Annotated Bibliography

Armbruster, Ben. "GOP Rep. Admits That Health Insurance Companies Control The Market And Dictate Medical Decisions." Think Progress. 17 July 2009. Web. 8 Mar. 2012. <http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/07/17/51365/gop-rep-health-insurance/>.

This article discusses the control that insurance companies have over the medical field, from the perspective of clients and a Republican Congressman.  The client described his struggle with having to see many physicians and undergoing many tests because his insurance company dictated where he was allowed to go and which diagnostic tests were accepted.  The Congressman addressed his frustration with insurance companies, saying that they control markets and influence physicians’ decisions.  In the remainder of the article, the author Ben Armbruster wrote that 1 in 6 metropolitan areas in the US are dominated by one health insurer, causing limited choices and higher prices, and thus higher profits for insurance companies.  Armbruster goes on to criticize the GOP’s current preservation of the nation’s health insurance.

            This article is reliable in the sense that it is a credited American political blog that discusses progressive ideas.  Given that it all blog posts are written by individuals with a political bias and the blog itself potentially leans in one direction or another (this particular article criticizes the GOP’s perspective on healthcare) it will be a bias source.  The author of the article is the National Security Editor for ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.  The article’s purpose is meant to inform readers of political controversy.  

Miller, Ben. "Healthcare Insurance, Providers & Patients: The Blind Men and the Elephant." Occupy Healthcare. Word Press & ThemeID, 22 Nov. 2011. Web. 8 Mar. 2012. <c>.

This blog post aims to describe the healthcare dilemma by looking at it from the perspective of everyone involved: insurance companies, consumers, and physicians.  The article compares the situation to the age- old anecdote of the blind men and the elephant, every part of the situation interprets it differently.   Furthermore, every side of the argument is making decisions on healthcare concerning their own interest (financial, legal, etc), which is almost always in contrast with the other sides of the argument.  Insurance companies dictate reimbursement for what they will and will not cover, physicians make decisions in the best interest of themselves and the consumer, but they do not want to be sued, and patients are trying to get quality healthcare without going into debt.  This article does not suggest a solution, but rather says that all sides of the argument should come up with rational solutions while thinking of the opinions of the other two sides. 

            This source is taken from a blog called Occupy Healthcare, a forum where the community can discuss healthcare.  Because it is more geared toward the general population’s opinion of the current situation, and many members of the general population are currently unhappy with their coverage, the blog typically discusses means of healthcare reform. In this sense it is a biased source because it is arguing against the current form of healthcare.  The author of this particular blog post is Dr. Ben Miller, the founder of Occupy Healthcare, a blog inspired by the Occupy Wall Street protesters.  Dr. Miller claims that the blog is not meant to be a complaint board.  The purpose of the blog, and this article, is to discuss thoughts about current healthcare and its reform, educate readers, and generate awareness about current health issues. 

Thesis questions/statements

1)    Why are health care costs rising?       

a.     Healthcare costs are rising due to increase in chronic illness because of increased lifespan, increase in obesity, increased charges by providers, and prescription drugs.

2)    In what way(s) do(es) the insurance industry impact the medical field financially?

a.     Insurance companies control markets because they have dominated local markets, which has resulted in limited choice and higher profits. In addition, insurance companies prefer (and often succeed) in covering only healthy consumers because offering covering sicker people puts them at a disadvantage financially.

3)    How does this control affect the way physicians practice?

a.     Physicians want to provide the most quality care, but they also do not want to be sued.  Thus, they often perform more tests than necessary in order to cover all bases.  Physicians have to battle with insurance companies about how much they will pay for certain procedures/appointments/medicine. 

4)    How does this control affect the way patients receive treatment?

a.     Patients are faced with putting themselves at extreme financial loss by doing what the physician recommends, or looking for a less expensive, less quality option.  If the patient cannot afford the costly prescription medication, and their health insurance, then they simply to not take their medication, and as a result their symptoms and disease are in a constant state of up and down. 

5)    How does the United States current healthcare system perpetuate the crisis?

a.     Because we are currently a private health care insurance system (aside from government funding public programs such as Medicare/Medicaid), only those who can afford to pay for private insurance or have a job that provides medical insurance are insured.  The patient can only feasibly be treated for what their insurance covers, which is often beyond patient control (it is based on what the insurance company decides and which insurance plan the patient can afford).  As a result of our system, insurers are granted control. 

...free thoughts...

 I have been puzzling over what stance to take on connecting the motif of power in the three works.  The authors have very different perspectives on the idea. West is criticizing current forms of power, Foucault is analyzing modern power symbolically via a geometrical structure, and Berger discusses power through images.  It is thus important to find a common characteristic or theme the works share in order to reach a conclusion. 

As of now, the connection I find most interesting is that all three focus on the comparison of power in the past compared to what it is now.  West accomplishes this through the images in the video (old symbolic references), and through modern references in his lyrics.  Foucault discusses primarily the Panopticon as the newest, and arguably most efficient, form of power.  Berger argues the power of what is seen, in the sense that in the past images held more power because they were authentic.  The common thread in three then becomes evident: society is constantly looking to progress and improve, whether it be technology, quality of life, political theory, etc.  This includes the improvement of power.  The two questions I would like to answer in my synthesis are: ‘Do the authors view the improvement of power through time as beneficial or dangerous to society?’  And ‘How do the authors portray their opinion of power (compare/contrast)?’ 

Panopticism

In Foucault's work Discipline and Punish he discuses the theory of Panopticism.  This theory directly connects the concept of discipline and power, in this work particularly in the prison system, but also in a more general sense throughout society.

Foucault bridges discipline and power by describing discipline as a sort of technology.  As new technology arises, such as the Panopticon (an institution designed by Jeremy Bentham), power is more perfected than it was in the past.  He describes the Panopticon as a "cruel, ingenious cage" that acts as a "mechanism of power reduced to its ideal form" (292).  Thus, the Panopticon serves as the newest form of discipline, and in so "perfect(s) the exercise of power"  because it reduces the number of people who possess it while increasing those on whom power is exercised (293).

Unlike older, tyrannical forms of power, the Panopticon keeps the owner of the power a mystery.  In this way it instills fear in those who are ruled by it, and ensures that no one man has the power.  This form of power can be connected to both Kanye West's "Power,"  when he states "No one man should have all that power."  The power he refers to could be compared to the center tower of the Panopticon, controlling everything that it views, although West is acting out against the source.  Similarly, the idea can be  applied to the one percent that occupy wall street refers to in their campaign.  OWS claims that in society a small amount of the population metaphorically sit in the center, controlling those around them.

Pollan's perspective

While Kyle Madsen brought to light some intriguing counterarguments, there is one in particular I would like to address.   Madsen states, “This intense angle of vision may leave out some readers.  For example, I am left wondering why gardening is less effective than, say, converting to solar power.”  As I know very little about the scientific aspect of solar power (and I am fairly certain the common reader does not understand it fully as well), I cannot accurately compare its effectiveness or emissions with those of fossil fuels in a way that I feel comfortable.  Thus, I opted the avenue of a more local approach. 

Not all readers may have the financial means to convert to solar power, but the majority of the population can plant their own food.  While I used gardening as a topic throughout the paper, I also mention other examples of simple ways to contribute, such as abstaining from power for a day or giving up meant.  I was not intending to make claims that other avenues are not effective, nor was I stating that gardening is the most effective avenue for change.   Rather, as I stated,  “The idea is to find one thing to do in your life that does not involve spending or voting, that may or may not virally rock the world but is real an particular.”  This is what I hope readers took from my article, and I hope in this way they feel compelled to alter their lives minutely so that a collective change will take place.

"OWS: you might want to change those signs"

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/407712/february-02-2012/america-s-biggest-super-pac-donors


Relevant considering we've been discussing political campaigns....

Geertz summary

“Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight,” can be summarized as an overall commentary on the Balinese culture through deep examination of the ritual of cockfighting.  Geertz analyzed the cockfight from various angles, in essence using it as a medium in which to portray the meaning of the Balinese cultural. 

            Geertz began by commenting on the exclusivity of the culture by describing how his wife and he were treated with indifference initially.  The culture did not allow the outsiders in until they showed their loyalty by running from local police when caught at a cockfight.  Loyalty was also addressed in that the Balinese almost always bet on and support the cock of their kin. 

           

            Geertz commented on lack of materialism and social structure in the culture.  While the Balinese disliked losing money in a bet, the cockfight focused less on materialism and more on aspects of pride.  He differentiated between “deep fights,” those in which the cocks were more evenly matched and prominent members of society involved, verses “shallow fights,” lesser in both status and money involved in the betting.  The “deep fights” were thus a reflection of status rather than a reflection of gambling, and therefore more unpredictable.

Those members of society who view cockfighting as a gambling game and consistently participate in “shallow fights” are looked down upon as petty and those who do not understand the deeper meaning. Also in this way, the essay reports how cockfighting is a representation of social groups and hierarchy.   Although it may appear a mere sport or enjoyment via gambling and competition, in actuality the fight represents social structure.  “Deep fights” that attract a crowd and higher bets include more prominent members of society.  Thus, the Balinese essentially contribute to social divisions by participating in grandiose cockfights as opposed to lesser ones. 

The essay concluded by describing the cockfight as a story the Balinese tell themselves about themselves, thus discovering the temperament of the society as a whole.  As Geertz put it, cockfighting is the “master key to Balinese life,” and a definite avenue for anthropologists to get a concise feel for the cultural. 

A story I tell myself about myself.

"What sets the cockfight apart from the ordinary course of life, lifts it from the realm of everyday practical affairs, and surrounds it with an aura of enlarged importance is not, as functionalist sociology would have it, that it reinforces status discriminations, but that it provides a metasocial commentary upon the whole matter of assorting human beings into fixed hierarchical ranks and then organizing the major part of collective existence around that assortment.  Its function, if you want to call it that, is interpretive: it is a Balinese reading of Balinese experience; a story they tell themselves about themselves."

I view this quote as both interesting and important in the scheme of the entire essay.  The quote describes the underlying meaning and sentiment behind the cockfight.  The cockfight is more than just a gambling game or entertaining sport in the Balinese culture.  It represents the manner in which the Balinese willingly sort their own culture into social classes, exerting more interest and spending more money on those who are more socially relevant, while doing the opposite to those who are lower on the social ladder.  The Balinese personally engage in sorting their social classes, in essence telling a story of their own hierarchy to themselves. 

Summary

             In the article, “Ask Not What Occupy Wall Street Will Do Next; Ask How We Will Change the Status Quo,” the author initially describes the lack of publicity the Occupy Wall Street movement has received as compared to late autumn.  He then contrasts that as compared to a few months ago, people are now accepting OWS’s message as legitimate concrete demands, rather than an immature group of activists.

           

The article analogizes OWS twice; first, to a reality television show, and then to a brand name.  The reference to a reality television show is due to its surprising, sporadic behavior, and also because the movement has begun to lost its political nature and become more a source of entertainment.  The reference to a brand name is due to the general acceptance.  The author compares OWS to a brand, saying that both are generally accepted entities, with no argument surrounding them.  The OWS brand entails a group of left wing activists that fight for ‘the 99%’ against the elite controlling the nation. 

            The argument of the article is that the combination of lack of publicity paired with general acceptance is fatal for OWS.  In order to rectify this issue, OWS must resist reification (the making of a brand) by standing for the things it once stood for.  This includes criticizing the wealthy few who control the economy and thus the nation, and defending the claim that ‘private interest is a public problem.’  While continuing to do so may cause a revolution, it is necessary for the health of the nation and the world.

            The author concludes by assuring the reader that OWS includes a selfless group of individuals defending the masses selflessly.  However, the movement is losing its momentum because Wall Street and OWS are coexisting peacefully.  In order to redeem itself, people must stop asking what OWS will do next, like the nature of a reality show, and rather ask which public claims can be made to disrupt status quo, thus disturbing the brand name OWS has become.   

 

Grain

Strong reading can be defined as the capability to interact with text in various ways.  This capability means finding fulfillment in reading while understanding, comprehending, and questioning the information the author displays.  A strong reader recognizes that there are many types of reading, and understands what is demanded of him or her in each setting.  As described by The Allyn and Bacon Guide to Writing, reading rhetorically is reading with an awareness of what effect the text is meant to have.  This is a particularly advantageous skill when reading academic text because the reader can view the text in a somewhat unbiased manner, understanding the persuasion that is meant to occur, thus analyzing the perspective while consciously deciding whether to engage in the argument or not.  In my opinion, rhetorical reading is beneficial in an academic sense, but there are ample other methods of reading, all of which can be classified under the broad spectrums of "with the grain" and "against the grain."

 Reading "with the grain" is a more passive form of reading.  By passive I do not imply that reading "with the grain" is an easier form of reading, but rather that the reader acts as a passive audience of the author's perspective.   "With the grain" entails accepting the author's message for what it is worth, keeping an open mind about the author's opinion, and connecting this message within a larger context, possibly a personal experience.  Personally, I read "with the grain" quite often.  In my experience, both in an academic and casual setting, reading "with the grain" has been the type of reading that has been most prudent.  These experiences include novels I read for enjoyment, apolitical articles in the news, and textbooks. I enjoy reading most text in this manner because exposure to the perspective of others is something I find satisfying, appropriate- and quite frankly- reading "against the grain" the majority of the time would become increasingly exhausting. 

Reading "against the grain" is a more active form of reading.  "Against the grain" includes questioning, doubting, and potentially refuting the author's point of view.  "Against the grain" appears to be the type of reading that The Allyn and Bacon Guide seems to be promoting, and seems to be directly associated with the development of a strong reader.  An experience I have had with reading against the grain is when I read science journals.  I do this quite frequently as I work in a laboratory.  As a scientist one has no choice but to read "against the grain."  Another scientist publishes data and may interpret it differently from you, and it is your responsibility to question their written conclusions in order to make advancement.  Having interpretations questioned is the most challenging, frustrating, and enjoyable aspect of the field.  Although this may be more considered thinking "against the grain," it can not be denied that the two are immediately intertwined if not identical. 

I find that it is sometimes advantageous to combine the two techniques.  To initially read "with the grain," allowing the knowledge and perspective to soak in, and then think "against the grain," comparing what you ingested to what you previously thought/felt/experienced, is an approach that works well, also.