Filed under: News, Notes | Tags: health care, obama, Politics, president
Amid the utter chaos that is the health care debate, I recently read op-eds that voiced an aspect of this issue I believe needs much more attention: health. Take a look at the unhealthy trends and increasing obesity in our society, and you’ll see my point. How can you furiously argue over health care reform when you don’t take care of your own health? Can you really oppose rising health care costs when you are also contributing to them?
In a Sept. 9 New York Times op-ed, Michael Pollan cites a study that explains why the US spends twice as much per person as most European countries on health care: we’re fatter. He writes: “Even the most efficient health care system that the administration could hope to devise would still confront a rising tide of chronic disease linked to diet.” This is an relevant, crucial point, yet one that goes largely ignored.
Wasteful spending has become a catchphrase in Washington, and politics in general, yet the media doesn’t make a fuss about how three-quarters of health care spending goes to treat “preventable chronic diseases”–most of which are related to diet. There’s a big problem here. So, why don’t I recall Obama discussing the food industry during his speeches?
Though I don’t agree with Bill Maher on all fronts, he does get it right in his Sept. 18 post on the Huffington Post. He writes: “President Obama has identified all the problems with the health care system, but there’s one tiny issue he refuses to tackle, and that’s our actual health.” Until that issue comes up, until the food industry and diet problems are dealt with, health care will continue spending large sums of money that could just as easily be saved.
By focusing on the big insurance companies with high premiums and unaffordable policies, we’re tackling part of the problem, but not the heart of it. They are symptoms of the more deeply-rooted societal problem of diet, lifestyle and the country’s food industry.
One of the fundamental life lessons often echoed in books, movies and TV shows is: life is not just black and white, but rather, various shades of grey. This real-world application of the tonal scale makes its way into morals of stories and sighs about the difficult decisions we face.
Yet, in a sense, we often disregard this idea completely. We live in a society that imposes choice. Yes or no. Right or Wrong. You’re either with me or against me. But if the lessons parents teach their children say that there is no straight and easy answer, no distinct line, why do we insist on creating that line?
I, by no means, intend to turn this into a heated debate about abortion, but I think the issue presents a good example. The debate is always pro-abortion (or “pro-choice”) versus anti-abortion (or “pro-life”–a term I dislike). The answer does not necessarily have to be either/or. I respect everyone’s opinion about such a sensitive issue, and am only using this example to make a point. When circumstances change, one could argue that you should adapt. Shouldn’t at least part of the decision-making process give consideration to the particulars of a situation? Everyone is different and so is every situation. Whatever happened to: “To each his own”?
A similarly divisive, but arguably more historic, debate is nature versus nurture. Now, I seem to have a hard time believing that only one of these influences has made me the person I am today. Yes, some things are inherent in genetic code. By nature. Yes, our upbringing has a large effect on many aspects of our lives. Thus, nurture. Why choose an extreme? Why not compromise?
Can it be that a universal concept is also obsolete? Or, hard to come by, at least.
The widespread news coverage of political flip-flops also follows this trend. The second a candidate changes his or her mind, all hell breaks loose and the candidate becomes “indecisive” or “unsure of where he or she stands.” He said he would support the bill, but now he’s against it. Why can’t he just make up his mind?! Granted that much of the media criticism may be appropriate and well-deserved, there is also another perspective. Certainly, many circumstances can change in the period of a few years, or even a few months. Might these changes lead to changes in a person’s stance on an issue? Yes. If you promised your friend you would go shopping together, but in the last minute there was a massive storm, or your child’s carpool fell through, or your sick neighbor asked you for a ride to the hospital, wouldn’t you re-prioritize a little? Surely, you wouldn’t go shopping at the expense of abandoning your child on an empty soccer field. If these are just everyday occurrences, then political matters on a large scale, too, may, at times, require some reorganization. Now, I agree that our leaders should not be indecisive. But they should be accommodating and adapting.
We have grown to love sitting at one extreme and glaring at those who sitting on the other end. They said don’t kill the messenger, the middleman, but we always get the urge. When we see someone sitting on the fence, we want to push them off. Hurry up & pick a side already! But why? Why not compromise? Maybe the person who coined the term “happy medium” was on to something.
Filed under: Bylines | Tags: college, daily free press, election, Politics
 "Photo: Andrew McFarland")
Photo Credit: Andrew McFarland
WBZ radio host Dan Rea incites anger, harsh words and a lot of talk, but through it all, he said he hopes to incite original opinions.
Rea, a Boston University School of Law alumnus, hosted the fifth and final installment of the “Talk the Vote” series at the George Sherman Union Wednesday, drawing more than 30 people.
Talk the Vote aims to get students thinking about the election because it will affect them the most in the long run, Rea said after the panel discussion.
“Our motto is, ‘I don’t care what you’re thinking about, as long as you’re thinking,’” Rea said.
The panel discussed various topics concerning the upcoming election including health care, the economy and the media coverage of the campaigns.
In addition to the candidates’ portrayal in the United States, the panel discussed international opinions of the election. The conversation became heated when Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh said the United States would be going against the global pattern of conservative leaders by electing Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.
“Since when do we follow the rest of the world?” Marsh said. “We lead.”
Republican strategist Charlie Manning gave a spirited defense of both GOP nominee John McCain and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, saying she was a better choice for the post than Democratic vice presidential pick Joe Biden.
“I am one of like seven Republicans at BU, so I kind of stand out here,” College of Arts and Sciences freshman Kate Cordial said. “I really like that we can ask actual experts questions and that there’s one-on-one interaction, which is not what you get from watching the news.”
In terms of media coverage, Rea raised the question, “Is the media basically ‘in bed,’ as some conservatives have said, for Obama?”
While Dean of Students Kenneth Elmore said it depends on “what you’re listening to,” College of Communication Dean Tom Fiedler disagreed.
“The news media has been in love with the story of Barack Obama,” Fiedler said. “He has a fantastic American story, and he is the first major African-American candidate who has not run as a victim of the system.”
The show was interactive and allowed audience members and callers to comment and ask questions. While the panel showed a wide range of opinions, the main message seemed to be that students should become opinionated on political matters, CAS sophomore Krystina Mainor said.
“The message I got from this is that it is really important to go out and vote,” she said. “Everybody should get their word in, so we really get the candidate that the people want.”
