Health-Care...Reform?

Health-Care Reform...It's something that's been on my mind since the election. What does this new bill mean for people my age? Does it mean that I will be covered forever, and not have to worry about being kicked from my health insurance company because I am too poor to afford to live? I honestly don't know what to think about this new bill. I grew up in a very conservative household, and I, myself, am a registered Republican, so this kind of thing has me shaking in my boots. I found myself perusing articles on aol.com, but quickly switched over to the hot topic of the week on PoliticsDaily.com, Health-Care Reform, and the passage of the bill.
My mind is boggled by this. I am not one to really follow such hard-hitting topics as health-care, even if it means a life-changing turn in Obama's presidency, and, according to Politics Daily writer Patricia Murphy: "the defining domestic issue of his presidency."
I am afraid, however, of what this means for me in the future. The idea of "tax increases" on the upper class is a much-needed plan for this bill, but the thought of that not being enough to fund this huge reform is troubling. Because, once it becomes too expensive, and the Bill Gates' of America start complaining about being unable to afford the tax-hike any longer, than the taxes wil than be placed on the middle-class Americans, such as myself and my family. Now, already we find it tough to maske end's meet. My parents both work (and have been working ever since my sister's and I were born), and they have to worry about putting 3 children through college, pay off the cars, and deal with the mortgage for a house that is already too small for 5 people. I am not saying that things were going to be easy without the inclusion of a health-care bill, but once the middle-class starts getting taxed (and there is no doubt in my mind that we won't), than it will become unbearably difficult, and the little money in my parent's wallets is going to become even more constricted.
I am afraid for the future. I don't know what to think anymore. It is just something I wanted to bring up on this blog because 1.) I cannot fully grasp its impact, and 2.) It's a hot topic that we should all be looking at.

From the mouth of Mary Connolly...

The field of Journalism is a typically male-dominated area, but Mary Connolly, former News-Times Editorial Director, new that going in. She was our guest speaker today in our News Writing class, and what a talk she gave! I highly enjoyed her lecture, because she touched on some issues I have been worrying about in the news for some time now. She covered the topic of malpractice extensively, and in the medical world, that is a touchy subject. She mentioned the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), in regards to those such "adverse subjects" as immigration laws and medical mishaps, and recalled how most malpractice incidents go unreported, and those that do can become public records.

I found this quite interesting, and worrying at the same time, because it makes me wonder how many things go unreported each day, and how many misdiagnoses' are happening. Things like that should be made available to the public, and Mary Connolly believes that the FOIA is a godsend for news reporters. "The public has a right to know," she says, and I couldn't agree more.

She also states how you should "know who your readers are," and know what they want to hear. You try and keep opinions respectful and well-developed in the eyes of "those who pay the bills" (i.e.- the big-wig companies you work under). You don't want anyone getting upset over something you write. That is also true for subjects that may be touchy for some, such as the aforementioned immigration and calling them "undocumented" instead of "illegal aliens." It's always good to sound politically correct when you are reporting news.

To finish off my brief little blurb with a quote of Miss Connolly's, "When you let the sun shine in, people start acting differently." In this case, she is referring to when you shed light on a subject that people don't want out in the public, they will begin to change their attitude. It's scary the way some react to what becomes public and what doesn't.

Drink Up, Ladies!

Prep your livers for some tasty news, ladies! In a recent article published by USA Today reporter Nanci Hellmich, women who drink a moderate amount of alcohol on a daily basis are LESS likely to gain weight than those who do not consume alcohol. This is pretty shocking to me, personally, because I thought it was the other way around. I always figured that those who drank ended up with so-called "beer bellies." It turns out, though, according to the research conducted by Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, that out of the 19,000 women in the study, those who drank "light to moderate amounts of alcohol" each day were more healthy and least likely to become obese than their sober counterparts. It is all due to the belief that the alcohol drinkers eat less carbohydrates, and less food in general.

Althought this may come as a surprise, Hellmich does mention that excessive alcohol consumption can lead to serious health problems, and only those who work out regularly and have a healthy diet will not gain the weight when they drink lightly or moderately on a daily basis. This is news to me! I can now tell my friends that are female who are afraid to drink and get the "beer-belly," that as long as they keep up with the gym and remain eating healthy, that they should have no worries about whether or not to take another glass of wine.

For Nanci Hellmich's original (full) article, the link is here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-03-09-womenandalcohol09_ST_N.htm

The (Dull) 82nd Academy Awards

So, even though this article was supposed to be done for last week, I wanted to write about the day after the 82nd Academy Awards aired, so I ended up waiting. I found an article from The NY Times today by a Miss Alessandra Stanley, that hit upon some of the points I would like to make about the classic 'Oscar Night.'

One: The Oscars seemed rushed and far too boring this year. The inclusion of two hosts now, Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin, was a nice treat, but it could've been played-up better than it was. The article mentions the opening sing and dance number by Neil Patrick Harris, and says it only served to "test the clock." I would have to say I agree with Miss Stanley on that one. I understand it was supposed to bring us back to the golden era of the Oscars, try and keep it classy yet updated, but I found it to be nothing more than filler. The same goes for the horror movie montage that Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner (of Twilight fame) presented. That was a very strange thing to do seeing as how the Oscars never really recognized horror movies in particular before. Once again, it just seemed like it was used to fill time.

Two: The conclusion and Best Picture. Stanley recalls the final moments of Oscar night as being "rushed" and "practically a postscript." I couldn't have said it better! When Tom Hanks waltzed onto the stage I expected a nice intro/segment into the Best Picture nominees. Instead, what I, and the rest of the audience, was left with was a quick sentence or two, and the all-too brief announcement of the winner. And than it was over.

The Academy Awards this year didn't feel right to me. There was nothing classy or old Hollywood about it. All the actor's and directors and film people seemed cranky, tired, and just bored to be there. I wanted more glamour, more extravagance, but was left only with a few awkward moments, and only one memorable speech (made by Sandra Bullock when she won her award for Best Actress for 'The Blind Side').

So, all-in-all, the Oscars this year was a forgettable experience. Here's to hoping that next year will be different.

For Alessandra Stanley's full "Academy Awards" article from the NY Times, here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/08/movies/awardsseason/08watch.html?hp

Nostalgic Park

Today I found myself sitting with my cousin, Justin, in a park we used to frequent as kids in South Salem, NY. Sitting at a splintering picnic table, we obsereved the park-goers and wondered what their daily lives must be like. It's a Friday afternoon; the wind is chilly, but the sun is out and the weather is tolerable. I watched as parents sat with each other conversing, probably talking about their children playing in the playground nearby, and wondered if our parents did the same when we were young.

My cousin and I talked about how much things have changed since we were kids, and how different the park looked since we were last there. The community pool across the pond seemed empty and sad now. The weather had not been right for it to open, and so it remained quiet for most of the day. The children would run around the playground, sometimes into eachother, laughing, screaming, crying, and the oarents would not seem to notice. That's the thing about parent's in Westchester County, they don't seem to really care that much.

I observed them mostly keeping to the other parents, whom they probably knew, and seemed to almost be avoiding their children. I don't recall it being like that when I was younger. I remember my mother helping me on the swings or dig sand pits. I remember my father taking me fishing with my sisters in the scummy, insect-ridden pond. Now, it just seemed too fake. I jokingly asked my cousin if he thought any of these parents had jobs or worked for a living. He didn't think so. Most of them probably were stay-at-home parents who had maids and other people take care of their kids for them so they didn't have to. That's what life was like there. Most parents had no interest in their children whatsoever. It was a depressing scene.

Before we left, my cousin and I walked over to the small trail behind the swingsets. We reminisced about days when we would sneak away from our parents and play back there in the solitude of the woods. There were no parents back there, no children walking the trails. Just us, and the occasional squirrel. Though all the nostalgia I was feeling, I still had this overwhelming saddness about how much time has changed us.

We are both very different people now; different life-choices, different goals and ideas for the future. As we walked back to the car to drive back to my grandparent's house, I imagined myself young once more, enjoying all the time I had before the responsibilities of adulthood took over. Those youthful days of my past seem to be another life to me now.

Guest Speaker- Eugene Driscoll

Who says Journalism is a dying breed? Not Eugene Driscoll!

The Valley Independent Sentinel is a privately-funded, non-profit, localized online news source that covers 5 counties in/around Naugatuck Valley, CT. Mr. Eugene Driscoll is an editor there who believes that people who think "journalism is dying" are "idiots." The website/news source was launched 8 years ago, and already has 2,000+ readers a day to the site, which covers mainly local news out of Ansonia, Derby, Oxford, Seymour, and Shelton, CT.

One of the questions I asked was whether he and his associates can cover stories that are outside of their jurisdiction/coverage area. He replied that due to other competeing papers in CT running the same stories, it would be difficult to be "exclusive," and in the end, everything would become "repetetive." He went on to say that "you would end up reading the same story in five different newspapers or web sources." When talking about his competitors, he mentioned a particular news source, which I will not name, that offended it's readers. "That's one thing you can't do," according to Driscoll, "you can't hate your readers."

What interested me most about his speech wast that the reporters at the Sentinel were constantly trying something new; they were always on the move, freelancers always on the go with their police scanners and keeping updated on, of all places, the social-networking site, Facebook. Now, the fact that he mentioned Facebook as an outlet for free advertising was unique in the fact that it generates a reader-base and gets people to come to the site. If you broaden the "word-of-mouth," you will eventually gain more respect in the community, although, it already appears that they have a pretty solid and dedicated following. Advertising on Facebook and social networking sites was just another way to get the word out there. That was a smart move on their part.

One of the words Driscoll used quite frequently was "hyper-local." I interpreted it as local media and news, but at a constantly fast pace. News is always happening all over the covered counties, and he and his team were always on top of it. "It's all about covering the news at the moment," Driscoll says.

Non-Consenting Medical Guinea Pigs

I was researching an article to use when I discovered, on Fox News, a link to another article out of Washington's The Seattle Times entitled "You may become medical guinea pig without knowing it." It caught my eye right away, because that is one of my worst fears (being used for something I didn't consent to). It just creeps me out. The article states that researchers out of the University of Washington have been conducting experiments on patients who are not able to consent to further kinds of treatment (i.e.- they are using terminally ill patients who may be in comas or suffering from sever head trauma, or stuck in vegetative states).
The program is titled "Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium" is a $50-million dollar undertaking that focuses on somewhere arounf 20,000 patients. It goes on to say that the researches haev found ways to "sidestep" any form of federal guidlines to conduct their studies. But what about moral guidlines? These people have no say in what is being done to them, although, they physically can't. They are being operated on, cut open and examined, and no one is speaking out for them.
Even though it states that the patients are chosen at random, and that "If you don’t do these studies, care will never improve," (according to the researcher Dr. Eileen Bulger. They believe they are "helping" people. Who are they erally helping here? Themselves? The patients undergoing these procedures aren't benefitting from any of this! Maybe in the long run it will be useful for people who go into comas or suffer from sever cardiac arrest in the future, but without consent in the now, there really shouldn't be any studies or operating going on WHATSOEVER.
There are underlying ethics at work here, and these dotors feel like they can just sweep that under the rug, and find loop-holes and go about their heinous infringement of the law! Bulger goes on to say in the artcile that "If we want to make an impact in people who are at very high risk of dying from their injuries, we have to be able to do these studies." I see that their intentions are good, but the way they are going about it is just wrong.
I remember reading somewhere last year about a woman who purposely poisoned herself with something like clorox, bleach, or Draynol, and went to the hospital with a hand-written note stating she would not like to be "saved," but be relieved of the pain from opisoning herself so she could not die so painfully. The doctors in that case agreed to her consent to deny any "saving." They helped her die as painlessly as possible, which is what she wanted when she first set out to kill herself. Why do doctors refuse to care for someone who is obviously dying, refuses treatment, and just let her...die, and do nothing about the consent laws in regards to the poor souls in the Seattle Times' article?
It baffles me, it really does.

For the whole article, I shall submit a link:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003732713_labrats03m.html