked into the office of a co-worker, not uninvited—we were involved in a joint project—and saw a little too late that he was on the phone. He covered his other ear; as if I would make such a ruckus that he would be unable to hear. He was very dismissive toward me, even though (as far as I know) my contribution to the project was needed.

It reminded me of an earlier discussion of office etiquette years back when voice mail was new (now there would probably be no such discussions). I was in a minority of one when it came to insisting that physical people in one’s office took priority over those calling on the phone. (Maybe I’m weird—what’s voice mail for?) Someone who has taken the trouble to come by the office of a co-worker to accomplish some project, pick up forms, or whatever doesn’t take priority over someone who is too lazy to come by and calls on the phone? Of course, trips around a workplace can become a source of inefficiency, and a trip for every little question would be silly. Anyway, I think I was out-voted.

Here’s an Old Song

The whole thing reminds me of an old song from the 70’s, “Cat’s in the Cradle” by Harry Chapin. The song relates the story of a dad who is proud of his son, but always has work to do and cannot be present for much of the little boy’s life. The last verse is the clincher; dad’s retired and calls to say he’d like to visit. The son is too busy, but when he can find time—won’t it be great to get together. The father then realizes, “He’d grown up just like me; my boy was just like me.”

Next time you are tempted to complain about a teen and texting, listen to the song.

Check out lyric to this great song:

http://www.lyricsdepot.com/harry-chapin/cats-in-the-cradle.html

Arden Rea lives in Oklahoma City.

Pottersland: Where We Are Now

Move over, George Bailey. We’re all in Pottersland now.

In the classic movie, It’s a Wonderful Life, George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) received a wonderful gift. He got the chance to see his beloved community of Bedford Falls, as it would have been if he had never lived. It turned out that George and George alone had saved the charming community from a dreadful fate—the fate of being re-made into Pottersville—a terrible and cruel place fashioned after the designs of the evil (and very wealthy) Mr. Potter.

Of course, in real life, no one person could have saved Bedford Falls, and the movie isn’t about Bedford Falls anyway. It’s about George.

So, what will it take to save our nation from being transformed into Pottersland? Today’s Supreme Court ruling gets us nearly there—to Pottersland that is. The Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that laws forbidding corporations from buying political advertising are unconstitutional. The reason? The rights of a corporation to “free speech” would be violated if the corporation were not permitted to buy all the political advertising its cold, dark, profit-maximizing heart desires.

Crying an Ocean of Tears

Breaks your heart doesn’t it? Seeing the rights of Northrop Grumman, Monsanto, or AT&T trampled underfoot! No doubt, this has been weighing heavy on your mind—well, fret no more!

Now your favorite corporations can speak their minds about politics. The makers of Vioxx, Celebrex, bisphenol A, and PCBs can let us know what’s on their minds. The organizations who brought us the sub prime mortgage, liar loans, mortgage-backed-securities,  credit default swaps, and collateralized debt obligations can freshen our airwaves, enlighten our minds, and lift our spirits with advice aplenty. We can count on the makers of high-fructose corn syrup for their collective wisdom on the school lunch program. In case you were wondering whether or not Texaco would want more legislation limiting air pollution, now you will be able to hear right from the oil company’s mouth!

Perhaps you share my worry that our Supreme Court has neglected our corporations’ other rights. Why focus so narrowly just on freedom of speech?

Doesn’t Goldman Sachs deserve the right to bear arms? What about Lockheed Martin’s need to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure? Does Blackwater (now Xe) need protection from being forced to join a state church? Shouldn’t HealthSouth have protection from excessive bail? Alas, so much to do for our corporations and so little time.

But, what if you want to hear from George Bailey?

He has a right to free speech too you know. There’s just one small problem. Remember that the financial deck was stacked against George. He was not a rich man. He could speak his mind, but his audience would be extremely limited, even if quite a crowd did gather in his living room about the time that little bell rang on his Christmas tree. So, George’s ability to exercise his right of free speech is severely limited by his modest means.

George doesn’t count. And that’s pretty much where you and I are too. Here in Pottersland.

Arden Rea lives in Oklahoma City.

OK, I Know What Jesus Would Drive

A few years ago, some well-meaning people started a sort of a campaign to ask the question, “What would Jesus drive?” Their aim was to nudge Americans to think about their transportation choices, since our country burns so much fossil fuel in the process of getting from here to there. Would Jesus drive a Hummer? A BMW? A Volkswagen? I have always maintained Jesus would ride the bus.

Bus Riding Memories

A friend mentioned Jesus and hybrid cars just a few days ago, and that made me remember some of my bus rides here in Oklahoma City. Most people tell me they wouldn’t ride the bus, and that I shouldn’t either. They believe only chain-saw murderers ride the bus. Sometimes there are scary people on the bus, but I think Jesus would ride anyway.

Once, my grade-schooler and I were catching the bus in mid-afternoon. It was about a week before Christmas, and we were at a corner where we did not normally catch the bus. Not seeing a designated bus stop, we stood at the far corner of the intersection.

The bus stopped and the driver growled, “Well, I guessed right!” I gave him a puzzled look and said, “We need transfers please,” as I pushed my Easy-Fare ticket into the machine. He said, “I guessed right—you wanted to ride the bus—I thought maybe you were waiting to cross the street.” It was then I noticed that there was a sign (not a bench, not a shelter) designating a bus stop about 30 yards from where we were. There was a speed limit sign in between, at eye level, and this particular speed limit sign not being transparent and all, I did not see the bus stop sign.

He stopped for more passengers, and was grumpy with them too. My child and I played a game and tried to ignore it all. At Penn Square Mall, there was quite a scene. A man boarded the bus with a walker. He was having a terrible time getting to a seat with his packages. The bus driver was very angry with a lady in a green coat. He kept yelling, “Lady with the green coat” repeatedly. He made her come from the back of the bus, climbing over several people (with her packages) and come to the front (nearly tripping over the man with the walker) to show him her bus pass. He said she had not shown it to him the first time.

At N.W. 23^rd and Penn, I got out, grade-schooler in tow, to transfer to the eastbound #23. The green coat lady got out too. We were behind schedule, partly because of the big scene at Penn Square Mall. Just making casual conversation, I said to the green coat lady that the bus driver was a big grump. She said, “Oh, girl, he be jus’ EVIL!” I couldn’t argue with that. She then said, “Did you see what he did at the mall?” I answered that I saw he demanded to see her bus pass. She said that wasn’t all. One problem for the man in the walker was that the driver refused to kneel the bus! She repeated, “He be an EVIL man.” She then added, “I be prayin’ for him—my church be prayin’ for him—my friend’s church be prayin’ for him.”

I have to admit; praying for the man was not the first thing that came to my mind.

Things Take a Turn for the Better

Next, the green coat lady said she believed Larry would be driving the #23. If we had been on time, our driver would have been Mike. Sure enough, Larry pulled up in a few minutes. Larry greeted the green coat lady warmly; it was obvious she was a regular. He was very friendly to us too. The bus was very full, but there were seats left at the front.

At 23^rd and Classen, a young girl (about 14 or so) got off the bus. As she crossed the street and the bus waited at the light, Larry said, “I’m so proud of her—she’s a good kid; she rides this bus every day to get home from school.” He went on, “Do you know what she did the other day?” He explained that she had taken on a leadership role in a service project at her school. The kids raised some money to benefit a senior center. The green coat lady chimed in, “I know some wonderful teenagers; people think teenagers are all gangsters and drug dealers, and it’s jus’ not true.”

The atmosphere of this bus was a night-and-day difference from the one we had left. Larry’s bright attitude and the cheerful green coat lady made me feel like a menacing fog had lifted. Even though this bus was not filled with millionaires, the feeling was comfortable, several conversations going on, laughing and joking.

Jesus does ride the bus.

Sometimes, Jesus is the green coat lady. Sometimes, Jesus is the man who digs for some extra pocket change for someone who boards the bus but doesn’t have enough money to pay the fare. Sometimes Jesus is the lady who yells “STOP” as the bus is about to pull away from a stop because the passenger who just boarded left a briefcase behind. Sometimes Jesus is a man who finds an umbrella and gives it to the driver to be taken to lost and found as he leaves the bus, stepping out into the rain with no umbrella for himself.

So, hop on a bus. Someone will be there—someone you’ve wanted to meet.

Stories are all true, though names have been changed.

Arden Rea lives in Oklahoma City.

MAPS 3 Madness

Oklahoma City residents have a choice to make on Tuesday, December 8. Do we continue to pay a penny of sales tax to support some new stuff for our City or not?

Many reporters and bloggers around town have already weighed in on one side or the other. One point that appears to have gone unnoticed is that of basic fairness. So, let’s look at fairness.

First, let’s go back to those wonderful memories of economics classes we took in school.

To be specific, let’s talk about progressive and regressive taxation. If the terms progressive and regressive are not part of your most treasured memories from school, read this next paragraph. Otherwise, skip on to the next!

Progressive taxes are those that impose higher rates for those taxpayers who have the greatest ability to pay. That is, the wealthiest taxpayers, or those in the highest income brackets, pay higher tax rates than those who have less income or wealth. Regressive taxes are taxes that place a heavier tax burden on those with less wealth or lower income. For example, a sales tax is regressive since low-income families have little choice but to spend everything they make and thus pay sales taxes. They pay a higher percentage of their income in sales taxes than do those who are wealthy enough to save or invest—those who need not spend their entire paycheck just to cover basic necessities. Some cities and states attempt to remedy this situation by exempting groceries from sales taxes, or providing some sort of tax rebate for low-income taxpayers. Our City does not have any program to remedy the regressive nature of sales taxes.

Note that both MAPS projects have been financed by sales taxes. Cities find sales taxes easy and inexpensive to administer. Imagine the difficulty in implementing a city income tax! Still, there are some important questions to ask about MAPS 3.

Where is the money going?

Where is the money coming from?

Who benefits?

The various projects are listed and described on several sources listed below.

City Government Website
Doug Dawgz Blog
Oklahoma Gazette MAPS 3
Oklahoma Gazette Voter Opinion Article
Oklahoma Gazette).

So, vote on Tuesday, December 8! And when you do, ask yourself if a new convention center paid for by regressive taxes, is what our city needs. I don’t think so.

Arden Rea lives in Oklahoma City.

Warning⎯Competition Can Be Hazardous to Your Health

Economists like competition, and politicians all over the country have acquired this mindset as well. Politicians here in Oklahoma are especially enamored with competition (except when it involves third parties!) and become very braggadocious when discussing their love of competition. We are proud of how tough we are! Our ancestors were pioneers and cowboys! Because we are so tough, we can face any competition thrown at us, and it’s only those sissy city slickers who might be afraid.

I was reminded of our love of competition when a friend sent me an article about our national health care dilemma. It’s quite a long article, but well worth reading¹. The subject is the perplexing high costs of medical care in two different cities in Texas. (Oklahomans always enjoy puzzling over the quirks of our southern neighbors.)

An economist, the thing that jumped out at me was competition. Competition sometimes hinders the quality of medical care and simultaneously raises costs, and this can occur at several different levels within the medical-industrial complex. The article relates a situation in which physicians who are reluctant to collaborate with colleagues in delivering medical care duplicate tests and prescribe unnecessary procedures. It is not difficult for us to envision doctors’ refusal to collaborate¬. After all, pride alone would lead to wanting to be the only star on the patient’s horizon. Then there are the questions about exactly who gets to prescribe what, and to whom financial rewards go. The resulting lack of cooperation leads to a duplication of services, unnecessary services, and extra expense with no better health outcome for the patient. In some cases, the outcome is even worse, due to risks associated with tests and procedures. A combination of pride (concern of students of human nature) and greed (concern of economists but called “profit motive”) interact and the result is unfortunate.

Additional examples of medical insanity include the relatively new practice of advertising. There is no need to elaborate about the proliferation of often-embarrassing advertisements in American media. Creative people are working to bring us advertising to encourage us to “choose” hospitals, clinics, and medications. With all the problems our society has, couldn’t these bright energetic people be using their talent somewhere else?
Anywhere else!

And one of my all-time favorites involves high-tech mega-gadgets purchased by hospitals. A terrific example is the introduction of the Gamma knife in the mid 1990s. Everyone wanted a Gamma knife, though the types of ailments for which a Gamma knife is needed are quite rare. One surgeon threatened to leave a hospital if he didn’t get his Gamma knife. Every hospital administrator felt her hospital would “lose out” in the race to profitability if she didn’t buy a Gamma knife. The result, of course, was too many Gamma knives, under-utilization, and bloated costs for everyone².

The long-accepted economic theory, that competition is the inescapable best solution to all human ills, falls flat. But we find it hard to turn loose of the idea. We feel we must assume the worst about our neighbors; they are our competitors—they will take advantage of us if they have the chance. This assumption can bring out the worst in us, and so it goes.

Mayo clinic is often seen as an example of an alternative economic arrangement. Doctors are not financially rewarded for each medical procedure. My question is, how did the Mayo clinic arrive at this model? Did they dig up the writing of radical economists and read about wasteful competition? Were they motivated by knowledge of human nature or psychology? What cultural factors would have to exist in order for a Mayo clinic model to work? Our confidence in competition, our certainty that it is an inevitable natural law, and the acclimation of our culture to competition has led us to a very dark place. We need a new vision.

Arden Rea lives in Oklahoma City.

FOOTNOTES

1.  Atul Gawande, “The Cost Conundrum,” New Yorker, November 12, 2009

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande.

2.  George Anders, “High-Tech Health: Hospitals Rush to Buy A $3 Million Device Few Patients Can Use — Surgeons Want Gamma Knife For Certain Brain Cases And Often Get Their Way — Two Machines 10 Miles Apart,” The Wall Street Journal, April 20, 1994, pg. A.1

Of Blue Berries and Big Boxes

High on  our list of favorites here in Oklahoma are Veggie Tales cartoons and big box discount retailers. At first blush, there is no obvious connection between these two, but the book, To Serve God and Wal-Mart:  The Making of Christian Free Enterprise by Bethany Moreton, made me remember Madame Blueberry.

Let’s recall this all-time great Veggie Tales episode. This dramatic work opens with Madame Blueberry feeling very blue. She spends her days envying her neighbors, who have more stuff. Though she has a lovely tree house, she is very blue. An adventure ensues when three guys who resemble skinny green onions show up at her door representing a newly opened big box retailer, Stuff Mart. She immediately rushes to Stuff Mart where she buys all sorts of stuff. When she arrives home with her stuff, she discovers that her house can’t really hold it all, and that’s a problem when you live in a tree. It’s not a pretty picture. In the end, she learns that happiness does not come from a store, and sometimes, we would do well just to be thankful for what we have.

It’s a little odd, though, that the only person who learns a lesson here is Madame Blueberry. The skinny green onion guys are off the hook. No problem that they exploited her weakness (envy) to sell her stuff she did not need and could not even store in her small but charming tree house. No mention of easy credit made available to vegetables with insufficient incomes. No mention of overseas children working at slave wages to manufacture this unnecessary merchandise, the poor quality of the merchandise that will soon find its way to the landfill, or the wasted resources devoted to advertising all this. No, the only problem here is Madame Blueberry who should have known better than to buy all that stuff.

I’m not excusing Madame Blueberry, and I like Bob the Tomato as well as any other Oklahoman. And I am not really intending to disparage Veggie Tales. After all, it’s a thirty-minute cartoon intended for kids. The complexities of our globalized economy can hardly be dealt with in a thirty-minute cartoon.

But, we adult Oklahomans sometimes tend to look at complex situations armed with the intellect, moral judgment, and discernment of an 8-year-old Bible schooler. That is, we apply a Veggie Tales mentality to situations that are beyond the complexity of Bob the Tomato and Larry the Cucumber. For example, here in Oklahoma, our response to the sub prime mortgage crisis has been outrage. But outrage directed at whom? What I hear and see is disdain for the individual homebuyers who took out loans for a home, and were subsequently unable to keep up their payments. Negative comments about homebuyers who bought “beyond their means” abound. Same for those with staggering credit card debt. It is quite possible that many Madame-Blueberry-wannabes bought houses or consumer goodies that were simply beyond their families’ budgets. What about the loan officer or credit card company making this loan? Clearly those who are paid to loan money and assess the potential for repayment were asleep at the wheel. The lending institutions had the upper hand in a lopsided power relationship. Yet, one hears little criticism of these institutions here in Oklahoma. Like the skinny-green-onion-guys and Stuff Mart executives, they seem to be only sideline characters.

We tend to see many situations as a mistake by a single individual, even when a powerful institution (business or government) clearly had more power than the individual involved. Did Madame Blueberry cause us to see things this way? Of course not. But we tend to interpret economic circumstances as matters of individual action or choice, while failing to notice the influence of large institutions. Maybe we need to reconsider our analysis of Madame Blueberry!

Arden Rea lives in Oklahoma City.

Religitics

It is dangerous, and generally unwise, to talk about politics and religion. The trouble is, here in Oklahoma, they’re the same thing.

Christian fundamentalists have long dominated Oklahoma, and when I was young most fundamentalists were Democrats. That changed with the election of Ronald Reagan. At that point fundamentalism became Republican. Fundamentalists, who had always had enormous strength of conviction about religious matters, expanded these convictions to include free-market economics and other right-wing political positions. Suddenly de-regulation and union bashing were on par with doctrines of redemption and atonement. Oklahomans responded to those who questioned for-profit health care as if the questioner had advocated atheism or moon worship.

Americans who live outside the Bible Belt might be puzzled and ask why we can have such a blind faith in markets that sometimes fail catastrophically. How did a religion founded by a guy who said, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” come to embrace dog-eat-dog capitalism? To understand this, one really needs to understand the theology that is prevalent in Oklahoma.

Oklahomans believe strongly in sinfulness⎯especially the sinfulness of their neighbors. Each Oklahoman knows he is redeemed, but he also knows that each person meeting him on the street is sinful. This belief, unfortunately, leads us to mistrust others. When the idea of a free market came to the fore, bringing with it the idea that each individual acts in her own self interest, maximizing her own welfare with no particular obligation to others, the idea dovetailed nicely with the way we already perceived each other. It was easy enough for Oklahomans to meld the conventional economic theory of homo economicus into the religion of Oklahoma orthodoxy.

So, what am I arguing for? Two things.

First, a reexamination of Oklahoma orthodoxy. Yes, all of us make mistakes, some big some small. Some mistakes have far-reaching consequences; some are almost meaningless. We are capable of great evil, or great good. We are free to choose which path we will pursue. We do not need to assume the worst about others. Oklahomans lack of trust in their neighbors leads to an exaggerated sense self-reliance that sometimes borders on the ridiculous.

Second, let’s learn our history. The idea that greed is part of a system (Invisible Hand) that leads to maximizing community welfare came from Adam Smith, an 18th century Scottish philosopher. Smith was a deist, rather than a Christian, and he never claimed any sort of relationship between his ideas and Christianity.

A willingness to examine long-held beliefs, accompanied by knowledge of history could give Oklahomans a chance to form a different perspective. We no longer need to accept laissez faire economics as the inevitable reality that can and need never be changed.

Arden Res lives in Oklahoma City.

Martin Sheen, Are You Hiring?

I want a boss like Martin Sheen (and I always thought he’d make a good president too!) Just saw the movie, Imagine That. Okay, so now you know I belong to a dollar-movie family.

In the movie, Evan Danielson, (Eddie Murphy) is a hard-driving financial consultant with a charming daughter, Olivia (Yara Shahidi). He discovers Olivia’s imaginary world when she spends a week with him⎯it’s obvious he has neglected his child and exasperated his ex-wife. He almost allows Olivia and her imagination to become a means to an end. Olivia’s creativity inspires him to reach fantastic career goals, and he benefits from the encounter with her imaginative way of looking at life while continuing a chase for the Almighty Dollar. At the last minute, he realizes she comes first, and he walks out of a business meeting (on a Saturday) to the shock and surprise of his colleagues. The purpose for Danielson’s exit is to attend Olivia’s school choir program. Coincidentally, Olivia regains her faith in her dad and has a significant “growing-up” experience that he would have otherwise missed. In the storybook ending, Dante D’Enzo, a mega-millionaire businessman, (Martin Sheen), locates Danielson and gives him a fantastic job, partly because D’Enzo admires Danielson’s devotion to his daughter.

The points made in the movie are very timely for our overworked American society. The tendency of adults, to chase after career goals and think that maintenance and nurturing of family and social relationships can be postponed, is widespread. And this postponing, even for what seems a short time, can result in unrecoverable loss.

But, here’s the clincher. We can’t all work for Martin Sheen. Many adults find themselves looking at an all-or-nothing deal when it comes to employment. A movie can portray a guy who refuses to work on a Saturday, walks out of a business presentation, and gets an even better job (or at least still keeps his old one), but few real-life employees feel they can refuse any demand an employer might make, including pay or benefit cuts!

In his thought-provoking book, The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism, Richard Sennett discussed the possibility that the way our society has structured employment policies has led to many of the social ills we witness around us. Our inclination is to blame the individuals involved⎯Tom and Mary just didn’t have the commitment to keep their marriage together; Joe just didn’t have the willpower to beat his alcoholism; Roger simply placed his career ambitions ahead of his kids so they became delinquents. But what if Roger’s workplace demanded 60 hours per week and the alternative was no job at all, no health care or hope for college for the kids, and no home (no matter how modest) for the family?

It is tempting to say, “If only Roger’s boss were like Martin Sheen (the mythical Dante D’Enzo)”. But bosses can blame stockholders for the unrelenting pressure to keep profits up. Stockholders can claim a need for a secure retirement in the face of rising costs, especially for medical care. Doctors can point to frivolous lawsuits. And we all know what they say about attorneys!

It is easy to see fault in individuals (other than ourselves). More difficult, is knowing how to deal with a system where everything appears to be out of control and out of balance. Paul Tillich said this:

Man is supposed to be the master of his world and of himself. But actually he has become a part of the reality which he has created. He is an object among objects, a thing among things, a cog within a universal machine to which he must adapt himself in order not to be smashed by it. But this adaptation makes him a means for ends which are in reality means themselves, and in which an ultimate end is lacking.

We participate in the system. We are both victim and victimizer, some of us closer to one end of the spectrum than the other. It is beyond me to suggest a way out of the system, but recognizing where we are must surely be a start. Until we find an answer, I still want to work for Martin Sheen.

Arden Rea lives in Oklahoma City.

Big = Good, Except When It’s Not

The various proposals for health care reform in Washington have people talking here in Oklahoma. Even though a single-payer system is apparently not an alternative Congress is considering, some Oklahomans are convinced it is a highly likely outcome. Many Oklahomans seem to feel that a government that is powerful enough to provide health care for everyone is, well, just too powerful. Governments should have limited power–enough to start and conduct wars, manage nuclear weapons, put people in prison–little things like that, but not the amount of power necessary to provide health care. That would be overstepping the bounds of a safe and manageable government.

The puzzling thing is Oklahomans (and many other Americans too) seem to believe that government of bathtub-drowning proportions is ideal while insurance company proportions can be gargantuan with no ill effect. Insurance companies can refuse to sell insurance to people who are likely to need care, drop people who become ill, make mysterious impossible-to-explain “mistakes” that delay payments, and pay top executives ridiculously high salaries. Oklahomans face this very bravely. But the government really scares us.

We don’t especially like insurance companies, but our distrust of government is much greater than our distrust of corporations. How to explain this? We know we can’t vote for the leaders of corporations. Even though we can elect the leaders of our government, we don’t trust them. (And why should we when they get campaign contributions from insurance companies?) We see the private sector as “good” and the public sector as “bad.” We always like the word “free,” and when the business sector can mention the term “free enterprise” or “free market” that sounds really good to Oklahomans. Perhaps if the government described itself as a “free republic”–as in free from King George III–we would like it more.

For most of us Oklahomans however, the issue seems to come down to taxes, costs, and ultimately, how we view our fellow citizens.

Let’s take taxes first. We fear that a government health plan would take too much money in taxes. We would rather pay that money to an insurance company in premiums than see a government plan that would take our money in the form of taxes. That way, people who can afford it pay the insurance company. Then, they fight the insurance company to get claims paid. But, the silver lining is, since it is so difficult to cajole the insurance company into paying even legitimate claims, we can rest assured there are very few fraudulent claims paid.

And this brings up the second big fear–cost. We fear that the government will rubber-stamp any sort of crazy high-cost medical procedure someone might want (or a doctor might prescribe). You never can tell when someone might just decide to have a tonsilectomy for fun or an amputation just for a sense of adventure. And since doctors make money doing these sorts of things, a doctor just might tell someone to have brain surgery for a hangnail. Or a doctor might bill for a liver transplant while actually treating a wart. Did I mention our trust in doctors is, well, lukewarm at best?

And thirdly, we are so fiercely independent, we find it difficult to trust anyone–even each other! We feel we must constantly be on the lookout for rip-off artists. We feel each family should be all but completely self-sufficient. We have grave difficulty with the idea of pooling resources (in the form of tax money) to provide health care for all. We have a suspicion that our neighbors will game the system or that doctors will over-prescribe medical treatments. It’s more than a little amazing that we are willing to pool risk (by buying health insurance) at all!

Yet, we have to wonder… Are the administrative costs of the insurance system eating up so much money and resources that our fears of a government system are simply laughable? Or are the possibilities of fraud (and there have been some zingers within Medicare) that might be associated with universal single-payer health care substantive enough that we should continue to live with the current system? Is our lack of trust in “others,” whoever they may be, rational, or a form of collective paranoia?

Our current system, with the attitudes that underlie it, is very costly; just ask an uninsured Oklahoman.

Arden Rea lives  in Oklahoma City.

Choice is Freedom ⎯ NOT!

Across our nation, Fourth of July celebrations have come to a close. Birds have devoured any potato chips left over from picnics in city parks; hot dog and ice cream vendors have packed up and moved on. We have celebrated freedom. Now we can concentrate on surviving the hot summer and getting the kids ready for the beginning of school, which comes all too soon.

Perhaps we should be less hasty to dismiss the idea of celebrating freedom, and ask a more fundamental question⎯what do we mean by freedom? What is, and is not, freedom?

We are free from a tyrannical governmental dictatorship. We are free to criticize our government, and there are limits on our government’s power. Most of all, we are free to enjoy what we’ve come to call the “American way of life.”

The American way of life always seems to involve choice. Economists like choice. Choice is a necessary condition for the functioning of that modern miracle, the perfectly competitive market (or if you like, free market). But choice and freedom are not necessarily the same.  Granted, in a dictatorship, there are few choices. And there is power exercised with the making of any choice. And with a choice comes responsibility for the outcome. But choosing from a dizzying number of alternatives (many of them meaningless) does not make us “free.”

We have more choices of products and services to buy than any other people in the history of humanity. Lemon-scented underarm deodorant? No problem. Lilac-colored, ocean-breeze-scented, skin softening  bath beads with aloe vera and vitamin E? We’ll sell them to you by the crate. Gooey chocolate junk food cupcake with so many preservatives it doesn’t need an expiration date? Order a truckload, we’ll deliver to your home!

So, what if I want clean air to breathe here in the city where I live? Sorry, no can do. What if I want water free of pollution? Sorry, that would hamstring the profitability of our business community. What if the families in my neighborhood don’t want to sell their homes and move in order for the children to get a good education? Realtors are very happy with this situation, thank you.

How free are we, when we can choose from a plethora of consumer electronics and 700 flavors of chewing gum, but have minimal control over alternatives affecting our health, education, or employment? Are there options we need that are unavailable to us? Have the corporations that sell to us, our city councils, employers, or legislators in Washington failed to provide alternatives that we genuinely need or want? Or have these elite and powerful people purposefully chosen to preclude key options, thus  replacing freedom with mind-numbing superficial choice?

There are times when choice masquerades as freedom. The power we can exercise over inane alternatives placates our desire for freedom and leaves us with the illusion that freedom is abundant, when, in fact, it is in danger of fading away or may be already gone.

Arden Rea lives  in Oklahoma City.