In case you’ve been living under a rock, the US Supreme Court is hearing a case this week that affects every US citizen. It’s the case regarding the health care overhaul put in place by President Obama (known as Obamacare). At question is whether the US government has a right to force citizens to purchase health insurance.

My knowledge of this debate is pretty superficial, but I still have questions. If I  have some of the details correct, the proponents of the plan state that when uninsured people seek out medical care (and cannot afford the care they need), the costs are passed onto those who pay for their care (straight up or through insurance) and taxpayers. So, to even out the playing field, everyone must have insurance, meaning everyone has medical coverage. And for those people who cannot afford to pay for insurance, there will be subsidies to help them pay.

The other side of the debate states the US government cannot force anyone to buy a commodity. Therefore, forcing people to buy health insurance is against the law or unconstitutional or whatever and the mandate should therefore be repealed.

Here’s my question. Was another option ever considered? What seems to be clear to me is that hospitals and medical care providers are REQUIRED to give medical attention to anyone seeking it. Then, if the person cannot afford the medical care, the onus is on the provider to figure out a way to pay for it … meaning, the medical providers wind up passing on costs to paying customers (in one form or another). That system, to me, seems broken.

What if we allowed medical providers to only provide medical care to those who can pay for it (either through insurance or out of pocket). Then, to help those people who don’t have insurance or can’t pay for these services out of pocket, we provide subsidies to them should they choose to get insurance. That moves the responsibility from the care provider to the patient. That way, the government doesn’t require anyone to buy anything … BUT, if you choose not to buy insurance, then you risk not being able to seek out medical attention if you can’t pay for it.

I know I’m missing something. Does the hypocratic oath require doctors and nurses to provide medical care whenever they are in a situation that demands it? What else have I missed. Surely something, otherwise, this option would’ve been on the table, right? RIGHT?

Today is Primary Day here in Illinois. Usually, due to the timing of the Illinois primary being so late in the political year, it is a non-issue, because one candidate has wrapped up the national nomination. Not the case this year. Though, based on the ads, you’d think only one presidential candidate is running. For the past week, I’ve seen dozens of Romney ads. I’ve seen a total of ZERO ads from the other candidates. I know Romney is loaded, but don’t the other candidates have to at least get their name out there in order to garner more votes?

Then again, based on what Santorum said about Puerto Rico last week and statehood and the Federal law requiring  them to adopt English as their primary language and the fact that no such law exists and given Chicago (in particular) has a very high Hispanic population, maybe it is best he saves his advertising dollars and opts to visit Republican friendly gathering spots instead (though, certainly not his alma mater high school). Furthermore, we want this super sensitive guy representing us across the world? Good grief!

Even though I’m a registered Democrat (I know, huge surprise to those of you who regularly read my blog read the first couple paragraphs of this post), I will still be participating in the primary. There are a number of vacated judge spots that are open. And thanks to a legal friend of mine, I’ve been reminded that not every judge who is nominated is worthy of serving their time on the bench. I’m going to have my say in it.

source

____________________________

Gavin is 16 months old and we haven’t yet cut his hair. It’s not because I’m the mama who will cry when she has to cut her son’s hair. Quite the contrary. I like my guys to be clean-cut. But, Gavin has been sparse in the hair department and hasn’t yet demanded a proper cut. As you can sort of see from the photo above (taken a few days ago), he has some hair on the top, but it’s wispy at best. He has hints of hair on the sides, but let’s face it, there’s still very little. I don’t have a problem with the frontal hemisphere of his head.

At issues is the back of his head, where his hair has grown into a little bushel of baby fine hair. On a good day, it’ll curl and look as cute as can be. On most days, though, part of it curls and part of it just lies flat and lifeless. Not sure if you can see in this photo, but if you look closely, some of this not-very-fun hair is peeking behind his ear.

Ever since Gavin turned a year, Sweets has been advocating to shave his head, arguing it’ll grow back thicker and more “normal,” whatever that means. I put my foot down to shaving (never) and cutting (not until the time is right). But, I did agree that when the time is right, Sweets can take Gavin to his barber. Just the other night, I got the itch to cut it myself. I asked Sweets if I could and he firmly said no. Not because it would be me and not the barber, but because he’s now growing to like it. WTH?!

____________________________

source

Our summer plans are coming together. We will spend two weeks on the East Coast visiting my brother in Asbury Park, New Jersey and my parents on Cape Cod. We are also going to head to Door County (Wisconsin) to go camping with friends (we’ve taken this trip before, twice actually) and will take a few days off for that trip. It’s looking like I’m going to work a total of 11 days in the month of August. More importantly, I will be taking 12 days of vacation (not counting weekends!). Why am I talking about it now if it’s only March? Because it also means I’m going to take a total of near zero vacation days between now and then. Wah!

What do I believe? I believe certain Republicans in Congress are instigating investigations into Planned Parenthood, not because they believe there’s been a misappropriation of funds, but because it serves their personal agendas of appeasing their highly conservative constituencies. I believe Komen caved to pressure from pro-choice groups. I believe, at the direction of one of their executives with a very personal agenda, they carved out new corporate policies that allow it to yank funding from Planned Parenthood without debate. I believe they mistreated and were completely disrespectful to Planned Parenthood—not by yanking funding (that one we can debate), but by making an announcement to Planned Parenthood, instead of meeting face to face with Planned Parenthood leadership. Is this any way to treat an organization they’ve partnered with for seven years? Cowardly, I think so.

My reaction? I was deeply saddened by this news. Because, I actually have history with the Komen Foundation. My college sorority picked the Susan G Komen Foundation as it’s national charity (and I can only hope they will seriously reconsider a different breast cancer organization to support going forward). We organized the Franklin 5K (before 5ks were popular) as an annual fundraiser for the organization. Over the years, we raised thousands upon thousands of dollars for that organization. After I graduated and moved to Chicago, I continued to support that organization by raising money for and running in the Race for the Cure. And so, it’s sort of a stake in my heart that an organization I supported for so many years could so egregiously mistreat another organization I happen to support. And, more important than my personal disappointment, it’s incredibly unfortunate that women’s health has to be politicized. Ridiculous and appalling, actually.

Furthermore, this story adds more reasons why I am utterly confused by the political right. The whole conservative Republican movement screams at liberal Democrats that we need less government. Fewer taxes. Less spending. Stay out of our business. That’s their message and trust me, we hear it loud and clear. Oh, but wait a minute. What’s that? If the conservative Republicans don’t agree with my business, then they’re more than happy to stick their noses in it? So, what this basically means is that when it comes to my body, conservative Republicans have their hands all over it. Hypocrisy much? Eff that.

Ooooh boy, I can feel the comments brewing. Or even better, the lack of comments brewing, because many of you don’t like to pick fights. And that’s fine. Bring it on. Or don’t. In the meantime, I’m gonna turn my words into action. Instead of continuing to whine about this sad state of affairs any more, I’m heading over to the Planned Parenthood website to make a donation. And from what I hear, a lot of others have, too (they raised $400,000 in the 24 hours after the Komen announcement went public). Action speaks louder than words.

Chicago Alderman are considering a ban on texting while biking. I just want to know who is dumb enough to text while biking? Who is coordinated enough to text while biking? And theoretically speaking, so long as no one else is hurt, shouldn’t we let the Darwinian theory of survival of the fittest play out in this case? Just saying.

Sweets has a love affair with Redfin.com. It’s a real estate website that makes home-hunting easy. You’d think we were looking to buy a home given how much time he spends on it. In fact, we’re not in the home buying business right now. And to make my point, I did some math for Sweets. Based on some conservative estimates of what our condo is worth today (a lot less that what we bought it for) and potential real estate growth over the next decade (1% per year), it will take us over 15 years for the market value of our condo to return to the value where we bought it. I’m pretty sure a Redfin ban in our house is well deserved.

I’m so sick of the Republican party publicly presenting themselves as if they live by a moral code that makes them better people than everyone else … and yet, time and time again, they prove that they’re just as dirty as the rest of us. Case in point: Texas Governor Rick Perry leased a hunting camp with a rock that had “Niggerhead” painted on it. There is debate around when the word was painted over, but there is no debate that it existed at one time, well into the 1980s. There are hundreds of places to hunt and yet, he chose that one. Are you kidding me? Second case in point: Chicago Tea Party leader skips a local Tea Party convention after he was outed for soliciting prostitutes (and getting caught for it) in 2010. Nice, buddy, real nice. Two examples of very poor judgement calls, especially for people who are in political office or the public view and therefore are constantly scrutinized. If you want to make bad decisions, that’s fine, but don’t you dare pretend you’re morally better than anyone else.

When you have a baby, your name is magically added to every mailing list known to man. As a result, I have “free” subscriptions to a number of parenting magazines. Working Mother magazine came out with it’s top list of employers, based on maternity/paternity leave, flexible working environments, how many women are hired into management positions and other woman-focused metrics. The computer systems company, Cisco, came in number one for a host of reasons. The reason that stuck out to me? They give employees 26 weeks of PAID maternity leave (8 weeks more than the companies tied for second place). That’s six months, kids. Paid. I about lost my marbles when I saw that statistic. Way to support women in the workplace!

The NBA is currently in a lockout. Might be the best gift of the season if they stay that way. (And who said I wasn’t McJudgey?!? hahaha)

Halloween is coming up this month. It is one of those holidays that I loathe. Not loathing in a way where I think the holiday should be banned altogether. I think it’s great for kids. I just detest dressing up my adult body and using the day as an excuse to get beyond drunk (who on earth needs an excuse to do that?!). I’ve successfully ignored Halloween since college. But, now, we have a baby. And there have been some societal demands for a costume for him. If it were up to me, I’d skip it this year (hello, the kid is only one and will likely hate wearing a costume). Sweets would agree with me, too. But, his daycare is actually doing something related to the holiday. And I’m not going to be *that* parent who denies her child a fun day, just because she doesn’t like it herself. =) So, a costume is in the works.

I think I’m allergic to sushi. To be more specific, I think I’m allergic to the seaweed used to make maki rolls. My heart is broken. It started a few years ago, when I absolutely loved ordering seaweed salads to commence my sushi meal. Only my body didn’t like the seaweed salad. My stomach would rumble and roar. I’d get the worst cramps. After trial and error, I realized what was making my stomach boil, so I stopped ordering seaweed salads (a travesty!). Last week, Sweets and I treated ourselves to sushi. We got four rolls to share. After dinner, my stomach started doing the same thing it used to do with the seaweed salads. I’m not yet ready to throw in the towel. I’m going with the three-strikes rule. But, it’s disheartening to know strike one has been called.

What are some random things swimming around in your head today?!

Our most recent debate centers on the race for Chicago Mayor. You see, our current Mayor has had a tight hold on that office for decades. Around election time, it was sort of theater for me to see who would waste their time and money trying to run against him. While he didn’t have the most, errr, ethical (?) history during his mayorship, everyone would agree he turned Chicago into a pretty remarkable place to live and to visit … most recently highlighted by China’s presidential visit to this city, the only city other than Washington DC, largely credited to our Mayor’s global efforts to keep business relations open with China as well as one of the nation’s first Mandarin-language programs in a high school.

All that hoopla aside, Mayor Daley announced his retirement last year. And the race for Chicago Mayor immediately heated up. The biggest name in this race has to be Rahm Emanuel, recent Chief of Staff to President Obama. Emanuel was a long-time Chicago resident before relocating to Washington DC to serve our country under our President. Emanuel always maintained the one thing that would draw him back to Chicago is if Mayor Daley were to step down: being Chicago’s Mayor has been on Emanuel’s radar for years. So, when Daley announced he was stepping down, Emanuel moved back.

Two things have been certain since Emanuel announced his run for Mayor. (1) Emanuel has been the front-running candidate from the start, by large margins. (2) A number of groups have called into question whether Emanuel meets the city residency requirements in order to be on the ballot.

To be Chicago’s Mayor, you have to have established residency in Chicago for at least a year prior to the election. Emanuel returned to Chicago in October 2010; the election is in February 2011. There is clear reason why people would call into question his eligibility. In late December 2010, the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners ruled unanimously that, in fact, Emanuel did meet residency requirements. Even though he moved to Washington DC to serve our President, his intentions were always to move back to Chicago, as evidenced by leaving boxes of personal items in his house (which he rented out while he was gone) and retaining his Illinois driver’s license.

Almost immediately, an appeal was filed with an Illinois Appellate Court. Mere days ago, that court threw out the ruling by the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners, stating Emanuel is not eligible to run because he moved to Washington D.C. for two years. Soon after that ruling came down, I saw news stories that the ballots were going to the printer without Emanuel’s name on them and the Elections Commission would adjust if the Illinois Supreme Court came down with a different ruling. Well, the Illinois Supreme Court had something to say about that: they directed the ballots to be printed with Emanuel’s name on the ballots, even though  (at the time) the Supreme Court hadn’t yet announced whether it would even hear Emanuel’s case. Late yesterday, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled they will, indeed, hear the Emanuel residency case.

For me, it’s disappointing that any state or municipality would have laws on the books preventing people who serve our country from running for local office. Whether a resident temporarily relocates to Washington DC to serve under our President or moves to the Middle East to fight for our country, shouldn’t we continue to encourage those people to solidly serve our country? Me thinks so. As one friend pointed out, in the Chicago situation, surely someone wanted to keep someone else out of office, and so this residency requirement was established years ago and now it’s coming back to bite people in the ass. I also get that we’d have to define intent to move back … that someone who moves to DC to serve the President and stays in DC to work for a think tank after serving the President probably relinquishes their residency versus someone who moves to DC to serve the President with plans for an immediate return after their term is up.

Anyway, this is Chicago politics. Political theater, mind you. And I’m pretty confident that there will continue to be drama and high stakes and judicial sparring … and at the end, I have a feeling Emanuel will serve as Chicago’s next Mayor. (And if you’re looking for my personal feelings about him, outside of this residency spat, I think he’s the only candidate with the muscle and name recognition to continue to make Chicago a great place to live, a fantastic place to visit and a serious contender in the global economy.)