Robin Marty writes about the potential implications for her family’s out-of-pocket health care expenses, which may increase 100 percent. She is unclear whether her husband’s employer will continue to contribute; if not, her husband’s before-tax “contribution” may climb to as much as 20 percent of his pay. Quite an increase. But, what Robin Marty really wants to know is when did deciding to have a family become an unhealthy lifestyle choice? Read here for more…

Earlier in the week, I read a story about the Lange family whose infant, Alex, was denied coverage for being too big (i.e., fat). Good grief! I remember in the old days when it was considered a sign of good health if an infant were at the top of the charts in height and weight. However, our obsession with girth and obesity has now extended itself to infants, who are not in a position to cut down on calories, nor even to understand why that might seem necessary to an insurance provider. It is not as if the infant were eating a lot of junk food. In fact, he was receiving only milk, as is proper for a young person of his age.

Perhaps I am stretching the criteria a bit by including that second story, but given that women still bear all of the child-bearing responsibility and not always by choice, some allowances should be made, I think, for consequences.

Ironically, for this family, their older son had been colicky and a bit underweight. Naturally, they were thrilled with their younger son’s robust appetite and healthy size.

The Lange family’s insurance provider has since reviewed their policy and now has agreed to cover young Alex. It is simply amazing what one can accomplish with a media blitz of publicity.

We need more such publicity these days, especially for women and children who have for many decades comprised the majority of those in poverty, meaning that they have also had less access to medical care. How is it possible that the GOP, who under most conditions, just loves numbers and statistics (whether real or imaginary), can ignore the fact that we rank much too high among industrialized nations in infant mortality? Do they care only about unborn children? If so, what does that really mean? [My suspicion is that they care even more about controlling women's sexuality, even if it means corrupting the health care system to do so.]

Clearly, stories about mean-spirited denials of coverage have an effect.* Consider the New Jersey governor’s race. Jon Corzine, a Democrat, has been singularly unpopular in his blue state. Chris Christie, his GOP challenger, appeared a very short time ago to have the race all sewn up… until the news stories about Christie’s support for insurance providers who wished to deny coverage for mammograms, particularly for younger women, regardless of family history, or a doctor’s concern. Apparently, that one issue has been enough to make the race a dead heat, which effectively means Corzine will likely win, given the Democrats’ superior GOTV efforts.

Is this a great country, or what?

* …and so do financial scandals. See Jim White’s comment below about Christie’s.

* * *

I must confess to one quibble with John Bohrer’s story about Chris Christie’s moment in the health care reform spotlight. The title: How Breasts (and Health Care) Swung a Governor’s Race. I detect something a tad exploitative, not to mention in bad taste, about using the word “swung” in this context. Surely, no woman of any age wishes to be reminded that her breasts swing, not in a world where pertness is everything, and where brassieres have been structurally engineered to ensure such pertness.

Perhaps Mr. Bohrer had nothing to do with that title. It may have been an editorial decision. If so, that makes it even worse in my opinion.