I should trademark my blog name

Today I attended a blog launching event for Disruptive Women in Healthcare(TM), a blog created and promoted by the CEO of Amplify Public Affairs. The event and the blog bugged me on a variety of levels.

1) They started the event 40 minutes late. That is just rude.
2) The blog's name is trademarked. I don't think I've ever seen this before, and I think it runs counter to everything a blog stands for. Blogs are supposed to be about openness and collaboration and the sharing of ideas, and trademarking implies just the opposite. It screams, "This name is mine, don't you dare try to use it in anyway." It screams corporate.
3) At the event, each of the "guest bloggers" as they are called (this is their name for all the bloggers, of which there about about 20) in attendance talked for a couple of minutes about why they are a "disruptive woman" and what their first post is about. This took all of 20 minutes, and then they didn't take any questions. This wasn't exactly a hostile crowd. [In fact, I would say it seemed most everyone knew each other.] Why wouldn't they take questions? Were they afraid they'd get asked something tough/uncomfortable? Blogs are about having a conversation... why wouldn't they get that conversation started at the launch?

The whole thing smacks of being corporate. I know there are corporate blogs out there (I run one), but I do think there should have been an attempt to be less so. I think they wanted to come off as, "look we know how to run a corporate blog," and really I left thinking that they know nothing about the purpose of blogs at all. To be honest, they didn't even give a great explanation as to why only women are writing it. That women can change the health care landscape is a given, it's not a reason for launching a blog.

Overall, though, I think it's a great concept, I just wish it had been started by someone a little more knowledgeable about blogs and a little more open to openess. To see all those powerful women up there talking about their views on health care was great. I think it has great potential, I just hope its brainchild doesn't screw it up.

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.

Pent Up Anger

While out for happy hour last weekend in D.C., my friends and I managed to pick a bar that was part of a Obama supporter bar crawl. Standing around with my roommate, we were approached by bar crawl participants, who asked us if we wanted a sticker. We politely told them no thank you, we support Hillary. Which led to a 30 minute discussion about why I was supporting Hillary (my roommate had escaped by this point). So annoying 1) because I was a happy hour, and 2) because speaking/thinking about Obama makes me uncontrollably angry.

I've been doing a lot of thinking lately about why I hate Obama so much. It's not rational, and I would consider myself a rational person by nature. So why the pent up anger?

The only thing I can come up with is that Clinton's downfall is so obviously in part because of sexism. In the media, in people's minds. The media bugs me the most. I expect everyday people to be ignorant, that's just how it goes. But the media? Our society's opinion leaders? I expect them to hold themselves to a higher standard. But they really have not, and completely represent how sexist is still so prevalent, albeit in a more subversive form than in the past. NOW's president Kim Gandy I think sums up my feelings best in her most recent "Below the Bet" post:

The press have been brutal to Clinton, no doubt about it. Whether consciously or not, too many reporters, commentators, pundits and the like appear unable to critique Hillary Clinton without dusting off their favorite sexist clichés, stereotypes and insults. Some of these remarks seem mild, while others are offensive and truly outrageous. Taken together, they create an environment of hostility toward all women, not just Senator Clinton. At this moment it feels like she is a stand-in for every woman who has ever tried to get ahead and be taken seriously by the powers that be.

For me, it's not just the sexist comments about Clinton, it's also the media's absolute inability to critique Obama. Certainly, he's done something to merit scrutiny. They just won't look.

For example, last week (I started this post awhile ago) I was reading the coverage for Maryland's primaries (where I'm from) in the Baltimore Sun. On the front page, there were three stories: one about Clinton, one about Obama, and one about McCain. The tag lines telling readers where to find the rest of the stories were slightly ridiculous: Clinton's was "campaign," McCain's "GOP," and Obama's was "believer." Believer?? Are you kidding me? How about "Obama" or "Democrat" or something without such a blatantly biased connotation? It's little things (so small you wouldn't even realize that you read it unless looking) like that that really drive me insane. Read Gandy's post for more ingratiating remarks.

I've been collecting articles over the last two weeks that I think either resonate with the sexism problems in the media or in society. Here are the highlights:

• "Between 'inspiration' and health care," Froma Harrop: "From his Chicago headquarters, Obama ended the exhausting Tuesday night with an almost mechanical 'we have to choose between change and more of the same.' ... How odd that when it comes to the Democrats’ top concern, health care, Obama offers very much 'more of the same' -- as in more of 'no universal coverage.'"
• "When women rule," Nicholas Kristof: "In monarchies, women who rose to the top dealt mostly with a narrow elite, so they could prove themselves and get on with governing. But in democracies in the television age, female leaders also have to navigate public prejudices -- and these make democratic politics far more challenging for a woman than for a man."
• "Democrats need to understand that racism and sexism still count in elections," Mary Sanchez: "In the final primary weeks, Democrats should ask themselves this question: Is the U.S. more prone to racism or to sexism? And how should the answer affect party strategy if the goal is a Democratic White House. ... I vote sexist. Hillary haters are much more numerous and vocal than those who can’t stomach the idea of a black man globetrotting for the next four years on Air Force One."
• "A calumny a day to keep Hillary away," Stanley Fish: "The majority of posters agreed with the characterization of the attacks on Senator Clinton as vicious and irrational, but in not a few posts the repudiation of Hillary-hatred is followed by more of the same. ... Comments like these would seem to lend support to the view (voiced by many respondents) that sexism is what ultimately motivates the Clinton bashers. ... If so, they face it from women as well as from men, at least on the evidence provided here."
• "Women hold key to Clinton's fate," Bill Maxwell: "The country has had a number of women who have sought the White House, but none could garner wide support. So far, Clinton has been the most viable, but she is facing the 'damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't' syndrome. She cannot be too feminine for fear of appearing weak and not up to the job. She cannot be too wonky or too tough for fear being labeled a 'bitch.'"

***

Since writing this post, there has been a slight shift in the media, although it's too little too late, I think. Here's a couple of opinion piece that (finally) realize that Obama's "hope" might not be all it's cracked up to be:

• "Obama's spell memorizing but empty," Charles Krauthammer: "Democrats are worried that the Obama spell will break between the time of his nomination and the time of the election, and deny them the White House. My guess is that he can maintain the spell just past Inauguration Day. After which will come the awakening. It will be rude."
• "The Obama delusion," Robert Samuelson: "Repudiating racism is not a magic cure-all for the nation's ills. The task requires independent ideas, and Obama has few. If you examine his agenda, it is completely ordinary, highly partisan, not candid and mostly unresponsive to many pressing national problems."

Ellen Goodman is my role model

See related coverage about the last post here and here.

It's not nice to mock women in general...

Not related to health at all, really, but I read this piece today in the Houston Chronicle by nationally syndicated columnist Froma Harrop. I thought it touched on a couple of really nice points about women in politics.

Harrop writes, in response to Clinton winning the N.H. primary:

You could feel the swell of female angst. It wasn't even about Hillary Clinton. It was about what she was put through. It was about running while female.

The Democratic race for president was supposed to herald a new era for blacks and women in politics. What became clear was that for the African-American, it is the 21st century. For the woman, it is 1955.

...

Towering over the personal attacks was the monstrous double standard. The woman was the diligent worker, studying the minutiae of health care, terrorism and taxation, but portrayed as an over-the-hill broad, who every 10 minutes had to answer a question about why people didn't like her.

...

By Tuesday, the broads had had enough. Seeing that it had become socially acceptable to mock mature women, they were determined to prove that it was not politically acceptable. Many of their daughters joined them.

My mom told me the other day that she was watching Fox News (please don't ask me why) and as their scrolling headline, they had "Iowa voters don't vote for Hillary because she sounds like a nagging wife." I mean, that's disgusting. And, I realize it's Fox -- not exactly the most enlightened news network -- but really, what were they thinking?

Women have a particularly difficult time in politics, because of the subconscious double standard we hold women to. To be seen as a leader, you have to be bossy. To be a bossy women, is to not be a leader, but a bitch. And it's not just men that hold women to this unattainable standard, I've heard women do it, too.

I think Hillary is amazing because she has somehow managed to navigate this very fine line so well as to be on her way to becoming president. In fact, I like that she's bitchy/bossy. It says something really great about her. She gives a shit enough to buck societal expectations. Way to go Hill, you've got my vote.

On Leavitt

I found out yesterday Michael Leavitt has a blog. I feel like I should have known this sooner, but alas, I found out about it from an article in USA Today. I don't even like USA Today.

Nonetheless, it turns out Leavitt has used it recently to defend President Bush's veto of S-chip. Not a huge surprise, but I thought it'd be fun to see what exactly he's saying. Here's some clips of a post from Oct. 9:

Some months ago, the Democratic leadership in Congress made clear they were going to send the President an SCHIP bill he would have to veto.

Hmm. I find this argument interesting. "Congress sent something to the president they knew he would HAVE to veto." As if someone is forcing his hand to sign that veto.

During that period we will hear a lot of political rhetoric but in the end the veto will be sustained. When that occurs we can get down to the business of solving this problem. ... [Democrats] have chosen to proceed as though the President’s opinion isn’t important.

Here's my other problem with the administration's political tactic. Why didn't they attempt to compromise BEFORE the bill's signing? President Bush didn't have a reasonable opinion prior to the bill's passage. What makes his opinion important now? Is it really any wonder the Dems aren't open to additional compromise?

It's not really any surprise how Leavitt's blog reads. I mean, he's the White House mouthpiece, this is how it should go. Doesn't stop me from thinking he's wrong.

****

Despite his party line belief in the inherent evil-ness of S-chip, I don't actually dislike a lot of Leavitt's policy ideas. David Broder of the Washington Post wrote an opinion piece on Sunday about Leavitt, which I think highlights some of the good that he can do for the health care system. Leavitt last week at a conference of insurers and health care providers described what he sees as the "coming revolution in health care in this country," according to Broder, which "is a story that, while less publicized than the SCHIP fight, holds promise of a better day not just for children but for all Americans." Broder writes

What I learned about Leavitt in his years as governor is that he is blessed with vision that sees future policy challenges and developments more clearly than most politicians. In this case, he is visualizing a radically different kind of medical marketplace, in which families armed with specific information about the treatment success and prices of hospitals and doctors can shop at will for the best quality and most affordable care.

...

Leavitt's view is that the government should not own health care; instead, it should organize the health-care marketplace and then let competition based on full information proceed.

Broder notes ("do not faint," he says) that Leavitt's plan is consistent with Hillary's health care plan. Leavitt's view that the health care marketplace needs to be organized is an important one, one that I think is often ignored. Government has organized other fields -- technology is a great example of this. Radio and the switch to digital cable, for example. When the government doesn't set standards, innovation flounders a bit, i.e. electronic health records. It's important that they all work together, but no one has stepped up to say how exactly those systems should work. I have to add that a bit of regulation is necessary, and I would imagine that Leavitt would not agree with that.

That's all for now, but look forward to more clips from Leavitt's blog, now that I've discovered it exists.

Closure of King Harbor Hospital

Friday's announcement that Martin Luther King Jr. Harbor Hospital will close after losing $200 million of federal funding, after it failed a second CMS inspection, highlights yet another problem caused by having high numbers of uninsured residents.

King Harbor is one of the lowest-income areas of L.A., meaning most likely a large number of patients visiting the hospital for care would be uninsured or on Medicaid. Either way, the hospital was probably operating on larger debt than most other hospitals in higher income areas. While I'm sure all the hospital's problems cannot be blamed on funding (I really hate it when government entities blame all problems on inadequate funds -- **cough cough** -- FDA), I think it's safe to say that the hospital would have been able to hire more knowledgeable staff and run the place more efficiently with more funds from the very beginning.

In short, what I'm trying to say is that a vicious cycle exists within our current health care system:

• Uninsured/underinsured residents are less likely to receive care because they can't pay the bills;
• Hospitals that serve large numbers of uninsured/underinsured can't collect enough funds when they're patients can't pay, thus making it difficult to hire competent staff;
• Without competent staff, the hospital can't offer care worth paying for, and might end up the way of King Harbor, and the community loses access to care all over again.

I think that single-payer systems have a lot of problems, but I think in this situation they offer a benefit. When the government is paying for care, and the wealth of the patient is no longer a factor, all patients have a better shot at receiving high quality care. Our system simply reinforces an existing socioeconomic divide. Will there still be a divide under a single-payer system? Of course. There's no way of convincing a doctor to practice at a hospital if he or she is concerned about being shot driving to and from work. Same idea for rural areas. But at least wealth is taken out of the equation.

***

Last week, the Philadelphia Inquirer had a great opinion piece about health as a public good, as opposed to a private good, that I think relates to the problems with King Harbor. Columnist Chris Satullo writes,

Health care is a classic public good that should be supported by a social compact: The healthy should pay into the system to underwrite care for those who need it now, both as a matter of civic morality and self-interest. They need to support the system now so that it'll be there come the inevitable day when they'll need it.

...

The goal shouldn't be for government to supplant the private health-care market, but to tame it. States have tried, but only the feds can really do what's needed: Organize the market rationally so it covers all at a basic level, wastes less, and offers consumers intelligible, workable choices.

For more coverage about King Harbor, see here, here and here.

Haha, suckers

Fast food sucks, doesn't it?

Many were once convinced that Japanese people lacked the fat genes found in other groups. According to figures compiled in 2005 by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, only 3.2 percent of Japanese people had a body mass index greater than 30, compared with 30.6 percent in the United States.

Welcome

Welcome to Health Care Policy 101. My name is Emily is I will be your blogger, from now until ... I lose interest, most likely. A little bit about myself: I've been writing for a couple of different health policy publications for about 7 months now and the experience has taught me some things:

1. Health care is incredibly, and I mean incredibly, complicated. Managing a hospital is complicated, health care law is complicated (one exec at the company I work for actually used the phrase, "I feel sorry for anyone who entered health care law"), and crafting health care legislation that can actually pass through one or both of the chambers -- not to mention the White House -- is really complicated.
2. Health care is so important right now. Which could be because there's a presidential campaign going on ... but more likely it's because the whole employer-based health insurance system is falling apart. Some 46.6 million U.S. residents were uninsured in 2005, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, and companies are increasingly having difficulty dealing with the rising costs. Chrysler has said repeatedly that the costs associated with health care for workers adds $1,000 per car as compared to competitors (see recent coverage by the AP/Houston Chronicle). You know when you have businesses like Wal-Mart teaming up with the SEIU and corporate giants like Safeway calling for health care reform something is very, very wrong.
3. It's going to be a long time before anything gets done. It just is. Any candidate who claims they can get universal coverage by 2012 is being incredibly optimistic. Democratic candidates, you know who you are.

So with those very basic assumptions, I begin to blog. Looking forward to the months ahead, and to hearing your thoughts.