Health Care Reform

When Obama campaigned for president, he promised health care reform. Well, last night, after a year of struggling through Congress, the reform bill finally passed. So, what does this mean for you? The New York Times has an article and a interactive guide, The Los Angeles Times has this guide, and the Washington Post has this timeline. Basically, the uninsured are the people who will see benefits from this legislation almost immediately.

There are a lot of good things in this bill. And many are saying that this is just the beginning of reform- we still have a long way to go. It's not perfect, and I didn't expect it to be. But I can't help but feeling a bit disappointed. The Stupak amendment has a lot to do with it. Some say it's just upholding the Hyde Amendment, which I think should be repealed anyway (and so did Obama when he was campaigning), but it's more than that. If a woman buys insurance on the exchange, she has to write two checks, one for regular insurance, and one for "abortion" insurance. Even though abortion is a legal medical procedure. The Daily Beast:

Because only about 13 percent of abortions are billed directly to insurers, it is sometimes assumed that abortion is a relatively inelastic good—that women who really want one will get one, come hell or high water. But that assumption is false. A 1999 study of poor women in North Carolina found that about one-third of them had carried pregnancies to term only because Medicaid funding for abortions was unavailable during certain parts of the year. An abortion can cost between $350 and $1,000—equal to several months of rent or groceries—so the price can be prohibitive. The result of unaffordable abortion is another mouth a working-class mother cannot afford to feed, house, or educate during a time of record unemployment.

So, women's reproductive rights were used as the bargaining chip to get this bill passed. And it's not just poor women that will be affected. It could lead to the elimination of all insurance coverage for abortion services.

Besides that, the bill has a few other shortcomings:

A year ago, Pelosi swore there would be a public option. There is none. There is no cap on what insurance companies can charge people with so-called pre-existing conditions, including being a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault — insurance companies just can't refuse to cover you, but they can charge what they like and, worse yet, you'll be required to buy it or pay a fine. Obama's mandates that employers provide their workers with insurance turned into a mandate that individuals buy their own insurance if employers don't. Conservative Ben Nelson's abortion-related provisions - which require companies participating in the health insurance exchange to send patients two bills (one for regular insurance and one for "abortion" insurance) in order to highlight for Americans that women sometimes have abortions, and they hope, reduce Americans' support for it — remain part of the legislation despite the outcry from the pro-choice community.

Although the new 31 million people that will be covered by insurance is an impressive number, there is still a lot of room for improvement. Let's hope that this is the first step toward a more comprehensive and inclusive health care reform.

UPDATE: Here is a more comprehensive explanation of what Obama's executive order means.

"The Femivore's Dilemma," Ctd

Elizabeth Nolan Brown makes a good point:

Why does everything women do – and I was going to say outside the realm of paid work, but really, it’s everything: working, not-working, part-time work, hobbies, etc. – have to be considered as a reaction to or against “feminism?” Why can’t we accept that there have, are and always will be myriad ways for arranging domestic, social and professional life, and the periodic, cyclical “discovery” of them by magazine or style section reporters says close to nothing about the state of gender relations, the nature of egalitarianism, feminism or the rejection thereof?

And, unsurprisingly, The Onion got there first. Seven years ago:

"From what she eats for breakfast to the way she cleans her home, today's woman lives in a state of near-constant empowerment," said Barbara Klein, professor of women's studies at Oberlin College and director of the study. "As recently as 15 years ago, a woman could only feel empowered by advancing in a male-dominated work world, asserting her own sexual wants and needs, or pushing for a stronger voice in politics. Today, a woman can empower herself through actions as seemingly inconsequential as driving her children to soccer practice or watching the Oxygen network."

"The Femivore's Dilemma"

Last week, the New York Times published an article titled "The Femivore's Dilemma," combining two of my favorite topics: food and feminism.

The writer, Peggy Orenstein, argues that there is a new branch of feminism sprouting from our nations growing obsession with local and organic food. Femivore's are women who have focused their energies on growing and providing organic, healthy and flavorful food for their families. They've gone past just maintaining a small vegetable garden. They now jar their own jams and buy chickens to provide them with eggs.

Femivorism is grounded in the very principles of self-sufficiency, autonomy and personal fulfillment that drove women into the work force in the first place. Given how conscious (not to say obsessive) everyone has become about the source of their food — who these days can’t wax poetic about compost? — it also confers instant legitimacy. Rather than embodying the limits of one movement, femivores expand those of another: feeding their families clean, flavorful food; reducing their carbon footprints; producing sustainably instead of consuming rampantly. What could be more vital, more gratifying, more morally defensible?

Then there's the economic argument for women going to the coop instead of the boardroom:

Conventional feminist wisdom held that two incomes were necessary to provide a family’s basic needs — not to mention to guard against job loss, catastrophic illness, divorce or the death of a spouse. Femivores suggest that knowing how to feed and clothe yourself regardless of circumstance, to turn paucity into plenty, is an equal — possibly greater — safety net. After all, who is better equipped to weather this economy, the high-earning woman who loses her job or the frugal homemaker who can count her chickens?

I can understand a parents need to explore avenues where their children can get the best possible nourishment, and I think people deciding to grow their own food, if they can, is great. I also really like the idea that feminism can mean a lot of different things, and that it can be expressed different ways.

However.

My worry here is that encouraging women to go back to the land is just another way to keep them from heading to the boardroom. And of course, it's not every woman's desire to be a CEO or chief legal council, but the business and academic world will never be made more female friendly if more and more women flee it. This, then, brings up how much each woman is responsible for furthering opportunities for other women. If a woman quits a high paying job to start growing tomatoes and canning pickles, does it become a detriment for all women trying to make their way up the corporate ladder?

It's possible I may be getting ahead of myself here, in regards to this piece. The NYT declaring Femivores a new trend might be like the way they declared the "opt out revolution" a trend years ago: it focuses on a small group of upper class women. Because the ability to not have to work is a luxury in and of itself, and really is only an option for Americans whose spouse makes a lot of money.

In any case, it's an interesting read, and writer and self-declared femivore Jessica Knadler writes about her difficulties combing feminism and farming in this post at her blog, Rurally Screwed:

The irony is that while there’s no question I’m more resourceful and frugal and self-sufficient in my new life, I actually fell like less of a feminist than ever.

There are a couple of reasons for this. Number one, DIY living, as far as I’ve experienced it, is still pretty much a man’s game. Much of the local economy revolves around construction and, to a lesser degree, farming, whereas satisfying, reasonably well-paying jobs for women are few and far between. So a lot of my peers end up staying home to raise the kids. For some, this is a wonderful opportunity. For others, I get the feeling it’s for lack of anything better to do. The result is that a masculine blue collar ethos holds sway. I’ve been to more than a few dinner parties where the men end up dominating the conversation discussing chain saws and diesel engines while the wives try to get a word in edgewise (or maybe that’s just me?), or else drift off to the kitchen to hang out with the children. Maybe there’s similar segregation at Brooklyn dinner parties, I don’t know – I left NYC before my peers started having kids — but I always find myself thinking, how very The Waltons. And not in a groovy, DIY homesteading kind of way but in a weird, retro 1950s kind of way.

It seems that even when women flee to the coop, the roosters are still in charge.

Kathryn Bigelow Wins Best Director

Last night, Kathryn Bigelow, director of The Hurt Locker, became the first woman to win the Academy Award for Best Director. The Hurt Locker also won for Best Picture, defeating Avatar, the most successful film of all time.

"She was the fourth woman to be nominated in the directing category, after Lina Wertmüller, Jane Campion, and Sofia Coppola. This is in an industry where 83% of all directors, writers, and producers on the top 100 grossing films last year were male, where, of the 600 movies reviewed in The New York Times last year, only ten percent were directed by women. So it matters."

Personally, I liked The Hurt Locker better than Avatar, but I really did think Avatar would win for Best Picture, just for the sheer amount of money it grossed and all the hype about it changing the way films will be made.

In any case, Bigelow definitely earned her awards, and let's hope this helps pave the way for more women to get behind the camera.

Click here to watch her acceptance speech. Also, I kind of love this photo (sorry I couldn't embed).

Weekend Videos

These two have been making their way around the blogosphere. First up, Disney Mean Girls:



And Ok Go: This Too Shall Pass. It's kind of like a real life, more awesome version of Mouse Trap.



Have a good weekend, friends.

"Anchor Management"

Oh, Fox News. Somehow, you always manage to raise my blood pressure.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Anchor Management
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Reform