No health insurance? No problem.

            In the article entitled, “Giving Up on Red Tape, DoctorsTurn to Cash-Based Model,” Alexa Ura sheds light on various doctor’s offices that charges their patients a cash-only flat rate instead of accepting insurance. I decided to write on this topic because I am uninsured and never really sick (knock on wood) so I really don’t understand all the hooplah surrounding the Affordable Care Act.

            On the rare occasion that I am sick and have to go see a doctor, I always pay around $80 cash, I see the doctor, get a prescription (or not, depending if its just allergies in which case I am told to take an over-the-counter drug) and then I am out the door. It’s that simple. Here is what I understand about insurance: you pay the insurance a monthly fee (?), then if you do get sick and have to see a doctor, you have to go somewhere that accepts your insurance to be treated. Well what if you find a place that is much closer to you but doesn’t accept your insurance? Say for example a place like the one in this article that has a doctor with 30+ years of experience that will see you for $50 cash. It’s obvious that one might choose the latter.

            The disadvantage of this clinic is that the care is limited to basic or preventative care. If the patient needs additional tests or services that the doctors at the clinic do not offer the doctors then refer them to specialists. “Insurers say consumers should have flexibility when it comes to their health services, but they warn that not having health insurance leaves individuals unprotected from the hefty price tags associated with unanticipated medical costs.” Well of course they would say that! On the other hand, they kind of have a point.

            I believe that if a person can afford insurance then it is definitely up to them if they choose to do so or not. I also believe that these cash-based business models are working wonders for people who cannot afford insurance or that have been denied because of preexisting conditions.

Critique on marijuana legalization

            In the blog entitled, Should Texas Decriminalize Marijuana, Travis is arguing for the decriminalization of marijuana. Personally I do not smoke pot but I strongly believe that is has several benefits therefore I am on board with wanting to decriminalize it. Travis brings up several interesting points about the many advantages that legalizing marijuana would bring to the state of Texas. Of the three areas that Texan’s tax money goes to, I feel like the two most important are education and healthcare. The possible tax revenue from pot sales would definitely be a large enough number to significantly help out in these two areas, which would benefit Texas as a whole. From my understanding and experience, education and healthcare are pretty expensive and unaffordable for most people. This simply will not do. One of our priorities should be affordable education for all who want to go to school but aren’t given the chance because they lack the funds.

            That being said, I feel like it’s worth discussing the fact that pot works in a way that relaxes the body so it should be regulated in the sense similar to the way alcohol is. I understand that it is not as dangerous as alcohol and that pot has never directly killed anyone. My opinion is that, if it is going to be legalized for recreational purposes, it should have some restrictions such as having to be a certain age to purchase or possess it. There is scientific research that shows the effects pot has on the brain function and memory, so to allow it to fall into the hands of a young person whose brain is still developing would be foolish and irresponsible. There could even be a case made about the amount of pot allowed to be in a person’s system that would be operating a vehicle, similar to alcohol.

            My suggestion is that we approve it for medicinal purposes first. Pot has so many health benefits in patients who suffer from different ailments such as cancer and glaucoma; it has also been proven to alleviate many levels of pain. Let’s not kid ourselves, a lot of the people who argue for the legalization do not have these issues. Let’s use the knowledge that we possess in order to help people that really need it for medical purposes and then in time, based on continuous extensive research, we can legalize it for recreational use.

Gay-Marriage Equality in Texas

            The topic that I am addressing today is on same-sex marriage rights in Texas. Although marriage equality in Texas wasn’t initially embraced, I feel that this topic is becoming increasingly accepted and seems to be gaining support more and more everyday. The article that I am referencing is entitled The Accidental Activists and is about two Texas men, one a lawyer and the other a physician’s assistant and former Air Force officer, filed a suit that they will address in the U.S. District Court in San Antonio. These men were reluctant to even be the faces of this step-in-the-right-direction but they do so because they feel like it is the right thing to do.

            In my research I have only found a handful of gay-equality cases in Texas, this is quite shameful in my opinion. In Lawrence v. Texas the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that any state forbidding homosexuality be deemed unconstitutional. The United States v. Windsor case made it mandatory for the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages in states where it is legal. If these men win, the case will likely be appealed by Rick Perry and Greg Abbott, then it will be sent to the U.S. Supreme Court. Many are predicting that gay-marriage will eventually be made legal in all of the states. One of the men was asked if he would consider leaving Texas to move to a state where gay-marriage is legal and his “Texas exceptionalism” shone through and he said “Absolutely not. That’s not anything we would even entertain. It is inconceivable to us that we would have to move to enjoy our constitutional rights. That’s offensive.” I love this.

            I pride myself in being a warrior and have always stood up against things that I feel are wrong. Until now I have never spoke about the issue of gay marriage. I recently took a step back and thought about how it must feel to someone, gay or straight, to legally not be allowed to marry the person that you love and want to spend the rest of your life with. It truly is heartbreaking to read about a person, a person just like you and me, to have to hide who they are inside because they are afraid of a multitude of factors present in our society. I cannot even fathom that feeling because I grew up in a very supportive household, and I wish that I could share that with everyone that is afraid. What kind of state would want to make their citizens feel this way? I feel like that the major reason behind the opposition to gay marriage is religion. But it shouldn't be. I strongly believe in a separation between church and state and if they were separate this wouldn't be an issue. 

            I hope that Texans could put aside their biblical reservations and see that we all have feelings, we fall in love, we fall out of love, and everyone is entitled to legally be able to do those things without prohibition, or disciplinary action from our Texas government.

Senate Bill 5: Let's Compromise

            I am writing my critique on an article from the Austin American Statesman, written by Alberta Phillips. The article is titled Davis’ Filibuster Shifts Abortion Debate To Women’s Rights and is Alberta Phillips’ take on Wendy Davis’ 11-hour filibuster against Senate Bill 5. Senate Bill 5 would make abortion after 20 weeks illegal and make abortion procedures expensive, making the unspoken agenda: drive abortion clinics out of business.

            The article begins with Alberta pointing out very notable events that Texas has made in regards to advancing the number and status of women in politics. Awesome. The mood then shifts and points out that women’s rights have become less important and are being made less attainable by the “male dominated GOP leadership.” She then states that the Republican Party is using their position to basically strike down the rights of women, whether they be family-planning rights or employment rights. One fact worth noting is that Rick Perry did veto the Equal Pay Bill, which would have helped women in the fight for equal pay in the workplace. 

            Wendy Davis said she would be in support of Senate Bill 5 if it took into account exceptions such as fetal abnormalities or health risk to the mother. I couldn’t agree more, I am anti-abortion but I am fully aware that there are always exceptions to the rule. I agree with Alberta that the issue of abortion is not black and white and never has been. There are multitudes of factors that could influence anyone to be “anti-abortion” or “pro-life.” I honestly feel like Alberta is on point with many of her opinions but some of them are a little too harsh. For example, she says that Senate Bill 5 forces women to get a trans-vaginal probe if they want an abortion. This is hard to believe and I’m pretty sure that doctors cannot legally force a woman to have this procedure done. Just like most procedures, one has to consent before a doctor can legally do anything to you.

            I do agree with Alberta when she says that the men in the Republican Party seem to be conveying the message “Know your place. We’re in charge.” They are blatantly less focused on women’s rights and this just will not do. We, as a state, as a very proud state that used to make women’s rights a priority, should focus on the word “equal” and show other states how much women are valued. I believe that her articles are intended to educate and infuriate women, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Personally speaking, I tend to work/fight harder if something that I am passionate over is about to be taken away. Food mostly. Cake. 

"Equal." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Gender pay gap has always been an issue, not just in Texas but in many, if not all, states. In the article titled "Texas must eliminate gender pay gap" from The Daily Texan, the opinion is given that this issue has been around for far too long and must be eliminated. The article presented a lot of significant facts supported by some information from the original article, coupled with some opinions.

First, the correlation between women getting paid less than men and the fact that women have higher college graduation rates than men, is an excellent point to arguing in favor of equal pay. Also, the number of women comprising the student body at The University of Texas is 51% female and 49% male. Hey, a win is a win.

Second, there are people who are defending, and seemingly supporting, that things stay the same and have even said that the pay gap is due to women choosing to get degrees in "lower paying fields" than men. I wish the article would have shown exactly which degrees that they meant along with the differences between salaries for both men and women. A chart would have helped tremendously instead of just listing a few of the degrees.

Third, the article mentions that is has been almost 51 years since the Equal Pay Act was made a federal law by John F. Kennedy. I feel like it would have helped to see the progress, or diminishment, that Texas has made since then. Again, a chart would help. It also should have mentioned that in 2013 Rick Perry vetoed a bill that would have prevented wage discrimination in Texas.

I do not think that this is a foot-in-the-door article meant to sway voters to the right or left. However, I do think that it is worth mentioning which political party is in support of the issue and which is against it. I don't like the way it just ends with "we need to eliminate the wage gap once and for all." Instead of just highlighting the problem the article needed to inform the voters about our potential new governor. This information would be to the advantage of voters in the midst of the current election. It is, after all, up to us to elect the person who will solve Texas' most pressing issues.

The Wild West…seriously Ms. Davis?

     The article that I am writing about is one from the Texas Tribune titled "Davis Takes Friendly Fire on Gun Issue." State Senator Wendy Davis voiced her startling opinion wednesday that said she is in favor of open-carry laws. This law would require all persons carrying a handgun to carry the gun openly. As in on your hip. While the thought conjures up images of badass western icons, a la John Wayne, I believe that this is just a gimmick on Davis' part to try to court right-wing voters.
     Many of her supporters were taken aback by the shift in her views considering that she normally believes in more liberal issues. Her fellow senator, Leticia Van De Putte voiced her opinion stating that law enforcement, where she is from, "think that open carry does not make their job any easier." I am siding with them on this as well because it would cause more harm that good. For example, bank robbers would know exactly who to disarm in the event of a bank robbery. Also, lets throw in road rage to the mix. Road rage would take on dramatically new meaning if any 'ol Texan can carry a gun and wield it at will. The National Rifle Association also believes that this is a desperate attempt to win the election. 
     I believe that this issue is a huge one that could directly affect the safety of the people of Texas in a negative way. We should follow this legislation closely and also keep in mind the fact that Ms. Davis seems to be able to switch her moral compass from side to side at the prospect of winning an election.