North Coast Journal August 16, 2007 : IN THE NEWS : SHORT STORIES

August 16, 2007

Short Stories

photo of dr.wendy ring Humboldt speaks

Right: Dr. Wendy Ring states her position. Photo by Bob Doran.

The day of discussion on health care reform was billed as an experiment in “deliberative democracy.” On Saturday, around 4,500 randomly selected Californians participated statewide in a high-tech teleconference with sites in eight cities facilitated by a group called CaliforniaSpeaks. Humboldt State University’s West Gym was the local site. There were around 470 attendees from around the county. This reporter was among those randomly selected.

It proved an impressive show of modern technology, with $4.2 million spent creating a “21st Century Town Meeting,” with satellite hookups feeding data to and from small discussion groups at each location. As we talked amongst ourselves, someone at each table manned a computer relaying snippets of opinion, moving the discussion forward. Polls were taken on various issues, and almost instantly you’d see the compiled results from around the state.

While the topic of the day was ostensibly health care, in reality most of the discussion was about health insurance -- specifically, two proposals before the state legislature that would change the way California’s health insurance system works. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who spoke from Los Angeles at the opening of the discussion, is offering something known as the “individual mandate” plan, which would require all Californians to have some sort health insurance, with the state footing the bill for the poor. His plan was compared with a compromise bill, AB 8, presented by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, both also present. Their “employer mandate” bill would require businesses to insure their workers.

A major concern of many at the Humboldt meeting was what was not on the table: SB 840, a reform bill presented by Sen. Sheila Kuehl (coauthored by Assemblywoman Patty Berg). Known as the Single Payer plan, it would basically cut the insurance companies out of the picture, providing universal health care for Californians.

Around lunchtime yellow signs crafted from the material handed out at the meeting started popping up around the West Gym saying “Single Payer” or “SB 840.” Before long scores of people around the room were holding them aloft, among them, Dr. Wendy Ring, who runs Humboldt County’s rolling Mobile Medical Office.

Apparently someone listened. The agenda for the day was adapted to make room for some talk on the subject at the end of the discussion. But it wasn’t enough for Ring. She lingered after the most participants had departed, joining with a similarly disgruntled local pediatrician, Dr. John Sullivan, to engage the America Speaks site representative with a spirited critique of the proceedings and the discussion guide handed out at the start of the day.

“What’s going to come out is that all these Californians got together to do this thing, and they agree with [the governor],” Ring said. “They are going to use the fact that all these good people came here to help -- many of whom do not support what he’s trying to do -- to sabotage the true health care reform that we need.”

“It’s an incredibly political situation,” conceded site manager Katie Fry.

“The way [issues] were put down was slanted and biased from the get-go,” said Sullivan. “Wendy and I aren’t the only ones who saw this, so I don’t know how it escaped your attention.”

Katie Fry responded saying that she felt the system worked, in that Single Payer was not ultimately ignored. “I think what you’re saying was heard by the leadership,” she said. Eager to move on to a wrap-up meeting with event facilitators already underway, Fry tried to draw the conversation to a close. “The discussion guide’s written,” she said. “The meeting is over. I do feel that this point of view has been heard.”

“It’s been heard, but we know what’s going to happen,” said Ring. “We know that this event is going to be used to justify what’s going to happen [with health care reform]. We feel that we were used and the way the questions were asked did not allow us to express our views.”

With that Fry broke away and the two doctors ambled toward the entrance, continuing their private conversation about “real” health care reform.

-- Bob Doran

TOP

Bye-bye kitty

The guy in front of me at airport security in Arcata wasn’t sure what to do with his cat. “Do I put her through?” he asked, eyeing the x-ray machine nervously.

“No,” the TSA representative said. “Wait until the last possible minute, then take her out of the carrier. Walk through the metal detector with her, then put her back.”

This was a risky plan. Cats employ a fight-and-flight response when thrust into an unfamiliar situation. First the cat attacks whoever is holding it, no matter how long that person has been its sole source of comfort and sustenance, then it runs. There was a clear path to the airport entrance, and the doors were open. It was one of those moments when heightened airport security seemed to carry more risks than benefits. The cat lovers in line braced themselves for a possible chase.

The guy got through screening with his wild-eyed tabby clutched to his chest, and he stuffed her quickly back into the carrier. Once we were settled on the plane, I asked him how the cat was holding up.

“OK, I guess,” he said. “She’s never flown before.”

“Is this a one-way trip, or is she flying back, too?” I asked.

“I don’t know,” he said. “I’m taking her to my parents’ house. I can’t find a rental in Arcata that takes cats.”

What? No cats?

Turns out he’d been looking for months, stashing the cat with friends while he lived in a series of cat-unfriendly rentals. He said that he’s found places that would take dogs, but not cats. He even offered to pay bigger deposit, but no luck. He was mystified. “Sometimes they tell me it’s because the other tenants are allergic to cats,” he said, “but how can that many people be allergic to cats?”

Is the Arcata rental market hostile to cats? A search of rental listings found few places that take pets, period. One property manager said that he had not detected an anti-cat bias, but suggested I contact his boss, who did not return calls by press time.

The truth remains elusive. Meanwhile, this seemingly normal guy and his freaked-out tabby faced an uncertain future. As an avowed cat person, the idea of dog owners having an easier time than cat owners fits with a more troubling trend I’ve noticed: dogs, it seems, have been granted semi-human status. They are not just tolerated, but welcome, at street festivals, cafés, hotels, and even -- God forbid -- spas, where they can enjoy their own day of doggie pampering. Once, in New York, I watched a small dog sit on its owner’s lap and lick the foam off his latte. I still haven’t recovered.

But cats don’t aspire to be one of us. They could care less about our activities outside the home, and they certainly don’t want to go with us. We don’t want them along, either. Cats forge a reluctant alliance with us, accepting food, shelter, and a limited amount of affection, but that’s where it stops. Anyone who has ever taken a cat to the vet or attempted basic medical care at home knows that treating a cat like a family member is an act of treason that will not be tolerated. Cats have drawn a firm line between animals and humans. Cross that line and you’ll be punished. Is it possible that the determination of Felis domesticus to remain squarely in the animal camp is pushing it out of the rental market and jeopardizing its already tenuous relationship with Homo sapiens?

As our flight landed in San Francisco, someone pointed out that he probably could have taken the cat out of her carrier during the bumpy, buzzy flight south. A dog owner would have jumped at the chance. But just imagine the kind of mayhem a terrified cat could unleash in a cramped cabin at 18,000 feet. “Yeah,” he said, eying her nervously through the carrier. “I think it’s better to keep her in there.”

-- Amy Stewart

TOP

Comments? Write a letter!