"Sweet icing on a bitter cake"

I'm a little late on this, but author Susan Faludi wrote a New York Times op-ed about Hillary's speech on Tuesday at the DNC. What she wrote really resonates with me (I had some of the same ideas in the post I wrote directly after the speech) and it's nice to know I'm not the only one. Here's some highlights:

MUCH has been made of the timing of Hillary Clinton’s speech before the Democratic National Convention tonight, coming as it does on the 88th anniversary of women’s suffrage. Convention organizers are ... pay[ing] homage to the women’s vote in particular and women’s progress in general. By such tributes, they are slathering some sweet icing on a bitter cake. But many of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters are unlikely to be partaking. They regard their candidate’s cameo as a consolation prize. And they are not consoled.

“I see this nation differently than I did 10 months ago,” reads a typical posting on a Web site devoted to Clintonista discontent. “That this travesty was committed by the Democratic Party has forever changed my approach to politics.” In scores of Internet forums and the conclaves of protest groups, those sentiments are echoed, as Clinton supporters speak over and over of feeling heartbroken and disillusioned, of being cheated and betrayed.

The despondency of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters — or their “vitriolic” and “rabid” wrath, as the punditry prefers to put it — has been the subject of perplexed and often irritable news media speculation. Why don’t these dead-enders get over it already and exit stage right?

Shouldn’t they be celebrating, not protesting? After all, Hillary Clinton’s campaign made unprecedented strides. She garnered 18 million-plus votes, and proved by her solid showing that a woman could indeed be a viable candidate for the nation’s highest office. She didn’t get the gold, but in this case isn’t a silver a significant triumph? ... Many Clinton supporters say no, and to understand their gloom, one has to take into account the legacy of American women’s political struggle, in which long yearned for transformational change always gives way before a chorus of “not now” and “wait your turn,” and in which every victory turns out to be partial or pyrrhic.

For all the talk of Hillary Clinton’s “breakthrough” candidacy and other recent successes for women, progress on important fronts has stalled. ...Today, the United States ranks 22nd among the 30 developed nations in its proportion of female federal lawmakers. ... Women's real annual earnings have fallen for the last four years. ... Women’s numbers are stalled or falling in fields ranging from executive management to journalism, from computer science to the directing of major motion pictures. ...

Again, many daughters of a feminist generation seem pleased to proclaim themselves so “beyond gender” that they don’t need a female president. ... As it turns out, they won’t have one. But they will still have all the abiding inequalities that Hillary Clinton, especially in defeat, symbolized. Without a coalescing cause to focus their forces, how will women fight a foe that remains insidious, amorphous, relentless and pervasive?

via Broadsheet.

A Mass. mess

Just as I got on my high horse yesterday to tout the greatness of Massachusetts' health care plan, it comes to light that tens of thousands of state residents, most of who are involved in Commonwealth Care, a state-run program, have been dropped from their plans. According to the Globe:

The state's eligibility documents are complex, advocates said, leading some patients to have their insurance terminated - even though they are eligible for coverage - because they made mistakes filling out the forms. Mail sent by the state to the wrong address is also cited as another reason coverage is dropped.

In other instances, the state misinterprets information on the forms and mistakenly bounces people out of the program, advocates said.

Patients terminated by the state can unknowingly rack up thousands of dollars in medical bills only to discover that those expenses will not be reimbursed. The only way they can get the money back is to sue the state.

Said the office manager of a hospital who helped one her employees navigate the system: "I would consider myself a fairly educated person," Smidy said, "and I got confused."

The state responded that it is working to upgrade its computer systems and that should fix some of the programs. We'll see. It's problems like this that make me wonder if the U.S. as a whole could ever run a government health program, let alone the ONLY government program.

[See WSJ Health Blog for additional coverage.]

18 Million Cracks

I saw Hillary give her concession speech two months ago in D.C. I admit it, I cried. My sister who came with me, she cried. The middle-aged woman standing next to us, she cried, too. And even as I review the text of her speech to post below, I tear up.

...[W]hen I was asked what it means to be a woman running for President, I always gave the same answer: that I was proud to be running as a woman but I was running because I thought I’d be the best President. But I am a woman, and like millions of women, I know there are still barriers and biases out there, often unconscious. ...

I ran as a daughter who benefited from opportunities my mother never dreamed of. I ran as a mother who worries about my daughter’s future and a mother who wants to lead all children to brighter tomorrows. To build that future I see, we must make sure that women and men alike understand the struggles of their grandmothers and mothers, and that women enjoy equal opportunities, equal pay, and equal respect. Let us resolve and work toward achieving some very simple propositions: There are no acceptable limits and there are no acceptable prejudices in the twenty-first century.

You can be so proud that, from now on, it will be unremarkable for a woman to win primary state victories, unremarkable to have a woman in a close race to be our nominee, unremarkable to think that a woman can be the President of the United States. And that is truly remarkable. ...

Although we weren’t able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling this time, thanks to you, it’s got about 18 million cracks in it. And the light is shining through like never before, filling us all with the hope and the sure knowledge that the path will be a little easier next time. That has always been the history of progress in America. [emphasis mine]

Her speech today, and in June, marks the end of something spectacular. But, taking a step back, it shouldn't be. It shouldn't be unusual in this day and age for a woman to run for president. I shouldn't be this upset that a woman lost, knowing it's another 8 years before another woman (or the same!) will have the chance to run again.

We like to think we live in a society without sexism, and I think a lot of people fool themselves into believing its true. And even I -- despite spending a decent amount of my working years as a professional feminist -- managed to become complacent.

Her loss is a slap in the face to women. It's like I'm being told to get back in the kitchen. I don't want a glass ceiling with 18 million cracks in it. I want no glass ceiling at all.

Even tonight, as I watched the coverage on MSNBC directly prior to her speech, some man came on (I'm not sure who) and said that former Hillary supporters were just waiting for Hil to give the word and then they'd be fine with voting for Barack. Because obviously I've been waiting around for someone to TELL me to vote for Barack. I'm just a silly woman who can't make up her own mind, I need to be told what to do (even if by Hillary). To that, unnamed political commentator, I say fuck you. Fuck. You. Part of me really wants to give up on the Democratic Party in general (despite being told its the "women's party" I'm starting to have my doubts) and become an Independent ... but then I remember its my registration as a Democrat that let me vote for Hillary at all.

So when Hillary asked her supporters tonight: "Were you in this campaign just for me?" I have to honestly answer, "Yes, yes I was." If I wasn't, I wouldn't tear up every time I see or hear you. If I wasn't, I wouldn't still be this upset. If I wasn't, I wouldn't feel like your loss was my loss. And despite my love and idolism of you, I simply cannot support your request that I "must support Barack Obama." Sorry, Hil.

No love for the mandate

The Health Care Blog had an interesting piece today comparing Joe Biden's health plan when he was in the primaries (I barely even remember him being an option, to be honest) to Obama's current plan. According to HC blog:

Both cover the usual list of Democrat health care touchpoints -- making coverage affordable with subsidies to people and businesses, creating new public options to supplement private offerings, preventing insurers from denying coverage to the sick, emphasizing prevention and chronic disease treatment, etc., etc., etc., yada yada and so forth.

Neither plan, significantly, follows the Hillary Clinton proposal for mandating coverage for all people. Neither does the vaporous plank on health care in the Democrat's party platform draft.

This makes me sad. I guess you consider Obama's statement that he'd support a single-payer system at some point in the future as his support from universal coverage, but I don't think that goes far enough. I mean, I get it. It's political doomsday to support a mandate (look at Hil now) but really look at Massachusetts. I admit that I haven't looked closely the personal effect of its mandate, or the effectiveness of the coverage, but the resulting increase in coverage is remarkable.

Oh well.

Not concrete = Not important

This makes me so sad.

"For a lot of people who have health insurance, they are paying more for health care, but it may not show up as concretely as paying $70 to fill their gas tank," said Anna Greenberg, a Democratic pollster.

Gas, people? Really? That's your top concern? Somehow, I think it's highly unlikely our next president is going to do anything about gas prices. Buy a Prius and get. over. it.

From the Democratic camp:

Obama's spokesman, Bill Burton, said the problem is the press, not the campaign.

"The issue of health care may be getting less attention than it deserves from the media, but it's still a top concern for voters and among the top issues that Sen. Obama talks about on the campaign trail," said Burton.

That better be true, Obama. I still don't like you, I'm still not voting for you, but you better keep it as a "top concern."

Best quotes:

On why gas is more in people's minds than health care: "If people had to pass that many signs that announced how much health care costs, you can bet it would be at the top of the agenda," said Matt Bennett, a founder of Third Way, a Democratic think tank, and former adviser to Vice President Al Gore.

And of course Drew Altman: "Beneath all that, when you probe, when you ask people what's bothering you about the economy right now, in economic downturns — problems paying for health care and health insurance really loom large," Altman said. "After people's fixations paying for gas prices, problems paying for health care are right at the top with job issues."

[Of course, if I was the head of a huge non-profit dedicated to health care, I might think that health care was a big issue, too.]

Harry and Louise are back!

via WSJ's Health Blog.



Although I found them annoying the first time around... Scratch that, it's not like I'm old enough to really remember the ads the first time ... I remember finding them annoying when looking at them as an adult, in favor of health care reform and a huge Hillary fan.

I wonder if bringing Harry and Louise back will have an large an impact as it did the first time. I would say that most people in some way dislike the current health care system, either in the form of long waits for appointments, high bills, lack of coverage, etc. But is that enough for the country to fall into line for large scale reform? I have my doubts. Problematic as it may be, at least you know how the current system works (or maybe "resigned to the current system" is a more accurate way of putting it).

However, I still have my optimism. Large scale reform will happen someday.

Let's go Harry! Let's go Louise!

[View the old Harry and Louise.]

But if I do OD on Red Bull, prospects are dim

This is just screaming for a D2B campaign (perhaps, D2CT?... neurologists, you are totally slacking).

Red Bull Gives You Wings ... and an increased stroke risk, apparently

Australian researchers said yesterday that Red Bull increases your risk of stroke ... even for young people like me.

"One hour after [research participants] drank Red Bull, (their blood systems) were no longer normal. They were abnormal like we would expect in a patient with cardiovascular disease." said Scott Willoughby, lead researcher from the Cardiovascular Research Centre at the Royal Adelaide Hospital.

I have no degree in chemistry, nor do I know, or want to know, the full ingredient list for Red Bull. I do know from my research one late night that Red Bull only has as much caffeine as a cup of coffee (a depressing fact to learn, let me tell you). So is it all the un-named ingredients causing this increased stroke risk? Or should I also be limiting my coffee consumption to stop increasing my stroke risk? And what about Diet Coke? If one could have a stroke from excess consumption of diet soda, believe you me, I would have had one already.

Final opinion: While I'm sure there are all sorts of disgusting things present in my sugar-free Red Bull, and while it might only have the same amount of caffeine as a cup of coffee, I still love it. Something about it's bubbly unknown goodness really ... gives me wings, you might say. However, given that even the manufacturer says don't consume more than two Red Bulls a day, and the fact that it's banned in several countries, it's unlikely that I'll be abusing the beverage any time soon.