Hey, it's for my health!

It's time for some RED! Red roses, red velvet cake, red dresses, even RedSkirts!

What do women want? Flowers and chocolates work with most women most of the time. And some of the women some of the time (but not all of the women all of the time).

Valentine's Day meets Lincoln's birthday.

And for those with an appetite for politics and the issues of the day, what do women want in their news? Pew Research came out with a new study just in time for it to be chewed over during the primary season, "Where Men and Women Differ in Following the News", a dry header that hides some juicy differences:

Women consistently express more interest than men in stories about weather, health and safety, natural disasters and tabloid news. Men are more interested than women in stories about international affairs, Washington news and sports.

But interestingly enough, there's not much gender gap when it comes to an interest in politics:

For example, the presidential campaign has attracted only modestly greater interest among men than among women. In five weekly news interest surveys in 2008, 37% of men and 32% of women say they have followed campaign news very closely.

So let's focus in on health. What's in the news lately--beware of Botox, and what's this-- "Retail Therapy: Does Sadness Mean Spending?":

"People who are sad, miserable or depressed usually feel an emptiness inside," Lieberman says. "So they engage in behaviors that fill up this emptiness, such as eating too much, drinking too much or spending too much."

The increased buying only occurs for sad people who are self-focused, Kaslow said.

Hmm, "self-focused". Does that mean self-centered? How about self-ish. The article goes on:

This is not the first study to show a sadness-spending link.

"The two are related because they both deal with a way of filling up the emptiness inside that focuses on making their outside more attractive," says Beverly Hills-based psychiatrist Dr. Carole Lieberman, whose research on compulsive shopping goes back to the mid-1980s. She has since appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show to discuss the phenomenon and penned the entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica explaining the behavior.

"The way I discovered it was because I was treating a lot of eating disordered patients at the time, and found that after I cured their eating disorder, they developed a compulsive shopping disorder," she said.

Here's another story on the subject, which to many may state the obvious. Time:

To break the link, you might, therefore, intentionally try to avoid self-focusing when you're sad simply by thinking of other people. "You could try to think about others by rehearsing a series of sentences that involve others as the subject," says Cryder. "That makes sense to me as a researcher." Or you might just call a friend, and instead of suggesting a trip to the mall, ask how her day is.

We need academics to tell us this--thinking of others--what a concept. Sounds like a limousine liberal Beverly Hills disease to me. Oops, I guess it's now the Latte Liberals vs. the Dunkin Donuts Democrats.

More on the divide from the LA Times, a young liberal Obama-leaning columnist consults his Hillary-backing Boomer mother (emphasis mine):

"People are projecting an awful lot onto him," Mom said. "Almost like what was that movie with, oh, the movie, oh God. That English actor, he practically said nothing. Oh shoot. He was the butler and everybody loved him and what he was thinking and feeling. Do you know the movie I'm talking about? You don't." Hers, of course, is the demographic most likely to vote.

But she's right. Obama is Peter Sellers in "Being There." As a therapist, she's seen the danger of ungrounded expectations. "You feel young again. You feel like everything is possible. He helps you feel that way and you want to feel that way; it's a great marriage. Unfortunately, the divorce will happen very quickly."

So it's pricey, hidden high-cal latte vs. obviously fatty donuts--pick your poison.

And there's the opportunity for the Grand Old Party. Do Americans really want a dour, sour and punitive approach to health care? Sounds unhealthy to me.

Do we want to be forced to go to the doctor, as John Edwards proposed? Do we want our wages garnished (read: taxed) to pay for the kind of health insurance Hillary and her Big Brother government think is good for us, whether we like it or not? Do we want a health care plan that sounds good but won't work (like its author, Barack Obama) and will drive costs for everyone through the roof?

Do we want more of the same health care BLUES?!!

Not on your life! No way! We RED-blooded American women (and men) want a CHOICE--in health care just as we do in any other part of our lives. We are savvy consumers, used to looking for a good deal. Ramesh Ponnuru, Time:

But how strong is the public's demand for universal coverage? In the fall, Republicans will be able to say that their proposals would make coverage portable, give patients more control and increase the number of people with insurance--all without raising taxes, increasing spending or threatening what people value in their current arrangements. Voters might well conclude that it is a good deal, even if it does not cover everyone. Obama has attacked Clinton's plan for forcing people to buy insurance whether they want it or not. Most experts agree that universal coverage requires such heavy-handedness. Republicans can win this argument or at least reduce the Democrats' traditional advantage on health care.

And let's really look at this:

"So, out of 45 million uninsured Americans, 9 million aren’t American, 9 million are insured, 18 million are young and healthy. And the rest of these poor helpless waifs trapped in Uninsured Hell waiting for Hillary to rescue them are, in fact, wealthier than the general population.")

Part of the reason health care costs are rising is because of government mandates and interference, which also has the unintended consequence of reducing the availability of health care--in some parts of the country it's a crisis just to deliver a baby. John McCain's plan focuses on portability and security, as well as cutting health care costs--putting more control and choice back in the hands of Americans and American families.

But for now Boomer Girls if you're stressed, instead of shopping you could resort to a time-honored remedy--a walk or cup of coffee with a friend or two, and talk politics, or not.

I might have a glass of wine from time to time, just to settle my nerves. I usually like white, but RED has medicinal properties--hey, it's for my health!

It's more of a guy thing, but I hear beer is healthy now too. (And if you don't want to chug-a-lug, looks like they are working on adding the key cancer-fighting ingredient to chocolate:) (Honey, did you hear? chocolate.)

So to sum up, who's the candidate America would be most comfortable having a beer with this time around? John McCain, tie-breaker. Republicans don't offer symbolism, we come through with substance. We're not stuck in the navel-gazing past, we're looking to the future. We don't just talk about issues, we actually solve problems--with solutions that really work.

So go RED for a better you and a better America--better RED than dead, uh, better stop when I'm ahead. For now...

(BlueSkirt here.)

UPDATE: In response to BlueSkirt, excerpts of Chicago Tribune Sunday editorial on health care in 3 Blue states:

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are making big promises on health care. Big and expensive promises. They essentially promise health care for all, at a cost that won't bust the federal budget.

That's the campaign trail. But then there's reality.Massachusetts, which drew national attention with its bold plan to cover everyone in the state with health insurance, is just now learning the real cost of its venture. And the real cost is staggering. State officials expected the program would initially cost $472 million a year. The real number this year: $618 million.

The program is expected to cost $1.35 billion in 2011, the Boston Globe reported.[snip]

Massachusetts' red ink helped to scare off California legislators, who a few weeks ago overwhelmingly rejecting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's ambitious plans to cover all Californians. Smart move for a state already facing a $14 billion-plus deficit.

Lawmakers in Illinois and Pennsylvania did the same thing last year. They took a look at the megabucks required for significantly expanding health-care coverage and quashed the idea.

Illinois, as we discuss in the editorial above, can't pay for its existing health- care programs, let alone afford to expand them. Comptroller Dan Hynes says state spending on health care has grown by about 28 percent since 2003, to more than $8 billion in fiscal 2007. And even with that rise, the state hasn't made a significant dent in the number of uninsured citizens.

UPDATE: On the same page:) The Politico:

The RNC event also broached taking control of traditionally Democratic issues such as health care, with even Rove stressing a need for Republicans to start addressing the matter. Congressman Calvert described health care as “one of the seminal issues” of the upcoming election and asked, “Are we going to move towards socialized medicine or away from it? Because we can’t move towards the middle.

Related posts: sOap, On the trail of a war hero, Judging Barack Obama