She IS Worth It!

Recently an old and incredibly dear friend of mine wrote a very sincere post on Facebook. Before I tell you what was posted I want you to understand that I grew up with her, and let me tell you....She is smart, educated, compassionate, and anything but a "moocher". She was diagnosed with Ataxia, a degenerative neurological disorder. And, it is people like her that need the programs so many are willing to give up for a little money. Here is what she posted, "I'd just like to ask that when people are deciding who to vote for, they consider people like me who are on welfare and Medicare who are anything but lazy and do not deserve to be lumped into a stereotype." Unfortunately this is true of the majority of people on these services.

Dems Backing Gay Marriage Critique

In Nicholas J. Quaschnik's post, Dems Backing Gay Marriage he starts by explaining that the Democrat's finally are standing for something he believes in, but "........if only they weren't just doing it for the votes." Gay marriages is a touchy subject but it is especially so amongst Christians and Texas. Nicholas writes that he has never really cared much for Obama, but now with his recent approval of gay marriage he really does not like him...He goes on to state, "To me it's more of a mockery than it is actually backing up a cause." He also states that Obama has been wishy- washy over his stance on LBGT rights. What??? I must be confused. The President stands up and agrees for something he believes in, but now he dislikes him even more...I wonder if Nicholas was one of the many lined up at Chick-Fil-A to stand up for free speech? The reason I ask this is because if Obama is making a mockery out of the cause then one could say the same thing about the CEO of Chick-Fil-A going "all political". Whether the company believed in what he said or not they sure did make a lot of money on August 1, 2012. My point is there will always be an "ulterior motive" we can use against whom we do not like. Nicholas, who is/was in the Navy obviously agreed with Obama's repel of Don't Ask Don't Tell policy otherwise he would not have stated that his best friend is a lesbian in the military with him and, "I would pick her over a straight man to go to war with. Not because of the stereotype that she’s a butch or crap like that. But because I know that no matter what, she’s not going to judge me for being straight, she’s got the heart of a saint, and well, she’s a badass." I feel like his heart was in the right place when writing this editorial, but Obama HAS stood with lesbians and gay citizens the past four years. His choice to come out and support gay marriage this year could have very well been a pull for votes, but in doing so he lost a lot of "gung-ho" Christian voters, which he should have had "in the bag" because Romney is a mormon, but now he doesn't. I agree that everyone deserves equal rights and I have plent of friends in the gay community, but whatever reason Obama had for supporting them is a GREAT thing. I do not think he has been unclear in his feelings. After all HE is the one that repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell. Every President hopeful is going to pull the rug out from under us a few times, but while timing was coincidental I do not believe this was one of those times.

Preventative Care

I happen to be a fan of Obamacare. Maybe I do not agree with all aspects of it but who has really read the 900 page Act from front to back and agreed with everything in it. This is just one step in the right direction. One more awesome perk to the Affordable Care Act went into effect earlier this week, and it mostly affects women and preventative care. From the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion in Texas they announced that as of Aug. 1 all new insurance policies will be required to cover essential women’s health services at no out-of-pocket cost to patients. This is not only for Texas but the Nation as a whole. According to Joyce Frieden of KevinMD.com in How Healthcare Reform Affects Women , "An estimated 30 million women will be helped by the new health reform law over the next 10 years, according to a report from The Commonwealth Fund." The covered services include: Well-woman checkups, contraceptive coverage and counseling, domestic violence screening and counseling, breastfeeding support and supplies, and gestational diabetes screening. These services will not only save women money, but insurance companies as well. Because of free preventative screening that women will no longer be put off due to financial reasons. The coverage of screenings for breast and cervical cancer as well as smoking and alcohol cessation will prevent a host of problems that cost insurance companies much more money if not treated. If cancer is detected early, it can often be treated and eradicated, saving insurance companies from paying bills for costly medications and treatments for years at a time – not to mention the lives being saved. Smoking and alcohol cessation also have countless reasons for saving both the woman and insurer money including liver disease, heart disease, cancer, COPD and even Fetal Alchohol Syndrome for unborn children. These are just a few of the problems that could arise without proper preventative care and treatment. The much-debated Affordable Care Act was in jeopardy of being nullified earlier this summer when the Supreme Court took up a challenge to the law. Since most of the law still stands – thanks to a 5-4 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts (which was incredibly controversial) – people around the country will continue to benefit from its immediate changes and others that will be implemented between now and 2014. Effective immediately children under 26 can continue to stay on a parent's insurance plan withouth lifetime payout limits. They have also made it law that anyone with a pre-existing condition cannot be denied insurance coverage. The above statement is incredibly important. In 2010, my uncle Pat (a male) could do none other than bash talk "Obamacare". "It will just cost us more money in the long run," he would say. This was before he was diagnosed with Stage One Lymphoma in early 2011. He has worked for the school district for over 25 years and had great benefits and health insurance to help him through this milestone in all of our lives, but not everyone has that kind of safety net. He is in full remission as of last month, but with the new Act laws he can NEVER be turned down for insurance because of his cancer. This is a monumental accomplishment. He is not Pro-Obama or even Pro-Obamacare, but he now knows there are some things in the Affordable Care Act that we must have, and that will only benefit the people in this country. Needless to say he has changed his "tune". As for me, someone who has had to have two lumpectomies before I turned 25 for precancerous tumors in my breast I am more than tickled at the new laws starting to take place. Hopefully they will help keep me healthy and cancer free instead of in a clinic with Stage 4 Breast Cancer with nowhere to turn. Some new laws have gone into effect but it only to "new" plans, pre-existing plans do not have to honor this law yet. But, according to a survey done by the National Women's Law Center that 90 percent of all large U.S. companies expect that their health plans will lose grandfathered status by 2014, and “eventually all plans will lose their grandfathered status ... At that point, all plans will cover these important preventive health services without cost sharing,” the center’s website states. It has been said over the years by doctors and the like that preventing diseases and sickness is easier and more affordable than treating them. We, as well as our insurance companies should take advantage of these new perks. It is going to save so much more money in the long run. As the aspects of the Affordable Care Act slowly go into place we should slowly, BUT surely see the difference for everyone affected.

Pro-Obama or Anti-Romney?

I had been waiting for a week to get my dishwasher fixed, and believe me I was most excited to find the repairman at the door this afternoon, but did not know that I was in for a political "treat". As I talked with him about the summertime, and the fact that you have to force children out of the house nowadays, unlike when I or him were little and were out by 9:00 A.M and not back home until dinner was on the table our conversation took a turn to politics. I asked if he was Democrat or Republican, and his answer was delightful. He said, "While I do not mind Obama I cannot say I am pro-Obama, but I am definitely a Democrat, and very much anti-Romney." The comment seemed to make perfect sense to me, a lesser of two evils scenario I guess. He then went on to point out that he felt like Romney had ostracized women and "every minority possible". So, I began to think.... What else does a president need to know? The answer came to me through an article by The Houston Chronicle. Amy Tiebel wrote, "Romney Angers Palestinians with Pro-Israel Comment". In Romney's latest political campaign trip to Israel he made comments that have started quite a stir. He states, "You notice a stark difference in economic vitality...And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things." These statements left Palestinian leaders outraged. The Palestinian Labor Minister felt that Romney's statements were a clear sign of "a true racist spirit". As I continued to look for more evidence on Romney's "racist spirit" I came across yet another article in The Washington Post . In the article written by Phillip Rucker and Joel Greenberg, "Romney faces Palestinian criticism for Jerusalem remarks as he heads to Poland" they really highlighted Romney's lack of cultural intelligence. He stated that he had pondered the Israeli's obvious advantage over surrounding countries, but how can he ponder such things and not know the true facts. Saeb Erekat, a top aide to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, said in an interview, “All I can say is that this man needs a lot of education. He doesn’t know the region, he doesn’t know Israelis, he doesn’t know Palestinians, and to talk about the Palestinians as an inferior culture is really a racist statement.” I cannot speak for everyone in this nation of ours, but I know that I want a strong, honest, compassionate, and knowledgeable leader. From what I have seen so far Romney just is not that. Actually, according to Newsweek's Michael Tomasky, "He’s kind of lame, and he’s really ... annoying. He keeps saying these ... things, these incredibly off-key things. Then he apologizes immediately—with all the sincerity of a hostage. Or maybe he doesn’t: sometimes he whines about the subsequent attacks on him. But the one thing he never does? Man up, double down, take his lumps.” In an NBC-Wall Street Journal poll released last week, 45 percent of respondents said President Obama would make the better commander in chief, while 35 percent said Romney would. Forty-eight percent said Obama was “knowledgeable and experienced enough to handle the presidency,” while 32 percent said that phrase better described Romney. The race is just beginning and over the next couple of months we all need to decide what we want in a President before we hit the voting polls. Don't ask yourself, "Am I Republican or Democrat?" Instead ask, "Who better represents America as a whole, and am I willing to overlook party stigmas?" I came to the conclusion that President's should not only be educated on world news, but on the values and culture in our surrounding countries. Our President should be a clear reflection of the multi-cultural and diverse country the United States is. While we need someone who is strong and willing to stand for our values, we also need someone willing to educate themselves on other cultures and countries as well. Afterall, he is our "spokesperson".

Health Care

Libertarians favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. They believe people should have the right to decide what kind of insurance they want (if any). They also believe people should be able to make all of their medical decisions, of whether to be treated or not. And that people have the right to purchase insurance across state lines. Democrats are in strong favor of Health Care Reform. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires individuals not covered by employer- or government-sponsored insurance plans to maintain minimal essential health insurance coverage or pay a penalty unless exempted for religious beliefs or financial hardship, a provision commonly referred to as the individual mandate. Republicans believe the key to real healthcare reform is to give control of the health care system to the patients and providers, not the government. Libertarians feel very strongly about the Supreme Court ruling to uphold Obamacare. They believe it has torn down the walls of the Constitution and takes any sense of freedom and liberty from the American people. Mark Hilgenberg, the Libertarian Party Chair of Utah, stated “Contrary to outraged cries from Republicans that it’s some sort of radical departure from our “free enterprise” system, Obamacare is in fact a direct continuation of the bipartisan neoliberal consensus of the past thirty years." Republicans took a little more elegant approached and wrote, " It's time to repeal Obamacare and replace it with commonsense, step-by-step reforms that will actually lower costs." But even the Libertarians do not want a Romneycare to replace Obamacare. Now, I may be a little biased about my opinions on this topic because I am a supporter of the Act (or Obamacare) and a Democrat. But, in my opinion, I feel that the Libertarians are being a little "far-fetched"in their expectations or platforms in healthcare. We often hear politicians talk about the future of tomorrow, but where will the future be if everyone is sick and dying with no insurance. On December 6, 2011 while speaking to a group of about 100 students at a small Iowa Christian college, Santorum claimed that no one in America has ever died because they didn’t have health care coverage. This is not true. In FACT, “Researchers from Harvard Medical School say the lack of coverage can be tied to about 45,000 deaths a year in the United States — a toll that is greater than the number of people who die each year from kidney disease.” (New York Times, 2009) In September of 2011 while campaigning against Obamacare Lindsay Bayerstein wrote an article on Ron Paul's campaign manager "dying penniless and uninsured". When Paul was being interviewed about a 30 year old man dying of cancer because of lack of health care this is what happened..."That's what freedom is all about: taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to take care of everybody—" Paul began before he was drowned out by hoots of glee from the audience. Blitzer asked if we should just let the guy die, which drew cheers from the crowd. Paul allowed that maybe churches could step in and fill the void. The article then goes on to say that his campaign manager had racked up $400,000 in medical costs. To me, that is not dying "free", but leaving debt left to your loved ones. These articles were downright depressing. People cheering for a man dying because a party did not want to support a plan to help people with their insurance? The last article I read, Sick + Tired, published in the Texas Observer was incredibly sad. A young man died eight months after his diagnosis of prostate cancer, not because he did not catch it in time, but because that is how long the fight took to get him seen and treated. He did not even last two weeks after his surgery. What a waste. What everyone seems to forget is that this Act takes care of those with pre-existing conditons. Two years ago I had to have two lumpectomies in fear of breast cancer, while my results came back negative, they also came back pre-cancerous. Once pre-cancerous is on your charts, and no better at 25 years old, it is hard to get AFFORDABLE insurance. The Obamacare is going to make it possible for millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions to once again afford healthcare. I believe in liberty and freedom just as much as the next guy, but I do believe with all three parties listed that sometimes they are not thinking about what is in the best interest of the people but what is in the best interest of the election or their party. It is hard for me to imagine that people do not have compassion for others when they are sick. Obamacare definitely is not perfect but it is a step in the right direction. I do not have any feelings of security with the Libertarians platform, and the Republicans need to emphasize their "reform" policies. I encourage everyone to not only understand the health care platforms but research what they truly stand for before deciding if you will stand with them. http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/santorum-no-one-has-ever-died-because-they-didnt-have-health-care/politics/2011/12/06/31304 http://www.democrats.org/issues/health_care http://www.lp.org/platform http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/06/libertarian-candidates-oppose-supreme-court-decision-to-uphold-obamacare/

Something to laugh about...

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Would you miss them?

Recently on Think Progress' website a blog was posted by Igor Volsky titled 10 Things You Would Miss About Obamacare, and I loved it.

Volsky's blog was self-explanatory. Volsky makes the diagnosis that we need an "overall" healthcare system, but in case you forgot these are the things you would miss from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. 

Needless to say Volsky is a fan of the proposed healthcare system. He has so nicely made a list of what "we" or "you" might miss if it were shut down or ruled unconstitutional. I felt like the biggest problem of the blog was that he should have listed things we wouldn't miss. Afterall people tend to read as well as grasp literature that is perceived to be unbiased.

On a more positive note... Volsky listed "rules" that were already in place that most people take for granted and are unaware it is Obamacare.

I definitely think if you are not a fan of Obamacare you need to read this blog, it may help sway your position.


Update: Because I read this article in the beginning of the week and wrote about it at the end there is a slight update. After weeks of political propoganda the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Act.

Will President Obama Prove Successful with the Supreme Court?

In BBC News Mark Mardell wrote an article titled, President Obama Faces Touch Choices on Healthcare, he uses this article to highlight the possible impending doom the Supreme Court could inflict on the President's upcoming election this year.

As we all know the "healthcare" he is referring to is also called Obamacare. This link will help you sift through the facts of the plan and not the talking points.

While I like the article and it was incredibly easy to read it was still media. Most of the time when reading or even watching media about the election it is either RED or BLUE with no purple people in between. What does that mean? I mean with any article or show it is going to be spun in favor of one party or another, but usually nothing about the in-betweeners who just want to know the facts from both parties.

Mardell did a very nice job of explaining why Obama is facing tough choices, focusing on the 'individual mandate' (which is being said to be unconstitutional) stated in Obamacare. He has input from representatives from both sides, a former speech writer for the Clinton administration, and a health specialist from Freedomworks, a Conservative campaign group. Both seem to agree Obama will fail, but both have very different opinions on the impact of that failure.

There were two things about this article that I felt were disappointing. I felt like there should have been a light shined on the current condition of our healthcare, and why we need change like the  Obamacare... or why we do not. For instance, according to the CDC in 2011 46.3 million American's were uninsured, and another 58.7 million were uninsured part of that year. People are dying because they do not have the resources they need to combat acute and chronic illnesses such as cancer, heart disease, and even mental health services. We are on such an uneven playing field when it comes to healthcare and insurance. If parent's of babies with PKU or Phenylalanine disorders do not have insurance or cannot afford the incredibly expensive formula they are forced to feed them regular formula which ultimately causes mental retardation in those infants. These are only a few issues we face as a nation and I believe he should have touched base on some of the hot topics. The other part of his article I did not "like" was a comment made, "The president can moan about the Supreme Court if he likes, but he can't campaign for a law they have ruled to be unconstitutional", but in all fairness it is only because I know it is true.

Mardell did a great job of giving information to both sides as well as giving his opinion of what to expect in the upcoming months.

First to Suffer...Women, Infant, and Children

Confucius said, "In a country well governed poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed wealth is something to be ashamed of.”

An article on CNN spurred my thoughts to dig deeper on what is to me a huge issue facing our nation. House Republican's to Cut WIC Spending by 10%. Really???
Currently our nation faces a very big question....Where are we going to cut spending? Especially during an election year pressures run high. Among some things Congress is looking to cutting is SNAP (Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program), WIC, and Medicare. I am most passionate about the WIC program and the absolute atrocity it is to cut funding from a program that is already underfunded.

The Texas Legislature, in my opinion, does not have the capacity to make the better decisions for our state. And, in some context, I am also saying Republicans do not have the capacity to make the best decisions for everyone in Texas, especially women and children. Texas is dead last in the number of non-elderly women without health insurance, and 6th nationally in the percentage of women in poverty, according to the Texas Legislative Study Group. If that is not enough to persuade you to believe Texas or Rick Perry need to make a change one in five Texas children lack health insurance, the highest rate in the nation. Rick Perry tried to opt out of Medicaid, which provides insurance for the most vulnerable of Texan's, pregnant women and children.

WIC, a nutritional assistance program for pregnant women, infants and children has received bipartisan support in the past, but now has been faced with some pretty hefty budget cuts. While originally reported that WIC may have to turn away as many as 79,000 mothers in 2012 under the approved U.S. House of Representatives budget this has not happened. YET.

The WIC program is intently focused on helping low income families reduce the incidences of malnutrition. The program strongly advocates breastfeeding and has been providing manual as well as "hospital-grade" breast pumps for free. The program is incredibly diverse, ranging from helping a mom deal with a stubborn or "picky" eater to breastfeeding peer counseling to a struggling mother. The WIC program is much different from SNAP (Formerly known as food stamps) in that mothers must take classes on nutrition and the food they are given is limited to peanut butter, whole grains, milk, cheese, fruits, vegetables, legumes, and tuna. For ever $1 dollar invested into WIC, we save $3 dollars on healthcare costs.

According to the WHO, World Health Organization, beyond the immediate benefits for children, breastfeeding contributes to a lifetime of good health. Adults who were breastfed as babies often have lower blood pressure and lower cholesterol, as well as lower rates of overweight, obesity and type-2 diabetes. There is evidence that people who were breastfed perform better in intelligence tests.

© WHO. All rights reserved.

WIC operates on a budget close to $6.7 billion dollars wich comes from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. On top of the $532 million cut in 2011, there will be another $685 million cut in 2012. Our Texas Legislature is allowing much of this budget cut to go against the "fresh produce" (which mostly goes back into the community through spending at local Farmer's Market's) allotment for WIC, and it's breastfeeding resources. El Paso County registered 2.5 million dollars pumped into the community by WIC recipients.

Sec. 165.001. LEGISLATIVE FINDING. The legislature finds that breast-feeding a baby is an important and basic act of nurture that must be encouraged in the interests of maternal and child health and family values. In compliance with the breast-feeding promotion program established under the federal Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. Section 1771 et seq.), the legislature recognizes breast-feeding as the best method of infant nutrition.
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., Ch. 600, SS1, eff. Aug . 28, 1995.

However, there was no reduction in the amount of baby formula subsidized out. But, Williamson County is borrowing from the City of Austin because they do not have enough breast pumps or the funding to purchase more.

Right now 26 states are looking at cutting Peer Counselors from the WIC budget. These women are vital to the program in keeping new moms informed. Without Peer Counselors WIC may very well just be a formula handout program. I am not saying we need to be a "nanny" state, but we need to be sensible in the decisions we make as a nation and state.

Texas is already 47th in monthly benefit payments under WIC. It seems counterproducive to limit an organization that does so much for a state's people. By cutting funding to WIC we can only assume Medicaid costs and SNAP benefits will increase. The Legislature also needs to take in account the millions of dollars that will be lost upon local farmers.

This all points to a domino effect for our nation, and our state (Texas).

Thank you, Republican Party and our diversity-lacking Legislature for defending life, liberty, wealth and the pursuit of formula, corn and soybean subsidies!

.

Not-So-Free Services

"Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must - must - redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent healthcare is by definition re-distributional."~Unknown

In A.Trevino's editorial, Free Services, there are some thoughtful points brought up as well as what can be seen as injustices to the hard-working population.

First, let it be known the Medicaid program is over 50% federally funded, and it is a completely voluntary program for each state to have. Also, CHIP is not Medicaid, it is bundled together by our state to be administered by one group but very different. The $863 dollar tab is not only on the shoulders of those not on Medicaid but those on it as well. Any working citizen or resident is paying in to the same pot you do. In that respect, Medicaid makes us "united" in helping each other out.

While I understand your grievance over "picking up the tab", and also understand how often things like Medicaid and CHIP are probably abused, it does help a lot of children that would otherwise not have any healthcare. Further, a doctor has the right to say no or yes to accepting Medicaid. If they say yes and choose to accept Medicaid patients they can't also be mad that they do. It also needs to be examined how much money it will cost not to have these services.

Should we expect people to get their own insurance? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the average hourly wage in Texas is $15.44, not including part time jobs (which many people have been forced to take due to lack of extended unemployment and full time work availablity). Most jobs do not offer insurance, and to buy it on your own is too expensive. The monthly average insurance premium for a household of four is $750, not including office visit copays.

As most of us know, Texas leads the nation in the number of uninsured or underinsured children. We also have over 3 million children on Medicaid. According to the Center for Disease Control, 'Disease prevention is key to public health. It is always better to prevent a disease than to treat it.' If we were to "do away with" medicaid or "free services" how many children would suffer? According to a recent article, "Health department statistics show the number of whooping cough cases in Texas has risen by almost 60 percent in the state since 2008." This is a disease (also known as pertussis) protected by the DTaP vaccine.  Vaccines need to be given in lower-income and lower socio-economic regions of the state because they are at a higher risk, and without Medicaid or CHIP these parents will not be able to vaccinate. While I am not a strong believer in all vaccines that is a debate for another day.

In order to  have people stand up for a cause you believe in, such as "deleting" free services you must first weigh the pros and cons to them. I read your pros, but never saw any cons. You also need to ask yourself hard questions, such as...What if I lose my job and get cancer? What if I had a job with no insurance and got pregnant? Some of these people on Medicaid may because they were laid off after paying into the "system"you say we get rid of, and now they are using it because they are terminally ill with no way to pay for what they need to live. I believe we all pay in, and sometimes we all need a little help, unexpected or not, and to get rid of a healthcare program like Medicaid would make Texas a huge outcast among our United States. Getting rid of what I see as "not-so-free" services seems to be too big of a risk for a much more expensive situation and a lot of sick children.

Breath of Fresh..What???...Smoke

After reading through blog after blog I was having a hard time deciding which one I felt the most strongly about. The new abortion law seemed to be a hot button, ironically I found it too politically incorrect to comment on. Then there was a blog about pink slime in our food being, "no big deal", which was incredibly distasteful. For someone, like me, with a degree in nutrition I found it incredibly "wrong"for pink slime to be "no big deal". But, today someone else made my mind up for me when I stepped out of People's Pharmacy with my seven week old baby and my eight year old son and received a blast of secondhand smoke in all of our faces.

The blog, Smoke and Mirrors, by Alison stayed mainstream in settling into more of a "freedom" type of approach, but I do not think the Smoke-Free Texas campaign is trying to take away the liberties or freedoms of a smoker as much as it is trying to provide the "freedom"or "liberty" to others to choose whether they want to be around secondhand smoke or not. In the blog she states, "No one should be forced to do what society thinks is "right" if its not what you or I view as right for ourselves." I found it counterintuitive to make such a statement without thinking about the person having to inhale the secondhand smoke. I do not smoke, and I do not think I should have to share the clean air with a smoker. She then goes on to say,  "The fact that Texas has adopted this whole "smoke free Texas" thing shows me that tomorrow I might wake up to find that I can't eat fast food because of the fat content and it's relation to heart disease." I understand where she is trying to go with this, but smoking and fast food are two very different subjects. If you CHOOSE to eat fast food you are only harming yourself and no one else around you, but if you CHOOSE to smoke outside the person next to you is affected.

My main argument with the blog/article is that secondhand smoke leading to or not leading to cancer is a very debated topic depending on where your information is found. It is also a little more complicated than "just secondhand smoke leads to cancer". According to the American Cancer Society's Facts on Secondhand Smoke "Secondhand smoke is classified as a “known human carcinogen” (cancer-causing agent) by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization.
Tobacco smoke contains more than 7,000 chemical compounds. More than 250 of these chemicals are known to be harmful, and at least 69 are known to cause cancer.
SHS has been linked to lung cancer. There is also some evidence suggesting it may be linked with childhood leukemia and cancers of the larynx (voice box), pharynx (throat), brain, bladder, rectum, stomach, and breast."

The EPA, IARC, WHO, National Toxicology Program, and American Cancer Society have enough research to scare me into not wanting my children exposed to secondhand smoke for any length of time if I can prevent it. I feel this law is more about protecting liberties rather than abolishing them. Who is to say you have the right to smoke (even though you are a non-smoker) and my seven week old, six year old or eight year old don't have the right to fresher "immediate"air? It is not only cancer they could contract but asthma or lower respiratory infections.

I think she made good arguments in her favor, but could have made a stronger argument by checking into any and all possible facts. Comparing the freedom to smoke with diabetes and sugar really threw me off. Sugar does not cause diabetes, and there is no correlation with sugar to diabetes especially in Type 1, to expect the world to ban sugar is unrealistic because it is not directly linked to diabetes like secondhand smoke and cancer is linked.

Maybe I am being overly critical because I also feel strongly towards this law, but in some aspects it is a lose-lose law. Both sides of the law are going to feel that they have lost their "freedom"in a sense.

Juanita's Jeans (Stage 4)

After my last post about women's healthcare I felt I needed to do a follow-up with a commentary by fellow blogger, Juanita Jean's. My favorite thing about her blog's are how incredibly pro-democrat they are, but my least favorite thing about her blogs is how incredibly anti-republican they are. Yes, I know it sounds a bit like an oxymoron.

One of her latest commentaries, Stop the Spinning! Stop the Spinning! I'm Gonna Throw Up!, is about the latest women's healthcare crisis between Texas and Washington. Her statement, "So, it’s not the state’s fault for being outlaws. It’s Obama’s fault for being sheriff" seems to put it in a perfet metaphor for all the "simple folk".  I love her spunk in each post she ads, but sometimes her posts/blogs come across slightly biased because I get the feeling she possibly despises Republicans.

I learned something new about the issue/topic by reading her commentary. I had no idea Rick Perry suggested he would match the $36 million dollars in funding. According to Juanita, "Rick Perry pledged that Texas would come up with the 90% matching federal funds on our own, meaning he has to go find $36 million dollars in a state with a $15 billion deficit." After checking facts, Rick Perry did say this! What a dumb... Well, nevermind that, but has Perry not done enough this last year or so? Now he has the audacity to put pride before the health of women.

The one comment I did not necessarily agree with but probably because of my own opinions. Duh.. Juanita's last comment is, "And that's how pro-life works." I felt like that comment would cause pro-lifers who did not agree with what the state is doing to get offended. To me, this is not about being pro-life or pro-choice, but being pro-women. While I would not be shocked I could definitely see some pro-life activists preferring the state's side versus Obama's.

Juanita's commentaries always help me see things in a "lighter" perspective, but I am always sure to double-check facts because of her outward bias towards the party she does not like.

War On Women's Health (Stage 3)

The "war" on women's health seems to be the biggest topic of debate in the news lately. After reading a commentary in the Austin American Statesman, Women's Healthcare Offers New Wrinkle in Texas-Washington War by Jason Embry I asked myself, is it just a war on women?

A little background for the ongoing..."controversy centers on the Women's Health Program, which provides Pap smears, breast exams, birth control and other services to low-income, uninsured women between the ages of 18 and 44. A new state law says money for such programs cannot go to providers that are affiliated with abortion providers."  But, "That bars Planned Parenthood from participating in the program, even though its participating affiliates are legally separate from the Planned Parenthood entities that perform abortions, and even though the law already prohibits taxpayer-funded clinics from providing abortions."

This topic touches home for me in a very personal way. Two years ago I was "fired" after 3 years of dedication and acceptance into the Coorporate Management Program by a major coorporation the day before my lumpectomy in my right breast. I was terrified! How could my company do this? I would have 30 days of insurance coverage. I immediately called Planned Parenthood, not because I am a believer in abortions, but because they, along with the Women's Health Program, would be my best bet to take care of any surgeries, medications, or procedures I needed done if I in fact did have breast cancer according to the Susan G. Komen foundation. Fortunately, my labs came back pre-cancerous, but benign. Not all women are as blessed as I was and will need somewhere to turn. This debate should not be a "show" for Washington OR Texas politicians.

Jason Embry wrote a very informative commentary on the debate without coming off left or right-winged. Instead he just stated the facts and spoke his opinion on both political parties. Embry goes on to say that this is a concrete  decision and because of that politicians have everything to lose. It is not a decision like job creation or environmental issues that can be debated and fidgeted with, women's health is not something to "debate" about. At first, I did not like that it was a man writing about this topic, but his commentary soon made me realize this affects men as well as women. Fathers, brother, sons, husbands, and grandsons will be affected by this because their wives, mothers, daughters and sisters will be.

I wish everyone would read this commentary because he points out more than once that this is a war between Washington and Texas, primarily Texas Republicans. They are trying to make it seem like the federal government is overstepping their boundaries but if Texan's are smart, "they might decide that the state government, and not the federal government, is the one that's overreaching this time."

Embry did a great job of informing without over-stepping political boundaries.

STAAR Exam (Stage Two)

In the article, “STAAR Faces Questioning From Lawmakers” in The Texas Tribune reported on the roll-out of the new state exam and how school districts are dealing with it. In this article people are shocked at what STAAR is and whether they have voted for it. Now, it is too late to take those votes back and this test and its policies seem to be causing more problems than once thought. STAAR, or State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness, will count towards 15 percent of a student’s final grade in the corresponding courses in which the student is tested. The problem is how school districts will apply the 15-percent rule. This test is also replacing the more well-known TAKS testing system. Many schools are still figuring out how their grading policies, class rankings and grade-point averages will apply with the new rule. And because the law did not delineate how the schools should implement the new test, school districts are coming up with different methods in applying the 15-percent rule. The schools have to figure out how to convert the raw score, which ranges from 2,000 to 6,000 points, to one they can use as a grade, and then decide how to factor that grade on one exam into what is usually two semesters’ worth of courses in areas including math, social studies and English.

I believe education is the foremost important gift we can give our children and for most of us, we have to rely on the state to educate our precious ones. The state sets the standards regardless if we think it is good or bad. They do this when laws are passed during odd number years. The Texas Legislature convenes and passes laws that impact how children are educated. We, as parents, do not have a say. Granted, we can testify at a committee hearing, but most of us work and do not have the flexibility to do so especially because we have families that need us. Learning about what laws passed will make each and everyone of us better informed parents. This in turn can help us be more proactive in our own children’s education.

Some schools are deciding “to give all students that score below a failing range a 69 and all who get above that range a 100; while others have assigned grades to ranges of points on the exams, giving, for example, a 65 to a student who falls below a certain point, an 85 to a student who scores in the satisfactory to advanced range and a 95 to a student who scores in the advanced range.  School districts have also approached weighing the exam score into a final grade, in several different ways. Each semester can count toward 42 percent, and the exam can count 15 percent. They can average the grades of each semester, count them toward 85 percent and then factor in the exam for 15 percent. They can take the first semester grade for 85 percent, factor in the exam for 15 percent, do the same with the second semester, and then average those two figures.”

Advocates of the STAAR are upset that there are not clearer guidelines and believe this will decrease the high standard given to the exam.

The Texas Education Agency is supervising the rollout of the exam, but refuses to give any guidance to school districts stating that “lawmakers did not give it the authority to set conversions in the 2009 law that established STAAR.” A spokesperson for the agency stated that lawmakers have to address how the school districts implement STAAR in the next legislative session. This comes on the heels of the agency seeing tremendous budget cuts and losing a third of its staff.

STAAR Faces Questioning From LawmakersThe agency does not have the resources or the inclination to do more than is laid out in the legislation. School districts are always concerned about losing local control and unfunded mandates. They believe if the state is going to limit their control and mandate they take action, then they should ensure the school districts have adequate funding. Of course, this last legislative session, school districts received $4 billion less in funding, a huge reduction in staff, and now bigger class sizes.  It’s not that they want to undermine the test or do not care about educating the children. It’s that they do not have the money or the staff to do it.

As a society we need to stay informed on every topic because we never know when a law or bill will affect us. While I completely disagree with “teaching to the test” which is what most teachers have resorted to I also do not agree with lack of preparation. My 3^rd grader will take the STAAR this year and his teacher has no idea what is on it, leaving her in the dark to at least give her students the best opportunity for success.

The Texas Tribune- STAAR