Great interview. I look forward to reading the book!
As someone diagnosed with a rare autoimmune disease at 18, the myth of being in control was busted for me early. And since then, I’ve had to build my life around how to access healthcare without going broke. The ACA allowed me to leave my corporate job, but it’s still so tenuous.
So many people operate on these toxic beliefs that it won’t happen to them. Further, how good is it really for the economy when so many have to choose basic needs of healthcare and housing before spending on anything else?
Great interview. I look forward to reading the book!
As someone diagnosed with a rare autoimmune disease at 18, the myth of being in control was busted for me early. And since then, I’ve had to build my life around how to access healthcare without going broke. The ACA allowed me to leave my corporate job, but it’s still so tenuous.
So many people operate on these toxic beliefs that it won’t happen to them. Further, how good is it really for the economy when so many have to choose basic needs of healthcare and housing before spending on anything else?
Thank you for sharing. I am curious to read this book.
I have an observation I wanted to share. There is an interesting book, published in 1949, called "The Mentally I'll In America". It is basically a survey of mental health practitioners at the time, most working in private or state funded institutions. What they seemed to have been saying in 1949 about the best ways to care for some of the most vulnerable people in society was two things: 1) That state funded institutions were working more or less OK until the Great Depression when the state ran out of money and condemned many people to abusive conditions; and 2) That given the cold failure that state funding is prone to, families were the most humane and moral places to take care of the mentaly ill. I read this and went: oh my gosh, they wanted to add yet ANOTHER thing on the care plate for women and that's basically happened just without any support for those women.
What I think is important to notice here is that we have an example of where state funded care systems become abusive when funding runs out. So, I'm interested in reading about and exploring solutions that aren't just choosing between women and state-funded safety nets, because we now know both don't work well in times of crisis.
i think there is a big difference between state-run institutions like the ones you are describing and state subsidized community-based care. Most models for funding and what was proposed in Build Back Better was to bolster existing providers that people know and love, and make them free or more affordable to families. Same goes for community-based care models for people with disabilities and who want to age in place.
Great interview. I look forward to reading the book!
As someone diagnosed with a rare autoimmune disease at 18, the myth of being in control was busted for me early. And since then, I’ve had to build my life around how to access healthcare without going broke. The ACA allowed me to leave my corporate job, but it’s still so tenuous.
So many people operate on these toxic beliefs that it won’t happen to them. Further, how good is it really for the economy when so many have to choose basic needs of healthcare and housing before spending on anything else?
Great interview. I look forward to reading the book!
As someone diagnosed with a rare autoimmune disease at 18, the myth of being in control was busted for me early. And since then, I’ve had to build my life around how to access healthcare without going broke. The ACA allowed me to leave my corporate job, but it’s still so tenuous.
So many people operate on these toxic beliefs that it won’t happen to them. Further, how good is it really for the economy when so many have to choose basic needs of healthcare and housing before spending on anything else?
Thank you for sharing. I am curious to read this book.
I have an observation I wanted to share. There is an interesting book, published in 1949, called "The Mentally I'll In America". It is basically a survey of mental health practitioners at the time, most working in private or state funded institutions. What they seemed to have been saying in 1949 about the best ways to care for some of the most vulnerable people in society was two things: 1) That state funded institutions were working more or less OK until the Great Depression when the state ran out of money and condemned many people to abusive conditions; and 2) That given the cold failure that state funding is prone to, families were the most humane and moral places to take care of the mentaly ill. I read this and went: oh my gosh, they wanted to add yet ANOTHER thing on the care plate for women and that's basically happened just without any support for those women.
What I think is important to notice here is that we have an example of where state funded care systems become abusive when funding runs out. So, I'm interested in reading about and exploring solutions that aren't just choosing between women and state-funded safety nets, because we now know both don't work well in times of crisis.
i think there is a big difference between state-run institutions like the ones you are describing and state subsidized community-based care. Most models for funding and what was proposed in Build Back Better was to bolster existing providers that people know and love, and make them free or more affordable to families. Same goes for community-based care models for people with disabilities and who want to age in place.