Healthcare for a More Caring Population

What is a mother? Biology, genetics and culture all tell us that a mother is one who cares for her young. There is no vow for mothers--no "in sickness and in health"--because it goes without saying. In sickness and in health. In health and in sickness. That's what we do.

Which makes the state of healthcare in this country of paramount importance to roughly 82 million of us. (This is not to say it isn't important to fathers as well. It is. But this is about mothers.) Caring for our young means procuring vaccinations, antibiotics, splints, neuropsych evaluations, diagnostic MRIs, chemotherapy, psychotherapy, insulin treatments, appendectomies, detox programs, blood transfusions, bone marrow transplants...unfortunately, the list goes on and on.

And many of us can't afford these necessities for our children. Many millions of us. Uninsured children are estimated to number 9 million.

Mothers know that good health goes beyond the walls of a single house. Your child's chicken pox is my child's chicken pox if she hasn't been vaccinated. Your teenage son's access to condoms is my teenage daughter's ability to remain a child for as long as she needs...and vice versa. "Careful," a friend says to me on the phone one morning, "my kids are down for the count--strep--and I know yours were over here all day yesterday, sharing drinking glasses." And so I watch my kids, pay a little extra attention if there's a headache or sore throat. Good health relies on strong communities, on mutual dependability.

All of which has been on my mind as I've listened to Sarah Palin, who supposedly got into politics because she wanted her kids' schools to be better. If she is first and foremost a mother, as she stresses, how is it that she has nothing to say on the subject of healthcare? It's wonderful that she promises the parents of children with special needs that they'll have an advocate in Washington should McCain win the election. But what about the other parents, the parents of children with so-called ordinary needs? What is Sarah Palin promising them? What is she acknowledging of their--of our, of her--challenges as healthcare costs skyrocket and insurance becomes harder and harder to afford?

For a person advertising herself as a regular mom--she even makes dinner for her family, though they grumble about her cooking--she is strikingly silent on this vitally important issue facing mothers today. I'd like to think a self-described mom running for public office would have some thoughts about how healthcare can be made available for those of limited means and for those who are ineligible for group plans and whose pre-existing conditions result in automatic refusal from insurance companies. After all, we all share the most important pre-existing condition--it's called being human.

Comments

[Sneaky]

Heh, mods didn't like my last one.

Miss Packer, would you like to explain to my how my teenage son's access to condoms determines your teenage daughter's ability to be a child as long as she need be? Sounds like diffusion of responsibility to me.

Could you explain to me why healthcare is somehow more important to moms/women than men or children, especially children given your article's contents? Sounds like sexism to me.

Could you please explain to me why we give a damn what Palin thinks about healthcare, given that she is currently in no position to have much more than an opinion without weight on the subject? Do you realize that if she becomes the nation's VP, heck, if she becomes the nation's President, she'll still have little more than an opinion on the matter and no direct ability to effect change? Sounds like ignorance to me.

One, and only one, point was made in favor of improved national healthcare, and that was Miss Packer's statement concerning contagious diseases. The rest of the article should be cause for anyone to cringe.

[EtOH]

Great post Ann, but I think you are putting to much faith in elected officials.

You're assuming that politicians seek their offices for the purpose of governing; they seek them to gain power. That goes for Democrats and Republicans. If they really wanted to govern, then the debate would be about how to pay for universal health coverage for all. Such a system would help everyone live a better life. You know, like that's the purpose of governing. We, as taxpayers, just bought an insurance company for just over 85 billion dollars (that’s eight hundred and fifty thousand million dollars, just to put it in perspective) to ensure our financial market’s health, and we can’t establish one to ensure our peoples physical health? All we get is one side using scare tactics by yelling "Socialism!", and the other side pandering to the insurance industry by proposing laws that make buying their products mandatory. Neither side is willing to risk power (i.e. bite the hands of their corporate donors) by proposing something truly beneficial for the people. We've stopped demanding that our politicians govern in such a way that betters our lives. We just want to see the mud slinging. We love the political theater, without all those annoying details that you have to know to truly understand the policy. Citizenship is a bitch and besides who has time to watch CSPAN when 90210 is back on the air.

[liberalladylawyer]

HuffPost's Pick

"Mothers know that good health goes beyond the walls of a single house. Your child's chicken pox is my child's chicken pox if she hasn't been vaccinated."

None of the arguments for or against universal healthcare ever mention this point. One case of contagious TB, undiagnosed and untreated due to uninsured status, carried by a child into the schoolroom, has the potential of creating an epidemic with tragic consequences. Bacilli do not discriminate between rich and poor, or black and white. Denial of basic healthcare to all of us, however, does.

[TheHandyman]

First of, you assume that Sarah Palin, because she is a mother and because she is an elected official is somehow smarter than you and more caring. It should beobvious by now that Palin is no deep thinker. She is a reactionary. The way she deals with problem solving is to do that which has always been done and doesn't recognize that it has never worked.

If she were the kind of Mother you think she is, as if all Mothers were cut from the same cloth, when she became Mayor she would have worked to earn the support of the people working for her. Instead she fired them. The same as when she became Governor. Did she evaluate the people heading the various Depts and determine if they were good at what they did? No, she replaced all of them with friends who had no experience. She fired people out of vindictiveness.

That anyone sees redeeming, worthwhile characteristics in Palin as an elected official shows how shallow some humans are. I want people who are smarter than me to lead me. I want people who are capable of solving problems in ways that support me and make a difference. Neither Palin, who is incredably stupid and narrow-minded and John McCain who is corrupt, on the verge of senility and maybe death, are smart in the ways that count. That these two could possible be elected is frightening and points once again to the dummying down of the People.