The other day a professor asked my class to think about how a public policy change might affect our family or loved ones. I am a policy geek, and I tend to look at policy through my women's studies lens — how a policy is affecting change for women. Until a few days ago, I never really thought about it from a family perspective.
Let me first give you some family background. My sister was born with a malformation on her spine, which we were clueless to until her senior year in high school, when she woke up paralyzed. Apparently the malformation started to affect her spinal function.
My dad is a sheet metal worker — he provides us with a middle-class, comfortable lifestyle in a small town and luckily, he worked for a large mill that provided great health benefits. Thanks to this coverage, my sister is walking, albeit with a cane.
Recently, however, my dad lost his job at this huge corporation with great benefits and found a job at a local sheet metal shop. The health insurance from his new job? Not so great. My sister was getting Botox injections to stop her muscles from having spasms and our previous insurers had no problem with that, since it was her doctor's strong recommendation.
Under our new insurance, Botox is considered strictly cosmetic and is not covered under our plan. We cannot afford the expensive shots every three months, so she no longer gets them. What does that mean? A few more trips and falls on the sidewalk and maybe a slower move from class to class. Now, we are forced by our insurance company to find some scholarly article that proves Botox will help her lead a more normal life. That is no easy task.
So why do I feel so strongly about universal health care, besides the fact that 47 million Americans are currently uninsured?
First, because it means better quality care for my sister and a more affordable price tag on Botox. But also because it means more money going toward preventive and stem cell research. It means my sister could walk down the street without tripping over her own feet, literally. But universal health care is a complicated project and far from becoming a reality, right?
Until recently, maybe it was. But now, it's a real possibility.
When we think of starting up a huge project with a partner, what do we want in that partner? We want a lot of things, but most of all, we want someone who knows what they are doing. We want someone who has done the project before. We want experience and dedication.
Hillary Clinton is exactly the partner we are looking for — just take a look at the proposal she introduced on Monday — the third step in her overall health plan. Under Ms. Clinton's plan, any citizen can receive the same health coverage that a member of Congress would. If her plan were currently in effect, my parents could have stuck with their big corporation health care that covered all the costs for my sister, or they could find a plan better than the mediocre one we now have.
Ms. Clinton's plan guarantees coverage for everyone. It outlines the importance of a community approach to fixing the health care problem. It is an approach that holds everyone — drug companies, insurers, the insured and employers — responsible for making the plan successful. Under the plan, your insurance coverage will not change if you lose your job. It ensures lower prices on medication and medical procedures through more efficient and cost-effective services. It promises there will be no discrimination against someone based on their current state of health. In Ms. Clinton's words, the plan "builds on what works and fixes what's broken."
My sister would get her Botox. Any more procedures she may need would be covered, even though my dad switched jobs. More money will go toward stem cell research, which may benefit her down the road. And when my sister needs to look for a new health insurance plan, no one will turn her away because of her medical history.
Ms. Clinton tried this once before, during her husband's presidency, and she failed. She will not fail again. Her health plan is attainable and beneficial to everyone. If you failed a project the first time, would you fail it a second time? Probably not, especially if it were this important.
How good is your health care? Really think about it. What if something tragic happens that means long term changes in your health? Are you sure you won't lose your job? Are you sure if an insurer drops your coverage it will be picked up somewhere else? If you aren't sure, you should look into how Hillary Clinton's plan will benefit you. And your loved ones.
Stephanie Biese ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science and women's studies. She is also a memberco-chair of UW Students for Hillary Clinton.




IP hash: 19ab3012
Who cares about Health Care? As far as I’m concerned, that’s a non-issue. I mean, who needs to be “cured” of diseases? Let’s bring the abortion issue back… everyone can relate to killing babies.
IP hash: 9c771276
Even members of Canada’s government come to the U.S. when they need medical care. But that’s no reason to think that socialized medicine is bad, eh?
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070914/belindaStronach070914/20070914?hub=Health?123
If you think health care is expensive and hard to get now, just wait until it’s “free”.
IP hash: 6fabc93d
Your mom’s expensive.
IP hash: 808af82f
Ms. Clinton?
somebody is a man hater. a bigot, and an intolerant.
IP hash: 808af82f
Her health plan is attainable and beneficial to everyone.
not true. her plan is beneficial to those who do not currently have insurance. it’s detrimental to everyone else. maybe if we stopped giving healthcare to illegals and stopped ridiculous lawsuits by silky pony john edwards types, things wouldn’t be so bad.
and let’s talk about the clinton secret police and scandalous fundraising that you apparently don’t care about.
IP hash: 9c771276
Here’s a story for anyone who imagines that government-run medicine will somehow do away with gatekeepers who deny suffering patients the treatment they need based on cold-hearted financial calculations: British doctors are refusing to perform surgery on a man with a multiply fractured ankle because he’s a smoker.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/122599.html
IP hash: 6fabc93d
“British doctors are refusing to perform surgery on a man with a multiply fractured ankle because he’s a smoker.”
Surgeons here make similar demands. The likelihood of poor healing is greater in smokers. Why fix this British man’s ankle if you’re going to amputate it in a month.
Leave medicine to the doctors and the politics to the idiots among us.
IP hash: abb13239
why don’t people mock stephanie biese like they do andy gordon?
IP hash: 3cf97ba2
If you are going to go down the cosmetic surgery road…check out www.thepatientsadvantage.com. What I liked the most was that my profile remained anynomyous until I was ready to decide what to do. I received replies from four surgeons that met all the things I was looking for. I liked having that complete control without the sales pressure that some of these places can be known for. Check them out. Better to be safe than sorry.