Health Care Reform: Why We Need To Speak Up & Support

I am not even sure if I should post about health care because I find the situation infuriating. But I believe it is important that those in favor of health care change show support. There are a myriad of things to say....

To begin with, I heard that in my formerly historically democratic state of Minnesota, our Republican governor, who is rumored to be a potential presidential candidate in 2012, is arguing that Obama's health care plan is a violation of state's rights based on the constitution. Per the news this morning, other politicians are getting behind this idea, but oddly enough, the news reported this was a political tactic. I am glad Obama was in Minneapolis this weekend for a rally with the Target center full of supporters.

Let us look at the state of Minnesota first before discussing some other issues. Minnesota has historically been a state that provides for its citizens. We have one of the highest insured rates in the nation and we are one of the healthiest states (despite all the fried fair food and hotdishes!). We have the program MN Care that provides insurance for the uninsured, even adults, though there are income and asset restrictions. Yet, our governor decided to cut MN Care affecting adults with no children.

My first thought after hearing that states want to be able to not participate in a federal insurance plan was this is ridiculous and unfair to the citizens of these states. What would be the effects of this? Would people move to states where they could access it? Will this whole thing about states' rights even play out?

But it also a bit frightening that when I attended the "state get-together" (i.e. the MN State Fair) I saw numerous people wearing buttons against health care reform. The slogans were something to the effect of "keep your hands off my health care." And I did not see many people wearing buttons who supported the health care reform, including myself.

Thus many of us who are for health care reform end up "preaching to the choir" when we discuss this. And I also wonder if we have become complacent in that Obama is president and the control of the Democrats (though wondering what happens in relation to Senator Kennedy's passing). Taking lessons from social movement research, this makes sense in some ways. Yet, the research on other political debates and social movements, such as the highly controversial abortion one, both sides must remain energetic even if they gain something because the other side is always there. But even activists aim for the middle ground with their framing knowing it is near impossible to "convert" those on the extreme end.

So, what do we do with health care? What kind of arguments need to be made to show this country is not moving in a direction that is beneficial in regards to health care? And how can anyone think that "death panels" are a reality? (thanks Senator Backman... your analogies are so eloquent). And if they believe that , how can they ignore that many minorities in this country, racially, ethnically, and economically, probably face a "death panel" because of the inequity in this country as it is?

Some of this has to do with American Exceptionalism and our deep rooted beliefs in individualism. I am sure people were not happy with the creation of the welfare state because of the Great Depression, but doesn't the Great Depression and our current economic crisis, the worst since then, show that there are structural factors? In addition, I ask how can people be so sure of things, particularly their own jobs and health care, in these horrendous economic times? Seriously, who has security?

I could go on about opinion pieces I have read that resonate with the sociological literature explaining our American Exceptiona ism and limited welfare state, but I'll save that for another time. But I will say this. As I teach my students when we learn about welfare states, welfare is not just the means tested support given to mothers. Welfare as a word means a condition of well being and having your needs met. And most people benefit from the welfare state. Such as if you have kids and get a tax credit. Or there is the idea of corporate welfare. And the welfare state as a term is about how the state provides when capitalism or the economy does not function as it should. So, yes in some countries beyond the US, the idea is that the families and church are to provide before the government steps in to help. And in other countries, i.e. the ones people like to label as "socialist", every citizen is provided for because they are a citizen. And people are saying now that we should look to our families now, but again, this misses at least two points. One, not all families can provide because there is so much inequity in our society. And two, again back to my earlier point, who is secure? What happens if the family we get help from cannot provide anymore?

But I have strayed a bit from the direct discussion of health care, though this is in other countries is part of the "welfare state." And part of this is about points I think people are either mis-informed or in general lack complete information on that should be brought out in this discussion. And I do not claim I am the first to mention these. Yet, I have done my own research about these in relation to meeting my family's insurance needs and have discussed this issue with others who have provided more information.

First, do people read their insurance plans? I mean in-depth to know what is covered, what is not covered, and to know the maximum their insurance will pay. If people did, I think they would be surprised and not in a pleasant way. And if something does happen, the person may not have the coverage they think.

Second, if you loose your job and your health care (or in other words a group plan), can you get insurance? Do you have something that health care is imperative for that might be considered a pre-existing condition? Most people assume that major illnesses are included in this. But we also have to consider other things. Pregnancy is a pre-existing condition, as is a new-born child. Mental health, including things such as depression or anxiety, is a pre-existing condition. I also have heard victims of domestic violence are considered a pre-exiting condition. And having a pre-existing condition precludes a person from obtaining private health insurance.

Why does this matter? I do not even think we should have to answer this question, but it seems necessary in this debate. First, if we keep people healthy, this is more cost effective than to let a condition go untreated and then have to deal with a larger, costlier treatment. And not to cover a new born when ensuring the child has vaccinations and needed treatment would probably have a huge effect on improving their life chances and I would imagine our mortality statistics in this area. Second, and very much related to the first, if people do not have insurance for these or who do not have insurance in general, studies have shown they end up going to the ER, which costs much more. Third, I know in the state of MN, there is a plan that those who are un-insurable can apply for, but I do not know if this exists in other states. But you have to go through much paperwork and red tape to even apply for this. In having read the materials, with a PhD, I had a difficult time understanding. And though I might be making a jump here, I think in some ways these policies are discriminatory. Gender comes to mind in that pregnancy affects women and I believe women tend to be diagnosed more (or seek help) for mental health concerns. But moreover, are we not discriminating against those with mental health concerns, that I do believe to an extent have a biological basis, by denying them coverage? The late senator Paul Wellstone did a lot of work on this and some insurance companies were in hot water for how they treated mental health.

Third, people believe that Obama's health care plan would take away from their coverage. As he has noted, this will not happen. But, how can people think their coverage is staying the same? Who's co-pays have not gone up?

And lastly, for now, people are making the argument that Medicare and Medicaid are a mess, so why should we trust the government with insurance. This seems to be misguided logic to me. First of all, is the current president and administration the one to blame for this if it is a mess? It doesn't seem so and it seems like the same logic of blaming Obama for the economy, which was already in bad shape before he came into office. Thus, if there issues with these, can we not research what they are and use these lessons to generate a health care plan and revise the Medicare and Medicaid?

This has been a long post. And in conclusion, I will restate a point that many sociologists probably make. A healthier society and a more equalized society is by far more cost effective. And my own personal thought here is that no one is secure in these times. And this is not a thought that we want to believe, but we have to look at the reality around us.

Hence, as sociologists we often face the dilemma of if we should advocate for an issue. And I think we have to because of the information we have that shows the benefits to individuals and society in relation to equality and health care. How can we not care about these issues?

CARS & The Economy

It has been a while since I have blogged. Things happen in life that keep one busy. And during this time, the world has not changed much, but at the same time it has. Thus, there are numerous things I could write about, but I will start with a short piece on an issue I cannot get a grasp on, especially as a sociologist. This is the Cars For Clunkers Program.

It is not that I think the program was inherently bad, but I am left asking what now? On the positive side the program enabled a boost in the auto industry, which helped foster the economy. We heard reports that auto workers laid off were brought back to work because of the demand in cars. Environmentally the program offered benefits by taking fuel guzzling cars off the streets. And it helped consumers to an extent in offering a deep discount for a new efficient car.

So, a few questions here. Relating to my last point, how did people afford new cars in an economic recession? Even with the deep discount, people are loosing their houses and cannot afford health care. So, maybe this was aimed at people who had some extra cash. Yes, in the end run it does help the economy, but at the same time, did it help people who needed more efficient cars the most? Maybe this a mute point in regards to the basis and intent of the program, but nonetheless, it still a question I had. Thus, I was surprised that the program was so popular with so much hoopla regarding how Americans, for the first time in ages, were not willing to spend during this recession.

But onto what I consider the more sociological aspect of my confusion with the program. What happens now? Was this just a band-aid approach? What did the program solve? First, it seems that our car market is already over-saturated. Second and relating to the first, what happens to this industry now and all the industries that relate? Now are these workers looking for jobs with skills that are not highly sought in these troubling economic times? Will this mean lay-offs again? And if this happens, how does this affect the economy?

I do not purpose that I am economist and thus fully understand the situation from an economic view. But as a sociologist, I do wonder if this problem is not just about this recession, but the industry as a whole that had issues before the current times. Roger and Me comes to mind in thinking about this.

As I discussed this issue with others, I proposed that the stimulus money could be used to retrain auto workers in another industry. Yet, others state that that would be difficult in these hard times when most industries seem to be cutting jobs. But there has to be a way to deal with this issue and the economy in general. People are truly suffering. We need to think outside the box. Would more investment in public transportation and thus, training for jobs in this area help? Yes, this will take a large shift in American's attitudes, but something has to change.

I do not claim to know the answers and like many Americans, I feel frustrated by the bleak outlook we are given about the economy. We have hope and then told more negative news about the economy. I think the adage if you are not angry, you are not paying attention is true about the current economic times. Yes, we need to have hope, but we also need to be diligent in finding solutions. Things will take time, but we need to understand people's lives are affected.

Introduction to this Blog

Having studied sociology in high school, college, and graduate school, it is safe to say that I am a sociologist. Indeed, with a PhD in sociology, I am a doctorate level sociologist. Yet, my point is that my title is not the only or main qualification that makes me a sociologist, but it is the way I think. This is why I was drawn to the field in the first place. It is hard for me to leave the "sociological imagination" at home. Thus, not only in my research and teaching do I utilize or "do" sociology, but I view the world and my experiences through a sociological lens.

This blog is my sociological view of the world that includes not only social events that we can all observe, but also two other aspects that I consider to be "living sociology." One, like all others, I am a person who fills or plays numerous roles in society- parent, spouse, daughter, friend, and the so forth. As a gender sociologist, I am particularly attuned to the gendered (and other sociological concepts) that I see and live in these roles. But moreover, why I think the term "living sociology" is appropriate is because I live in an inner-city neighborhood that many may only study. It is a racially and economically diverse neighborhood (for the upper Midwest), where we deal with crime, homeless on the corners, the "urban river" (i.e. the freeway) bordering our house, and language and cultural differences with neighbors. These different factors are not all entirely positive or negative, but instead are what they are. I have been an active member of the neighborhood organizations and associations that address the host of issues the neighborhood faces in our tiny pocket of Minneapolis.

In concluding this introductory post, I do not purpose that what I write is or will be "systematic, rigorous" observations of the social world and my experiences that can be generalized. But nonetheless, I can provide sociological insight about the social world and these experiences.