Inside of My...Refrigerator

- Dried Mushrooms
- Jar of Salted Tangerines
- Lettuce
- Bread
- Leftover fish
- Jar of Sushi Ginger
- Cat food
- Dried Scallops
- Dried Beans
- Box of Salted Fish
- Pepper
- Scallions
- Ginger
- Fo-ti extract
- Eggs
- Dried Shrimp
- Lemon
- Bok Choy
- Dry Tea Leaves
- Spam
- Sweet Tea
- Celery
- Peas
- Marinated Fish
- Marinated Pork
- Lots of unknown Chinese Medicine (Dried and Liquids)

My Family's Health Coverage

For my family, it seems that we're more fortunate in health care, due to our economic misfortune. We are currently covered by two different HMO's: HIP and United Choice, as well as Medicare. We do not have to pay for either on, and for the most part our medical needs are covered. However, there are some restrictions, being that each company has their own network and does not cover every single prescribed medicine. When my family meets that restriction, we just cope with it by choosing the alternative, whether it be going to another doctor or having the doctor prescribe a similar medicine, that is covered by our insurance. Going to the doctor has never been much of an issue, and neither has receiving medical help in the emergency room, for me at least. A few years ago, I had an allergic reaction and went to the Downtown hospital. I did not have to wait that long to receive medical attention; they just took a glance at my card and saw that it was something they accepted and got straight to the treatment (but then again, this was 3 o'clock in the morning and no one else was there waiting). Needless to say, our family has never been reluctant to go to the doctor or hospital because of an economical issue, which would make my family the counterexample of Michael Moore's idea of health care in America, in that perspective. But my family has been victims of its denial. My mom once had two surgeries within a week, and her insurance agreed to cover it. But they thought it was a mistake that there were two surgeries within a week, and decided to only pay for one of them, leaving the second one unpaid. They would not pay for the other surgery, and so the hospital kept sending us the bill, but eventually we straightened it out and we ended up paying nothing. After watching a portion of SiCKO and looking back at this scenario, I can definitely see how the insurance company are trying to find cracks to slip through, and trying to avoid every possible payment.

Over break, I was talking to my friends the things that I learned from SiCKO, about the health care system in Great Britain and France, and how the people not only do not have to pay for going to the doctor, but they get paid for their transportation. And one of my friends said that his doctor, Charles B. Wang does that as well. He told me that every time he goes to the doctor, they would give both him and his mom a $4 dollar Metrocard each. Hearing this and thinking back to some of the other aspects of America, it made me realize that America is not a completely corrupt country. There are definitely systems in it that are not practiced enough, but need to be focused and expanded on to allow for the country to improve.

Chair Activities Analysis

One of the activities that we simulated in class was musical chairs. Being that we are studying about a capitalist country, named America, and playing a game that includes the victory of an individual, I suspected that this activity pertained to the competition that we face everyday to survive in our society. In both the game and in any capitalist country, an individual's success is germane to how competitive they are. If a person has a strong enough ambition to win, then they will have a greater chance to succeed, compared to if they didn't. However, as shown in musical chairs, the victory of an individual leads to the failure of many others. In the end, only a few can win and many will lose.

Through musical chairs, we also took notice on the fact that many people did not have a chair/job, because there weren't enough. People could not sit not because they "lost," but for the simple fact that this game is set up so that there wouldn't be enough chairs for everyone to sit in, similar to how # of seats of employment is less than the # of people. And to make it worse, the second time that we followed this activity, there were reserved chairs for certain people that were never removed. And similarly, in our society, those who are already wealthy will remain rich, if not richer. Their wealth will generate more wealth, while the poor will continue to struggle through life, due to their inability to follow the rules of society. (In the musical chair example, Maggie, Jia Min and Dylan will continue have a place to sit, while the competition becomes more intense for those who do not have a reserved seat).

The other activity that we did was the visual representation of the share of national wealth in America through chairs. All the chairs represented all of America's wealth. During this activity, we saw that a great amount of people had to share half a chair, while a few individuals had 3 chairs to themselves. This portrayal of share of national wealth shows that while the bottom (in terms of wealth) 60% have to share less than 20% of the national wealth, the top 1% has approximately the same amount to themselves. A vast majority of the people have to live an uncomfortable life style, just so that those few people can have more than they should (in some cases, can) use. However in America, we view that 1% as an example and the driving force for "working hard." Everyone wants to be that top percentile. Even throughout the activity, I was hoping to be one of the top 20%, so that I wouldn't have to be cramped into half a chair with two other people. But wIthout that 1% of successful people, everyone would lose all hope, which is why we see them as a goal, rather than a person that is taking our wealth that can possibly provide a better life style for us.

-Another thought-
While doing the analysis about the chair representation of the share of national wealth, I was thinking about how people on the subways, sometimes take up two seats even when there are people standing up. And most people see that as rude and selfish. However, on the bigger scale into the measures of wealth, we see those people who "take up two seats" as superior and hard working. I just thought it was interesting how America has two completely different views on people who are essentially doing the same.

Q&A about Poverty and Wealth in America

How has the share of wealth change throughout time in America
"In 1865, at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation, African Americans owned 0.5% of the total worth of the United States…by 1990, a full 135 years after the abolition of slavery, Black Americans owned only a meager 1% of total wealth” (Conley, Being Black, Living Red). And now by 2001, African Americans own 3%.

How is age factored into the povety rate?

Age 18>: 18%
Ages 19-64: 10.9%
> Age 65: 9.7%
These percentages are how much of that age group lives in poverty. (e.g. 18% of people younger than 18 years old lives in poverty)

How is the national wealth measured in America?
According to Paul Cole, there is no exact way of measuring wealth because "wealth is in the eye of the collective beholders."

What is the currect % and number of people living in poverty?
As of 2005, the % of people living in poverty is 12.5%, making the # of people living in poverty 37 million.

How does the national poverty rate compare to the minor poverty rate?
The poverty rate for minors is 21.9%, as opposed to the previously stated, 12.5% in America.

Is the poverty rate increasing or decreasing? And by how much each year?
Compared to 1959, where the poverty rate was around 23%, the poverty rate now is significantly lower. However, since the year 2000, it has slightly increased by 1-2%.















Questions left to be answered, and yet to be found on the internet:

- If the national wealth was divided equally amongst everyone in America, would anyone be below the poverty line?
- Which race is in the greatest danger of entering poverty at a greater rate?

Taxation System in America and Denmark

In America, we do not follow strictly follow any one economic system. Instead, our system is a “mixed” economy”, where it contains aspects of socialism and capitalism. There are things in America that are publicly owned and privately owned. On the socialist perspective of America, there are things to be shared and organized by the government, such as: parks, libraries, schools, welfares, beaches, prison systems, etc. On the other hand the capitalist aspect involves things that are marketed, to be bought and sold, such as: homes, books, food, clothing, cars, etc. Having a system of “mixed economy” allows the people to have private economic freedom and still have centralized economy planning. In America, the “centralized economy planning,” involves taxes, money that is forced to be paid to the government in order for them to provide public services. Three major taxes in America are, income tax (% depends on an individual’s yearly income); social security tax (7.65%) and sales tax (8.25%). Amongst the types of taxes, there are: “flat tax” where everyone pays the same tax percentage, “regressive tax” where the poor people pay a higher tax, and “progressive tax” where the rich people pay more tax. Two major examples of progressive tax in America, would be the “marginal taxation system” where the amount of tax you pay depends on your income and the “bracket” that you passed (e.g. Income = $50000, Tax = 25% of 50000=$12,500) and the “effective taxation system,” which also depends on your income. However the effective taxation system is different in the sense that each bracket only applies to a portion of your money.

(e.g. Income = $50000
- $0-$10,000 = 0% | From $0 to $10,000, there is $10,000. So 0% of the $10,000 = $0 is the first tax bracket
- $10,000-$25,0000 = 20% | $10,000 to $25,000 = $15,000---20% of $15,000 = $3,000 [2nd tax bracket]
- $25,000-40,000 = 30% | 30% of $15,000 = $4,500 [3rd tax bracket]
- $40,000- $60,000 = 40% | Since, the income does not reach to $60,000, this bracket applies for the $10,000 between $40,000 to the income, $50,000--- 40% of $10,000 = $4,000 [4th tax bracket]
- $60,000+ = 50% | [Does not apply because the income does not reach this bracket]

Total tax = $0 (1st bracket) + $3000 (2nd) + $4,500 (3rd) + $4,000 (4th) = $11,500
Effective Tax Rate = 11,500/50,000 = 23%)

A portion of all these taxes goes towards public services and the socialist aspect of America. Meanwhile, everything else is capitalist and is owned privately by individuals.

Unlike America, Denmark runs with a “social democracy.” Having a social democracy guarantees everything required for a decent life. Most of everything that is needed for survival is organized by the government at a cost of a higher tax rate (in Denmark, it would be 60-65% if you exceed $60000). For example, rather than having an individual pay for insurance, a social democracy would provide free insurance that has been paid for by the taxes. The higher tax rate allows for more publicly shared schools, libraries, parks, etc. and provides various benefits for the people, such as: unemployment benefits, healthcare, insurance, higher education, etc. In Denmark, not only are most of the costs covered, but people are actually paid to do certain things, such as going to school. However, even with a social democracy, Denmark is still a mixed economy because there are still private ownership and businesses. Those people, who do own their own businesses often make more money, but receive fewer benefits. Either way, most necessities are provided by your greater income or by the government, and would be very difficult (but not impossible) to be poor.

I believe that moving towards a social democracy would be very beneficial. I think that it is better to pay higher taxes and receive more benefits, than to just pay directly with our income. Not only would that be cheaper (due to the additional money coming from the upper class), but it would also guarantee it. Most people argue that you do not know where your money goes when you pay taxes. However, if we kept that money in our pockets, we still would not know where it goes. Most people in America, or at least the people I’ve seen in my experience, cannot manage their money. The way that I see it is that by paying a higher tax, we are giving it to an accountant or an expert, and paying off what is required for survival in society first, then spending the excess money on your own desires. However, I do not think that this plan would be possible any time soon in America. Many people are already pissed off by the war and the fact that our money is going towards massacring people in another country. The people in America have already lost trust in the government, and do not want to contribute more to the evil deeds that are done with our taxes.

the CURRENT American Way of Birth [Big Paper]

As of right now 99% of the births in America are “normal births,” meaning it takes place in a hospital, where one or more doctor is involved, the option of taking epidurals and pitocins is available, and about a third of the births lead to a caesarian section (according to “Business of Being Born”). Around a month ago, I believed all these aspects of birth were good and indispensable to the birth process. However after interviewing several mothers, receiving many lectures, researching, watching various videos, reading a few articles and listening to guest speakers, I have gained a small but significant amount of insight into the American Way of Birth, which would be the normal hospital births. And from what I learned, I have come to a short conclusion that, similar to the many other aspects of the American Way of Life, the American Way of Birth is a source of alienation to life itself. However in order to counteract that one particular facet, “natural births,” that includes a midwife and often takes place at an individual’s home, should be considered by America.

Whether or not, we will have to personally or directly be involved with the birthing process, we all believe it is a painful and disgusting to a certain extent. Consciously we, or at least I, believe and say that birth is beautiful thing. But subconsciously, the image that often takes place in a hospital with a woman going through an extremely long process involving blood, screaming, and overall instability is incorporated with the idea of birth. And it is this image, created by the American Way of Birth that alienates America from the true meaning of birth. The perception of something being disgusting and repulsive is caused by the feeling of borders being crossed, as explained by Julia Kristeva. She says, “The abject body repeatedly violates its own borders, and disrupts the wish for physical self control and social propriety.” This concept of why we believe birth is partially a repulsive process is due to the violation of borders that occurs in the hospital while a female is giving birth, according to Kristeva. In a hospital, a woman in labor is connected to many wires that restrain her movements, which Kristeva would describe as the disruption of “physical self control.” In addition to the physical limitation, the mother also faces emotional suppression. The doctors overwhelm the mother and delude any feelings or thoughts that the mother has. According to Julia Kristeva, our subconscious view on births being something sickening is germane to the crossing of boundaries in hospitals. Thus the American Way of Birth is alienating us from the genuine perception on birth.

Rather than seeing births as an entrance of another human being, some people view it as “labor” and as a part of what you have to do in order to get what you want. In an article named, MD- Midwife in Disguise, the author says “My mother talked about birth being hard work- painful, yes, but an intensely physical experience with a tremendous reward when the work was done.” In America, birth is seen as an obstacle. Not knowing that birth can be a wonderful experience and sometimes even an “orgasmic” one, we view it as “work.” Our approach of birth in America has led us to perceive it as something to just get out of the way, and is alienating us from the fact that it can be a pleasurable moment in each of our lives.

The vast majority of America that goes to the hospital in order to give birth, and view birth just as a disgusting and necessary process is alienated from the true meaning of birth. However, if they were to choose to have a natural birth with a midwife, their alienated perception would slowly change. The representation of midwives in the movie, “Business of Being Born” shows that midwives see birth as a “life altering experience.” Our guest speaker and soon-to-be-midwife, Kaitlyn would agree with that statement. Kaitlyn described births as the transition where a woman turns into a mother. She also said that it was her duty to “protect that experience for her.” Contrary to hospitals, where births are viewed as repulsive and an obligation, going with midwives, who values the birthing processes, will possibly eliminate the alienation of our perception of birth.

Other than alienating our view on birth, the American Way of Birth also alienates the mothers from themselves. The American Way of Birth has led woman to be believe that they do not have the ability to give birth by themselves. One of the teachers in our school, Ms. Plaza was brave enough to share her birth story with our class. And her story is a perfect example of the alienation of the mother and themselves. In her experience, Ms. Plaza had to wait for the doctor to arrive to her room. And when he finally arrived, she said, “We can do this.” Ms. Plaza, as well as many other women in America, is convinced that they cannot give birth without the doctor. The alienation from the American Way of Birth is especially apparent when she referred to the person giving birth as “we.” Women who plan on having a child in America are now totally mentally reliant on the doctors. The American Way of Birth has alienated women from their abilities to give birth.

Another portrayal of the alienation between mothers and their abilities, caused by the American Way of Birth, is a skit called the Monty Python. Although, the skit was created as a joke and humor purposes, there is some truth behind it. In the Monty Python skit, the mother was about to give birth, and she asks the head doctor, “What should I do?” The doctor responds, “Nothing, dear, you’re not qualified.” The significance of this response is that it shows the American Way of Birth/doctors have led women to believe that there are qualifications for giving birth, as though women did not give birth for the thousands of years before hospitals were established. Women are alienated from their own abilities, and without the doctor they do not think they are “qualified” to give birth.

On the contrary, natural births revive the connection between women and their bodies. Our two guest speakers, Melissa and Shira have had natural births where they had a midwife instead of a doctor. At one point in their lives, they also had a normal birth. However, regardless of what type of birth it was, both Melissa and Shira had an instinct, that they both described as “animalistic.” They said that during the labor, their bodies just wanted to move a certain way and be in a certain position. And during their natural births, they were able to approach this instinct. But in Melissa’s first birth, which took place in hospital and a doctor was present, she was bounded from acting upon her animalistic instinct. The doctor prevented her natural body movement in order to reserve their convenience. Natural births, on the other hand, allow the mothers to do and react as they please, at least in our guest speakers’ cases. A natural birth usually takes place at the mother’s home or a birthing center. Whichever location, it still gives the mothers her privacy and freedom. The mother, who would normally be alienated from her own body and abilities in a hospital, is now given back the connection between herself and those two things.

Not only does the American Way of Birth alienate the mothers from their bodies and the significance of birth, it also alienates them from the actual birthing experience. The movie, Business of Being Born, shows that natural births involve a lot of close interaction between the mother and child immediately after the child is born. In the movie, we see that in all the births that involved a midwife, the child instantly went to hold grasp of the mother. This moment is due to a natural chemical called oxytocin, which makes the two people feel connected and as though they are merged together. Through the Business of Being Born, we see that birth is in fact a delightful experience, rather than one of pain and suffering.
Although natural births do supply the mother with a wonderful experience and oxytocin moment, not all births do the same. The American Way of Birth, or the normal hospital births, would actually do the opposite. They alienate the mothers from that experience and leave them clueless of the birthing process. Currently 36% of the births in America involved an intervention named epidural, according to Momaroo. Epidurals are used to numb the mother from the waist-down, in order to eliminate the pain of birth. But since it numbs the body, the mother no longer has any feeling during the process of giving birth. Thus the “mother feels detached from the process and becomes an observer” (Childbirth Solutions, Inc.). Mothers who go to hospital to give birth, using an epidural and follow the American Way of Birth often feels like they are not part of the moment. As part of the American Way of Birth, the use of epidurals alienates the mother from her birthing experience.

The alienation between a mother and the experience of giving birth is also seen in the Monty Python skit, as well as Ms. Plaza’s birth story. Unlike the Business of Being Born, the Monty Python skit portrays the moment after birth as it being the doctor saying, “Isolate it.” The child is immediately taken away from the mother, and there is no bonding between the two of them. Even though Monty Python is a skit, this is often times this is true for almost all hospital births. One real life example would be Ms. Plaza’s birthing experience. In her story, she gave birth in a hospital, where she was completely worn out by the waiting and the labor. And after the labor was finally over, she was already saying “take the baby away.” While, the women in the movie, Business of Being Born were closely bonding with their children, Ms. Plaza could care less about the presence of her baby, mainly due to the exhaustion of the hospital. The normal hospital birth, also referred to as the American Way of Birth, alienates the experience of giving birth and the experience of connecting with her child after the labor done.


Further Thoughts and Questions:
- What forms of alienation do we see in natural births, if any?
- How does the approach of giving birth affect the relationship between the child and parents? How does it the schema of the society as a whole?
- I believe that most people continue to follow the American Way of Birth and go to the hospital, because they are already indulged by the belief that hospitals are sanctuaries. People only feel safe if they are with an official, being monitored. That is why, I think that people will begin to approach natural home births when they are revealed to the fact being in a hospital does not mean you’re in safe hands.

AWOB Outline

I. Introduction
• Normal vs. Natural Births (Venn Diagram notes)
• What is the American Way of Birth?
• Briefly explain the sources: interviews, videos, BoBB, guest speakers, reading, research
• Thesis (very possible that it will be revised): Similar to the many other aspects of the American Way of Life, the American Way of Birth is a source of alienation to life itself. As we follow the AWOL, we are slowly drifting away from what life has to offer us, and the AWOB is just an example of that.

II. How We Perceive Births
• Julia Kristeva: Crossing boundaries and birth
• My own initial thoughts about birth
• Quote from MD-Midwife in Disguise: “I didn’t start medical school with a lot of fear about birth. My mother talked about birth being hard work- painful, ye, but an intensely physical experience with a tremendous reward when the work was done”
• Cesarean section Rates and process: Risen 43% since 1996 Fear of stretching and pain

III. Information about Normal Hospital Births
• The general process
• How births are treated in hospitals- Response to Monty Python skit, interviews, Ms. Plaza
• Doctor convience: position, timing, c-sections
• Interventions (BoBB): Domino effect of epiduralpitocinepidural…
Cesarean section/vacuum
• Hospitals = businesses
• MD- Midwife in Disguise (pg. 114)

IV. Information about Natural Births
• Dolphin and giraffe birth videos
• Midwifery (BoBB)- “assist” the birth
• How the mothers are treated by the midwives
• Guest speaker: Kaitlyn- protecting the transition of going from being a woman to being a mother
• Guest speaker: Shira

V. Direct Comparison between Normal and Natural birth
• Focus of Birth Stories (Interviews vs. MD-midwife in disguise)
• How the mothers/children are treated during and after the birth process (BoBB/Shira/Plaza)
• “machine” and “cow” vs. mother
• Incubator vs. Oxitocin moment (Ms. Plaza/BoBB/Shira)
• Fear and pain vs. “Orgasmic birth”
• Do we really need a monitored environment and interventions to give birth? (Birth videos)

VI. Alienation through the AWOB
• MD- Midwife in Disguise (pg. 113)
• Awareness during hospital births (both vaginal births and c-sections)
• (http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,4521,00.html)