Your first layer of backup

Probably the most common reason you will need to use your backup is due to a hard drive failure. Therefore, it is probably a good idea to have a complete system backup so that you can quickly recover after replacing the failed drive. For Mac users, I recommend using Time Machine with an external hard drive.This will create incremental backups whenever the drive is attached. If you have more then one computer in the house, then it is probably worth investing in a Time Capsule. This will allow backups to occur over wifi. The hard drive in my wife’s laptop died  a year ago which spurred a much needed upgrade anyways. When we brought the new laptop home, the Mac setup wizard asked if we would like to restore from a backup, we said yes, it found the Time Capsule on the network and about an hour later, she had a new laptop that looked and behaved just like the one that died (albeit a lot faster).

Sorry Windows users, but I’m not sure if there is a similar system. Once upon a time when I owned Windows computers I would use Norton Ghost, however I cannot attest to its usefulness now. If someone knows a better tool, let me know (Mac users: Carbon Copy Cloner is also very good and works somewhat like Norton Ghost).

Alternatively, you can always manually backup your files using the Finder on Mac or Explorer on Windows. I generally don’t recommend this as then you are now relying on remembering to perform a backup then it just happening automatically.

For your home backup, I think that Western Digital My Books are very good for the price. They are external USB drives that will work with Time Machine or any other backup software. However, if you are serious about keeping your data safe (read: FAMILY PHOTOS), then I would recommend a Drobo. Admittedly quite a bit more expensive, but these external hard drive enclosures hold up to four hard drives. I recommend starting with two 1 TB hard drives (you need at least two drives to start). What a Drobo does is spread your data over multiple drives so that if one fails, your data is still safe. If a drive were to fail, a light on the front of the Drobo turns red, you replace that drive with a new one, and all is good. Moreover, the Drobo can grow with you as you acquire more data. If you start with two 1TB drives, you will actually have 1TB usable (since the other 1TB is used for protection). Once you begin to fill that 1TB, simply add a third drive, say another 1TB drive, and instantly you have 2TB of storage. Moreover, say you have four 1TB drives (resulting in 3TB of usable storage) and you have reached it’s capacity, you can then remove one drive and replace it with a larger drive (2TB are soon to be available) therefore increasing the capacity of the Drobo.

Your really important files

I am currently working on a dissertation. As you can imagine, I’m very concerned about the safety of these files as I work on them. One of my favorite services now is Dropbox. After installing a small utility on your Mac or Windows computer, you pick a directory that will sync with the Dropbox service. What then happens is anytime a file changes in that directory (or subdirectories), that file is copied to the Dropbox service (assuming you are connected to the internet). Moreover, Dropbox will keep a copy of all revisions for the last 30 days. Additionally, Dropbox has a sharing feature so that you can share a directory with any number of other users. After setting up the share, any changes you make are sent automatically to other users. This has proven to be an  invaluable tool for collaborating with colleagues on various projects. This service is free for up to 2GB of storage, $50/year for 25GB, and $100/year for $50GB.

Offsite Backup

In general, I think that two copies in not enough. More specifically, I will keep two copies in my home (i.e. my computer and one backup) and one somewhere else. For a while I was carrying a hard drive to work once a month. This way, if the worst happened (e.g. house burnt down) I would only loose about a months worth of data. However, there are two very good and relatively cheap alternatives available that allow you to backup unlimited data online. Backblaze ($5/month or $50/year) and Carbonine ($55/year) are both available for both Mac and Windows. The only disadvantage of these services is that the initial backup may take quite some time to complete. For example, I’m currently using Backblaze (a Google search for ‘backblaze coupon code’ will find you a 10% coupon) and it took about a week for my laptop to backup. I’m currently backing up all my photos (over 500GB worth!) and it has been working for about a month now. However, once the initial backup completes, it is relatively quick for updates and/or new files to be backed up.

A Foundation for Debate

There are four opposing philosophies that are at play in this debate: individualism, collectivism, capitalism, and democracy. Understandings of these opposing forces provide valuable insight into the differing points-of-view on this debate.

Individualism and Collectivism

Individualism is a philosophical or moral stance whereby independence and self-reliance are emphasized. Collectivism on the other hand is the philosophical or moral stance that emphasizes human interdependence and the importance of a collective. In most international studies that look at the individualism/collectivism spectrum, the United States nearly always ranks as the most individualistic nation, and usually by substantial margins. Though the Constitution provides a foundation for both philosophies (e.g. “We the people” supports collectivism; the Bill of Rights supports individualism), clearly over the last decade value of the individual has taken precedence. This extreme tendency towards individualism is perplexing as in many instances moving toward a more balanced society would benefit more individuals. Take Joe the Plumber’s view from the last election. He opposed Obama’s economic views because he felt it would infringe on his individual rights, and assuming his business would put him in the top 2% of the wealthiest Americans, he is correct. However, in reality Obama’s proposed economic policies would benefit him more than McCain’s would have. This is now the case with health care. Unless you are one of the lucky one to two percent of Americans, public health care will most likely benefit you. This is exemplified by the fact that nearly 60% of bankruptcies (75% of which had insurance) filed in the United States are the result of medical bills[ii]. So even if you are fortunate enough not to be one of the nearly 42 million uninsured Americans, consider that you are one medical emergency away from bankruptcy.

It is also important to point out the hypocrisy of religious leaders, particularly Christians, who argue for a moral government but ignore the preaching of Jesus of whom they hold as a model. Based on my understanding of his life, I believe Jesus would be in favor of national health care. His charity at the individual level does not imply individualism. In fact, most of his decisions were done with intent of helping the collective, that is, wasn’t he sent to Earth to save humanity?

There are countless examples of how the collective will often benefit the individual. Malcolm Gladwell argues that the success of individuals can largely be attributed to their environment or community. That is, raw talent, whether genetic or not, is not enough to be successful. It is raw talent along with opportunities provided by the community that allow one to be truly successful. However, it is Howard Zinn who provides a very damning critique of individualism:

It is an irony that these rugged individuals so loved individualism that they ganged up together to enslave black people, steal land from Mexico, and carry out an ethnic cleansing of the continent. At other times they ganged up to abuse and mistreat, among others within their borders, Chinese people and Japanese people and Jews and Catholics, before ganging up to abuse peoples of Central and South America and so on around the world. A nation of individuals saying, “I am an individual. Don’t blame me for the collective crimes of this country.”[iii]

Capitalism and Democracy

For nearly two centuries, capitalism and democracy have coexisted with minimal issues. However, the delicate balance between capitalism and democracy has been tipped in favor of capitalism, especially since corporations have been granted the rights of personhood. The Supreme Court will hear soon hear additional arguments in Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission that brings into question the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold bill. At the heart of the matter is the question of whether corporations have the same unfettered First Amendment right to free speech. The McCain-Feingold bill attempts to limit corporate speech during times of elections since corporations have an unfair advantage given their tremendous financial resources. This is merely the most recent example of how corporations are increasing their dominance over our democratic system. The systematic deregulation of the economic system over the last half-century has brought into question the viability of coexistence of capitalism and democracy.

It is my opinion that capitalism must be suspended for fundamental services/rights of society, two of which are health care and education. In these areas we must acknowledge that the collectivist approach will lead to a more harmonious society where all individuals benefit. We value our education system as providing a means for social mobility. However, as decades of educational research reveal, social economic status is still the biggest predictor of academic success. This is exacerbated by our system of funding schools by property taxes thereby creating a natural inequitable system. When profit motives come in play as they currently are with an increase of for-profit charter schools, the problem is only worsened as exemplified by the failure of charter schools in post-Katrina New Orleans[iv].

One of the problems is the disparate value placed on goods by consumers and share holders. Take Apple for example. It is in Apple’s best interest to create and increase the value of their products as to increase consumer demand. Therefore working to better their consumer’s experience not only benefits consumers, it benefits their shareholders as well. However, the correlation between consumer and shareholder interest falls apart for health care and education because the consumers of the service are not necessarily or usually the payers of these services. For education, it is tax money in the form of property taxes that are redirected to the for-profit companies. The same holds true for health care, except it is generally directed through the employer. Employers often have a choice of health care providers, but rarely do the individuals. Understand it is the service providers’ legal obligation to act in the best interest of their shareholders. In these cases where the consumer is not the payer, it is not the case that the consumer and shareholder interest coincide. This results in a system where the most efficient way for an insurance company to increase shareholder value is to simply reduce the number claims they pay. Or eliminate those individuals who are too costly.

Reframing the Debate

Though I argue that national health care is ultimately a nuanced argument, where proponents of national health care have failed is in articulating their entry point to discussion. That is, the question of health care for all is a moral decision. More specifically, the question must be asked: Is it moral for anyone to make money on someone else’s care? By no means am I arguing that doctors and health care professionals not make any money. I agree that having high paid doctors attracts the most qualified individuals to such an important profession. However, the profit I am opposed to is the money that is directed to Wall Street and investors. In effect, these people are valuing profit over a person’s health. Bill Moyers put it best: “we should be treating health as a condition, not a commodity”[v].

Direct Rebuttals to Opposing Arguments

I have provided the basic framework from where I decided that national health care is a fundamental right of all individuals. In this section I will provide direct answers to some of the more common arguments I have encountered against national health care.

I don’t want the government deciding what care I can get.

In no way has the proposed health care bill suggested that the government will control the health care individuals receive. In fact, under the government plan control of one’s healthcare will be better controlled by the individual and their doctor. Reuters has recently reported that on average, 21% of claims filed in California were denied[vi]. As explained above, insurance companies are motivated to reduce costs to increase profitability, including denying claims whenever possible.

With respect to “death panels,” this idea coined by Sarah Palin but initiated by Betsy McCaughey has been duly debunked. It stems from language in the proposed bill that indicate that doctors could partially be rated based upon their creating an end-of-life plan with patients and the extent to which they followed those plans. For example, if a patient indicates that they want every possible attempt to be made to be kept alive, a doctor who does not follow this end-of-life plan could potentially be rated poorly. Conversely, doctors who do not honor a patient’s do-not-resuscitate will also be negatively rated. These provisions are an attempt to ensure individuals and their families are prepared for end-of-life treatment and to hold doctors accountable for honoring their patient’s wishes. Might I suggest watching John Stewart rather entertaining debate with Betsy McCaughey[vii]?

The Social Security program is going bankrupt, how can the government do better with health care?

At the time the Social Security Act was signed in 1935, the life expectancy was 60, but for a child born in 2005 they can expect to live to 78[viii]. Moreover, the retirement age has only increased 2 years from 65 to 67 resulting in an increase of number of Americans over 65 from 6.7 million to 34.9 million[ix]. Clearly the Social Security Act needs to be amended to account for a changing society, it the program itself and of itself not a failure.

We already have the best health care in the world.

This is simply a fallacy. Spend a few minutes at the World Health Organization (WHO)[x] and you will quickly see that the United States ranks fairly poorly on many quality of life metrics. The WHO last provided an overall ranking of health systems in 2000 where the United States ranked 37^th; the US ranks 42 in life expectancy; and 29^th in infant mortality. And to make matters worse, we spend more per capita than any other nation on health care.

The Government is already too big.

This is a particularly comical argument coming from the party that gave us The Patriot Act and the largest deficit in history. The former arguably stripped more civil liberties than any other law passed. The starting of two wars, irresponsible tax cuts during a time of war, among other arcane policies despite evidence to the contrary undermine this argument (e.g. abstinence only sex-education programs despite evidence of their lack of effectiveness). The republican’s idea of small government includes corporations ability to create unlimited access to profit while at the same time dictating what is moral, despite the irony that those most strongly preaching for a “moral” America are those caught engaging in immoral acts themselves.

Though I’ve tried blogging in the past, I seem not update very often. However, I’m going to attempt to use this format to keep some of my information organized, particularly as I find stuff on the web related to my studies in Educational Psychology. You may want to also check out my photography blog.