Universal Healthcare IE "Obamacare". Why Not???

This week the United States Supreme Court will be hearing arguments for and against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) aka "Obamacare" that was passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by President Obama in March of 2010. Side note- I had to look up the origin of the term "Obamacare". It has been used by the right in such a derogatory way and now by people in general when referring to universal health care. In turns out that in March of 2007 a lobbyist used several similar terms in a health care article-"Giuliani-care", "Edwards-care", "McCain-care" and a revamped "Hilary-care" etc. Mitt Romney later described "Hilary-care" and "Obama-care" as socialized medicine. President Obama and Democrats are now trying to "take back the word"  by saying "Yes, Obama Cares". Lol! The point is, why has this idea been met with such criticism? Recent polls show that as many as 60% of Americans are against the "individual mandate" part of the law that requires everyone to pay for and acquire health insurance if not provided by their employer or face a penalty. 26 states have filed lawsuits against the law calling it unconstitutional.
I will not pretend that I have read every page of the PPACA and some of what I have read, I do not understand. I do know that from personal experience, I was shouting from the rooftops that insurance companies cannot deny coverage based on preexisting conditions. Isn't it the sick and disabled that need insurance the most? But what I am most confused about comes from those opposed to "big government" stating that the government should not be able to tell us that we must have health insurance.
But the government has told us that we must do a lot of things and buy a lot of things that people do not seem to be opposed to. For instance,
1) Children are required to go to school. This may be public, private or at home but every child must attend school or parents can be arrested. Well what if parents don't believe in school and would prefer to raise their children without any knowledge and unable to read or write? Hmm, that would be detrimental to society on a whole so it wouldn't be a good idea.
2) Everyone is required to have automobile insurance. Even if you are the safest driver in the history of driving and you have never been in a car accident, you must spend hundreds or thousands of dollars every year for car insurance. Some states have minimums that you must purchase for collision, bodily injury etc. But why? Isn't this wasted money since you don't plan to ever be in an accident? Well, since there is no guarantee that you wont cause or be involved in an accident, you must purchase it or face penalties or arrest. And what about wearing seat belts? Should you be forced to wear one or get a ticket? Why? You will probably only harm yourself if you are in an accident and get thrown the car so why should it matter to anyone else and be made into a law?
3)Home insurance. You are required by your mortgage dealer/banks to have home insurance. Why? What if you plan to take good care of your home therefore nothing bad would ever cause damage to it? And what if you do not live in a hurricane, tornado, mudslide or earthquake area? Why should you have to spend money you may not have paying a home insurance bill every month just in case something happens? I lived in a townhouse on a small lake that had no history of  flooding but I was required to purchase and have flood insurance. It made no sense to me but it was the law.
So now back to universal health care. You could be the healthiest person in your family or state, get a clean bill of health from your doctor, walk out of the doctor's office and be hit by a car. Sad but true. You are then rushed to the hospital and require emergency surgery and a long hospitalization to save your life but you have no health insurance. Who pays for it? Those that DO have health insurance.
Being in the health care industry, everyday I see the drain uninsured "self pay" patients put on the system. Those that have health insurance often pay higher premiums in order to cover the expenses of those that do not. Or, the hospitals and clinics eat up the cost and stay in the red for providing services to those that do not have health insurance.
At the heart of the matter is whether Congress, protected by the Constitution, can regulate "interstate commerce" by enforcing an individual mandate requiring everyone to have minimal health insurance coverage. Again, if it is not covered by your employer, medicaid or medicare, you will have to purchase it. There are subsidies that would be in place to help with such costs and a max that individuals and families would have to spend. Of course both sides have credible arguments for and against the individual mandate but from what I have read, since individuals not having insurance in any state can affect the national economy, I say the government has every right to pass such a law.
In conclusion, I feel the more people learn about the benefits of universal health care and the full details of the PPACA, the term "Obamacare" will elicit much less fear. For more information go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act
Also, although Michael Moore's views are far more liberal than mine, I thought his documentary "Sicko" was very informative. Why should prisoners and detainees at Guantanamo Bay be the only ones in this country that have universal health care with medical, dental and visual coverage? To make it worst, they get it for free. But for those that can afford it, let us all contribute to and lessen the costs of health care by all of us having health insurance.
The Supreme Court will render a decision by June. Will the majority say yeah or nay?
Thoughts?

Poor Trayvon. Please sign the petition at www.change.org/trayvon?

These are the words that keep going through my head this past week. I appreciate the "?" at the end of the petition link. It is a question. Why did this young boy have to die?
Although it is a legal vs political issue, how can I not post about something that has truly affected me along with this entire nation.
For those of you that have been living under a rock :-), Trayvon Martin is a 17year old black teen that was shot to death by a neighborhood watch captain in a gated community in central Florida. He was a cute teen, small in build that had never been in any trouble. His only crimes were being black, wearing a hoodie and walking through his own neighborhood on his way back from the convenience store. He was carrying ice tea and a box of skittles. Mr.Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch captain, saw him walking through the neighborhood and called 911. Even though Trayvon was not committing a crime. He then followed him against the advice of the 911 operator, got out of his car with a gun and approached Trayvon. He claimed an altercation occurred and he shot him in self defense. He was taller and about 100 pounds heavier than Trayvon. He has not been arrested which has led to a public outcry including school walkouts, marches, vigils and even the President and players in the NBA making a stance and posting pictures of themselves in hoodies (sweatshirts with hoods).
This case has brought up several issues that I would like to discuss. 1)Racial profiling 2)Hate crimes 3) "Stand Your Ground" laws.
1) Racial profiling. The police are often accused of doing this. Everyone has heard the stories of black men in expensive cars being pulled over. Why? Because they are black men in expensive cars. Minorities of both races in rich all white communities are also often targets. Why? Because it is felt that they don't belong. How many black people have been followed around by security guards-sometimes also black-in expensive stores such as Gucci or Louis Vuitton? Why? Because the thought process is-since they probably cant afford such items, they will steal them. But this behavior is not unique to security guards or police officers. We all have prejudices based on race, age,sex and culture. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. I know it is true even of myself. If I am in my car alone at 2am, stopped at a red light and a bright turquoise "hooptie" car on high wheels, with thick rims, blasting loud music pulls up next to me, I would not think twice about running the red light out of fear of being car jacked or followed. Yes, I said it because it is true. I think the best example of racial profiling and prejudice is the Oscar winning film- CRASH. Everyone should watch that movie. Everyone should own up to their own prejudices and deal with them. Everyone should be aware of how they may affect how you treat others. Be aware that such treatment could unknowingly turn out deadly.
2) Hate crimes. Over the years I have been torn about this issue. Harsher and longer penalties given to those who commit crimes due to hatred of a particular race or creed. For instance, killing someone because he or she is gay and you hate gay people vs killing someone just because it was part of a robbery, rape, or you just felt like it. To me, somehow getting more jail time for one murder over the other felt as if one life was worth more than the other. I personally feel any murder or horrific crime warrants life in prison or the death penalty no matter what the motive is. However, recent cases have made me realize that we must take a stance that this nation will not stand for crimes against anyone solely out of hate. To make the penalties harsher or longer may deter those that target a particular group of people. In Mississippi, 3 men recently plead guilty to federal hate crimes after running over and beating a black man to death. A black man that they randomly found and attacked in a hotel parking lot because they hate N***. A Rutgers University student was recently found guilty of a hate crime for spying on his gay roommate via a web cam and discussing it on twitter. He denies doing so out of hate or that he is homophobic. His roommate committed suicide a few days later. And now the Trayvon Martin case. The man who admits to shooting and killing him is half Hispanic and denies being racist. How then can he explain his suspicions of this young teen, his decision to call 911, hunt him down and kill him without provocation? So yes, I now believe in the federal hate crime legislation that was passed in 2009. We must make it clear that in America these obscene behaviors and crimes will not be tolerated.
3) The "Stand Your Ground" law. Florida was the first to pass this law in 2005 (why am I not surprised). Since then 16 more states have passed similar laws. It allows someone to use deadly force if they "reasonably believe" they must defend themselves from a threat. Since 2005, there has been an increase in shootings of unarmed individuals were self defense was claimed and therefore the shooter was not arrested or prosecuted. Proponents of the law state that it was intended for people to protect themselves from home invasion or real physical danger such as rape or a serious physical attack. None of the above is the case with this watch captain who was warm and safe in his car with his gun who chose to follow Trayvon and get out of his car with such gun to approach and antagonize the smaller unarmed teen. Even supporters of the law have spoken out against Mr.Zimmerman's actions and state shooting in self defense must require a real fear that your life is in danger.Those who oppose the law basically call it a license to kill and based on the statistics, I somewhat agree. In the end, if this neighborhood watch captain is able to get away with murder based on this law, it surely needs to be revisited and reworded or revoked!
Thoughts?

Habla Ingles?!

This may be my most controversial blog post but if I can not speak my mind on my own blog, where can I speak it? So here goes...
This is for "frustrated" based on many conversations we have had on the topic which was recently brought back to our attention thanks to former Senator Rick Santorum. While campaigning in Puerto Rico, he stated that if PR wished to become a state, they should adopt English as their official language. lol! I thought this was yet another comical statement by Mr.Santorum. Since Puerto Rico is a Spanish country, why would they make English the official language? But it also made me rethink the idea of English being the official language of the United States. In many countries such as the Australia, United Kingdom and the United States, English is the predominant language spoken and used in government but it is not the official language. However, it is the official language in certain states. I just read on wikipedia that 96% of the US population claims to speak English "well" or "very well". Seriously?
Spanish is the second most common language in the US and is spoken by 12% of the population. So why does it feel more like 50%?! I know. I know. I am biased since I live in the Miami area but honestly, even when I lived in the Northeast, I had the same feeling.
There have been several attempts to make English the official language in the United States but the bills have been met with opposition and have not passed. Why? I do not understand the resistance to this. It is a fact that America is a melting pot. Built on the backs of immigrants (and slaves-yes I had to go there) from all over the world. And what happened when they came from different countries all speaking their native tongue? They learned English to communicate with one another. How can we be the best country we can be if we do not have one common spoken and written language?
I do think it is wonderful to be fluent in different languages. During the times I have been in Europe, I envied travel companions who were fluent in French, Italian and Spanish. However, before I went to those countries, I learned basic words and phrases. Also, my foreign language handbooks never left my side. On the contrary, I have never seen Spanish speaking people in the US with an English translation handbook.
In addition, I will admit it. I get a bit annoyed when people suggest I become fluent in Spanish due to the population I serve. But isn't that enabling? Why isn't there any expectation or obligation from all immigrants to learn English? And should I also become fluent in Creole since there is a large Haitian population here? If I move to an area with a large Vietnamese population, will I also be told to learn that? Although the Hispanic population is now the largest minority population in the US, is it fair that Spanish is the language most people expect Americans to learn and speak forsaking all others? I think not.
I totally understand that it is not easy as an adult to learn a new language. I am sure it is even more difficult if there is a low level of education achieved. But in my opinion, there are many missed opportunities. For instance, why cant Spanish TV channels in the US have English subtitles? Since driving is a necessity for most people, how about a temporary driver's license requiring the exam be taken in English within a year in order to have a permanent license? When patients are admitted to hospitals there are many educational channels in Spanish. Why not have channels that teach English? Is there any one who can deny that having bilingual everything in this country, including customer service messages, allows a person to live their entire life in this country without ever learning English?
In addition, on a personal note, I do not think it is OK to have a job requirement in America of being fluent in Spanish. Unless that occupation is teaching English! lol. I have seen many such listings in my medical journals and have thought to myself- I went to school for 11 years after high school, sacrificed a great deal, spent an enormous amount of money but I am limited as to where I can work as a pediatrician because I am not fluent in Spanish. I cannot imagine being a parent and having to take my child to the hospital for an emergency but not being able to tell the doctors what the problem is. I could not live in a foreign country and not make every attempt to learn their language if only for that reason alone. I could not rely on or assume that wherever I went, someone could be found in person or over the phone that spoke English. Which brings me to my next point...
Is there any other country that would allow this? Based on just vacationing there, I dare anyone to move to France and expect the French to learn your language! Immigrants from non-Spanish speaking countries find a way to learn English in America because they have no choice. Shouldn't that be our strategy? For now, I would at least like for my Spanish speaking patients to say to me "no comprende" or "no habla ingles" instead of looking at me and listening to me speak English for a full 5 minutes saying nothing. Forcing me to ask- "habla ingles?".
Thoughts?

Bring Our Troops Home.

I was so incredibly saddened to hear of the American soldier who is accused of shooting 16 civilians including 9 children in Afghanistan. In his 10 years of military service he has served 3 tours in Iraq and was  upset, along with his family, to learn that he would be deployed to Afghanistan. Everyone that knows him is shocked by his actions and one can only assume he was pushed to his breaking point and possibly suffering from post traumatic shock disorder.
I have absolutely no idea what it must be like to serve in a war. Hero is not strong enough of a word for men and women who volunteer to serve and give their lives protecting our country and freedom. I personally feel enough is enough. To expect any of them to serve 4 tours in war zones seems excessive. Either we need more soldiers or we need to scale back our presence in so many countries. And we definitely do not need to start any more wars. Going to war in Afghanistan after 911 to bring down the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden has in my opinion been too costly in dollars as well as in lives. Yes I am glad Osama is dead but have we really done anything to deter Al Qaeda? The Iraq war based on "weapons of mass destruction" was a farce. And now there is talk of going to war in Syria and Iran. Is it completely naive of me to believe "leave us alone and we will do the same"?! I understand we have to protect our interests abroad and I understand that we can not sit back as Americans and watch horrible dictators kill and slaughter their own people. But why is it always the US that is the leader in such causes and therefore with the most lives lost? And no one likes to admit this but isn't it true that our actions abroad and interference in other countries is what leads to actions by terrorists like 911? We have military bases in hostile territories all through the Middle East. We are not modest about our western culture and Americans feel our democratic system is a must for all. But I do not believe it is. I can understand why many countries hate the arrogance of Americans and want them out of their country to the point of attacking us here on our own.
As you can tell from above I am no Condoleeza Rice. I am not well versed in issues of National Security. I am just a citizen who is heart broken by the effects of these wars. I want all world leaders to think hard and long before attacking each other. I want our troops home and safe with their families.
Thoughts?

The truth about gas prices! (not President Obama's fault)

I am sick of the politicizing of gas prices. I found the following article to be very helpful. The blame game is just not cute especially when educated people know better. AND, why would any world leader cause gas prices to go up or not do everything in their power to bring them down during an election year?! SMDH
http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2012/02/28/president-obamas-role-in-current-gas-prices/

Voter ID Law

The Justice Dept blocked a law in Texas that would require voters to show a photo ID. They felt the law could disenfranchise thousands of Hispanic voters in the state. The case will now go to a federal court in Washington DC. Hispanic voters in Texas are twice as likely as non-Hispanic voters to not have some form of photo identification. Apparently other states have similar laws pending final approval and most have been created by republican legislators and governors. Democrats feel these laws discriminate against people who usually vote democratic such as the poor, African-Americans, Hispanics and college students.
But what am I missing here?! I had no idea you did not need some type of photo identification to vote!!
Two days ago I reminded my 20 year old cousin to register to vote. She does not have a drivers license but she does have a school photo ID.
You need a photo ID to order an alcoholic drink or buy liquor in a store, buy tickets for an R rated movie (well back in the day you did ;-), enter a bar, buy cigarettes and to drive an automobile. New travel laws require a passport, not even a photo ID or license, in order to go in and out of the country. Shouldn't you need some type of photo ID to vote?
My bigger question is, how would you know the person voting is actually that person? How would the pollsters know if you are really 18 years of age or older and an American citizen with the right to vote? If an ID is used that does not have a photo, what stops that person from sharing that ID and passing it on to other people to use to vote? Is there a system that checks that that person has already voted in some other part of the city, county or state?
I understand that it may be too close to the election to make such a requirement for this year but I see no reason for this not to be a requirement in the future.
Thoughts?

Is there such a thing as being too PC??

There have been many news stories that have made me question the fine line between freedom of speech and being politically correct. These include descriptions of Jeremy Lin as "chink in armor", having a picture of him coming out of a fortune cookie, Roland Martin tweeting about smacking guys at Super Bowl parties that liked David Beckham's TV commercial, Karl Lagerfeld saying Adele was "a little too fat" and Kirk Cameron saying being gay was "unnatural and detrimental to society".
I think Bill Maher had the right idea to name his show "Politically Incorrect". It warns viewers in advance if you can't handle his freedom of speech, don't watch. The same goes for tuning into any known shock jock radio show. No one can act surprised if they tune into Howard Stern and hear him talking about sex or listening to a conservative shock jock that illustrates the "absurd with absurdity". Unfortunately that is not the case if someone is watching mainstream television, reading the newspaper or following someone on twitter.
As a black woman I have been victim to many racial slurs and hateful acts as a child due to my skin color. Therefore, I am very sensitive to the matter. I do believe no one should say things that are meant to be purposefully cruel. But how about people who say things without the intention of being racist? Yes they should be educated but should we rush to judgement that they are racist? Are there comments that in the spur of moment are meant to just be funny and should be overlooked vs getting an immediate suspension from your job? IE Roland Martin's comment. I do agree that if you are a journalist or TV personality you have to always choose your words more carefully but he did not make his comments on CNN. He did so on his personal twitter account.
As for freedom of speech-doesn't everyone have a right to their opinions along with the right to express them? Is there anyone who looked at Adele and didn't think as Karl Lagerfeld did? Granted I do not see a reason to have been vocal about her weight since she is not a personal trainer. She is a singer with enormous talent which Mr.Lagerfeld also mentioned. But did his comments really warrant a call to boycott Chanel? And I can not help feeling bad for Kirk Cameron. Even though I do not agree with him, he has the right to express himself just as the supporters of gay rights do.
In the end, I think we could all stand to loosen up a bit and laugh more. For those that are known to have racist views and use inappropriate and derogatory terms on a regular basis, then I say "off with their heads". (Kidding).
Thoughts?

Super Tuesday!

Mitt Romney wins Ohio and is the clear winner of the day however the other candidates have committed to fighting until the end. Really? Seriously? I can understand Rick Santorum staying in the race but can anyone explain to me why Newt Gingrich, even if he did win Georgia and hopes to win more southern states, is staying in the race? not to mention Ron Paul? Do we really have to wait until the convention in August for a winner to be declared?
Some have said this is good for the President and the democratic party since the republican primaries have been a bit ugly and millions of dollars have been spent on negative ads that are leaving a bad taste in the mouth of most voters. Others have said that this fight will make the ultimate winner stronger and better able to take on the president in the fall. Also, having several candidates remaining in the race raises various issues and generates useful debates. Could it also be a ploy by the candidates to gain cabinet positions or a selection for vice president if one of them is elected? That seemed to work well for Hilary Clinton.
After all of this fighting will the candidates be able to come together and support the eventual nominee?
I am not quite sure where I stand on this but I do I think August to November is too short a period to have the republican nominee and the president debate and campaign against each other.
However it goes, I do hope the extreme partisan politics that currently exists improves over the next 4 years. I truly hope there can be some middle ground on the issues and get bills, laws and doctrines passed that can benefit this country as a whole.
Thoughts?
P.S. Sarah Palin w her hubby on CNN casting her vote in Alaska wearing a NRA shirt. Visions of the SNL weekend update skit comes to mind. Hilarious!

A Rare Apology!

I will not mention his name on my site but a conservative radio talk show host made a rare apology today about the remarks he made this past week directed at a Georgetown Law school student that testified at a congressional hearing about the cost of birth control. I will not mention his name since I believe he is an extreme conservative shock jock that spews hateful and insulting words on a regular basis. It is hard to believe anyone can truly feel this way. It is also hard to believe he is so judgemental after so many failed marriages and after being addicted to prescription drugs.
But as shocking as this was for me, I have to admit that for the first time EVER I agree with what he said in his apology. An apology however that I am sure was not done out of sincerity but out of fear of losing his radio show after several sponsors have pulled out due to his comments.
His statement is below:
"I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in any one's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.
My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices"
Thoughts?

The Great Birth Control Debate

Debates, disagreements and division. It is a wonder anything ever gets passed in Washington these days. "Can't we all just get along?" :-) or at least meet somewhere in the middle?
Today the Senate voted to uphold the President's birth control policy and against a republican plan to allow employers and health insurance companies to deny "specific items or services" for women, including birth control, if they felt it went against their religious or moral beliefs.
President Obama's health care law that passed in 2010 stated that most insurers must cover preventative services for women including all contraceptive drugs and devices without a copay or deductible. Churches were exempt but not church-affiliated schools, hospitals etc. There was an uproar about it last month with protests from the Catholic church. (sidebar-how did the President or his administration think that there wouldn't be? Just like the Susan G.Komen/Planned Parenthood debacle. I wonder how these decisions come about in a meeting without the majority realizing that it ain't gonna fly! That there will be backlash and unnecessary bad publicity?! Who are their PR reps?!))
Anyway, President Obama offered a compromise in which the church-affiliated organizations/employers would not have to foot the bill but that the insurance companies must provide these services at no cost to the patients. But the republicans are not in agreement of such compromise hence the debate and vote today.
I remember being a resident at Georgetown University hospital. I am also Catholic but yes I was having premarital sex in a committed relationship. I was doing what I thought was the responsible thing by taking birth control and preventing an unwanted pregnancy. I do remember how costly it was since my health insurance through this Jesuit university did not cover it. But I understood where I was and understood why it was not covered. I preferred the cost over the consequence.
I wish the church and others would see that allowing free and easy access to different types of birth control would lessen the use of the morning after pill, would lessen the amount of abortions performed and the amount of unwanted babies born. But first they would have to be convinced that premarital sex is not a sin and that abstinence programs don't work. Soooo, I need another plan.
However, I am not sure why employers or insurance companies have to provide FREE contraception. It is a choice to have sex. If you are doing so without the intent to procreate then duh-you should use birth control and you should contribute to the cost of such birth control. I see nothing wrong with there being a copay or deductibles applied for birth control in those that can afford to do so.
Thoughts?