An Open Letter to Valerie Jarrett

This letter has been passed to Erin, Queen of Spain to be relayed to Ms. Jarrett directly. If I receive a response to any of the points made/questions asked I will share them here.

Dear Ms. Jarrett,

Before I begin, I would like to thank you for engaging in a discussion on Health Care Insurance Legislation with attendees at the annual BlogHer Conference in Chicago, IL. The value the Obama administration places on the voices of its constituents is apparent — and wholly refreshing.

I am however, disappointed in the lack of equal political representation in the room and the direction that was chosen for the luncheon.

On the topic of representation, I understand that there were republicans in the room. I have a difficult time considering this simple fact equal representation however, considering that only those that were either they themselves openly struggling with health care or regular bloggers in the health arena were included. While at the very same time there were liberal bloggers who were clearly included not for their personal stake in health care but for their political blogging. I make this argument not to split hairs with you over partisanship – I myself am a non-partisan independent- but to point out the inconsistencies with the message of “reaching across the aisles” that is being sent by the Obama administration and the way in which luncheons are actually being filled. Having a singular phone conversation with a concerned conservative does not make up for an uneven playing field in the original meeting – though it was a nice gesture.

With regards to the direction the meeting was taken, I understand that my own expectations for the luncheon may have differed from that of the attendees and even the administration. At the risk of sounding insensitive, I am incredibly disappointed that such a large portion of the allotted time was dedicated to personal testimonies of health care strife. While these stories serve an indispensable purpose in the public arena, in such a private room it feels completely unproductive to me. Heart strings have been pulled, most Americans can see those around them who are struggling, we’ve all heard the stories. It is time to move forward from the days of driving home the need for health care legislation that will cover all – or most – Americans and begin to speak in frank open detail about the plans our legislators are making.

Furthermore, by filling the room with primarily those struggling with health care – not those who aspire to political activism – I can’t help but be disheartened by the message it sent about women. The meeting took an expected path down a trail of soft discourse. In the media surrounding the event thereafter it’s hard not to question whether or not that would have happened in a room full of men. I dare say not. And that is hard to swallow. In your position I assume you face gender bias on a regular basis. While women ought not necessarily act like men, they certainly ought to have the chance to conduct a productive meeting on policy like them. For a number of years the BlogHer conference itself has faced a back-lash of inadequate coverage depicting it as a frolicking, bra-burning, hippie fest where women gather for fuzzy bunny rabbits and rainbow bathed peach desserts. BlogHers in attendance have tried to counter such coverage – thus far unsuccessfully – and it’s upsetting that one of the events at this year’s conference that had the most potential to offset that image was turned in such a way as to have the opposite effect.

My suggestion, my idea for helping pass Health Care Insurance Legislation that will benefit all Americans, is to move beyond the level of “transparent communication” we’re at now — an all too familiar state of generalized and vague answers — and talk details. Americans want to know what these bills will mean and that includes what the plans will include and exclude, not just how they should sign up once they’re passed.

Tell us exactly how the government plans to define “evidence based health care” under the new law. What procedures will that definition exclude from medical professionals repertoires, if any? How will the American Recovery and Investment Act’s requirement for evidence-based medical record keeping play into that?

Explain why the legislature deems it necessary to potentially limit the growth of physician owned hospitals when the main argument against those facilities is that they raise costs by completing unnecessary tests and procedures when the expected laws would also include verbiage explicitly putting an end to those practices.

How, if included in the final bill, will the government ensure the provision for quality based compensation for care does not result in hospitals and clinics in already underprivilaged areas struggling even more to provide care to their patients? How will they ensure it doesn’t result in impersonal health care procedures designed to meet standards that in turn erode the doctor-patient relationship even more than it already has been? (Think No Child Left Behind of the medical world.)

These and so many more are the details we need to be addressing with the public. I feel strongly that the Obama administration truly does want to talk with, not down to or at, all Americans, but thus far we’re missing the target.

Kindest Regards,

Diana Prichard

Tagged as: blogher, blogher 09, Health Care Insurance Legislation, Health Care Reform, independent, Obama, Open Letters, Politics, Valerie Jarrett