The Soccer Mom Vote

BlogHer 2007: What Questions do Women Bloggers Want Candidates to Answer in Election 2008?

**UPDATE**:  Congratulations to the random drawing winner of the book  I was a Really Good Mom, Before I Had Kids (courtesy of sk*rt):  Lisse of At Home In the World.  Thanks to everyone for your comments. 

I'm back from BlogHer 2007 and one of the best breakout sessions I attended was this one.  The session was led by conservative and progressive pollsters who presented some recent voter data and then we split into four groups to discuss what top three questions from each topic (Health Care, Environment, Iraq and Foreign Affairs, and Economic Future) we want to see answered by the candidates for president.  All of the current candidates were contacted for this session and interestingly enough, only two from either side of the isle sent representatives:  Hilary Clinton and John Edwards. 

So I thought I'd present some of our sample questions from my breakout group (Health Care) to you and ask you, "which are the most important to you, and why?" or do you have other questions of your own on this topic?  From all the commenter's who answer this question ON TOPIC, I'll draw one randomly and give them one of the books I got at BlogHer from Sk*rt, entitled, I was a Really Good Mom, Before I Had Kids (description of the book here). 

Health Care

How will your health care plan address the needs of the aging population, specifically those with Alzheimer's, heart disease and diabetes? How will you ration out our limited resources?

What will your health care plan do to address the need for affordable preventable medical services?

Does your health care plan cover undocumented workers?

How do you intend to make sure that all Americans have some form of health insurance?

How can we pay for health care in the US sustainably?

How can we make sure that anyone in the US not only has access to health care but can afford it?

How can we make health care a right, not a privilege for every citizen?

How can we mandate that all children in the US are insured?

How can we protect families from insurance companies who deny claims in the face of a health crisis?

How can we ensure increased access to family planning?

How can we make women's and children's health issues a priority?

How can we make childbirth and maternity leave less of a burden for working mothers?

Can a woman's reproductive rights be protected in US health care?

How can we protect research, such as stem cell research, that has the possibility to wipe out diseases?

How can we get mental health issues to be covered by insurance with the same parity as physical health issues?

How can we get politics OUT of the health care issues that need to be solved?

Co-op Healthcare?

With Michael Moore's latest film SiCKO taking on the American healthcare system, the subject has been on my mind lately. Years ago, the two-year-old daughter of some friends was diagnosed with leukemia. They had "good" health insurance and despite that, her dad still told me at the end of her treatment, "We'll never be able to own a home; we'll never be out of this crushing debt. But you know what? How can I care when she's alive and looking at me with such a beautiful smile?" And while I agreed with him, I couldn't understand how it could be possible that a family would lose everything in this country just to keep the one thing that mattered more than anything in the world: their child. The company they worked for was also deeply impacted with a sudden and dramatic increase in premiums to the point that many employees had to drop their spouse or children from the coverage and seek "inferior" plans.

Even my dear friends with a child who lived only five days in the NICU before they took him home to die are struggling under the debt their insurance passed to them.  They have to face the same "crushing debt" and don't have the comfort of his smile.

Is this really what having "good" insurance should mean?

On Tuesday the issue came into sharp focus for my family when I had to call an ambulance for my husband. He's home and resting now, but I'm still afraid of what the day spent in the ER, the emergency surgery and the overnight hospital care will eventually cost us. Our premiums already went up once this year and as a freelance family, we pay every penny ourselves.

Personally, I happen to find it sick that anyone makes a profit off of something that should be a basic right in an industrialized country such as the USA. I'm not talking about care providers or administrators, I'm referring to shareholders. My husband and I recently tossed around the concept of a co-op heath insurance company. Aren't HMOs (Health Maintenance Organizations) reporting record earnings more and more frequently? Why can't the customer see some of their money back rather than the shareholder pocketing it all? Is there a reason we can't simply pass the profit back to the little guy at the end of the year? Your premiums would still be about the same but if the company made money by years end, as a co-op member, you'd be entitled to a share of that profit. I know, it sounds distinctly un-American, but I'm OK with that.

Could it work?

With the Soccer Mom Vote getting more and more of the politicians' attention, we have the opportunity to make a difference. This is where we start brainstorming ideas, ladies.  Those in power are listening, let's give them somewhere to start.

From potty training to Driver's Ed.

Talk about a sandwich generation. I signed up for it, so I’m not complaining, but it is a little mind blowing this summer at my house. My oldest child is in Driver’s Ed. She actually got her pink slip which means she can drive anywhere with her parents that she drove with her instructor. I get to take her out and let her practice, which is terrifying. 

 On the other end of the spectrum, I have a three year old boy still making stinky in his pull-ups. I have to muddle my way through this one. I have four success stories on this front, so I know in time, he’ll get it.

Driver’s Ed. is another story. We’re a homeschooling family. The shocking blow was dealt years ago, when, upon talking to a fellow homeschooling mother, I found that there is no way around Driver’s Ed. classes. So you can’t homeschool your child how to drive; you must pay  $350 to enroll them in a class, unless you’re 18. At 18, you still must have a temporary instruction permit for at least 30 days before you may take the road test, which is also offered at cost. The state no longer tests drivers; you must find a licensed agency to administer a road test.

 
Back when I was a teenager, (in the same city, I might add), Driver’s Ed was a required course in school the year you turned 16. The girl next door is just a year older than my daughter. She’s been driving for three years. Driver’s Ed is offered year round in 2 ½ week installments for kids as young as 14 and 8 months. We made our daughter wait until she was 15 ½. 

 
When I took Driver’s Ed., the teacher asked us who knew how to drive a stick shift. That’s how the stick shift car was assigned. It was assumed that Driver’s Ed was just a formality, and that everyone already knew how to drive. My husband was one of those people. The idea of taking a class to learn to drive was ridiculous to him. I thought that it was illegal to drive before you had a license, and I stayed away from the driver’s side of the car until I took the class. 

 
A friend told me that when her daughter took Driver’s Ed a few years ago, she was given a reprimand for not already knowing how to drive. They took the kids out on the street the very first day of class!

 
I was scared to death to put my daughter in that situation. I started taking her out to practice two weeks ahead of time. We’d just drive around empty parking lots, practicing parking, backing up, parallel parking. We hadn’t quite worked our way up to driving on the street before the class began. I was a little apprehensive about that, anyway, it being illegal and all. Thankfully, my daughter had a whole week of class (including studying the driver’s manual) before she was taken out on the road.

 
Now she can legally drive on the street with a parent. Her teacher hasn’t taken her on the highway yet—a nightmare of summer construction, I might add—but when she does, then my daughter can practice highway driving.  

 

I remember how stressful it was for me to drive with my parents. We tried to avoid that as much as we could. As I recall, the class at school was a whole semester long, and we signed up for road tests towards the end of the semester. I flunked my first one. That’s when I got serious about practicing with my parents. I passed the next test with a C+, and the license followed shortly.

 
Now the state has a graduated license program. Anyone under 18 has to have a learner’s license for 6 months. That’s that practice time that we must both take seriously. After that, it’s back to Driver’s Ed for the next segment class, followed by a road test. You supply the car, and it better not have any problems, or they send you home. The driver is issued an intermediate license if they pass all the requirements, and may drive unsupervised from 5 AM to midnight. They must be supervised to drive from midnight to 5 AM, unless they are driving to and from work. 

 
Our neighbor, who’s been driving for 3 years, ought to be due a full license soon. At 17, a safe driver receives the full driver’s license. Phew! What a long journey, especially if started at 14! It looks like we’re in it for the long haul, literally. What is Driver’s Ed like in other states?

Go Green AND Be the Latest in Fashion

Come on.  You knew it was inevitable.  With all the celebrities involved.  The obvious PR push to make environmentalism the latest and greatest.  Well, now you can be "green" AND a hip, cool trend-setter at the same time.

According to this article which appeared in yesterday's New York Times, supermarket chain Whole Foods has started selling reusable, grocery bags designed by London handbag designer Anya Hindmarch.  These bags, which sell for $15 and don the catchy phrase "I'm NOT a plastic bag," are being released in just 15 stores in the New York area (to create demand of course!) and they're already showing up on Ebay for as much as $300 a whack!!  (Not to mention the near riot that occurred in Taiwan last month when shoppers stampeded in order to get their hands on one and sent 30 people to the hospital.)

Of course, the plastics industry is not happy about this.  They say that it's not their plastic bags that are the problem (even though they can take up to 500 years to break down in a landfill and require millions of gallons of oil to produce) - it's people's behaviors.  That's right.  It's the public's fault as usual.  The makers of plastic bags say that we need to recycle more, but I say that we need to start taking the 3 R's to heart and start focusing on reducing the amount of goods we consume and stop using recycling as the answer that makes everything OK.  And because of that I think selling reusable grocery bags is a great idea which is why I wish I weren't so cynical about it.

See, I understand the need for making things fun and creating a buzz so that people tear themselves away from their televisions, computers, cell phones, etc. and take an interest in something other than themselves.  I understand that we are facing a crisis as we try and figure out how to dispose of, without causing even more damage to our precious planet, the approximately 100 billion plastic bags we as Americans throw away each year (and recycle less than 1 percent of).  I guess I'm just a bit of a romantic. I wish that people would take action, not because it's the "in" thing to do, after all fads fade away, but because it's the right thing to do; the necessary thing.

Have you heard about MamaVote?

One of my fellow Musing Mamas recently turned me on to MamaVote. MamaVote was launched by Today's Mama, a site dedicated to providing personal and professional resources for moms. According to the site, "MamaVote is a non-partisan project designed to bring a positive, proactive voice to political life."

This new site aims to provide informative articles from all angles of the political spectrum as well as fodder for discussion, particularly in regards to how women and mothers can affect the outcome of the next presidential race. Also highlighted are interviews with influential and outspoken mama advocates such as Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner from MomsRising.org and Christine Todd Whitman, the first woman governor from New Jersey.

The site also offers a variety of political resources ranging from voter registration and where to vote to stories featuring women and mothers who inspire with their dedication to public service.

And if that's not enough to get to you check out MamaVote here's another reason: they're watching us! The Soccer Mom Vote is MamaVote's Featured Blogger. Power to the mamas. Our voices matter. So no matter your political persuasion, make some noise this election season and make a difference.

Food contamination: not COOL

Recent incidents related to contaminated pet food, imported seafood, and tainted toothpaste have caused some U.S. consumers -- such as yours truly -- to consider the origins of the products we buy.   

I've briefly considered my own boycott of products from China, such as Associated Press reporter Dirk Lammers did as an experiment last month.  Based on his experiences, however, I'm concerned that I would not have much success.  Navigating the shoe stores and departments at his local mall, Lammers had difficulty finding "Made in the USA" products that met both his requirements (price-based) and those of his teen (color and style).  Moving on to Wal-Mart, he found some more surprises: tennis rackets, Matchbox cars, even Monopoly tokens and dice, all made in China.

In the realm of the grocery store, Lammers found that identifying a country's source of origin can be extremely tricky business.   Many products only listed the product's distributor, not country of origin.   It can be difficult to locate products that are made in the U.S., or to avoid products made in other countries such as China.  (Because, of course, it's not just China. that's the problem, although they are the most frequently cited source of issues these days.)

So what can be done to help us be informed consumers?  Actually, there *should* be a solution underway right now.  Let me clarify: there *would* be a solution underway, if it hadn't been delayed. 

On May 13, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (commonly known as the 2002 Farm Bill).  This bill mandates country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for several categories of foods including meats, fruits, vegetables and peanuts.  However, the implementation of the 2002 Farm Bill has twice been delayed -- for everything except seafood -- until October 2008.  There has also been some backpedaling related to the original intent of the bill: some industry advocates and politicians have proposed voluntary labeling rather than making it mandatory. 

Fortunately, this is where we -- as concerned soccer moms -- can weigh in.  The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has reopened a public comment period on the mandatory use of COOL for beef, lamb, pork, perishable agricultural commodities, and peanuts.  If you're inclined to provide your opinion on this matter, you have until August 20th to comment.  Visit USDA's COOL site for instructions on providing comments via Regulations.gov, submit comments via e-mail, or fax them to (202) 720-1112.  (Note: a USDA mailing address is also available, but as a DC-area employee for the federal government, I don't recommend this approach -- our mail's never been the same following the 2001 anthrax scare.)

So go ahead: read about and decide where you stand on this issue -- I've just touched the tip of the iceberg here -- and provide your thoughts to the USDA and/or your Congressional representative.  It's the COOL thing to do.

SiCKO

Just a quick heads up to let you know that Michael Moore's new film SiCKO can be viewed online here.  Not sure how long it will be up, but if it makes you feel better, Moore claims he has no issue with people watching pirated versions of his films, as long as they're not making a profit from his work.  Go take a look while you can, it's an eye opening film.

Go Maryland!

An email came to my box a few weeks ago via a homeschooling email list that I had joined with a view to going on some cool field trips.   I was not aware that the group was a "ministry" of a particular church; when I was sent an email about it inviting me to join on another group it was not couched in those terms (which I believe was a bit deceptive), but after looking at the group's home page I just unsubscribed from it without further protest.  The assumption was that this story was so obviously outrageous and disgusting that we would all immediately take up the cause of fighting this outrage.  What outrage, you ask?

Well, as part of a two part sex education lesson aimed at 8 and 10th graders, totaling 90 minutes, the Maryland State Board of Education will be incorporating the concept that homosexuality is not abnormal or deviant.  And there will be an dvd on the proper use of a condom.  The email I got was full of outrage about the "promotion of homosexuality in the classroom" and the curriculum's "expressed hostility toward Christianity" (the capital "c" is a quote, not how I would write the word).  There was concern that the "Maryland curriculum could become the model for promoting the homosexual lifestyle in public schools across the nation."  Keep in mind that students need the written permission of a parent to even attend these classes.  I just fail to make the intellectual leap from the viewpoint that homosexuality is not deviant to promotion of it.  Does addressing the educational needs of the homosexual in school promote homosexuality?  According to these people (the American Family Association), yes, but it seems like quite a leap to me.

I am happy to see schools address the educational needs of the students.  Many 8th graders, unfortunately, should know how to use a condom unless we want them becoming parents or contracting STDs.  And for the parents who don't want normalization of homosexuality or sex education, don't sign the permission slip.  I want to believe that the ideal of abstinence education really works, I really believe that teenagers are having sex way too young, no matter what their sexual orientation, and a lot more of them than anyone wants to admit.  But my observation is that it's not working.  And I would rather that if they are going to be sexually active, they know how to put a condom on properly.  And if they're gay and sexually active I would rather that they were confident enough about it to use a condom and not feel shame about it.

As I stand two years plus into the parenting journey, I am terrified about all the stuff I will have to deal with, I worry about keeping my daughter safe in her teenage years.  But I don't think keeping her ignorant or teaching her bigotry is a smart or effective way to help her stay safe.

What Happened to an Apple for the Teacher?

I’m going to make this post short.  Because it’s almost the weekend, it’s summer, and you Soccer Moms out there are busy.

Next month, at least in my neck of the woods, we’ll be heading back to school.  Despite the crazy pace of summer, I am relieved of the usual school angst like bullies, teacher compatibility, and wondering if they’re eating one tiny scrap of what’s served in the cafeteria. I have yet another reason to worry.

My MIL called me alarmed one morning (that’s what she does best) regarding a news story where a 14-year old who was on ADD medication had gotten an energy drink (like Red Bull or something) out of the vending machine at school thinking it was soda and had what amounted to a mild heart attack. Now, I have not been able to find this story, it would have been early April.  (If anyone sees it, please let me know and I’ll update the post with the link).

However, the point of the story is: why do our schools need to have energy drinks in their vending machines? I’m not exempt from a history of trying to get an energy boost.  There weren’t energy drinks when I was in high school, but there was Vivarin and my friends and I would pop those during semester test weeks to pull all nighters. But it wasn’t in the vending machine in study hall or the cafeteria.  The biggest threat to our health in the vending machine was soda. While I realize a 14-year old should be old enough to know the difference between a can of soda and an energy drink, well, I guess I just know my own son who is going into middle school this year and he pays no attention to anything like that.  And what if he was on a medication that would have dangerous results from mixing with an energy drink?  Do I need to remind him every morning before he leaves for school to make sure he avoids those options in the cafeteria?

Your thoughts?  Should schools be held to a higher standard with their snack food options? Or is it perfectly harmless to have Red Bull, Rock Star and other energy drinks available?

My opinion is that with my tax dollars, I think there are a sufficient number of healthy options my children can have.  I’d rather not worry if, in a more idiotic moment of peer pressure, they spend an entire study hall in a Red Bull slamming contest with their friends.  I try to teach them to make smart choices, but I guess I’d rather not have that particular temptation available at school.

Some sources:
Energy drink gave teens heart palpitations
Energy drinks' caffeine buzz can land the unwary in the ER
Docs worry about kids buzzed on energy drinks
School Tells Energy Drinks to Buzz Off

 

Cantwell-Larsen Montgomery GI Bill for Life Act of 2007

I grew up a child of an officer in the Navy. I'm now married to a man who served 8 years in the Navy enlisted ranks. My grandfather served in the Army during WWII. My uncles served during Vietnam. I am proud of my family's service to our country. It is because of men and women like them, that we, and many others across the globe, enjoy our freedoms. I may not agree with the current "war," but I support wholeheartedly our troops, both active duty, and retired, and those who served and were discharged (honorably). I will defend their rights with my last breath because without them, I wouldn't have any rights at all.

The G.I. Bill was first created in 1944 to provide for higher education benefits, one year of unemployment compensation (the "52-20" clause) and low interest, zero down home loans for WW II veterans. The official name of the bill was The Servicemen's Readjustment Act. The bill was updated as time went on. The Veterans' Adjustment Act of 1952 (for Korean Conflict veterans) still provided for education (now paying the veterans instead of the colleges directly) but no longer offering the unemployment compensation. In 1966, The Veteran Readjustment Benefits Act extended the G.I. benefits to all veterans, of war and of peace. The Veterans Educational Assistance Program was instituted for the period December 1976 through 1987 and was replaced by the Montgomery G.I. Bill (MGIB) for service members who served after July 1, 1985.

Both of the latter two programs required the service member to make monetary contributions in order to benefit from the bill after they leave the service. Specifically, under the MGIB, currently in place for our service members today, active duty members contribute $100/month for 12 months to receive up to $1,075/month for 36 months of education benefits after they leave active duty. The MGIB limits the service members to using the GI bill for up to 10 years from the date of last discharge (with some exceptions for extensions). This caveat is one of those "use it or lose it" aspects that makes our veterans feel cheated.

It has been reported by the Department of Veteran Affairs that about "30% of eligible veterans are unable to use any of their education benefits and most eligible veterans are only able to access a portion of their GI Bill before the 10-year limit is reached."

Why are they unable to use those benefits in such a "lengthly" time period? Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) was quoted as saying, "When our service members leave the military, family obligations, work commitments and economic difficulties often get in the way." Think about veterans that you know. Think of them dealing with disabilities and illness (physical and mental) from their service. Think of them trying to re-adjust to civilian life after living for a year or more in a war zone. Think of them trying to "be normal" again, find a job, become part of their families again. Sometimes, 10 years really may not be enough. Also? Removing the time limit would enable veterans to "keep up with changes due to technology over the course of their lifetime, thus keeping them more employable (veteran and former Washington VFW commander Frosty Hulsey)."

Senator Cantwell has introduced S.1261 GI Bill for Life Act of 2007 that would eliminate this 10 year time limit on GI Benefits. Her co-sponsors are Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Patty Murray (D-WA). As of 5/1/07, the bill remains in the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Over in the House, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, Representative Rick Larsen (D-WA ) introduced mirror legislation under H.R. 2247. His co-sponsors are Jo Ann Davis (VA), Bart Gordon (TN), Bart Stupak (MI), Peter DeFazio (OR) and Ed Pastor (AZ). This bill was referred to the House subcommittee on Military Personnel on 6/28/07.

So what do you think? Is 10 years enough? Or should these bills be passed into law? Give me your opinion.