I have been working on an article in regards to health care reform for two weeks now. Every day I pick at it and tweak it, but just don't think it is ready for publication. I think my apprehension has to do with the fact that writing down all of my thoughts and opinions in regards to the Health Care Bill really makes me aware of the fact that I have no voice. Amazing and disturbing to realize that while 300 million people live in the United States, only 538 actually get to vote on anything. (100 senators, 435 congressmen and congresswomen, 3 representatives from D.C.) It would be nice if citizens could vote on the important issues, like health care, but I won't hold my breath waiting for a real democracy.
So instead of publishing my original article (for now) I decided to write a five part series on my "Top Five" suggestions for fixing health care. Not in an effort to make a change (since, like I said, no one is asking for my opinions on Capital Hill), but in an attempt to make consumers more aware of what goes on in our government.
So, if the government is really concerned with fixing health care, lets start with the children. They are the future, right? So how about ending Pouring Rights contracts.
Pouring Rights contracts are contracts that are made between beverage companies, like Coca-Cola and Pepsi Co., and schools. Beverage companies pay schools millions of dollars, and in exchange, the schools are required to have soda machines throughout the school with loyalty to one brand. These contracts may also require the school to advertise on behalf of the company. In other words, Coca-Cola is a sponsor for the high school football team. It may also include disallowing any competitor brands on school property. For example, if a school has a pouring rights contract with Pepsi Co., the teachers may not be allowed to bring Coca-Cola products on to school grounds.
While I am not as concerned with whether or not a teacher drinks a Coke or a Pepsi, soda machines should not be allowed on school property. Especially right outside of the cafeteria, where most are required to be placed. Soda is "liquid candy" and while it is fine to drink once and a while, soda is currently replacing healthier beverages in children's diets. Childhood obesity has been a huge, and progressively growing problem, since 1980 with 1 in 3 children now considered overweight to obese. Children have decreased milk consumption (which they desperately need for bone growth and development) and instead are drinking soda. Each can of soda has 10 teaspoons of sugar, along with phosphoric acid, which leads to tooth and bone decay, and cola and Mountain Dew contain caffeine.
I firmly believe that all adults should have freedom to choose what they want to eat or drink. But I do not think that same freedom should be extended to children. Parents should be able to decide whether or not they want to allow their 10 year-old to consume soda. In addition, parents should also be allowed the right to protect their children from predatory advertising.
The saddest part of this is that schools are inclined to welcome these pouring rights contracts because they so desperately need the money. Schools are always underfunded, and this could be fixed if the government would change tax policy.
Currently, school taxes come from federal, state, and local governments. However, the system favors school funding to rely heavily on local taxes, which is problematic. Many people living on fixed incomes are burdened by school tax increases each year (or when voted on) and yet their incomes do not go up year to year. This creates a situation where schools need money, but residents vote against overrides because they can't afford to pay for higher taxes.
This problem could be fixed, and schools could get the funding they need, if we were to change where the money comes from. Rather than burdening local homeowners, it seems it would make more sense for school funding to come from state and federal income tax with a certain amount being allocated per student. Not only could this benefit schools and local taxpayers, but it could also bring better resources to struggling school districts.
If we could fund education properly, and end pouring rights contracts, we could save our schools and invest in our children's education as well as their health.