I have shied away from the ongoings of the public health care debate. I deemed them too heated, too beliggerent to even give it a second thought – let it be and this too shall pass. An article on Newsweek.com that I happened to read a few moments ago, reminded me of the importance of vigilance when it comes to politics, most especially when it comes to health care. The article was about the need for the President to reframe his Health-Care debate, Obama needs to reframe health-care debate, and I quote:
“As the health-care debate rages, it’s the Party of Sort-of-Maybe-Yes versus the Party of Hell No! The Yessers are more lackadaisical because they’ve forgotten the stakes—they’ve forgotten that this is the most important civil-rights bill in a generation, though it is rarely framed that way.
The main reason that the bill isn’t sold as civil rights is that most Americans don’t believe there’s a “right” to health care. They see their rights as inalienable, and thus free, which health care isn’t. Serious illness is an abstraction (thankfully) for younger Americans. It’s something that happens to someone else, and if that someone else is older than 65, we know that Medicare will take care of it. Polls show that the 87 percent of Americans who have health insurance aren’t much interested in giving any new rights and entitlements to “them”—the uninsured.
But how about if you or someone you know loses a job and the them becomes “us”? The recession, which is thought to be harming the cause of reform, could be aiding it if the story were told with the proper sense of drama and fright. Since all versions of the pending bill ban discrimination by insurance companies against people with preexisting conditions, that provision isn’t controversial. Which means it gets little attention. Which means that the deep moral wrong that passage of this bill would remedy is somehow missing from the debate.“
“Sec. 111. Prohibiting Pre-Existing Condition Exclusions
A qualified health benefits plan may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion (as defined in section 2701 (b) (1) (A) of the Public Health Service Act) or otherwise impose any limit or condition on the coverage under the plan with respect an individual or dependent based on any health status-related factors (as defined in section 2791 (d) (9) of the Public Health Service Act) in relation to the individual or dependent. ” – H.R. 200 (Health Care Bill as proposed by the Government on July 14, 2009).



I recently brought up the idea of giving our little Bubba a play kitchen, complete with refrigerator, stove, and maybe even microwave. Here he can learn the functions of said objects without actually tampering with the real-life versions and getting hurt by his experimentation (i.e the jamming of little fingers in refrigerator doors or spilling of hot oil atop a little head). He can pretend play he’s whipping a divine meal on his play stove and storing up goodies galore in his play refrigerator. The possibilities are endless!
Still fighting a horribly stubborn bug, I have resigned myself downstairs, quarantined if you will, and relinquishing my mind to the excesses enrobed in flowing gowns and British accents so found within a Jane Austen movie, and any other period romance film. I shamelessly admit having a fondness for such lavish displays of dated gentility and pretentious claims of stature. The plot pitting a bookish heroine against the trivialities of her society, and her eventually dumbfounding them by winning over the heart of someone supposedly out of her league, is one many women can relate to, or want to relate to.