Welcome To 1984

Described as “a world of perpetual war, pervasive government surveillance, public mind control and the voiding of citizens’ rights,” I dare say the future illustrated in George Orwell’s “1984” has arrived.

While I am in total agreement that every U.S. citizen should have access to health care, the passage of government-controlled Obamacare is not what I had in mind. Speaking as someone who doesn’t have a health care plan, but probably should, I found that, when faced with an economic crunch, putting effort into securing health care just isn’t all that important. Turns out, even if you have a chronic illness, it tends to take a back seat when you’re struggling to make ends meet.

And seeing as how the nation is still wallowing in the effects of a recession, President Obama should have realized that not everyone is going to be able to afford what the government is prescribing before he went ahead and forced this legislation. But force seems to be his M.O. Instead of simply offering health care to all Americans and allowing us to make the decision as to whether or not we want it, it will be forced upon us. In fact, the government will be paying the Internal Revenue Service to keep tabs on Americans to make sure we’re in compliance. I understand that this will create more jobs, but it seems all too eerily similar to the future Orwell predicted.

Now that I am back on my feet financially, I have absolutely no problem with paying for health care, but to think that Big Brother will be deciding what I get makes me nauseous. As does the fact that, for many small businesses that barely eked out the economic downturn, the government could be putting the final nail in the coffin. Regardless of how much the government hands out in credits, chances are those businesses teetering the line between black and red will be forced out of business if the owners have to offer health care plans to all of their employees.

In essence, there’s a time and place - as well as a decency - with which to install legislation like this. Springing this on the heels of one of the worst recessions in decades was a terrible idea. I realize that each presidential term of office is four years, but that doesn’t mean one person can solve all of our problems in that short amount of time. As far as I’m concerned, if the government really had our best interests in mind with this legislation, we would have choices. But this new reform gives us anything but. Sure, the government plays a vital role in all our lives, but this is a little too much involvement for my liking.

Speaking of being too involved, I noticed there was a bill attached to the health care reform that would overhaul the student loan program. That overhaul would eliminate banks as the middlemen for students taking out loans and put the government in charge. While this was promoted as a way to increase funding, something tells me that the reason banks were asked to play the middlemen in the first place was to make sure the government didn’t have complete control over that aspect of education. One step forward, three steps back, I guess. Since health care legislation was approved, I’ve heard a lot of people mumble the phrases “government takeover” and “socialism.” While I’m not certain that is the direction the country is headed, I am starting to feel a little less in control of my own life. How about you?

Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader

Make Accommodations More Accommodating

Since I’m still a little stunned – and, I’ll admit, slightly miffed – about the new health care reform bill, I decided that airing my concerns about that topic could wait at least a week – if I’m able to stop fuming by then. While I realize that I’ve picked on airlines once before regarding the overwhelming amount of security measures, following director Kevin Smith’s experience, I simply couldn’t resist venturing onto the topic of “oversized” seating requirements. Seeing as how I never really knew airlines maintained policies regarding passenger size, I did some research and found that at least three major air travel providers have such stipulations in place. According to their guidelines, these airlines require passengers who “don’t safely and comfortably fit” in a single seat to buy a second seat.

Upon reading through the “rules” on Continental’s Web site, I couldn’t help but wonder how this practice hasn’t been declared discriminatory. As it turns out, Continental has three stipulations (which are very similar to those of Southwest and American Airlines): all passengers “must be able to properly attach, buckle and wear the seat belt, with one extension if necessary, whenever the seat belt sign is illuminated or as instructed by a crew member; they “must be able to remain seated with the seat armrest(s) down for the entirety of the flight” and they cannot “significantly encroach upon the adjacent seating space.”
While these sound like reasonable demands, I started to put the whole scenario into perspective.

First of all, the average seat width on Boeing 737s and 757s, armrest to armrest is 17.2 inches. On 767s, it’s 17.9 inches. If you’re doing the math, that’s not quite a foot and a half of personal space. So even if you’re not overweight, you’re going to be a bit cramped ... and thankful if you’re not claustrophobic. With that in mind while perusing the March 13 edition of the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram, I couldn’t help but take notice of an article in the At Home section. “Expanded sizes,” was the title with the subhead, “Furniture makers are responding to the needs of ever-larger Americans.” Continuing to read the article, I found some staggering statistics: “Of all American adults ages 20 to 74, about 46 percent were overweight or obese in 1960, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. By 2005, that number had risen to about 73 percent for Americans 20 and older.”

Considering such a significant portion of the population has weight issues, the fact that manufacturers are catering to the majority makes perfect sense. And if furniture makers are doing it, why can’t airlines? It just doesn’t make sense to punish and alienate the majority of the population by forcing them off the plane or requiring them to buy two seats. Wouldn’t it just be easier to concede the fact that catering to the majority is the most reasonable solution and offer larger seats (at a higher price, of course)? I’m not saying jet builders should start using larger seats in the entire plane – that would be ludicrous, not to mention not very profitable. When all is said and done, I’m sure including a row or two of roomier seats to accommodate those who need or want more space wouldn’t be the worst thing to happen in air travel history.

Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader