WHAT'S STANDING IN THE WAY? 

 

 By Sonali Kolhatkar

 

It’s true that the number of uninsured Americans has dropped to an all-time low. But that fact obscures the failures of our patchwork, profit-driven health care system.

Here’s one of many indicators about how broken the United States health care system is: Guns seem to be easier and cheaper to access than treatment for the wounds they cause. A survivor of the recent mass shooting in Half Moon Bay, California, reportedly said to Gov. Gavin Newsom that he needed to keep his hospital stay as short as possible in order to avoid a massive medical bill. Meanwhile, the suspected perpetrator seemed to have had few obstacles in his quest to legally obtain a semi-automatic weapon to commit deadly violence.

Americans are at the whim of a bewildering patchwork of employer-based private insurance plans, individual health plans via a government-run online marketplace, or government-run health care (for those lucky enough to be eligible). The coverage and costs of plans vary dramatically so that even if one has health insurance there is rarely a guarantee that there will be no out-of-pocket costs associated with accessing care.

It’s hardly surprising then that the latest Gallup poll about health care affirms what earlier polls have said: that a majority of Americans want their government to ensure health coverage for all. In fact, nearly three-quarters of all Democrats want a government-run system.

Gallup also found that a record high number of people put off addressing health concerns because of the cost of care. Thirty-eight percent of Americans said they delayed getting treatment in 2022—that’s 12 percentage points higher than the year before. Unsurprisingly, lower-income Americans were disproportionately affected.

Women are especially impacted, with more women than men delaying treatment as per the same Gallup poll. The findings were consistent with results published by researchers at New York University’s School of Global Public Health—that women’s health care was increasingly unaffordable, compared to men’s—in a study that solely focused on people with employer-based health coverage. Imagine how out-of-reach health care is for uninsured women.

Added to that, Republican-led abortion bans have made it even harder for American women to obtain reproductive health care. On the 50th anniversary of the recently overturned Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, abortion providers in Massachusetts, for example, reported a steady stream of people driving to their state—one where abortion remains legal—to access care.

President Joe Biden and the Democratic Party appear to think that this grim status quo is perfectly acceptable. Democrats’ reliance on the Obama-era Affordable Care Act (ACA) as a bulwark against Republican opposition to any government intervention in health care seems to be resoundingly successful—on paper. In December 2022, Biden touted the fact that 11.5 million Americans, a record high number, had signed up for ACA plans during the last enrollment period. He said, “Gains like these helped us drive down the uninsured rate to eight percent earlier this year, its lowest level in history.”

His administration, rather than working to fulfill what a majority of his party’s constituents want—a government-run health care system—has continued instead to tweak the ACA by extending a period of discounted monthly premiums for private insurance plans. Such tweaks are not permanent. Neither are they a panacea for accessing adequate care. If anything, they are a façade protecting profit-based private insurance companies.

A survey by the Commonwealth Fund found that although the number of insured Americans is now at an all-time high, more than 40 percent of those who bought ACA plans and nearly 30 percent of those with employer-based plans were underinsured—that is, the plans were inadequate to cover their health care needs.

By focusing solely on the number of people who had health plans as a measure of success, the White House is participating in a great coverup of the ongoing American health care tragedy.

Meanwhile, just over the horizon from Biden’s celebration of record numbers of ACA signups is the fact that millions of people currently enrolled in the Medicaid government health plan could lose access because of the end of an emergency provision that allowed for “continuous enrollment.” That provision expires at the end of March 2023. If all Americans were automatically enrolled in government-provided health care regardless of eligibility, this would not be a concern.

Right-wing sources, so terrified that too many Americans want a government-run health system, are busy shaping public opinion against it. The Pacific Research Institute’s Sally Pipes published an op-ed about how Canada’s national health system was a good reason why the U.S. should not have a similar program. Using the deadly logic of a free marketeer, she wrote, “In Canada, health care is ‘free’ at the point of service. As a result, demand for care is sky-high.”

The implication is that charging people for service would reduce the demand, just as it would for, say, an electric vehicle. In Pipes’ world, people are accessing health care just for fun, and if they were charged money for it, their ailments might resolve themselves without treatment.

The Heritage Foundation also published an attack on Britain’s National Health Service (NHS), gleefully claiming that it is “cratering,” and warning that it is a lesson for American liberals who might support a similar “single-payer” system in the United States.

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board published a similar warning, claiming that the NHS was “failing patients, with deadly consequences.”

It’s puzzling why the Pacific Research Institute, Heritage Foundation, and Wall Street Journal appear unconcerned about the 330,000 Americans who lost their lives during the COVID-19 pandemic simply because they don’t live in a nation with a universal health care program.

The U.S. spends nearly twice as much per capita on health care than other comparable high-income nations. According to Health Affairs, excessive administrative costs are the main reason for this discrepancy—these are nonmedical costs associated with delivering health care in a patchwork system of employer-based private health and publicly subsidized plans. In fact, “administrative spending accounts for 15–30 percent of health care spending.”

Again, right-wing media outlets and think tanks appear unconcerned by this disturbing fact. They only want to convince Americans that a government-run health plan is a bad idea. And, sadly, the Democratic Party leaders like Biden seem to agree implicitly.

The National Union of Healthcare Workers together with Healthy California Now created an online calculator for individuals to determine how much money they would save if the U.S. had a single-payer system.

I have an employer-based health care plan that is considered very good. Using the calculator, I determined that I would save more than $16,000 if California, the state where I live, had a single-payer system. That’s money I could be saving for my children’s higher education or for my retirement.

The victims of mass shootings, like the Half Moon Bay survivor, are saddled with high costs of care on top of the trauma of having been shot. Every year, there are more than 80,000 survivors of injuries from firearms in the United States. Having a single-payer health care system would not fix our epidemic of gun violence. But it would certainly make it easier to bear.

Canada and Britain’s state-run systems of health care may be imperfect, but they are a vast improvement on the survival-of-the-fittest approach that the U.S. takes.

This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Author Bio: Sonali Kolhatkar is an award-winning multimedia journalist. She is the founder, host, and executive producer of “Rising Up With Sonali,” a weekly television and radio show that airs on Free Speech TV and Pacifica stations. Her forthcoming book is Rising Up: The Power of Narrative in Pursuing Racial Justice (City Lights Books, 2023). She is a writing fellow for the Economy for All project at the Independent Media Institute and the racial justice and civil liberties editor at Yes! Magazine. She serves as the co-director of the nonprofit solidarity organization the Afghan Women’s Mission and is a co-author of Bleeding Afghanistan. She also sits on the board of directors of Justice Action Center, an immigrant rights organization.

Today is the day we commemorate the adoption of the 19^th Amendment to the Constitution in 1920.  This amendment prohibits the government from denying citizens of the United States the right to vote on the basis of their sex.  Representative Bella Abzug introduced the bill designating August 26 Women’s Equality Day as a symbol of the fight for equal rights and authorizing the President to issue an annual proclamation commemorating women’s suffrage and the 1970 Strike for Equality.

It has now been 101 years since women earned the right to vote but sadly, we have still yet to be granted equal rights under the Constitution.  Celebrate this day by telling your Representatives and Senators to remove the deadline they originally set for ratification of the ERA (H.J.RES> 17).  Three-fourths of the states have ratified the ERA.   It is time NOW! To make the ERA a part of our Constitution.  It is unconscionable that women still do not have equal rights in the United States.

It’s the spring of 2019. I’m fourteen years old and in the eighth grade. I’ve just spent the last three months writing a bill about menstrual justice for my school's mock congress. Standing on a brown makeshift podium in front of a room of mostly thirteen-year-old boys and a male teacher, I tell them all about periods. Sounds mortifying, right?

Due to my “eat the patriarchy for breakfast” approach to life, however, I feel power in seeing the squeamish looks on their faces while discussing tampons, toxic shock syndromeabortion, and how vaginas can absorb harmful chemicals from unregulated period products. This experience was the starting point of my journey with self-acceptance.

Now, flash forward to high school as I talk about estrogen, FSH (Follicle Stimulating Hormone), LH (Luteinizing Hormone) and progesterone levels with my Health 2 teacher, as we share resources on cycle syncing food and exercise, and as I buy tampons and pads in bulk at Costco while my Mexican father (raised in a culture that didn’t openly discuss anatomical topics) sheepishly tries to cover them with grocery bags. I haven’t always been so unashamed about my own anatomy—and I often still feel pressure to adhere to the taboos surrounding my body's health. During my stay at the autumn Rising Voices Fellowship August retreat, though, I encountered a book that empowered me to continue to educate myself about my body: Our Bodies, Ourselves.

I’d never read a book before Our Bodies, Ourselves that explicitly discussed and broke down myths about AFAB (assigned female at birth) bodies. Even with all of the feminist work I’ve tried to do, the book’s material felt foreign and a little uncomfortable. On the other hand, I craved this knowledge about my body that had been hidden in plain sight. I wanted to know more and to understand how this book came to be.

The idea for Our Bodies, Ourselves took root in 1969, when a group of twelve women (eight of whom were Jewish) sat down at Emmanuel College in Boston for a workshop called “Women and Their Bodies.” While discussing their experiences and frustrations, they realized how little they knew about their anatomy. Society had encouraged them to suppress their questions and emotions regarding health care. Their discussions about their personal relationships and their experiences with treatment by doctors revealed that they were not alone in their concerns. The twelve women decided to research and collect their findings to help both themselves and others. This project turned into a booklet called Women and their Bodies, later renamed Our Bodies, Ourselves to embrace the idea of people reclaiming the narrative around our own health care and bodies. This revolutionary book addressed taboo topics like abortion, pregnancy, postpartum depression, the power and role of male doctors, and the profit motive in the health care industry. Our Bodies, Ourselves came out during a time when abortion was illegal, birth control wasn’t readily available, and men had authored the small amount of accessible information about bodies assigned female at birth—it was a new, radical educational resource for people.

The initial marketing of the book happened mainly through word of mouth, and 250,000 copies were sold in New England. In 1973, the writers published an extended version of Our Bodies, Ourselves through a mainstream publisher to reach a larger audience. The women allowed this company to publish their book under the condition that they would remain in control of editorial decisions, as well as ensure a discount for non-profit health centers who purchased the book. Although the book received a lot of attention, the authors still pressed for its continued accessibility by demanding reduced costs for people with lower incomes, when they could have easily commercialized its success instead. Every few years, the writers reconstructed and republished the book to include issues relevant at the time. For example, the ninth edition, written in 2011, featured a new section on lesbian, bisexual, and asexual health.

I bet it took a lot of chutzpah to publish a book like Our Bodies, Ourselves back in the 1970s. The founding writers of Our Bodies, Ourselves understood that education (both formal and informal) can provide people with power, liberation, and autonomy. The twelve authors’ groundbreaking work allowed “ordinary” women to start the process of peacefully freeing themselves from the patriarchal culture surrounding health. As a society, we’ve come a long way since the 1970s and the origins of the women's liberation movement, but we still have a long way to go. The new generation of advocates for women’s rights and reproductive justice have a lot to learn from our foremothers—and one of these lessons is the power of education in our everyday lives.

Before I learned about my body and developed my feminist identity, I felt embarrassment surrounding my anatomy and my period. Everyone who gets a period knows the drill: there’s the expectation to hide a tampon or pad in your sleeve or pocket, to quietly ask a close friend to make sure you’re not bleeding or showing any signs of wearing a pad, and to be discreet about any symptoms of PMS. Honestly, this hide-and-seek around our bodies is exhausting. As soon as I started to inform myself about my anatomy, I felt freer and stronger, and became eager to educate others, too. (My friends sometimes get annoyed at me for how often I talk about human anatomy.)

I sometimes feel very powerless in my own life, especially during the era of COVID-19. It’s easy to feel as though I have no ability to make real change, but it’s times like these that the lessons of Our Bodies, Ourselves are most important. The everyday task of educating ourselves can lead to major societal change—the personal is indeed political, and activism on an individual scale is just as important as it is on a larger community scale. As a Jewish feminist, I have a responsibility to further the movement started by the writers of Our Bodies, Ourselves, and I hope to continue to enact change through honest, unapologetic discussions and education about our bodies.

This piece was written as part of JWA’s Rising Voices Fellowship.

HOW TO CITE THIS PAGE

Isaias-Day, Sofia. ""Our Bodies, Ourselves" in 2022." 16 March 2022. Jewish Women's Archive. (Viewed on March 28, 2022) https://jwa.org/blog/risingvoices/our-bodies-ourselves-2022.

Why is this important?

Recently, Justice Clarence Thomas voted against a Supreme Court decision to compel the release of Donald Trump's records regarding the January 6 insurrection and attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

It has become clear that his wife—longtime conservative activist Ginni Thomas—was actively urging the White House to overturn election results both leading up to January 6 and after the deadly insurrection.

Thomas' failure to recuse himself warrants immediate investigation and heightened alarm. And it's only the latest in a long history of conflicts of interest in the service of a right-wing agenda and mixing his powerful role with his conservative political activism. He has shown he cannot be an impartial justice and is more concerned with covering up his wife's coup attempts than the health of the Supreme Court.

He must resign—or Congress must immediately investigate and impeach.

Click below to sign the petition.

https://sign.moveon.org/petitions/clarence-thomas-must-go

 

PREFACE:  The views expressed in this post are the antithesis to the basic premise of this website and the convictions of the staff.  However, we have stated our intentions to welcome opposing opinions so long as they are presented in accordance with our code of conduct.

While we totally disagree with this author’s views, we must give her credit for the thought-provoking opinions she expresses. 

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

According to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, the official definition of feminism is the advocacy of women’s rights based on the equality of the sexes. Although this definition states that advocates should work towards equality for both men and women, feminism, in today’s society, has come to mean asserting women’s rights over men’s.

How did we get here?

According to Pacific University, the first wave of the feminist movement started in the late 1800s into the early 1900s. This wave primarily focused on women’s legal rights, especially the right to vote.  This stage of the movement was often intertwined with pressing social issues of the time, such as temperance and abolition.

The second wave of feminism arose in the 1960s. Feminism, at this time, was about asserting equal rights between the sexes, especially in the expression of sexuality and social roles. This movement was part of the larger campaign in politics towards the left, as seen in the Black Power and the antiwar movements. However, as the decades progressed, feminism became more theoretical, focusing on the broader issues with heteronormativity, patriarchy, and capitalism. 

The third wave arose in the 1990s. The focus of this wave was on redefining womanhood, through the acceptance of feminine beauty for itself, rather than as standards imposed by the patriarchy.

This final wave of feminism arose in the 2010s. This era has relied especially on news and social media to catalyze the movement and spread awareness.

According to the Harvard Political Review, modern feminism is often confused with the influential movements in the 1960s. Rather than keeping the biased term of “feminism,” the important campaign could be renamed to something more neutral.  

“The biggest issue in the way we see modern feminism is that we often conflate it with the feminist movement from the ‘60s. The term is a little outdated and often associated with bra-burning and man-hate,” Tasnim Ahmed wrote.

The terms ‘bra-burning’ and ‘man-hating’ describe the movement exactly in that many feminists tend to take their protesting and campaigning to radical extremes.

Modern feminism, and the international movements that follow, spread ideas of women in dominance, rather than equality amongst all sex. This is a broad issue because it separates society as a whole.

Nowadays, there is no need for vocal calls against female oppression. Women are now allowed to vote, gain an education, have a stable job, vote in society, enlist in the army, file for divorce, and much more. They have equal rights.

According to the Washington Examiner, the political wing that most commonly endorses female empowerment is the Left. It’s not unusual for this wing of politics to focus on the encouragement and the related emotional aspect of a movement, such as feminism.

“In addition to being scientifically impossible, an all-female future is neither wise nor wanted. Leftists won’t readily admit that both women and men possess strengths and weaknesses. Each side complements the other,” Kimberly Ross wrote.

Although it is important to spread awareness of feminine issues, other problems in the world require more immediate attention. 

The modern movement brings not much more than the increasing separation of men and women. 

Another growing concept is ‘our future is female.’ This commonly-used phrase once again causes more separation within society because it portrays the idea of women being superior to men.

Kirsten Gillibrand’s tweet in 2018 regarding the future being female received a significant amount of backlash. Stating that the future is female only further separates those of the other sex, which creates an unproductive society.

Marco Rubio’s reaction to our future being female gives a much more positive outlook on society. His comment focuses on the idea that one’s race, religion, and gender don’t matter. We are all part of one society, and we are known as Americans.

Feminism and other related movements spread many ideas, few of which are truly essential to advancing society. The emotional and encouraging aspect of the movement brings little benefit to the real world.

Modern feminism is more of a dividing factor rather than a uniting force. Bringing attention to much larger issues in society is far more beneficial.

Retrieved from Scot Scoop
Lora Simakova, Staff Writer|January 16, 2020