The Health Argument for Public Allocation
In doing research on the implications of public and private allocation of revenues collected by the Vermont Common Assets Trust, it became apparent to me that there is an easy argument for NOT giving [all] of the revenues gained to citizens of a state, country, city, whatever: health of the citizens.
It has been shown (and makes a whole lot of sense) that there are higher instances of children with asthma and other “pollution-induced” sicknesses (if you will, and I hope you will) in cities were pollution levels and particulate matter levels in the air are higher from the grind of the city life. The lifelong effect of the pollution on these children (disease and ailing health) as they grow to adults cannot be cured by a check in the mail every year. As we continue to use grossly polluting fossil fuels and dirty energy sources, the instances of these sicknesses may expand out of the city and into the suburban and rural parts of our country and world. It is not until we commit to creating clean energy technologies that we will begin “preventative” health care through investment in clean energy. If we are to invest this revenue into creating these clean technologies, we are providing a safe atmosphere (literally, as in the atmosphere that we breathe) for future generations, while working toward being independent of carbon intensive, global warming energies. And then Michael Jackson wouldn’t have to wear doctor’s masks and we could see that beautiful face again. Gross.
dk
February 4, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Hey Dan,
I like the idea of expanding the scope of our health care beyond the Dr office and into the way we live. It’s one of those slap-in-the-forehead types of solutions when people start thinking about treating health not with a race for the next great pill, but a race for the next advance in clean living. “It’s the Environment, stupid.”
The incentive structures, however, seem to be horribly against it though. The medical industry wouldn’t want to consider clean energy as a preventative medicine unless they could write prescriptions for clean air and local governments wouldn’t like it because it’s hard to know just what type of return (lives saved) you get by investing a million in cleaning a city up.
For all these reasons it seems like we need a Green Tyranny – a vehemently Green government that is going to make firm priorities that will disregard the incentives fighting against it in order to get things done.
Good idea man,
February 5, 2009 at 3:59 am
[...] was having a conversation the other day with a fellow student when he brought up the idea of expanding our definition of health care from just that which takes [...]