(no subject)

[electricland]

A few weeks back bitch_phd was righteously irate on the whole pharmacists-refusing-to-fill-prescriptions-for-birth-control business. Someone commented thus:

The Hippocratic Oath is an anachronism. Healthcare is a business like any other. If the practice has maintained the trappings of humanitarianism, it is because a majority of the individuals who go into that field do so out of a desire to help others (and because it makes good PR sense to perpetuate the myth).

This moved me sufficiently to comment back, but because I was furious I didn't manage anything like a coherent or comprehensive argument in response. I'm happy to report, therefore, that No More Shall I Roam, who is new to me and also better informed, has posted Why the Free Market Doesn't Work for Health Care: Part I and Part II. Via Majikthise, who is hosting Carnival of the Un-Capitalists this week (subject: healthcare). Definitely worth checking out.

Ever get the feeling that there are great beasts out there in the currents that you're not aware of until a tentacle or three whips across your path? The great beast I've recently taken notice of is called The Market Rules All. Which, OK, isn't an especially well-hidden beastie, but things I've read lately have snapped a few tentacles into focus.

...I think it's time to abandon that metaphor. Anyway, the following have contributed to this recent awareness, and I do recommend them most highly:

The Corporation, by Joel Bakan (money quote: "Michael Walker, an economist who heads the Fraser Institute, Cato's Canadian partner, responded with an enthusiastic 'Absolutely!' when asked whether he believed every square inch of the planet should be under private control." But really that's just because that's where my photocopy of Chapter 5 fell open last week. Every sentence is a money quote.)
Dark Age Ahead, by Jane Jacobs, civic treasure

I find it interesting that really, it's a very recent notion that everything on earth can and should be bought and sold. When did that become so acceptable?

bitch_phd also has things to say about Naomi Wolf, or at least about an article that she supposedly wrote recently that supposedly called for a ban against abortion after the first trimester. (This is all at third or fourth hand now, so I'm reserving judgement.) The things she has to say are well worth reading, but I have issues with this bit:

When pro-choice feminists like Wolf, or liberal men, or a lot of women, even, say things like, "I'm pro-choice, but I am uncomfortable with... [third-trimester abortion / sex-selection / women who have multiple abortions / women who have abortions for "convenience" / etc.]" then what you are saying is that your discomfort matters more than an individual woman's ability to assess her own circumstances.

Really? Because I am very uncomfortable with several of those things, but the point about being pro-choice -- I think -- is that you support a woman's right to make her own decisions. I am very grateful that I've never had to make that choice. I also know that I don't have all the information about why any woman is seeking an abortion, and frankly it's none of my business. If she's decided -- based on her own circumstances -- that she wants an abortion, then she should be able to get one.

That isn't going to stop me from being squicked out by sex selection.

(To be fair to Professor B., she's talking about all this in the context of legislation against certain types of abortion, so I suspect we're on the same side here.)

I recently read Wolf's Misconceptions (borrowed from crankygrrl). While I thought it was painfully upper-middle-class-white-woman in its emphasis, it had some interesting things to say (and some things that shocked me -- USians, are you seriously telling me that maternity leave is unpaid? sheesh). Ultimately it succeeds well at what it really is -- a personal story about her own pregnancy journey.

Ramble, ramble. As always, apologies for the amorphous thoughts. I wish I could think in well-rounded paragraphs when I care about something, but what you get here is pretty close to the rough notes.

Comments

[electricland.livejournal.com]

That's what I've kind of picked up from various friends and acquaintances -- the decision whether or not to go back to work has to be made quite early on, and it has to be a painful choice either way.

I'm not totally familiar with all the ins and outs here, but I know the parents can get up to a year off in total (i.e., the mother can take 9 months and the father 3 months, or whatever combination) that's covered by EI, and the mother's employer has to hold her job (or provide a similar job in the same place at the same salary) for a year. Some employers will also give paid leave for some portion of that time.