Health Blog

             While I think that this video presents some great information, I don’t think a policy should be enacted that interferes too heavily with an individual’s life. For instance, if a policy was enacted that everyone must exercise thirty minutes a day, what would the consequences be if they failed to reach that mark? Who is going to be the “exercise police” and hand out these citations? I just don’t think enacting a policy that requires people to exercise is feasible. This idea reminds me of seat belt violations. Something that is hard to enforce and in the end, only hurts the individual that chose to ignore the consequences. My policy would be a plan of encouragement. I would not set out a required amount of time everyone must exercise every day. The best that can be done is to let people know the benefits of working out and the likely consequences if they do not. In the end, the decision will fall onto individual choices.

            However, I can think of a couple ways that the government can get involved to make a difference in the level of health in our country. First of all, I am all for the governmental encouragement of exercise. Just as Al Gore used his political fame as Vice President and Presidential candidate to relay his message in “An Inconvenient Truth”, Presidents and others in authority can encourage constituents to exercise and point out its vast amount of benefits. Another aspect that I find crucial that lends itself to government intervention comes in the form of the foods we consume. I like the idea of government forcing restaurants, grocery stores, etc to let consumers know what is in their food and its level of health. Before I moved to Arizona, I used to work at a grocery store called Festival Foods. At Festival Foods, they had a ranking system of 1 – 100 that appeared next to the product’s price to give individuals an easy scale to understand how healthy the foods were that they were buying. To make it simple, one was low and one hundred was to model the perfect food. I am not exactly sure what factors were all considered in their scale, which prevents me from knowing how it’s true accuracy, but I found them to be on the right track in their thinking.

            Healthcare reform is an attempt by the government to improve the health system in this country by making it available to more citizens. There is much thought surrounding its implementation, both economic and health concerns are at central focus. The first area to consider will fall on the health concerns. According to the article The Biggest Losers, self-employed, small business employees, the poor, and those with health conditions would be lacking coverage or forced to pay the most if comprehensive health fails to be enacted. According to The Cost of Failure to Enact Health Reform, the failure to enact healthcare reform would result in an increase of uninsured Americans, more uninsured middle and upper class individuals, rising premiums, etc. As made apparent in these two articles, the health consequences would be dramatic if comprehensive health reform were to fail.

            To be objective, one must look at the other side of the issue: economic concerns. A major concern from How Does Health Reform Affect the Health Care Workforce?, is the ability of health care facilities to be able to accommodate a large influx of new patients. The amount of administrative staff would dramatically increase, which in turn increases the financial burden on the facility. These rising costs are just one economic area to consider when thinking about the passage of health reform. Another area to consider comes from The PROMETHEUS Bundled Payment Experiment where all costs of an episode are bundled together, instead of fees for every service received for the same problem. After three pilot tests, this new method has yet to prove itself as effective or cost saving. While some are still hopeful, it is apparent that it will still take more time to perfect this system if it is to be used in the future.

            After I have been given the opportunity to do some research on this issue, I find that I do not like having to consider the costs of health. As most advanced countries offer their citizens some sort of general health coverage, I think it is time for the United States to do the same. While there are higher costs associated with administrative staff and kinks yet to be worked out, I find this system to provide promise. As Professor Tom Holland recently pointed out in my Urban Theory 302 class, it is near impossible for an individual to live their life without ever visiting a medical professional. This gives rise to the question, is healthcare a public good? I concur with Professor Holland that it indeed is, meaning accessibility must be added to our current system. With a large chunk of our budget devoted to killing (military spending), I think it is past time to start investing in living. 

Saratoga County, New York

            After taking into account all of the benefits portrayed by these areas, I have decided to accept the position of economic development director for Saratoga County, New York. While there are many positive features to Saratoga County, I still want to take the time to highlight some I find of particular importance. Saratoga County boasts a highly educated workforce and the presence of institutions of higher learning that look continue this trend in the future. Saratoga County is now welcoming back the high tech industry, which is incredibly important as innovation becomes a means of continuing economic growth and stability. I also find it important to highlight some reasons that already make Saratoga County an attractive place for businesses. Some of these examples include outstanding infrastructure, proximity to major markets and capital, and available space for expansion. One must also not forget that already existing businesses (e.g. GE, IBM, GlobalFounders, etc) will serve as examples of success and entice more businesses to an already booming economy. One factor that may go unnoticed, but is undeniably prominent is the presence of good schools. From an earlier reading, I recall that family considerations are a major deciding point in an individual’s relocation and good schools for their children are near the top of the list. Saratoga County’s outstanding healthcare, culture, and changing of the seasons are additional factors that will work to draw people to the area. (Saratoga County, New York - Saratoga Economic Development Corporation)

            With all of its great features, Saratoga County is an ideal place for business. While it may be hard to imagine that there could be any improvements made to this community, I have one suggestion that could work to further prosper the area. I firmly believe that a world-class conference center is exactly what is needed in this community. The features of the area are so outstanding that once a prospective business is able to visit and see this environment in action, it will be near impossible for them to reject joining such a thriving atmosphere. As was pointed out in lecture, conference centers are one investment that have positive returns for the city. A great example was Tempe’s ability to court Google after the executives were able to come and see the wonders of the city (Lecture 2/2) . Our reading on economic development for this week points out that conference centers are still being built, even in a flooded market. This previous fact speaks volumes to the ability of conference centers to attract people to a location and Saratoga’s vast culture and unique seasonal activities (i.e. beautiful fall colors, winter and summer recreational opportunities) will turn the individual’s next visit into a family vacation.

            The last area that I wanted to discuss was the possible acceptance of a Hope VI grant for Saratoga County. After further review and the viewing of a documentary on the subject of Hope VI grants, I have made the difficult decision to reject the idea of a Hope VI grant for our community. This is a final decision which comes after much time and thoughtful consideration. My main piece of evidence for this decision came from the aforementioned documentary, History of Henson Village, Phoenix. While this video discusses in detail the past success of the Henson Village Project, I find myself focusing on the dominant aspect racial segregation portrayed in the video. This is not to say that I am not support of affordable housing because the reading on housing policy does suggest a correlation between affordable housing and employment growth. I would simply like to explore looking into a more progressive approach to affordable housing that embraces diversity. It is time to look past the idea of affordable housing in project form and instead look to incorporate these individuals into greater society. With all of the modernity and amenities that Saratoga County has to offer, our best opportunity to continue learning and innovation may very well come from the lessons that we can learn from each other. If I were to encourage the Hope VI grant, I would effectively continue to alienate groups from the whole. Rather, I suggest a possible re-working of the voucher system to spread these individuals throughout the area, ultimately giving them what I believe to be their and the cities best opportunity for success.  

Poverty

            There are many factors that can cause poverty. A major factor that causes poverty as depicted in Demonizing the Inner City is unemployment in the urban core. This should come as no surprise when the concept of spatial mismatch is applied to the situation (Lecture 1/26). As land on the edges of the city became cheaper, factories in need of horizontal space moved away the urban core, which resulted in fewer jobs for those in the inner-city. Another cause of poverty comes in the form of underemployment. This reality was hinted at extensively in the videos discussing a living wage. Individuals can have full time jobs, but due to low wages still find themselves unable to make ends meet. While there are many other causes of poverty, the last one I find important to discuss is what is known as a “culture of poverty”.  Born with a Wooden Spoon shows that a lack of education and hope make it almost impossible to break this cycle.

            Based on the aforementioned causes, the videos from this week did make some suggestions about possible solutions. Demonizing the Inner City points to capitalism as the root of poverty. In a capitalist society, the fear of poverty will always force individuals into taking the unfavorable jobs in society that no one wants to do, but must be done. This video also indicated that the media’s violent portrayal of the inner city is detrimental to making progress. The living wage argument speaks to eliminating those that are considered the working poor: the members of society who are able to find and hold full-time jobs, but are still unable to provide for themselves and their families. Their argument is that an increase in wages would eliminate this particular problem. Born with a Wooden Spoon makes education the focus to eliminating poverty. The video further argues that without education the cycle of poverty will never be broken. While there are some extremely valid points presented here, I believe that all of these elements need to be combined to truly eradicate poverty.

            A major question asked in class was if efforts need to be focused on individuals or on environments (Lecture 1/19). The conclusion I draw from class, the readings, and the videos indicate that the focus needs to fall on both areas. As Born with a Wooden Spoon exemplifies, throwing money at individuals will not solve the problem of poverty. These are individuals that have never had money and it cannot be expected that they will be able to instantly prioritize how to allocate their funds.  Due to this argument, I would refute that raising the living wage alone is sufficient to eradicate poverty. As stated in Living wage debate in NY, a claim was made that there would be not many jobs lost from increasing the minimum wage because it simply will not impact that many people. While they try use this evidence as a positive claim, I see it as an absolute negative. What good is a program if it only helps very few and doesn’t work to address overall problems? With all that being said, I do still believe that there is a place for cash benefits, but environmental change through education is necessary.

            I find myself strongly agreeing with the video Born with a Wooden Spoon’s argument that education is key to the eradication of poverty. The “New Growth Theory” also finds education crucial to the success of the nation and metropolitan areas because of the direct effect from individual productivity as well as the knowledge spillover effects the more educated workers have on those around them (Urban Public Education and Metro Prosperity, p. 254,255). I also want to address another critical issue in Born with a Wooden Spoon that comes into play. As aforementioned, Born with a Wooden Spoon points out that giving an individual money will not solve the problems of poverty because they will not know how to budget it. In my mind, this points out a flaw in the education system that is even present where poverty is a non-issue. It is way past time for a class to be implemented into the high school curriculum that would focus on life skills that are too often taken for granted. At first this may sound like commonsense, but budgeting money, preparing a résumé, interview etiquette, and many other “common” skills do not come naturally. These skills are not different from others and need to be developed in order to become a functioning member in society, no matter ones social class. 

Perspective of a Childless Couple

            I wanted to write my second blog from the perspective of a childless couple due to a couple different reasons. First and foremost, I find this group to face some of the most unique challenges out of the possibilities given. Another reason is because I think this stage will most likely be a reality in my own life before some of the other ones. I want to address some of the major urban indicators on quality of life because I find them to provide good headings for areas of interest/concern (Class 1/12). With that being said, the place I would choose to live is a place like Tempe/Mesa, AZ. I know that initially sounds kind of boring, but with further explanation I hope it makes more sense.

            The first area to consider is housings and its associated costs. Since a childless couple tends to be fairly young, I will consider them to be somewhere between slightly below to slightly above middle-class. With this knowledge, it is important for their housing to be affordable yet location efficient. An area like Mesa, which is further away from the urban center of Phoenix, will, in theory, provide cheaper housing according to the Alonso Model (Class 1/12). On a slightly different level of reasoning, gentrification can lead to rising costs of living in the city center. According to Sharon Zukin, “The cultural claim to urban space poses a new standard of legitimacy against the claim to affordability put forward by a low-status population (Zukin 42).” In other words, transforming downtown areas to revive their cultural and historic roots through renovations leads to more expensive housing. This is extremely logical because the addition of amenities and added services costs money, and an investor would never put forward a business plan that loses them money. The investor wants to see a high return on their investment and this comes in the form of higher rent or purchasing price. 

            The next factor in my decision-making process involves taking a closer look at the Alonso Model. The reasoning that Alonso had behind claiming that the center of the city is the most expensive is because of transportation costs (Class 1/12). Deciding to live downtown represents a trade-off, higher housing costs in return for no transportation costs and added convenience. With no children being present, it is expected that both members of this couple will be employed full-time. It would seem most logical to live downtown to save on transportation cost, except this is not necessary due to a major technological advantage of the Phoenix Metropolitan Area: the light rail. The light rail allows individuals to live outside of the central business district, but still have a cheap and efficient means to downtown. This would, at the very minimum, allow a couple to become a one car household. There are many added expenses to a car that make this such a huge savings (E.g. gas, insurance, registration, environmental impacts, etc).

            Several areas I want to briefly discuss that also play a role are crime, environment, and employment opportunities (Class 1/12). A major bonus of Arizona is the lack of winter, and generally nice weather for about eight months out of the year. Due to size of the Phoenix Metro area, there should be more opportunity for employment versus what there would be in a smaller community. Also, targeting areas to live that are not in the city center should result in lower crime rates. The trade-off would be dealing with slightly more pollution (although the paper mills back home do plenty of that) and congestion. I find both of these areas tolerable due to the benefits of city life.

            The aforementioned paragraphs are the main forces behind an idea that is summed up quite nicely in the Smith reading. Neil Smith discusses a cultural element as to why there is an added emphasis on downtown areas. He talks about how “young, usually professional, middle-class people have changed their lifestyle.” Then he goes on to say that these individuals “are trading in the tarnished dream of their parents for a new dream defined in urban rather than suburban terms (Smith 71).” This does a good job of summing up my feelings because I want to have the experience of living in an urban area with all of the amenities it has to offer versus an average sized town in Wisconsin. I want to be able to go downtown to work and have fun, but be able to escape to a smaller, quieter community like Mesa. 

First Blog

            My name is Jacob Meshke and I am new to Arizona. I actually just moved here a week before classes started with one of my best friends from home, which is close to Green Bay, Wisconsin. I went to a smaller state school before I decided to transfer (the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh). I am a junior majoring in urban and metropolitan studies, thus the reason I am in this class. I would eventually like to further my education with a master’s degree in public administration or potentially a degree in law.

            The first area that I would like to discuss is some different categories of public policy. A substantive policy is what government is doing, such as building roads, paying welfare benefits, etc. Whereas a procedural policy simply deals with how a particular action is going to be carried out; it gives direction (Anderson 8). I thought that these were interesting distinctions because recently in Wisconsin, Governor Scott Walker passed legislation that drastically cut the benefits given to public workers and eliminated their right of collective bargaining. The Anderson article mentions that sometimes a bill can be stalled due to procedural reasons and that is exactly what happened in my home state. A judge found the bill to violate a public hearings’ law and temporarily delayed the bill from going into effect.

            Another area from the readings that I found particularly interesting was the distinction made between material and symbolic policies. Material policies demonstrate “tangible resources or substantive power to their beneficiaries” (Anderson 13), whereas symbolic policies “allocate no tangible advantages or disadvantages (Anderson 14).”  The reason that I found this area to be of particular interest is because sometimes this line can become blurred. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 provides such an example. This act was initially supposed to be a symbolic act that looked good on paper without any foreseeable costs. In practice, this had some serious unintended consequences. New construction projects, such as roads or housing, which was to destroy the habitat of endangered species were shut down due to their environmental devastation (Anderson 14). I have an easy time seeing and understanding both sides of this issue. I think further development is good to keep workers employed and provide more services/conveniences to citizens. Although, I did take an environmental issues course back in Wisconsin that opened my eyes to the fact that our environment and animals are a treasure that needs protection. The generations to come have the right to enjoy the same natural beauty and animal species that we currently enjoy. It’s not our place to cause this type of destruction simply for economic purposes.

            Shifting gears, I would like to look at the differences between taking an individualistic versus communitarian outlook.  The individualistic look includes elements such as looking out for self-interest and the belief that government should be limited to maintaining basic order. Also, the individual is only asked to respect the liberty of others and perform minimal tasks, such as voting, paying taxes, etc (Euchner and McGovern 11). The flip side of this approach would be a communitarian outlook. This would involve seeing individuals as interconnected, forming a “web of life” (Euchner and McGovern 11, 12). Other elements of a communitarian approach might include higher taxation to provide national health coverage for all or free higher education. An argument can be made that while these services are available to all, they may not necessarily be of the highest quality. Overall, I think that a communitarian approach is more beneficial to all and would provide people with a better outlook on life. Thinking individualistically all of the time can lead to feelings of loneliness and isolation (Lecture 1/05). Also, a communitarian approach would provide more funds for open spaces and other recreation areas that are proven to increase morale. The downside to public spaces is the potential for a tragedy of the commons or for free ridership (Lecture 1/05). If the government chose to increase income taxes for these services, those without jobs would become the free riders. The other question is who would be responsible for clean-up and maintenance to prevent a tragedy of the commons.