It's hard to debate experience . . .

I'm currently editing a WMRA's "One Person's Voice" segment that I hope (do cross your fingers, please) will be ready to air during Wednesday's Morning Edition. It is the story of Jessica Penner, a young woman who's been dealing with Ollier's disease (bony tumors that affect limb growth) since she was a small child.

First and foremost, Jessica's is a story of courage, remarkable resilience, and a seemingly indestructible sense of humor. But it's also a story of the power insurance companies currently exercise over doctors' ability to prescribe treatments.

There's probably no more contentious issue in both Washington and our communities at this moment than health care reform. It's that rare issue that is both national in scope and personally important. The bills before Congress are terribly complex; indeed the central, broad-brush issue involved is terribly complex: What should be the role of government in maintaining our individual well-being?

I'm a reporter, not a pundit. It's not my job to lecture; it's my job to tell stories. I have long thought, however, that the best way to understand a complex issue is to first do the hard work of educating oneself on what's involved, and then to filter that information through the lens of actual experience.

A lot of the health care debate hinges on whether or not privately-run insurance companies do the best job possible of safe-guarding their policy-holders' health. I've never had to turn my life over to an insurance company, but Jessica Penner has. To me, that makes her experiences as relevant to the debate as the wisest words of the wisest policy wonk in the world.

Programming note: Virginia Insight (today at 3 pm) addresses an important health care issue, the ethics of human research trials. Tom Graham's guest will be Robin Fretwell Wilson, J.D. - Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University, and co-editor of the new book, Health Law and Bioethics: Cases in Context.

Someone else's cultural comfort zone . . .

When my daughter, Lizzie, was around eight, she saved up her tiny allowance to present me with a subscription to Cosmopolitan. Absolutely touched and pleased, I was also a bit baffled.

"Why Cosmopolitan," I asked, having always thought of myself as a Harpers/New Yorker type.

"Because," Lizzie said, "You're always reading it in the grocery store."

Mordre, as Chaucer said, wol out. Especially if an 8-year old daughter's got her eye on you.

Anyway, that is the reason why I read (and enjoyed) every issue of Cosmopolitan magazine for one year. Including an article that changed the way I understand such feelings as love, stability and security.

It was an article, I'm sure, about relationships. And it made the point that whatever emotional construct you grow up around is what feels comfortable when you grow up. So, if you grow up around stability and peace, the adult you feels culturally comfortable with that. But, if you grow up in chaos, the adult you gets nervous when things are too quiet, too peaceful, too stable.

On the morning of Nobel Peace Laureate Jimmy Carter's visit to speak to us about peace in the Middle East, I've been thinking again about that article in Cosmopolitan. I think we Americans (and I'm certainly talking about myself when I say this) assume way too often that other cultures are as comfortable with stability and peace as we are. And we forget that it takes at least a generation of people living with the absence of war and chaos to turn peace and stability into that culture's comfort zone.

Mr. Carter, being Mr. Carter, I'm certain never loses sight of this. He's never struck me as arrogant, or macho, or self-righteous in his approach to cultural differences. But he also seems pretty clear that to be at peace is a better way for anyone and everyone to be than what the Arabs and Israelis have going on at the moment.

I'm looking forward very much to hearing him speak. Even though it means I shall be up most of the night, reporting on it for WMRA's Morning Edition.