Paying for your art with your life (RE: no health insurance for artists -- Salon)

[nashville_brook]

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_tennis_health_insurance_open2010/index.html

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)

[DearAbby]

1. Thank you

from an artist who has pre existing conditions..<sigh>

[nashville_brook]

8. i hear you...i wouldn't be doing the work i'm doing if i didn't need insurance.

i could almost do it financially...just making ends meet month to month. but, i can't take the risk of going without insurance. and the truth of the matter is that we aren't just talking about going into debt...you can't GET care (good and necessary care) when you don't have insurance. it really is a matter of life and death.

[dysfunctional press]

2. haven't a lot of great artists lived fairly poorly throughout history?

:shrug:

[demodonkey]

3. Maybe... but does that make it right?

(especially in the overall richest country in the entire history of the world?)

[dysfunctional press]

4. it's no more wrong than with any other profession.

there are positives and negatives to every career path...it all matters as to what is most important to, or drives, each individual.

[nashville_brook]

5. i don't think anyone would see this as fair or right or decent.

i'd like to know more about why you think it's acceptable that artists should die for lack of health car, and say, bankers shouldn't.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

40. Who is preventing them from obtaining health care otherwise?

I'm all for funding the arts in general, but to subsidize an entire profession seems ludicrous.

I'm an aspiring screenwriter, but I also have a day job that pays the bills. It wouldn't make sense for me to be subsidized just so I could work on screenplays every day. When I get home from work, I manage to find free time to work on them. And until I can make a good living from scripts, I'm going to continue to work at my day job so I don't starve to death.

[Imajika]

44. Exactly...

That is precisely the point I have been trying to make in this thread.

Somehow people are reading into it that I dislike artists or think they don't deserve health care.

[nashville_brook]

50. well, that's the misunderstanding then -- the article isn't about subsizing the arts.

it's about universal healthcare. the pushback you're feeling comes from the fact that most everyone else read the article as a sturdy argument for single-payor.

it's interesting that your imagination of this article went straight to wholesale subsidizing of the arts...and explains, somewhat, your reaction. Cary Tennis is simply pointing out the fact that people who choose to produce art do so with no safety net, and many will die b/c they can't see a doctor.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

63. I know it isn't, but the article does a poor job of conveying that.

It focuses on this anecdote about an artist who chose his profession knowing the risks. Nothing in the story mentioned Tom being unfairly excluded from more profitable forms of employment that would have afforded him insurance.

And the article ties the writer's view of society's treatment of artists into the argument, despite the fact that having a day job would not prevent anyone from pursuing their artistic passions.

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.

In fact, the writer admits how it was only because of Tom's profession that he didn't have insurance. No other factors are ever mentioned.

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.

Therefore, single-payer truly would have helped Tom if there were insurmountable obstacles preventing him from getting health care, but by focusing on his refusal to follow a more profitable path, the writer doesn't make their case very well.

[nashville_brook]

78. i disagree with you on the point that Tennis doesn't make that case... what I am seeing,

however, is a profound moral difference between those who believe healthcare is a human right, and those who argue that healthcare should be reserved for those who feed the money-making monster appropriately.

In every one of the anti-artist arguments, there's a social-Darwinist premise that access to healthcare is predicated on the degree to which you give your labor to an approved capitalist endeavor, i.e. one that's very profitable, as opposed to those small businesses that rarely offer bennies. it's amazing to me b/c most of the people here are going right straight past "healthcare should be meted out in proportion to YOUR bank account," and have moved on to "should be meted in proportion that you hitch your star to a successful corporate lord."

[nashville_brook]

49. the article didn't mention any sort of subsidizing of the arts. it's about universal healthcare.

[dysfunctional press]

56. i'd like to know where you think i said that.

:eyes:

[demodonkey]

32. The point is, NO ONE should be without healthcare.

NO. ONE.

[dysfunctional press]

54. welll...DUH.

but as it is- it's no more tragic for artists that it is for any other person.

[demodonkey]

67. But artists (even rich ones) in general have a much harder time buying coverage.

Well DUH, it's especially hard for people like artists who are often viewed as flaky or unstable by insurance companies when underwriting.

The best hope is group coverage through an artists' union like Actors Equity or the Musicians Union (etc) but not every artist has that opportunity.

[dysfunctional press]

143. how many artists do you know, or know of, who have been denied health insurance...

for being considered 'flaky or unstable'...?

[EFerrari]

6. Seriously, why should the United States do better than a 15th century Italian city state?

:shrug:

[Warpy]

9. Artists who were good enough to find patrons

even merchants with no taste, generally did better than most of the working public back then. They opened shops and had apprentices to do the donkey work. The best were welcomed at court, although it was clear they were servants. They were still considered a cut above the untalented.

We treat them like SHIT in this country, the same way we treat women, children, the elderly, poor workers of any type, and anyone who has had the bad luck to get sick in their lives.

[nashville_brook]

12. where's the de Medici's when you need them? seriously.

well put.

[dysfunctional press]

58. i kinda think that there might have been artists in other times and places...

:shrug:

there are LOTS of people/professions that don't receive insurance benefits. there are also LOTS of artists that have regular jobs(with benefits) plying their craft.
and for the artists that don't- they can always buy private health insurance as well as anyone else in that situation- "artist" generally isn't considered a 'pre-existing condition'.
it's no more tragic for one group to be without insurance than it is any other group.
the real tragedy is the overall state of our healthcare system, and the way that just about ANY person can be excluded.

[nashville_brook]

100. that's exactly what the OP is saying by using artists as an example that he's familiar with.

it goes for the independent cancer researcher who dies of cancer b/c he's not affiliated with Big Pharma. The same goes for the engineering entrepreneur who can't recruit workers b/c they choose to work for megacorps that provide adequate bennies for their families.

There's a really strange compulsion on the part of some posters here who are reacting out of misplaced conceptual scarcity. Like, any healthcare access that an artist would be afforded would be (conceptually) at the expense of other (more deserving) professions. This points to a remarkable paucity of imagination. It's like we can't even IMAGINE a fair and just world anymore.

[dysfunctional press]

142. the op seems to think that artists going without is a bigger deal for society...

and far as i know, private insurance is just as available for an artist as it is for any other profession/worker that doesn't get coverage on the job.

[Imajika]

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.

[nashville_brook]

10. well, that's not a world I'd like to create. it's as simple as that.

[Imajika]

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]

23. you keep saying you're in favor of single-payer and universal HC, but i've never known

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]

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.

[nashville_brook]

57. just b/c YOU don't value a particular form of art, doesn't mean it's not productive or valuable.

and, other people who might have more power than you might really hate the art that you really love. in no one's conception of universal healthcare, would society's value of a profession come to bear on whether or not a patient could get treatment. hell, PROSTITUTES could even get treatment for STDs under a universal healthcare scenario -- and I'd be very happy with that. i don't understand why anyone would have a problem with it.

lets say that someone is completely unemployed. refuses to work. they're not an artist. they're, lets say... an engineer. but they just refuse to work b/c the only work they get is on buildings they don't approve of (public housing). should they be denied healthcare?

[LoZoccolo]

65. Could I consider my forum posts "art"? n/t

[nashville_brook]

72. you would.

:evilgrin:

[KonaKane]

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]

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.

[KonaKane]

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.

[Imajika]

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]

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?

[Imajika]

39. Can a career antiques dealer make money?

If so, they can contribute back to society via the taxes they pay from the job they do.

Do you think a career antiques dealer did that job exclusively from day one? They probably worked another job that could earn a salary and benefits, and did their antiques dealing on the side till it could pay the bills.

And I did answer your question. I said I understand that virtually ANYTHING can be considered art - whether anyone will buy it or not.

Can we all just be artists? Most all of us have a creative side right? If we all go and produce something no one will buy, who will pay for this health care?

You know a lot of writers, painters, etc, work a full time office job doing something that society will pay for right? Their love may be writing or painting, but they do something else until such time as that writing or painting can earn them a salary and benefits. I think that makes it their hobby, at least until they can earn a living doing it. Once they can earn a living doing it, it then becomes their job.

And I didn't suggest artist should be less eligible for health care since I believe it should be available for all. Problem is, if society is going to provide everyone such a potentially costly service, then society has a right to expect everyone contribute something back (and by something I mean tax dollars).

So no, people can't just do what they want. Would be nice if we could, but that is just not how life works.

[KonaKane]

41. Yes, and so can artists. But why deny one while tolerating the other?

You're simply not making sense. You have this idea that the arts are some sort of fluffery, a side gig or hobby that some can partake in while doing something else. While that is possible, it in no accounts for those artists who are AFL (artists for life) and who create as their living. You wouldn't want to see the antique dealer lose their health insurance just because there was a downturn in the market, would you?

Why would you not afford the same to a career artist?

[Imajika]

43. Where is this disconnect coming from?

I plainly said many times that I support a system that provides EVERYONE health care. That includes artists, antique dealers, bankers, etc. How many times do I need to say this?

My problem with the article is that, while sad, it is not a good argument for the type of health care system that I (and most people here) support.

If you are a starving artist, or even just a mildly hungry and without health care artist, it is quite possible you need a new line of work that pays the bills and provides benefits. If society won't pay much, if anything, for your work, then you are unable to really support yourself and contribute back to society with your tax dollars.

We all can't just do what we want. Period. Simple as that. Not complicated at all. If you can't make a living being an artist (without having society subsidize you), you need to do something else that will allow you to provide for yourself.

The costs of paying for health care is not cheap. Someone pays for that. It isn't free. If society is going to provide health care to those that can't afford it, society has a right to expect that people will produce goods and services that people will pay for so they can contribute back in the form of taxes.

EVERYTHING is a hobby unless and until it can pay the bills. Nothing I am saying is just aimed at the arts. The article just happened to be talking about artists not being able to afford health care coverage.

My point from the beginning has been that this article is not a good argument for universal health care (or HCR in general).

[KonaKane]

52. Your point was flawed from the beginning.

From when you first said that the arts are only a "hobby". That is were you have been shown to be dreadfully wrong. When someone is a career, lifelong, devoted artist, that is what they do. That is the opposite of a hobby, a thing you engage in for sheer pleasure on the side, when time and work permits.

Since that is the premise you started from, everything else is flawed on its face. You basically tipped your hand, and it creamed your argument.

[vadawg]

69. if its your career and you make a living at it then good, if you dont make anything from your art

then its a hobby, i think thats what the posters trying to say. Some people believe they are great artists but no one else wants their stuff, should they still be able to call it their career...

[nashville_brook]

74. so, they don't DESERVE to see a doctor? is that what you're saying?

or are you also conflating this to the level of "artists asking to be supporting entirely." b/c this is a discussion about healthcare...not wholesale support of artists.

[vadawg]

75. you missed the point i was making, if you want to be an artist, then go for it

if you can support yourself even better or make money at it, if you cant then you need to find another career and art become your hobby, i wasnt talking about healthcare at all just the idea that even bad artists deserve the right to be professional artists..

[nashville_brook]

79. ah -- there's a lot of that here. yes, there's lots of bad artists who don't deserve to

be "professionals." however, i think both groups deserve access to healthcare -- along with all the other non-profitable professions like literacy teachers, social justice workers, and scientists doing cutting edge research that unsupported by corporate interests. we need these people to be healthy and participating in society.

[vadawg]

83. you need everybody to be as healthy as possible, and contibuting something

but i know you have seen the "artists" who continually produce coffee coasters made from the inner intestines of the grey squirrel in accordance with the traditions of nathanial bucket (pronounced bouquet) of the shenandoah valley circa 1705

[nashville_brook]

88. so, be honest Dawg...you really don't want artists to have healthcare.

b/c you wouldn't be able to vote on who deserves it who doesn't. you'd have to LIVE with the fact that someone out there producing coffee coasters got to have their teeth looked at.

[vadawg]

90. not sure if you have a problem reading, i said everyone should have healthcare

but that the aforementioned person who thinks their an artist should get a new line of work and be productive, not sure how you are missing that unless you looking through intestine coated lenses...

[nashville_brook]

98. i love it when a poster's biases lead to compulsive thread kicking...

you're confusing access to healthcare with making a decent living. we saw this all thru the Reagan "revolution" as he stirred up of hatred for "welfare queens" thru this imaginary notion that somehow, if poor people get to eat, we're reinforcing the habit of making babies -- a theme recently trotted out by SC Lt. Gov Andre Bauer. "Quit feeding the stray animals" and bad artists, you say. I say, the notion that someone is fattening-up bad artists is make-believe.

[vadawg]

103. no im saying bad artists need to get another job, same as the bad gardner or bad poet

just because something is someones dream it dosent mean if they are bad at it that society has to support them or even appreciate them... you still miss the point that i originally made, seems your biases are more blinding than you realise..

[KonaKane]

117. "Bad" = not bringing in enough money?

That's one of the most simplistic dismissals of a person's livelihood I've ever read. There are oodles of talented people out there unable, for whatever reason (economic climate, bad location, demographic, etc) are having a very difficult time turning their talents into money. That does NOT make them "bad".

I getting more disgusted with the freeper attitude I'm seeing on this thread when it comes to working artists. Are you people really looking deeply at what you're saying here?

[mahina]

122. Word.

aloha KonaKane.

[vadawg]

126. its makes them bad at what they do not neccassarily a bad person

if i tried to make money surfing i would be a bad surfer and would make no money, so i dont try to, if your a bad artist you need to find something else to do. and yes if your bad at art you will not make any money and therefore you need to find something else to do..

[nashville_brook]

127. the only "point" you've managed to make here is that you don't understand universal healthcare

in that you can't separate it from "supporting bad art."

[vadawg]

128. and your still missing the part where i said helathcare for all, no problem

but if you think your an artist but you cant make a living at it then its time to move on, you just dont seem to get just because you may think your an artist the rest of the universe is telling you to go work at mcdonalds...

[MilesColtrane]

135. That makes Vincent Van Gogh a hobbyist since he only sold one painting while he was alive.

[vadawg]

136. yup i guess it does, seeing as he didnt really get to enjoy the fruits of his work

but does this really mean that every body who calls themselves an artist should be supported totally just in case their work becomes appreciated after their death... lets be honest most people who call themselves artists are never going to produce anything that will support them...

[MilesColtrane]

137. "does this really mean that every body who calls themselves an artist should be supported"

No, it doesn't mean that.

I was just trying to make the point that the lack of commercial success of the work an artist produces is no indication of it's quality.

You don't seem to believe this, as per your statement upthread that any artist who can't make a living is a "bad" artist and should hang it up.

If anything, I've found that some of the most interesting art isn't going to be found on the radio or TV.

[vadawg]

139. and thus proving my point to an extent, in that you are willing to mayby pay for the art

my contention is if you can sell your work then you are a professional artist, if not then its a hobby, and that there are plenty of bad artists who will never sell a piece but still hang onto the delusion that they are good.

[glowing]

111. The problem I see with your argument is that you are valuing people based on the amt of

money they can make. People have value. People's time is valuable.. no matter if they are working for a company, helping out a child, creating art, taking a walk... Its people and THEIR lives that have the inherit value. Dicing people up by the amt of money they can make or provide into the system is what is wrong with this world and will enable serfdom/ slavery of most of its people.

[vadawg]

113. no i think the point he is making is that the value your time has to others

mayby you taking a walk is valuable to you but that dosent mean that i would pay you to take that walk, same with art, you might find value in making sculptures from beer cans but will anyone else pay you to do it..

[glowing]

133. And that is what is wrong with many people's heads. They are trained by the system

they live in. My point on a philosophical level is that people are their time is the value. The systems that we live in only value money. Money = power. Its why in our Democratic Republic money has usurped people power. No one is asking anyone to pay you to take a walk... but that is your time that would be usurped into doing a "job" that would take away from your walk time. Working for another person/ company steals people's time. The only reason people trudge off to work a job that takes them away from their greatest potential to society is to provide the basic necessities of life (shelter, food, clothing, etc).

People still need to wake up and realize they are important. The system is created to rule over the masses. AND until individuals understand that their time is valuable and the crumbs that corporations throw at us is part of the problem, these same people will not see the value in the arts and what they mean within society.

[Imajika]

114. No, that is not accurate...

What everyone does is not equally valuable in the real world. Never has been, never will be. That is fantasy stuff.

We'd like to think everyone contributed equally in their own way, but they don't. That is the whole point of incentives, higher salaries, etc.

There is a huge difference between how much effort people put forth. Human nature is what it is.

Folks that studied hard, worked their butt off, put in extra hours in the evenings or weekend getting better at their skill, etc, are probably contributing a whole lot more than the guy who is 34 years old, living in his parents basement and playing video games.

No one is saying the slacker shouldn't get health care, everyone agrees that one way or the other we end up paying for that person anyway and that doing the math just makes it obvious that some form of universal/single payer system will be more humane and save money. The problem is, we sure as heck don't want universal health care providing an excuse to create more people that don't produce anything of value. I mean, the system is expensive and for it to work we all need to contribute to it.

"Taking a walk" or just "creating art" is NOT as deserving of rewards as someone who produces something with their time that society values monetarily. Yes, I am for providing them basic health care and a minimum level of services to they don't starve or freeze to death, but we absolutely do NOT want to be encouraging such behavior. Who is going to pay for these services if more and more people take the attitude that they can just do whatever the heck they want, irregardless of how much society values it? If more and more people won't chose jobs/careers that earn a decent salary, how will we finance this universal health care?

People need to chose a career that society places some value on so they can earn a living. Period. If an artist can't make money selling their work or their time, then they need to relegate their art to hobby status and go get a job that they can actually make money at.

[nashville_brook]

129. by your "logic" an AIG derivatives manager who crashed the economy and got a $10 million bonus

is worth more than a nurse or a soldier or (gasp!) an artist. as a matter of fact, an AIG financial products whiz (or, as I like to call them, thieves) have achieved the highest form of human endeavor possible -- you can tell by how fat their wallets are.

you say:

The problem is, we sure as heck don't want universal health care providing an excuse to create more people that don't produce anything of value. I mean, the system is expensive and for it to work we all need to contribute to it.

So, you're not just against bad art, you're against a system that *might* encourage people to participate in professional endeavor that YOU DEEM unproductive. In your ideal world there would be no "slackers" doing bad art and stealing from the system...I imagine b/c there'd be mighty big fines for participating in non-approved endeavor. The system, you see, is too expensive, and we need all capable hands to contribute to *it,* and some rinky-dink art project or shitty novel. This system will be a well-oiled machine of bankers, health insurance executives and gangsters -- all making giant stinking piles of scratch, and everything will be just peachy.

Talk about a fantasy world. This makes anything Huxley could dream up seem like playskool.

You just have to ask yourself what kind of person you want society to produce. Imajika-World would be full of hedge fund managers, arms dealers and insurance executives. I take enormous joy in the fact that they'll all have to mow their own lawn, dress their own wounds and homeschool their children.

[glowing]

134. You are brainwashed by the system that hold you down. I suppose

you actually believe that a degree from college guarantees a high paying salary. I assume you believe that the Dr. in society is more important than the janitor or garbage collector. I suppose the rest of us who are advanced in our thinking and philosophical ideals will try to change the system that doesn't work and drag you kicking and screaming into the new world.

Honestly, you think the cheap workers in China producing crap for us to buy are less valuable... That the CEO's of these companies.. banking companies that have caused this newest depression are deserving of their million dollar salaries?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

145. Advanced degrees don't mean SHIT anymore.

I'm an artist and a musician. Have been my whole life.

What did I do in school? I was encouraged in music but told that it "wasn't practical, I couldn't get a job doing it". Majoring in fine arts would have been HORRIBLE. Majoring in liberal arts, which I was also good at, would have been bad too. And sociology and psychology were black arts, not real sciences, according to my parents. So I was not allowed to major in anything I was really good at.

So I got three degrees in non creative stuff because I thought it was for my own good.

I got a BA in biology and a Juris Doctor, a law degree. Now wouldn't you think somebody with a law degree and two other degrees that help with that understanding, would at least be able to get a job as a paralegal?

Well, you would be wrong. I have never been able to get a job that required or considered either my BA or my JD.

So I wasted 12 years going to college studying stuff that I didn't have my heart in, because I though they would make me employable.

So I'm pretty bitter. I would have had just as much luck in the job market had I gotten a BFA in painting, which is what I really wanted to do.

Yeah, I'm bitter. The idea that "education" and "retraining for new jobs" will help people get jobs just holds them down, wastes their time, and drives them deeper into huge debts for student loans. It's propaganda from the ruling class and is a liability, not an asset.

:wtf: :banghead: :grr:

[nashville_brook]

51. you have a fundamental misunderstanding of universal healthcare.

[laughingliberal]

91. America in a nutshell. Nothing of any value if it's not profitable

And anything goes if it is profitable.

[Imajika]

109. Oh nonsense...

That isn't just America, that is life.

I like building Lego castles, no one will pay me for it, therefore it isn't profitable and America is bad because of this. True or false?

The whole point of a job is to perform some labor someone else puts value on and is willing to pay for. If something does not command any financial support or payment, then it is a hobby. Maybe one day people will appreciate the work derived from that hobby, but as long as no one is willing to pay for it then it can't be considered a responsible career choice.

Why do you think people work? It isn't to just do whatever you feel like doing, it is to earn a living. We'd all love to just do what we want and make our "hobby" our career, but that just isn't realistic for most.

[laughingliberal]

116. Saying it's nonsense does not make it true

There are many worthy endeavors which would contribute to a better society but if some publicly traded, for profit company does not see the value in paying someone to do it, we do without it.

Not just arts. Many things of value to humans have been lost to the culture that values only profit (and obscene profit, at that). I practiced as an RN for 25 years. It was once a respected profession that paid a decent wage. Our wages have stagnated and our work loads have doubled since I graduated. I guess the work of a nurse has less value now than it did in 1982. It's only worth what some for-profit corporation now says it's worth? Well, it's not worth it to me to prostitute my license and profession to do assembly line patient care. Wonder why there's a nursing shortage? I would guess the average hospital patient would see it as valuable to have enough nurses there to maintain quality of care. But the shareholders want their dividends, you know. Wonder why we see 300,000 preventable deaths and injuries in hospitals, now. I don't like this society where profit is the only thing worthwhile.

And it is not as bad in some other countries as it is here. There are countries where they provide health care for the entire populations and where the mentally ill don't sleep on the sidewalk. Even if it were true that it was the same everywhere (and it's not) that would still not mean it's right.

[Imajika]

120. Life is just not fair...

I understand what your saying, I sympathize with it, but at the end of the day, work is done to make money and support yourself (and family).

I mean, that is the bottom line. It is great if what you love to do can pay the bills, but there is no guarantee it will now, and it is no sure thing it will in the future.

I also agree, sometimes society's view of what is worthy of paying for seems skewed, but does it matter? It is what it is right?

Example. An auto mechanic is making a great living at his/her profession. He/she loves it and plans to do it forever. Other people see this as a profitable career choice and go into the field. Suddenly there is a lot more auto mechanics available. What happens? The auto mechanic has a lot of competition and can't make near as much money because there is so much supply of labor. Now, suddenly, auto mechanic isn't such a hot career. Lots of people leave it in favor of something else. The few remaining auto mechanics have little to no competition again, and now they are back to making a good money/benefits.

I mean, such is life. It isn't fair, but there it is.

You and I just don't get to decide, in most cases anyway, what is a worthy endeavor. That is determined by how much others will pay for the service you perform. If society thinks something is worthwhile but doesn't think the market deals with it well, it will be subsidized by the state. That already happens in many fields. But even at that, society as a whole is STILL making a determination that the endeavor is worthwhile and society is willing to pay for it.

People can't just do whatever they want. I wish we could. I am sorry some people get seriously screwed over with regularity. It really sucks when someone works their whole lives at something only to see the job just go away. It happens though. What would you have society do? Shall we subsidize jobs that are just no longer in need? Shall we subsidize art that no one has any interest in?

It just isn't good enough to do what you want. Never has been, never will be. You can do what you want on your own time. This is why I say if an artist can't make money from their trade, it is probably time to do something else for a career. The art becomes a hobby until such time that it can earn the person a living.

[laughingliberal]

131. Your auto mechanic analogy does not work next to the nursing issue I raised

Because there are not, suddenly, a lot more nurses available. There are fewer and fewer all the time. And the average age of an RN is around 50 now with average age of retirement 57 (due to burnout and disability). If it was truly about demand nurses' salaries would have gone up but it's not about needs or demand, it's about profit and shareholder dividends.

Saying something is what it is does not change the fact that we live in a really sick culture and there are places not quite so blatant in the pursuit of profit. Do what you want on your own time? What 'own time?' We are heading back to the days when 60 hours was the standard work week. It already was for me when I left nursing. People forget there was a reason people died, in years past, for the right for workers to organize. The point here is that people are spending all their time trying to make a living now and not having any time left for the things that make life worth living.

What I would have us do is invest in worker re-training programs for those who become displaced and, yes, subsidize some of the things that make life worth living like the arts. I would have us provide universal health care as all other civilized nations do. What I would have us do is stand up for the rights of workers and work to improve the quality of life in this country. What I would have us do is start moving away from this notion that bigger and bigger profits every year is the only purpose of business with no regard for employees or customers. I was a business major for a couple of years before I went to nursing school. I remember the days when a company that turned a 20% profit was considered damned healthy. In recent years I worked for an oxygen company at a location which was at 45% profit and the corporate office was not happy with that.

[dysfunctional press]

144. and not all art has any value, either.

be it monetary, social, emotional, intrinsic, or any other.

[nashville_brook]

21. you're saying that bankers' lives are worth more than artists' lives, and I disagree with that.

[nolabear]

14. Hobby. HOBBY!

Jesus. I can't even begin to address the lack of understanding there.

[nashville_brook]

18. pretty condescending, isn't it.

[Imajika]

27. Explain it to me then...

I've known lots of aspiring artists that made tough choices and found themselves in careers they don't really like, but that pay the bills. They recognized they could never earn a living with their art so they got themselves jobs that could earn a decent paycheck and provide benefits. I also know people that sacrificed careers for their art and have been successful doing so, but they risked much to achieve that.

Should people not have to make those choices? Sure, in this case we are probably both for universal health care anyway (for different reasons, but in agreement nonetheless), but what constitutes an artist and how many of them should society subsidize if they can not earn a living doing it?

What constitutes a hobby exactly? If a person LOVES to paint but can't earn a decent buck doing it, they end up getting an office job somewhere and the painting effectively becomes a hobby right?

Many of us love to write, but most probably can't pen anything people would want to buy right? So doesn't that relegate it to hobby status until such time as it can pay the bills?

I mean again, I support some kind of universal health care anyway. The point I was making is that this article doesn't make a good case for it.

Just my opinion anyway.

[juno jones]

36. I'm an artist with a 'day job'...still no insurance.

You make it sound like it's so easy to just get a job with all the trimmings.

[Flying Dream Blues]

42. Exactly what I was thinking...nt

[nashville_brook]

55. i'm an artist who took a "day job" in marketing healthcare early in my career...

no insurance. i got pneumonia during this time and couldn't afford to see a doctor. i needed to go to the hospital, but that was certainly off the menu. finally i found a doc-ina-box and was able to get breathing again.

few things can feel quite this unfair...to be designing ads for multi-jillion dollar hospitals and not being able to use them.

[laughingliberal]

93. Crass American culture. Nothing new. nt

[Stevenmarc]

30. Maybe if you stopped treating art like a hobby you might get good at it

then you actually could quit your day job

[demodonkey]

35. Actually not all tooth extractions are "just" 100 bucks...

...some are surgical cases, and can run many many times that. I know this first-hand, and frankly I could end up like Tom any day because I can't afford the dental work I need.

For many people, even those with a full time "day job" rather than playing around at their "hobby" (as you insultingly call it), there are no benefits available and 100 bucks is simply more than they "scrape up".

In case you haven't heard, jobs with benefits aren't growing on trees these days. For artists or anyone else.

[Imajika]

45. Most extractions are not that expensive...

And if you've got a badly infected tooth like Tom had in this article, most dentists or oral surgeons would remove it and let the person pay over time if they couldn't afford it up front.

And yes, most simple extractions are around $100 bucks. An oral surgeon might cost double.

Tom could also have just gone to the emergency room once the tooth was infected and received antibiotics. Yes, he might have had to deal with a hospital hounding him for money later, but they'd have had to treat him.

Sad as this was, Tom from this article appears to have just not wanted to bother with going to a dentist or a doctor. Not having insurance may well have contributed, but it is pretty clear that Tom simply didn't realize the seriousness of the situation.

[demodonkey]

66. You might want to use ELJER as your stage name for your "hobby"...

...because anyone with an attitude like that is full of crap.

Yes, many tooth extractions DO cost more than 100 bucks or even 200. I know. It's quite a few times that, and no "most" dentists won't let you pay over time unless you have a credit card. And not everyone has a credit card ready and waiting to pay out hundreds or thousands of dollars.

Every infection is NOT curable by a simple ER visit and antibiotics. I know because my only brother died after contracting two (2) drug resistant infections in a medical facility.

HOW DARE YOU tell anyone who needs medical care and can't afford it that it's somehow their own fault for making some sort of wrong choice.

You better start living in the real world, honey.

[nashville_brook]

84. also, people who are not "in the system" i.e. those who don't "have access to healthcare"

avoid seeking care b/c they've had the experience of being turned away repeatedly. I know b/c i've been there...all thru my 20s and early 30s. most dentists will tell you that there's a major problem with getting people in the door b/c even for people with bennies, dental plans are an afterthought.

as an aside, i nearly died as the result of a MRSA. part of the problem with the illness is that my docs didn't know what they were looking for. i had massive back spasms (the infection was in my spine), blood clots and hepatitis (the autoimmune variety). it took 2 months to get a diagnosis...while i got worse and worse, and endured docs telling me that i HAD to have HIV or AIDS, b/c healthy people just don't get this sick.

HOW DARE YOU tell anyone who needs medical care and can't afford it that it's somehow their own fault for making some sort of wrong choice.

this SO needed to be said.

[laughingliberal]

95. I would think it would be advisable for the patient to have a course of antibiotics before pulling

an infected tooth. So, there's an appointment to be evaluated and most dentists are, at least, going to want an X-ray. Then, there's the prescription. After all that they might get to the appointment where they might get the tooth extracted for $100.

The whole meme on "people can just go to the emergency room" is misleading. There is a real lack of understanding about what lengths some ER's will go to in order to avoid treating the uninsured. People with chest pains are deemed to have "GI disturbances" and sent home after a couple of tests that may not show a recent (within a few hours) heart attack. I can easily see an ER telling a toothache patient to take some aspirin and see a dentist.

[unapatriciated]

105. A lot are artists because of their struggles with health issues

Their body does not allow them to get a "day job". Their creative side takes over what they lack in physical health.
I've seen this on a personal level. My son and many of the children we met during his many stays at Childrens LA, excelled in the arts.
Tom may not fit into this picture but it does point out the human suffering because of lack of health care.
My son is un-insurable and has had dental problems due to his illness. Dental is not covered under medical you have to use the lottery system, which means you get up at 12pm and stand in line all night in hopes of being one in twenty for dental care. Many with autoimmune disorders have been on anti-biotics their whole life. At some point the infections become resistant and you need dental care. But we still see this as not a medical necessity.

To some $100 bucks is their food money for the month.

The "case" is why anyone should die for lack of health care or a simple toothache.

[nashville_brook]

130. that is a very good point. i've met many artists in my travels who, for one reason or another

are unable to work a day job. they're essentially entrepreneurs plying their trade as best they can b/c there's nothing else they can do.

a couple of years ago there was a story about a child who died from lack of dental care. i think this received wide attention b/c the SCHIP program was being debated, and the little boy was denied care after being in the program for some time.

[mahina]

121. Here's the problem with that assessment:

While lots of people work in other fields during the day and make art during their leisure hours, being a full time artist means just that.

The difference is in the margins. When health care is 450./month, and is necessary for life, ones choices are reduced.

[salguine]

146. Because it isn't a "hobby". For some people it's their life. Some people need to

make art the way you need to breathe air. You probably don't even realize what a patronizing, insensitive, ass-hat comment that was, but it was. I suppose I should be grateful you didn't say "their LITTLE hobby." I spend most of my waking hours with actors and artists; I know them. It's anything but a hobby.

Comments like yours invariably come from people who wouldn't know art if they were hit with it. They generally have a lot of Thomas Kinkade stuff.

You make it sound like you "just go get a job with benefits" the way you just go pick up a loaf of bread. You should get out more.

[Throd]

147. Nah, I've met a lot of artists who are too self-important to get off their ass and get paying work.

They're creative. They're different. The rest of society is too goddamned dumb to appreciate their genius. I have been employed as a graphic designer and artist for twenty years, so I know that type quite well. I had to deliver auto parts to pay the bills while I honed my craft on nights and weekends. I also play a pretty mean guitar but it hasn't earned me a dime. Hence, it is a hobby.

[Gemini Cat]

15. After reading a few of the responses

I see schools are sadly lacking in educating kids on the importance of the arts.

[nashville_brook]

16. ain't that the truth. it's the first thing that's cut.

[KonaKane]

62. No kidding. And have you noticed this also...

We know that intellectuals and intellectualism is pretty roundly despised by the right wing. But one thing I've noticed that gets despised even before them - on both the right and left - are artists. Isn't it peculiar, the level of venom you get from people when the arts and artists are brought up? Seriously bizarre. It's like something is striking at their core and causing an overly angry reaction. I just got one down there with one of our number referring to artists as "LA DI DAH artists". Made me laugh at first, but isn't that just dripping of bitter resentment?

I don't get why this is. The vast majority of artists do financially poorly. They are hardly competitive with most vocations here. They really don't pose a threat in any way, yet the reactions to them and what they do can be off the charts.

If someone can explain this to me, this artist would love to know why.

[nashville_brook]

86. i was at the Mt. Dora art show last weekend, and was shocked that throngs of fundamentalist xtians

were allowed to crowd the streets barking prostylizations... REPENT NOW...etc... at the artists and consumers. i've never seen this at an art show. then it hit me, they've zeroed in on art as The Problem. like, it's all that free-thinking and questionable sexual identity...something MUST be done!!

i think that there's a certain personality type -- the Authoritarian -- that is specifically threatened by art and artists.

[KonaKane]

125. That's fucking frightening.

But not totally surprising. The artist has often, throughout history, found themselves on the wrong end of authority by the mere fact that they are almost expected by society to test the boundaries of everything.

[vadawg]

70. i think their is a big difference between good art and bad art, that seems to be the contention

and although its all subjective if you produce something that absolutely no one wants then how can you consider it good art...

[nashville_brook]

85. whether someone produces good art or "bad" art, should not be healthcare concern.

[unapatriciated]

138. That is the point they seem to miss.

You will always have the few who won't contribute in a way that some consider of value=money. It is such a small percentage that it is not going to affect those that are contributing $.
This is a RW talking point, they are always afraid someone might get something for free. OMG think of it, we might actually have a healthier society and do what their religion says they should.

[laughingliberal]

132. In this society?

It would almost be a recommendation of the value of the art if no one in this culture wanted it.

[truedelphi]

112. Yes it is important in a Corporate owned Fascist state that

We do not have the arts celebrated, taught or appreciated.

In the seventies, this kick ass group of surrealists back in Chicago put out a journal examining various surrealist artists. And one statement they employed as a mantra was this one: "The Indian Nations were seen as the outlaws of the eighteen hundreds, but the artists are the outlaws of the nineteen hundreds."

And each successive decade proved the truth of that.

[sendero]

19. A just and wise society..

.. provides health care for everyone.

[nashville_brook]

22. amen to that.

[Mike 03]

24. It is too painful to even read posts on this topic, but I am happy someone posts them.

There is nothing more painful than forming the passion to practice art, studying it, and not being able to survive doing it.

[nashville_brook]

25. i know that i had to fight tooth and nail to get a decent artist's education...

and i can only marginally practice my work. instead of writing, painting and throwing pots, I'm having to market commercial real estate. fucking awesome.

[stillwaiting]

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.

[nashville_brook]

29. this is a notion that needs to be aired out and unpacked...

"civilization" is something we haven't practiced in a good, long time. Hell, Enlightenment thinking hasn't been practiced here in a good long time...but that's another story.

What, really, are we leaving for future generations? Where is our version of the aqueducts, the pyramids, or Beethoven's 9th Symphony? What do we create that is worth putting in a World Civ Survey of the 25th century? Anything? Are office buildings our only claim to grandeur?

Are we even capable of *tolerating* the creation of civilized culture? From the looks of this thread I wonder. In order to cultivate civilization, there would need to be many people "playing" with the arts -- trying and failing many times over to find that one great painting, sculpture, or musical arrangement -- and that doesn't seem to be tolerated well anymore.

[KonaKane]

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.

[nashville_brook]

33. do you think it's a meanness borne of scarcity? like, maybe these people are frustrated

artists who weren't able to make it themselves, and so, no one should be have it easier than they had it? so, the scarcity is in the total number of "artist" positions in a given society. only XX can make it, and if you're not good enough to be as big as Chuck Close or Jean-Claude Christo, then you have no business making art in the first place.

it's early art show season in Florida, and i gotta tell you there's fewer people on the circuit than there used to be, and i bet healthcare is a deciding factor for many. a good production potter, for instance can make a living doing show and marketing to galleries, but if he needs a heart stent...his career is over...or, his life is.

[KonaKane]

38. I think it comes from many possible things.

You mentioned some good candidates, the best one being "scarcity" (professional jealousy when you get right down to it). Bit what disturbs me when reading attitudes like this on DU is that they are the same sort of smack you could read on any rightwing forum. A pure disdain for the value of the arts for our society. One of my musician colleagues likes to think this attitude comes from "creatively blocked" people, i.e., the ones who wish they could conjure something artistic but since they cannot (or are blocked for whatever reason) see a need to diss or agitate other artists around them as less than relevent, less than quality, just "less than" anything.

Personally, I think that the arts are a fingerprint of any culture. Long after the culture's power has peaked and past, it is the arts and sciences which will be the legacy to tell others how and why we were here. That's not snooty, that's not elitist, that's not privileged, that's simply the way it is.

[nashville_brook]

47. art as society's fingerprint is a powerful metaphor -- and exactly right on

in art history classes we were basically reading that fingerprint; whether it was ancient Sumerian or industrial era Europe or Indus Valley. these classes aren't about the brushstrokes...they're about the culture...who we are and who we became and who we're becoming.

i like to hope that people are voicing this begrudging attitude b/c they're too-harshly critiquing their own potential to produce. like, "if i were fool enough to try and produce art, i know i wouldn't be worthy of health care." just writing that makes my brain hurt, but it's more generous than the alternative which sounds a lot to me like "don't feed them b/c they'll just breed."

[KonaKane]

53. Precisely.

It chaps my hide to see otherwise intelligent people buying into the meme that working artists are not engaged in a real living worthy of the same respect even as a plumber or a die cutter.

I wonder what all those ancient souls who carved the bas reliefs along the bases of pyramids, or created the intricate temples in Anghor Vhat, would think if we were to inform them they were only "hobbyists".

[Manifestor_of_Light]

64. They are not creative at all.

The people who do not value the arts are not creative. They have not a creative thought, ever, in their lives. They have no imagination. And it does not bother them at all that they are not creative. They don't miss it.

They accept the canned stuff that our society puts out for mass consumption.

[KonaKane]

118. I wish I could refute this. But I can't.

And just about every subsequent post I see in this thread sustains it.

[Silent3]

46. If we start with the idea of universal health care for everyone...

...a good single-payer system for everyone, then artists along with everyone else wouldn't have to worry about decent health care.

With universal coverage as the most worthy goal, and quite achievable if we had the political will, pointing to anyone who doesn't have health coverage, artist or not, points out our shortcomings as a civilization.

So how does someone being an artist figure into this? Are you saying that, if it's not possible to give everyone health care for some reason, artists should be among those more favored to receive it?

I think this is where some of the contentiousness in this thread comes from. It has nothing to do with lack of appreciation for artists or the arts. Whether the OP was intended to do this or not, the OP brings up the question, "In a less than perfect system, where not everyone can get health care, who should the lucky ones be?"

I suppose I'd generally favor artists over stock brokers most of the time if forced to do the choosing myself, but I think it's pretty clear that when not everyone can get health care, it's most likely going to be the crass determination of the power of money that determines who gets what. Even in countries with a good single payer system the wealthy often get faster treatment, better doctors, private hospital suites, etc.

Even if money weren't the determining factor in rationing limited health care, the only way artists would get health care priority over others in a rationed system would be to "sell out" to whatever criteria would satisfy some dispensation committee or popularity contest -- exactly the kind of thing I don't think you'd want artists to have to consider.

As much as it seems to have bothered some people in this discussion, the above essentially boils down to the same thing as looking at things as they currently are and saying that until we can fix health care for everyone, people who call themselves artists are going to have to make hard choices between their art (if their art does not support them financially, in a crassly commercial way) and reducing the time spent on their art in favor of hopefully more lucrative and benefit-providing employment.

Should we feel more, less, or equally saddened by the artist without health insurance as we do for the unemployed auto worker or unemployed preschool teacher who doesn't have insurance?

[nashville_brook]

48. i kinda see where you're going, but i don't agree that's what Cary Tennis was saying.

Artists/musicians have a lousy choice -- to live without healthcare or else not do what they believe they were put on this earth to do. A stock broker, on the other hand, doesn't have to choose between practicing her art and risking their lives living without healthcare.

I agree insofar as I think people are reacting based on some sort of misplaced sense of scarcity. But, just b/c your nextdoor neighbor chooses to be a professional playwright, doesn't mean that's any skin off your nose. That's a misplaced sense of scarcity, especially wrt the ultimate goal of universal healthcare.

[Silent3]

59. How many people feel they're doing what "they believe they were put on this earth to do"?

I think there are a lot of people, probably a few stock brokers among them, who would much, much rather being doing something else with their time than the jobs they perform for money and benefits. They're making a hard choice between following their dreams and cold, hard practical realities too.

In fact, I'd say it's only a lucky few who truly enjoy their jobs so much that they'd do the same job whether they needed to do it to pay the rent or not. I'm almost there myself -- I'm a software engineer, and I do enjoy working with computers -- but I have a lot of projects that I'd much rather do in my own way, in my own time, at my own pace, without having to worry if they were profitable or not, instead of the more constrained and less interesting work I do because it provides a paycheck and insurance.

In this sense, I don't see the dilemma of the artist as particularly unique.

[nashville_brook]

73. i work with the brokerage community, and, i doubt very seriously there's much

gee, i wish i could be a starving artist, pondering cerulean all day. brokers are hunters, they have no patience or appreciation for production...that's why i get hired.

it's the mark of humanity that arts professionals are drive to perform or produce...to contribute to civilization/to create a life worth living...and we're literally snuffing that out. i don't think that's OK. That really bothers me. However, I recognize the fact that there are people who have been so beaten down that they would rather see the arts disappear through their own bitterness that they couldn't pursue their own work. There are even those who don't have a craft who abstractly begrudge artists of the conceptual notion of equality in healthcare...and that's the mark of a sick society.

[Silent3]

77. I didn't say anything about brokers thinking they'd rather be artists.

I talked about people wanting to do anything else with their time (be it sculpting, hiking, or competitive video gaming) other than what they do for a living. Most of us have to make compromises between what we want to do and what we have to do. Should self-proclaimed artists be any exception? Should anyone, artist or not, be an exception from the common struggle simply because they characterize what they want to do as something they "need" to do or were "born" to do?

What realistic possibilities are there other than these?:

1) The arts pay for themselves by being profitable.
2) The arts are subsidized by the public, but with less than total artistic freedom because public tastes are definitely going to influence who and what gets subsidized how much, who makes the cut to qualify as a "true" artist.
3) The arts just don't pay.

Since most DUers, myself included, want everyone, artists and non-artists alike, to have good health coverage no matter what, you still haven't made a clear case for why the problems of artists should be singled out.

Are you waiting for some idealized human society to take shape which will cheerfully accept any alleged artist's word that he or she is, indeed, an artist, and must pursue his or her art, and gladly offer financial support without imposing any of societies desires and expectations in exchange for that support?

[nashville_brook]

82. the fact that you insist this is a case of singling out artists for "special treatment" is

really remarkable. no one is saying that. Cary Tennis uses the example of an artist b/c that's the particular situation he's familiar with. and, this is about access to healthcare...not access to living remarkably well as a competitive video gamer. creative straw man on your part.

the "idealized human society" that's up for discussion is the one where everyone has access to healthcare. what's your "idealized human society" i wonder.

[Silent3]

96. If the story is merely an illustration of a general problem, fine.

I'm not insisting on anything. Your own remarks in this thread, however, do particularly lament the contributions of artists to society not being properly appreciated. I don't think I'm making too big a leap in interpreting your remarks to mean that you personally are taking the story in the OP as illustrative of both the health care problem and a problem with a lack of appreciation for the arts and artists.

I've already said several times in this thread that I want universal access to good health care for everyone. On a place like DU, however, there's not much room for discussion on that topic because it's mostly going to be a bunch of us nodding our heads "Yes" and shouting "Amen, brother!"

So, whether you intended this as a point of discussion in this thread or not, the thing that's much more interesting and open to debate, if you look at what we're stuck with for a health case system in the meantime, is whether the artist's plight under current circumstances is particular worse than anyone else's.

[pitohui]

60. you pay for ANY self-employment enterprise w. yr life, why are artists special?

i don't want to be cold, but i know many people in the same boat, i myself went 15 yrs w.out health care and yes i knew people who actually died because they were self-employed and couldn't receive care

this is not something special that only affects artists and i don't particularly like the idea that artists are special and they should get treatment where i cannot get treatment (any more than i like the idea that children are special, in many states there is provision for children to get health care but as an adult i couldn't)

this is just as shitty when it's a dishwasher or the maid cleaning yr hotel room who can't get health care as it is when it's an artist

health care should be a RIGHT not something that somebody else decides i "deserve"


don't make this about pitting the deserving (small children or artists) against the rest of us, because that's just shitty and that's just playing into their game

universal health care or no health care, don't pick and choose who think is deserving, i'm tired of other people deciding that my life is of no value because i'm not a child or a, la di dah, an artist!

at the end of the day how do you know that the dishwasher in the back of the chinese restaurant isn't just as deserving of health care as the painter? do you truly believe that only creative people have feelings that are of value and that everyone else should just choke on it? i know you don't...

so don't pit the creative against the rest of us, i don't wanna hear abt why somebody else is better than me and deserves more than me, that does not advance any UNIVERSAL cause

[KonaKane]

61. I may change my name to "La Di Dah Artist" after this one.

Thanks for the laughs.

[nashville_brook]

80. way to miss the point. artists are being offered as an example...not the ONLY example.

but, i'm letting the bitterness of this post wash over me like a cold cup of black 7-11 coffee. mmmm...bittery.

[Gormy Cuss]

81. "...don't make this about pitting the deserving (small children or artists) against the rest of us"

Exactly. We shouldn't play into the game that some people are more deserving than others when it comes to health care.

[old mark]

68. I have been a working artist for over 30 years, but never made a living at it-

certainly never enough to pay for health insurance or even health care. I was a member of an organization attempting to get affordable health insurance for artists, the Foundation for the Community of Artists. Sadly the organization was not able to do this.

The US has throughout its history been terrible to its own artists, and most of us have sadly come to live with that fact.
The author speaks of a wise and just society-my friend,we ain't there yet, and from what I see, we ain't even headed in the right direction.



mark

[nashville_brook]

71. seems like there's attempts at "guild" insurance from time to time...but they

always end up being so expensive that they offer no benefit.

so, i'm curious...what's your medium and how do you sell? do you do the art show circuit, or have a gallery relationship? website? etsy?

[old mark]

115. I paint mainly oils on board, and do small sculptures and assemblages.

I also did some photography for about 15 years.
I don't sell much of anything anymore - certainly not through fucking galleries, for which I have little but contempt.
The only gallery I would be interested in would be a co-op, which I did for some time about 25 years ago and I think this is THE way to go for artists.
I have a website that I have not finished in over a year, so I guess it's not very interesting to me either. I have work in private collections, some going back to the mid 1970's.
I don't need the money any more, and have no use for public acclaim and people "understanding" my work and am not concerned about selling or showing at this time.

mark

[Taitertots]

76. Starving artists should be covered by Universal single payer AND get another job

Lets break out the worlds smallest violin for the failed artists. No one will pay for your recreation activity because you are not good at it. Go back to doing something productive for money and enjoy your recreation activities in your free time like the rest of us.

[nashville_brook]

87. where did you read that anyone is advocating support of "failed artists"?

please point out the passage. b/c the article i read was all about healthcare.

[Taitertots]

101. Where did you read that I even mentioned "advocating support of "failed artists""

Talk about a straw man. Please point out the passages where I mention support for failed artists.

About health care. I specifically stated they should get covered by universal single payer.

[nashville_brook]

102. apparently your fingers are typing words behind your back...see your response to DirkGently

below where you say exactly that.

[Taitertots]

106. Apparently you are hallucinating

Quote where I said:
"The government should support failed artists" or "The government should not support failed artists"

[DirkGently]

89. Well we certainly

broke 'em out for the failed investment bankers. The failed stockbrokers. The failed automakers. They apparently can not only be bad at their jobs, but can actually steal from the American and world economies wholesale, and we all still have to chip in and make sure they not only retain their benefits, but continue to be paid millions in "performance bonuses" so their "talent" (and this is the exact word we hear, over and over and over) doesn't go elsewhere.

As far as healthcare goes, with all due respect to the importance of national defense, you can be failed general or a National Guard war "hobbyist" for a few years, and we'll all cover your medical bills for life. Ask Joe Wilson, red-faced and screaming that we can't have national healthcare because somehow illegal immigrants might benefit, while he and his sons cruise along with their government-run Tricare coverage and no worries.

Some people are missing the larger point here. Everyone in America has subsidized, "socialized" healthcare of one form or another. The problem with our system is that if you're not one old enough for Medicare or a veteran, you have to get your subsidy from your employer. HAVE TO, unless you're young enough or optimistic enough to just go without. Benefits are rapidly becoming as, or more important than salary. And who has the "good" healthcare benefits? Not small companies. Certainly not individual artists (or craftsmen / women). It's the big companies. The stable companies. The megacorps.

So we're losing our mobility as workers. Set aside "artists" for a moment, as that seems to be a category some people have a specific problem empathizing with. Think about entrepeneurs, small businesspeople who are supposed to be the "backbone of capitalism." That's what we keep saying, anyway. How does entrepreneurship work in a world where not having full health benefits is a death sentence waiting to happen? That's not an exaggeration, is it? Know anyone who could, say, afford cancer treatment on their own? Open-heart surgery? So we're going to have fewer entrepeneurs. Fewer artists. More placid, malleable drones who don't dare step out of line at work, because how are you going to get your kid's prescription meds inventing widgets or writing novels? Who's going to even risk moving from Gigantic, Inc. to a smaller competitor if part of the gamble is you might die from a toothache if the new outfit isn't an instant success?

Sound like a better world?

It's not people who have "failed" who are dying without health coverage. It's people who haven't made enough money to buy enough influence to get a bailout. It's not the same thing, and there's a really ugly implied message here that's right along the lines of that lovely South Carolina gubernatorial candidate whose grandma warned him not feed the "stray animals, lest they breed." Let the artists die -- who needs them? Let the inventors and carpenters and child care providers and assorted rebels and small businesspeople die -- we'll get all our art from Viacom and our investment advice from the "talent" in AIG's Financial Products Division.

Let's let the ability to amass mounds of cash and political influence determine whose kid gets a transplant and who dies from a toothache.

[Taitertots]

97. They should have Universal single payer coverage

AND they should get a real job. Everyone should have health care coverage.

Failed auto executives should be fired. The board of AIG and friends should be fired. Poor performing generals should be fired. An artist that produces art that no one wants should get a regular job.

[Imajika]

94. The article just doesn't make a good case for HCR...

..that was my only point.

And your post sort of captures how I think a majority of people would react after reading the article.

I am for Universal Coverage/Single Payer because I think it makes economic sense. A lot of us favor many progressive ideas because we think they are superior to the opposing conservative policies, not because we are in tune with our inner feelings, hang out with starving artists at the poetry club or empathize with every cliche'd free-spirited notion associated with the left.

So yeah, artists that can't make a living with their artwork should both benefit from universal coverage AND get a job that contributes something society places value on. If we are going to provide a very costly benefit to everyone at tax payer expense, everyone has an even greater responsibility to do work that society is willing to pay for. Period. It isn't that complicated really. We all can't just do what we want. That is just not the way life works.

Regardless of how much one loves doing something, if it won't pay the bills then yeah, I think it is a hobby.

Another example. Many of us love politics right here on DU, but if we aren't actually good at it or can't find a job willing to pay for our political opinions, then it is just a hobby - at least till we can make it pay the bills. How is that any different than an artist who can't earn a salary from his/her art? And why would we want to encourage more in society to just do whatever they want, not contribute financially into the system that pays for everyone's health care, and ends up costing those of us who do make the tough choices and end up in jobs we may not really love even more?

[Odin2005]

92. Wow, WTF is all the hatred for artists in this thread?

[Imajika]

99. There is NO hatred for artists in this thread...

There is only a desire to see folks take choices in life seriously, and to recognize if we come to the day where we finally have a real universal/single-payer system in place that people will have an even greater responsibility to find work society places value on. So if your a starving artist who can't earn a living with art and don't pay taxes because you don't make any money (therefore contribute little to nothing into the health care system), it is probably time to realize your art can only be a hobby and work on getting a job that people will actually pay you for.

No one has expressed hatred for artists at all. I'd say everyone here really appreciates art in whatever form they happen to enjoy (whether it is painting, music, sculpture, etc). But we are grown ups and realize that you can't just love some activity, declare it your life's calling, then make no money doing it and complain that society doesn't value its "artists".

The article was just not a good argument for HCR is all.

A much more persuasive article about the need for universal health care would be a story about a cook in a low end restaurant who works his/her butt off, but can't get health care insurance because the company refuses to classify them as full time even though they work 40 hours every week. That would be the story of someone who is probably performing a job they don't much like, that society DOES place value on, that DOES pay taxes and therefore is contributing to someone's health care already, and yet is STILL getting screwed over by the company they work for.

[nashville_brook]

104. it's not persuasive for you. it's very persuasive for many other people...

such is the nature of life.

no one is saying, btw, that restaurant workers shouldn't get healthcare, and instead that money should be thrown to starving artists. if restaurant work had healthcare benefits most young artists would set.

[Imajika]

107. Agreed..

..but that is the purpose of a discussion forum yes?

Provide opinion, debate, throw ideas back and forth, etc?

I go into this with the assumption that we all ALREADY support universal/single payer coverage anyway.

My point was that I felt like this article does nothing to further that cause, and the example within it would be more likely to turn people away from the kind of HCR we would support instead of win converts to our side.

And there is something about the article that makes me cringe. I mean, I support universal/single payer reform, but not as a way to encourage more people to move into careers that society simply places no value on and won't pay for. In order for a costly program like this to work we NEED people to be working and contributing financially back into the system, not declaring art their life's calling, smiling at the thought of crossing health care off their list of concerns about this choice, and then never actually performing a job that they make any money from. That result would just make paying for universal health care even more expensive for those of us whom wish we could play guitar or paint for a career but instead faced reality and went into a field that would provide us a good salary.

[unapatriciated]

108. so where do the disabled fit into this scenario?

My son would gladly trade places with those that are healthy and able to work so that society would place a "value" on him by paying taxes.
Are you up for a swap could you endure his life of pain?

[Imajika]

110. Are you serious?

Are you really comparing artists to the disabled?

The options disabled people have are limited through no choice of their own. Are you saying an artists life's calling is so strong that they don't have any choice in what they do for work? Maybe you hadn't thought your comparison through enough before you posted it?

And yes, I expect the disabled to work at a job that society puts value on if they are able to do so. I support giving the disabled as much access and support as we can to allow them to do precisely that.

If the disability is so serious that the person can not work in a job/career that produces something society places value on, then I believe as a compassionate people we must assist the disabled person as much as possible because their inability to work is not due to poor job/career choices.

Seriously? Comparing artists to the disabled is quite a stretch.

[unapatriciated]

140. A lot less of a stretch than this statement.

" smiling at the thought of crossing health care off their list of concerns about this choice, and then never actually performing a job that they make any money from. That result would just make paying for universal health care even more expensive for those of us whom wish we could play guitar or paint for a career but instead faced reality and went into a field that would provide us a good salary."

Do you really believe there will be a significant amount of people who will do this. This is the same argument Reagun used against the poor.

"And yes, I expect the disabled to work at a job that society puts value on if they are able to do so. I support giving the disabled as much access and support as we can to allow them to do precisely that."

You know very little about the struggles of the disabled. Most of the jobs they can get "that society puts value on" are minimum wage at some box store where they are overworked and treated like shit. Which in a lot of cases causes even more health problems..

You are so worried that a few might get one over on us that you miss the big picture.
Health Care should never be based how much value=money that a person puts into the system.
So if we are a "compassionate people" value=money should never enter into health care.

[KonaKane]

123. Whoa, you missed it by light years again.

You said

"No one has expressed hatred for artists at all. I'd say everyone here really appreciates art in whatever form they happen to enjoy (whether it is painting, music, sculpture, etc). But we are grown ups and realize that you can't just love some activity, declare it your life's calling, then make no money doing it and complain that society doesn't value its "artists"."

It is almost inarguable that our society does not respect artists anymore. Go check out the public school budgets and see what gets the axe first whenever budget cuts loom. Go see how many schools still have a school orchestra, band or chorus when the football team "needs" new gear or a stadium.

Go check out how the arts have been herded into "product" status, which you are unwittingly proving, as they are dumbed down to their value being determined only by how many units (CDs. tickets etc) they sell.

This very thread demeans and talks down to them, as is they are some sort of social deviants who are looking for a way to freeload so they can have fun. I can guarantee you, as an artist myself, that trying to eek out a living in the current social climate is anything but fun and fanciful. It is wrought with blood sweat and tears and is often a month to month cliff hanging event.

You and some others here need to seriously reassess your views on art in our culture. If you do, I'm sure you will shock even yourself with some of the attitudes you uncover.

[Joe the Liberal]

119. Sad story, but how do you die from a toothache? n/t

[KonaKane]

124. If the toothache is a symptom of a deep, acute infection

it's easier than you think. I knew two people in my hometown who actually died of the same exact thing. One even had insurance.

[Hannah Bell]

141. infection. in gum, bone, moving into blood = whole-body infection, heart attack, brain infection -

lots of potential ramifications.