We Have Some of the Answers

There’s a new book called Another World Is Possible: Lessons for America from Around the Globe, but I think the subtitle under-sells the book. The subtitle should probably be Lessons for Every Country from Around the Globe. The author is Natasha Hakimi Zapata, a journalist and university lecturer based in London.

Answers to big questions may not be so hard to find. Better public schools? Renewable energy? Health care? These problems are being solved all over the world, but most people don’t know much about what’s being done and why it might just work in our own countries.

She begins a book of nine solutions with health care, and describes “the United Kingdom’s groundbreaking universal health care system.” It’s not perfect, but Zapata believes, and offers convincing reasons, why this model could and should work in the U.S. (and elsewhere). As she outlines the history — “prior to the twentieth century, health care in the United Kingdom was provided by a disjoined mix of charity hospitals, the local welfare committees that ran so-called poor law workhouses, and private care.” The system was oriented toward low income communities, leaving those in the middle class with few good options, so they came to rely upon emergency care in emergency care facilities at local hospitals. In the U.S. today, we are trying to solve a similar problem, this time for our lower income residents. Government programs incrementally improved the situation, but did not solve it, but the situation changed with the end of the Second World War, when Britain was in dire straits. “The key principle enshrined in the 1946 Bill was that health was a right, not a community to be bought or sold, or subject to market forces.”

And there’s the pivot. The 1946 Act was an “extraordinary success” because it “incontrovertibly made people’s lives better.” Service began in 1948. In England and Wales, it now employs 68 thousand nurses, 12 thousand doctors, and 22 thousand midwives — and they are a small portion of a workforce of 1.4 million people. (And this does not include Scotland.) It’s funded by general taxation. The range of services is vast, including not only ambulance, maternity care, dental care, prescriptions, mental health, long-term care, and optical care. “Patients rare, if ever, pay out of pocket for anything.”

Yes, there has been enormous political capital poured into the service and its growth, and yes, there are special issues of all sorts — an “immigration health surcharge,” for example.” Overall, the system works, and because it is right and not a privilege, it is very much a part of British life.

The important idea here: it is possible for a large country to operate a national health service. There is a model. More people ought to know how it works, and the power of large numbers of people should make sure the success is widely known so it can become the basis for a new U.S. healthcare system. Certainly, there are reasons why this will never work, but that has been the rallying cry for the (hugely successful) opposition. Zapata provides a useful starting place for discussion, here and in other large area of life.

Estonia is a much smaller country, but it has pursued a very big idea. It’s a simple one: access to the internet is a human right (yes, human rights are a theme in this book). This is a country that was part of the Soviet world, with clunky technology, crumby infrastructure, not a lot of money, and political inflexibility. As the nation began to enjoy the new realities of independence, several organizations worked with government to make free internet connections possible. “In 1992, two of the biggest universities in the country [were] provided with free internet service. Soon enough, fiber optic cables were being laid throughout the country.” The pathways led through government, and a new concept of “e-government” was established as a means to operate the nation by, essentially, distributing power and responsibility to the people. This ignited a very different way of thinking about the relationship between a citizen and the government. “One of the main ideas behind Tiger Leap,” which placed education at the center of Estonia’s future, “was to raise a new generation of computer- and internet-savvy Estonians that could create innovations that could spur socioeconomic growth.” In time, Estonia’s Look@World Foundation helped Estonians of all ages to collaboration “in close cooperation,” and begin to see the importance of 100 percent internet access for all Estonians. And the story continues to unfold, with nearby Finland providing more examples and fueling a competitive spirit, too. Estonia is ahead of international curve on I-voting (via the internet, e-ID systems, and more. Estonia raises serious questions about private control of digital technology in the U.S. — they have certainly demonstrated the value of public-private partnerships, respect for the needs of individuals and the evolving role of government.

The author tells similar stories about Portugal and its drug policy; Norway and its family-friendly laws; Uruguay’s approach to renewable energy, and Aotearoa New Zealand’s approach to universal pensions.

Indeed, another world is not only possible, it has taken shape, but the future is not evenly distributed. In many ways, the U.S. seems to be far behind, a remnant of old thinking about power and the unproductive alliances between government, big money and big companies. There are other ways to think about running countries on behalf of their people, and Zapata’s book is enormously useful in imagining what could and should be.



Generational Loss

According to the charts and analysis in Jean W. Twenge’s new book, Generations, some disturbing patterns are emerging. In this case, we seems to be the children and teenagers, our offspring, the people who will manage peace and prosperity as they engage in human progress. Perhaps “will” is an unreasonable term because, in many ways, that progress has already begun.

There has been a precipitous drop in 12th graders who attend religious services once a week or more. For many years, until around 2015, the percentage hovered around 60 percent. Today, it’s about 30 percent. Anyway, that’s the trend for Black Americans. It’s worse for White Americans (gee, I hate these terms, but that’s another story). The drop among White Americans has been more-or-less steady since 1982 or so, with a brief bump around 2000, but just for a while. Pretty much, there’s half as much interest as there was before. Certainly, religion is not a perfect solution to sense of self and community engagement, but it’s an indicator, and it’s not heading in a healthy direction. Among people 18-25 in the U.S., belief in God has dropped from about 85 percent in the early 1970s down to about 55 percent today. No problem if religion has been replaced by an equally distinguished philosophical basis for life. However, if we just drop the idea altogether, then we don’t think much about ethnics, or beyond ourselves, outside of the often-self-serving political arena. One hopes there is more to life than that.

Next institution: government. Back in 2000 or so, about 25 percent of U.S. adults were dissatisfied with government. Today, about 70 percent are dissatisfied. Big change, and that’s across the whole adult population, not just the younger ones.

Twelfth-grade boys have become far more politically conservative — in the late 1970s, conservative applied to about 40 percent of boys, and now, it’s up to over 60 percent. At the same time, girls start in the early 170s at about 35 percent, and they’re now DOWN to about 30 percent. So, we’ve got a lot more conservative males and a lot fewer conservative females growing up.

Comparing U.S. children, ages 2-5, from 2010 to 2019, less than 10 percent were physically active less than four days a week in 2010, but the number is now 18 percent — a big change in just a decade. The situation is worse for kids 6-11 — in 2012, it was 14 percent and now it’s 28 percent.

Some good news — in 1959, about 28 percent of children lived in poverty, and that number has been cut in half. Unfortunately, adults have not fared as well — 18 percent in 1959 compared with 10 percent today (so, a cut of 1/3).

There are many more lonely 15 year olds today than there were in 2000 or so — about 10 percent then, and about 35 percent now. Many more 15-25 year olds are unhappy now (about 20 percent) than there were in about 2005 (less than 5 percent).

Far fewer people who are 20-24 years old are getting married in the U.S. — nearly 70 percent of females were married around 1970, down to about 15 percent today. Good reasons why, certainly. As for men, it’s 45 percent down to 8 percent.

It may not be surprising to learn that the percentage of high school students identifying as lesbian gay or bisexual has been steadily increasing. In 9th, 10th, 11th and 12 grades, the 2015 figures looked like about 8 or 9 percent, then, and about 14 or 15 percent now. Soon, those numbers will approach 1 in 5 high school students. This seems to be true in both red and blue states.

These are among the biggest changes I found in Twenge’s new book. What do they mean? More independent decision-making among young people. Less reliance upon institutions. Less support for decisions that diverge from older established ways. Good reasons for fear that the world is, indeed, changing — and veering away from tradition. The book looks at each generation alive today, and considers the changes each group has experienced.

Trying to frame clear, concise, straightforward opinions based on the information in this book is very hard to do because, in the end, everyone is so different from one another. It’s become difficult to make blanket statements about any generation — and this may have always been true. Still, reviewing the many graphs and explanations in this book is provocative, good stuff for deeper thought, challenging assumptions, and changing one’s mind about long-held beliefs. It’s a good read, and because so much of the real estate is filled with graphs (lots and lots of them), it’s a book that reads fairly quickly, but this does not diminish the book’s value.