http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7701805nashville_brook (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-12-10 05:42 PM
Original message
Paying for your art with your life (RE: no health insurance for artists -- Salon)
What kind of world are we creating when we make certain professions deadly for lack of insurance? Who is going to produce art? Music? Or be a volunteer for hunger, etc? I used to make this argument wrt the expense of college (student loans). Now, it's a matter of life and death. -- brook
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2010/02/12/cary_tenni...
Paying for your art with your life
I'm recovering from cancer thanks to decent healthcare. My friend Tom, a painter, wasn't so lucky
BY CARY TENNIS
(Cary Tennis is on leave while he recovers from cancer surgery. He has been documenting this experience on his Open Salon blog, the most recent entry of which is reprinted here.}
While I was in the MRI machine today, I thought of my friend Tom Fowler, the artist who died because of lack of health insurance. The MRI machine was taking pictures of my lumbar region where a large sacral chordoma tumor was recently removed. Though the MRI machine is loud, I had taken some pills that cause drowsiness, so I was able to contemplate various things in a state of serenity. In this state of serenity, I contemplated how I was receiving the best medical care ever available at any time in history at any place on the planet. I contemplated the incredible genius of scientific research to which I owe my life.
Receiving the benefit of such great medical research made me feel like a rich man, though I am not a rich man. I am just an employed man. I am just an employed man in a company that has a health insurance plan.
(snip)
When we creative people find we cannot easily fit into the work roles offered to us by our society, we face a choice. We can put aside our artistic calling and try to do the jobs that are offered to us. Or we can try to fashion for ourselves a life that suits our nature, enduring the insecurity and sacrifice that comes with such a choice.
(snip)
A just and wise society would care for its artists. A just and wise society would recognize that on the margins of its norm live its geniuses, and though they are strange and sometimes difficult, they must be cared for, for they are the treasures of our time, and they produce the treasures of our time. But our society is not just and wise. Still, the artists in our society choose to do their work and find a way to survive somehow, sacrificing things such as health insurance and paid time off.
(snip)
Then one day not too long after that we learned that Tom had died. He had gotten a toothache. He had gotten a toothache but had not gone to the dentist because he didn't have health insurance to pay for the dentist. He lived with it. Then he got sick but thought he was OK. Then he collapsed and the emergency medical people came and they told him he should go right into the hospital. But after reviving he said he'd be OK and he went home and made himself some soup. He lasted a couple of more days like that. Then he got really, really sick and they put him in the hospital but by that point the infection that had begun in a tooth had spread massively throughout his body and despite the doctors' best efforts Tom could not be saved.
He died because he didn't go to the dentist and didn't go to the doctor because he was trying to be an artist and didn't have health insurance and didn't think it would kill him.
(snip -- *must read* the rest at link)
Normal tripe results until someone tries to inject a small bit of reason and logic.
Imajika (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-12-10 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
7. Why can't artists get a day job..
..and do their hobby in the evening?
I mean, I am basically for universal health care anyway, I am just wondering why anyone would think that this story is a good example of why we need it.
I also love art, but it doesn't pay the bills so I have to work full time job. I can't survive on my hobby, it's just not in the cards.
If I ended up becoming a successful artist and people actually wanted to pay for my work, then I could quit my day job and make enough money from art to buy insurance right?
I mean, anyone can pick up an instrument or a paintbrush and claim to be an artist, it doesn't mean that society puts any value on their work though.
Anyway, I think universal coverage via something like single payer is the way to go and under that plan artists would be covered along with everyone else, it just seems to me this article doesn't make a very compelling case of why we need real health care reform.
I think most people that aren't particularly political or partisan would read this article, or hear this argument, and want to know why these artists just don't go get a job with benefits until their artwork can pay the bills.
Additionally, a tooth can be pulled for $100 bucks. It is hard for me to imagine that Tom couldn't scape up $100 bucks to go to the dentist considering the article says he was getting by and even had good months. So this makes me think Tom just didn't feel like dealing with the dentist which was obviously a bad mistake. Okay, so he didn't go to the dentist. Even without health care benefits a quick trip to the doctor for anti-biotics would have cost Tom $100 bucks or so + $25 more for the meds. Anti-biotics are cheap, and one visit to the doctor isn't going to break the bank. So, it appears to me that Tom just procrastinated and it end up costing him his life. Very sad, but not a good argument for why we need serious health care reform.
Now you have gone and done it.
nashville_brook (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-12-10 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. well, that's not a world I'd like to create. it's as simple as that.
Imajika (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-12-10 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. I don't understand...
What do you mean "create". Your not creating anything, artists don't get health care now if they can't afford it, nor could they during the entire 225+ year history of this nation. Obviously we haven't had insurance the entire time, but the point is, they NEVER got free health care. This is nothing new. This is the way it is now and always has been.
The article makes the case that a "just and wise" society should take care of its artists right? Okay, I'd agree with that. But what constitutes an "artist"? As I said, anyone that picks up a instrument or a paintbrush can claim to be an artist right? For every artist that makes it, probably scores don't. What about bad artists? Surely there are a lot of them correct? I mean, if we are going to provide health care to everyone, do you think perhaps we may have to make sure they are contributing something society values? Or can anyone just play in a garage band and expect health care benefits fully paid by those of us that give up our hobbies and work full time in an office job that we'd rather not do?
Just playing devil's advocate really. I just read this article and felt like it was a terrible argument for health care reform.
And just for the record, I am FOR something along the lines of single payer HCR. This article was just not an example that I think makes a good case for it.
nashville_brook (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-12-10 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. you keep saying you're in favor of single-payer and universal HC, but i've never known
Edited on Fri Feb-12-10 06:50 PM by nashville_brook
these to discriminate based on one's profession -- or, one's relative success at a given profession. in france, for instance, i don't think health care is reserved for first and second-chair violinists, but not the fiddle player busking in the subway. the novelist, but not the poet. the printmaker, but not the punk rocker.
it sounds like you'd like to be able to vote for what is great art with people's lives -- it could be televised...American Idol meets Running Man.
Imajika (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-12-10 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #23
31. I am for it...
...because I think a single-payer type system is cheaper.
My reason is based on logic and cold, hard bean counting. I look at the costs society is paying for health care, realize we are all paying for those without health care anyway, and figure it is pretty obvious we all benefit from a serious universal system of coverage.
So yes, ALL artists would get coverage in my world anyway.
I guess I am just having trouble understanding why society doesn't have a right to expect people to be productive and yes, to produce things society values. If we are going to pay for your health care, I would like to think you are contributing something of value back.
Anyone can claim to be an artist. All people that claim to be an artist are not necessarily contributing anything useful. They may like what they are doing, but society may place no value in it. If a person can not produce something that others in society place some value on, then yes, it seems like a hobby to me.
That is all I am saying, that is why I don't think this article was a good example of why we need HCR.
On top of that, Tom did not seem like an example of someone who desperately attempted to get help. From the article it seemed to me he just didn't feel like going to get his tooth pulled. I know for a fact an extraction is not usually an expensive procedure. And once he let it get that far, going to a doctor to get some antibiotics is also not that expensive. Again, it seemed like a bad example to me of why we need HCR.
You know that nothing but hysterical emotion released in outrage is allowed at the DUmp.
KonaKane (355 posts) Fri Feb-12-10 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. That was a very ignorant, calloused posting.
First of all, since when is art always a "hobby"? For some of us (yes I'm including myself) it is a way of life and a living as well.
The rest of your apalling offering is so ignorant it is not worth the time to dissect and debunk. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Imajika (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-12-10 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Why?
Can't you just boil the whole article down to "People should be able to do anything they want and get health care"? Actually, completely free health care if they can't produce art anyone wants to pay anything for right?
As I said, I am in favor of universal health care anyway. This article just doesn't seem to me to make a very convincing case for it - particularly to people that do not already have firm opinions on the issue. I mean, wouldn't probably half the country just respond with "well, they should get a real job"?
As for the rest of it, unless I missed something Tom just didn't go the dentist to get his tooth pulled. That is a relatively inexpensive procedure requiring dental coverage that would NOT even be provided for under most universal health care plans anyway. I just can't see where this article makes a compelling case for universal health care. In fact, I rather suspect the opposite since it would just confirm the suspicions of a lot of folks that HCR is about covering people that won't go get a "real" job. I don't share that view, just saying that is how I think many/most people would read it.
Throw down the shovel,reason can not be tolerated.
KonaKane (355 posts) Fri Feb-12-10 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. So art is only art if someone wants to pay for it?
Wow. I suppose it would be fruitless to get into a discussion with you about the value of liberal education, now, wouldn't it.
No,real life pretty much days what it needs to about that.
Imajika (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-12-10 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #20
34. You didn't answer my question...
At heart, isn't the article really saying people should just be able to do whatever they want and get health care? And for them, completely free health care if their art can't earn them any money? I am sure you know it isn't really free. I mean, tax payers do pay for this health care. People that may not be in jobs they like are paying for this health care. People that made tough choices and sacrificed something they enjoy for something that will pay the bills are paying for this health care.
And yes, I understand virtually anything can be considered art. I can toss a can full of paint on the wall and call it art. No one will pay for it, but I can call it art and I'd imagine a few others might as well (though, again, they wouldn't be willing to pay for it).
If someone chooses a career as an artist, they do have to consider whether they are talented enough and/or whether their art is in demand enough to warrant doing it full time. They may just need to work a job people will pay for and do their art at night and on their own time.
Universal health care - yes. This article being a good example of why we need universal health care - no.
KonaKane (355 posts) Fri Feb-12-10 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. You didnt answer mine.
That is, what gives you the right to determine value of art? I mean outside of yourself? Art is not, in fact almost never is, dependent on its dollar value at the moment. That's a commodity, not art. You have already revealed your dismal ignorance by referring to art as a "hobby", so do you want to multiply that disgrace by suggesting that artists should be any less eligible for health care than someone who is, say, a career antiques dealer?
nolabear (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-12-10 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. Hobby. HOBBY!
Jesus. I can't even begin to address the lack of understanding there.
nashville_brook (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-12-10 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. pretty condescending, isn't it.
how dare someone tell me I should contribute to society to be able to
leech benefit from it.
Gemini Cat (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-12-10 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
15. After reading a few of the responses
I see schools are sadly lacking in educating kids on the importance of the arts.
stillwaiting (72 posts) Fri Feb-12-10 06:55 PM
Response to Original message
26. We are not a civilized country.
I compare us to other first world countries as industrialized nations, but I NEVER refer to us as a civilized country.
Civilized nations place a much larger emphasis than we do on keeping its citizens alive.
Health care is a right in civilized countries.
The reason you are staying here is?
KonaKane (355 posts) Fri Feb-12-10 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
28. Gotta say, some responses here blew me away.
As to their ignorant stupidity. I already knew that rightwingers held the arts in extremely low esteem or pure disdain, but I never knew that attitude had trickled "into our ranks".
Tragic, really.
Yeah yeah...can`t produce anything anyone wants but you are just sooo much smarter.
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Fri Feb 12th 2010, 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
I think in a nutshell that sums up about every DUmmy,they all think themselves enlightened and valuable just because they exist.
Has anyone ever...I mean just once heard one say what actual productive and important contribution to the workings of society they will do in exchange for the total care they feel entitled to?
