I imagine that 9/11 will be one of those days when pretty much everyone in this country can remember where they were and what they were doing.
For me, it was taking the first day of the MOAB (management of agressive behaviour) training which my hospital offers.
At our first break, we were out in one of the patient waiting areas and caught site of the TV turned to one of the news channels.
We watched the replay of the planes going into the towers over and over. We watched the towers fall, over and over. The instructor said that they had been trying to convince the airlines to hire them to teach their techniques, which included how to disarm someone coming at you with a knife, for several years, but of course this was back when everyone assumed that a hi-jacker just wanted to go someplace and land. I believe that most of the airlines teach their employees this or similar programs now.
Today, this morning, looks just like it did that morning, beautiful skies, clear and cool. I had a daughter in school that day, and we live in a navy town. We're also only about two hours from NYC. Almost everyone knew someone in NYC that day. I know that one of our staff was waiting to here from their fiance who was working in the Towers. I never did hear whether they were one of the survivors or the lost.
My husband's submarine was on a med run with a month and a half left; they were supposed to be home before Halloween. Within a day we had been informed that they would be home on time (yeah, right) but all port calls had been cancelled. Within a few weeks, on another Tuesday, we got a call from squadron for a mandatory spouses meeting the next night. The first thing we were told was that they no longer knew when the boat was coming home, but it wasn't likely to be the original date. I pissed off more than a few wives at that point, since I was unable to restrain a "Surprise, surprise" in my best Gomer Pyle imitation, though the CO's wife was snickering.
Squadron was telling us as soon as they heard, because they knew a lot of families had plans for the weekend after homecoming. Like the poor sailor whose wedding was scheduled for that Saturday. The navy wanted us to have as much time as possible to change plans and schedules, but since they didn't know when they'd be back, it was up to us to decide what to do.
And then they threw the floor open for questions. Woman after woman repeated almost the same thing: "We have a trip planned, and the plane tickets bought. What should we do?" And time after time poor Master Chief repeated, that they didn't know, each family would have to decide for themselves, whether to take the trip without the husband/brother/son, or reschedule, or what. After the third or fourth version, I leaned over to the woman next to me and whispered "What part of "we don't know" do these women not understand?" She laughed rather ruefully.
Over the next few weeks I got to listen to a lot of freakouts from wives and mothers that their husbands and sons were being called to duty, or sent out on patrol early. I just kept reminding them that the men were safer underwater in the Persian Gulf than they were driving to and from the base in Peace Time. I'm not sure if anyone of them actually believed me, but I do know that the only loss of a crew member suffered by any of my husband's commands in his 21+ years in the Navy was a few weeks after they got home from that deployment, when someone ran his car into a tree at midnight on the way home from bowling. He left behind a wife and a three month old baby.
I got to spend my elder daughter's 6th birthday with one of her friend's parents in the next room watching CNN as we shot at Afghanistan. CNN had to tell everyone the name of the boat (my husband's) although he wasn't allowed to tell me for over a year after they came home. The Navy finally realized that the horse well and truly gone, so keeping that barn door locked was kind of pointless. My husband always refers to that day as shooting fireworks for Katy's birthday.
And the world has never seemed quite as safe for us as Americans since then. I suspect it never really was "safe" as such, but we never had to think about it, if only because it always happened someplace else before then.
I have realized that I missed one anniversary this year I try to never forget. Beslan. Islam has hit us here at home once, don't ever think they won't try, and try something like that if we ever let them.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Monday, September 10, 2012
Things to be thankful for
because thinking of everything else is just plain depressing.
The weather is finally seeing highs in the mid-70s. I am not a good hot weather person, and we don't have a/c at home. So for the last few months little has been accomplished, including house cleaning. At least it isn't at the point where you just rent a dumpster and a shovel, and while I didn't do much yesterday, I could actually see progress. Another week or two (or three)...
The girls both like their new high schools. Younger daughter has gotten over the first day angst and tears, especially since a friend from middle school had moved to the new town, was attending the town high school the magnet is attached to, and has now transfered to the magnet school so they have several classes together. Elder daughter thinks English might actually be a bearable class for the first time in years, and it looks like the teacher may actually teach some formal grammar.
I'm almost finished my course of prednisone. I have put on at least 10 pound in the last 9 days, most of it water (I hope) though the fact that I have been constantly starving hasn't helped. Only two more days of the lowest dose and it's done, so I should be able to start getting my food intake back to something normal.
My husband and I both have jobs. Of course I'm not going to see much if any of a raise this year, although my town seems to be handing out 3% plus to all their employees. And the husband's hours have been cut; he used to see lots of overtime, because Sears figured it was cheaper to do the overtime than the extra benefits. Now they expect as much work from fewer employees on 35 or fewer hours a week. I'll be surprised if our AGI for 2012 is as high as it was in 2011. But our tax bill will be higher. 8( So time to start thinking of other stuff, so that I don't get too depressed with it only being Monday.
Things I've learned this year about gardening and our house:
Next year I'm going to not even try carrots or lettuce. Not unless I find enough money in the budget for a majorly groundhog-proof fence. Nor will I try cucumbers or melons. The vines have mildewed and the fruit died before it was ripe. I had the same problem in the community garden the last few years, so I think I'll stick with tomatoes and lots of summer squash and zucchini. The onions, radishes, beets, basil and chives did OK, so I'll probably do them again too. Nasturtiums and marigolds, again, probably not until we can upgrade the fence seriously. Groundhogs seem to love nasturtium leaves. I'm going to try to bring the window boxes in this winter and set up a shelf in front of the kitchen window and see if I can grow lettuce inside. Or at least some small herbs (basil gets huge). If it works, I may just keep them indoors permanently, including the summer, since I don't think the groundhog will figure out how to get in the house. Maybe.
I have to get mouse traps. Our morbidly obese kitty caught two night before last, and kindly didn't eat them, just left one in front of the toilet and the other in the next room in front of the stove, where everyone ignored it as they stared hopefully up at the counter for my husband to give them breakfast. We did have some mice in the walls last winter, so I'd like to nip the problem in the bud if possible.
The weather is finally seeing highs in the mid-70s. I am not a good hot weather person, and we don't have a/c at home. So for the last few months little has been accomplished, including house cleaning. At least it isn't at the point where you just rent a dumpster and a shovel, and while I didn't do much yesterday, I could actually see progress. Another week or two (or three)...
The girls both like their new high schools. Younger daughter has gotten over the first day angst and tears, especially since a friend from middle school had moved to the new town, was attending the town high school the magnet is attached to, and has now transfered to the magnet school so they have several classes together. Elder daughter thinks English might actually be a bearable class for the first time in years, and it looks like the teacher may actually teach some formal grammar.
I'm almost finished my course of prednisone. I have put on at least 10 pound in the last 9 days, most of it water (I hope) though the fact that I have been constantly starving hasn't helped. Only two more days of the lowest dose and it's done, so I should be able to start getting my food intake back to something normal.
My husband and I both have jobs. Of course I'm not going to see much if any of a raise this year, although my town seems to be handing out 3% plus to all their employees. And the husband's hours have been cut; he used to see lots of overtime, because Sears figured it was cheaper to do the overtime than the extra benefits. Now they expect as much work from fewer employees on 35 or fewer hours a week. I'll be surprised if our AGI for 2012 is as high as it was in 2011. But our tax bill will be higher. 8( So time to start thinking of other stuff, so that I don't get too depressed with it only being Monday.
Things I've learned this year about gardening and our house:
Next year I'm going to not even try carrots or lettuce. Not unless I find enough money in the budget for a majorly groundhog-proof fence. Nor will I try cucumbers or melons. The vines have mildewed and the fruit died before it was ripe. I had the same problem in the community garden the last few years, so I think I'll stick with tomatoes and lots of summer squash and zucchini. The onions, radishes, beets, basil and chives did OK, so I'll probably do them again too. Nasturtiums and marigolds, again, probably not until we can upgrade the fence seriously. Groundhogs seem to love nasturtium leaves. I'm going to try to bring the window boxes in this winter and set up a shelf in front of the kitchen window and see if I can grow lettuce inside. Or at least some small herbs (basil gets huge). If it works, I may just keep them indoors permanently, including the summer, since I don't think the groundhog will figure out how to get in the house. Maybe.
I have to get mouse traps. Our morbidly obese kitty caught two night before last, and kindly didn't eat them, just left one in front of the toilet and the other in the next room in front of the stove, where everyone ignored it as they stared hopefully up at the counter for my husband to give them breakfast. We did have some mice in the walls last winter, so I'd like to nip the problem in the bud if possible.
Saturday, September 08, 2012
WW III
which hopefully won't be starting anytime soon.
But Canada has pulled it's few diplomats out, and is giving Iran five days to get all of theirs out of Canada. It makes you wonder what the Canadians know.
Regnery has an interesting post on Breitbart. There's an article over at HuffPo, written by someone doing a great ostrich imitation, since she seems to be claiming that Canada is the worst violator of middle eastern civil rights. And of course the comments section looks vile, what with blaming everything on Israel. There may be some sane comments, but I don't feel like wading through the sewage to find them.
And a few others at Breitbart:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/07/BREAKING-Canada-Suspends-All-Diplomatic-Relations-With-Iran
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/07/8-Sep-12-World-View-Canada-severs-all-diplomatic-relations-with-Iran
And on a much more local note, here in SouthEastern Connecticut, we have a tornado watch, one of the first I've seen in well over a decade here.
It's very black out, as well as windy, and if the rain hasn't started when I get the meatloaf ready for the oven, I'll go stand outside with the wind in my hair, enjoying it.
But Canada has pulled it's few diplomats out, and is giving Iran five days to get all of theirs out of Canada. It makes you wonder what the Canadians know.
Regnery has an interesting post on Breitbart. There's an article over at HuffPo, written by someone doing a great ostrich imitation, since she seems to be claiming that Canada is the worst violator of middle eastern civil rights. And of course the comments section looks vile, what with blaming everything on Israel. There may be some sane comments, but I don't feel like wading through the sewage to find them.
And a few others at Breitbart:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/07/BREAKING-Canada-Suspends-All-Diplomatic-Relations-With-Iran
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/07/8-Sep-12-World-View-Canada-severs-all-diplomatic-relations-with-Iran
And on a much more local note, here in SouthEastern Connecticut, we have a tornado watch, one of the first I've seen in well over a decade here.
It's very black out, as well as windy, and if the rain hasn't started when I get the meatloaf ready for the oven, I'll go stand outside with the wind in my hair, enjoying it.
Friday, September 07, 2012
When you've lost the Daily Show.... where in I vent, and really wish I had a stiff drink.
Ø seems to have lost the Daily Show. I admit that while I don't go out of my way to watch it, I've usually enjoyed the bits I've seen, because even at it's most pro-Democrat, Stewart didn't seem to be mean the way folks like Bill Maher were. There have also been more than a few times when he seemed to be trying to poke fun at the administration, but something, whether his network, or his own personal biases, was holding him back. I also never got the feeling that he was hiding his personal feelings on the matter to try and come across as neutral.
But since the DNC convention started Stewart seems to be really going to town. I wonder if he and his writers are getting out all the pent up frustration of the last four years now that they're finally allowed to mock Ø, in spite of his "historicalness".
My parents still seem to be totally in the tank, Ø inherited a much worse mess than we expected, you can't trust anyone who fact checks the White House, even if it's part of the MSM, etc., etc., etc. I called them earlier about something and heard Daddy have hissy fits in the background over the employment figures. I may have misunderstood what my mother was saying, but it seemed that he was upset because the media wasn't buying the White House's rose picture of how getting people out of the job market so that the U-3 figure goes down is a good thing.
If, God willing, we get an R in the White House as well as an R congress, it will be interesting to see their cognitive dissonance, especially if the economy picks up faster than expected. Mother's take is that she almost hopes Romney wins so we can see how bad things really are, and that he can't fix it any faster than Ø has. Of course if R/R win in November, I expect the economy to start taking off immediately, the same way that it tanked as soon as Ø won in '08. Of course Bush was responsible for that tanking, because he was still president, and a Democratic Party controlled Congress, and the knowledge that a far left/marxist sympathizing (at best) President was going to take over in two months couldn't have had anything to do with it. Likewise if we see improvements after November but before swearing R/R in, it will all be due to Ø's fantastic policies, and we should have just given him that extra four years.
Sigh.
They will never admit that JFK was probably to the right of Romney; although they idolize JFK, they've been brainwashed to assume that the Dems have always been as they are now, and that that is always best for anyone who isn't a millionaire, and why would anyone who isn't a millionaire want to vote against their personal interests? These are the same people who when I pointed out where things were going with the passing of ObamaCare, told me that there was no way companies would stop providing employee health insurance because they want to keep good workers. (Of course they'll also agree that companies don't give a crap about their employees because they just want the profits.) I've shown them the articles where benefits companies tell how 50% or more of their clients are planning or at least considering dropping benefits and dumping their employees on the exchanges.
I wonder if they'll pay all my other bills when work drops coverage, and the government unilaterally changes their contract with my Navy retiree husband and starts making us pay for our Tricare, to the tune of what we'd have to pa on the exchange, which for us is 9.5% of our total income, which will be over $7000, up from my current $2K and his free. I don't know about anyone else but we don't have a spare $100 a week lying around and of course there will still be significant co-pays and stuff we need like new glasses for growing girls that isn't covered. As it is, if we don't get an extension on the Evil Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich Only (TM) and the SS deductions go back up that 2%, we'll be seeing at least $50 less a week after January, not to mention gas going up, oil going up, groceries going up, etc., etc., etc. And if, God forbid, all this were to come to pass, they would never believe that their vote choices might have had anything to do with it.
But since the DNC convention started Stewart seems to be really going to town. I wonder if he and his writers are getting out all the pent up frustration of the last four years now that they're finally allowed to mock Ø, in spite of his "historicalness".
My parents still seem to be totally in the tank, Ø inherited a much worse mess than we expected, you can't trust anyone who fact checks the White House, even if it's part of the MSM, etc., etc., etc. I called them earlier about something and heard Daddy have hissy fits in the background over the employment figures. I may have misunderstood what my mother was saying, but it seemed that he was upset because the media wasn't buying the White House's rose picture of how getting people out of the job market so that the U-3 figure goes down is a good thing.
If, God willing, we get an R in the White House as well as an R congress, it will be interesting to see their cognitive dissonance, especially if the economy picks up faster than expected. Mother's take is that she almost hopes Romney wins so we can see how bad things really are, and that he can't fix it any faster than Ø has. Of course if R/R win in November, I expect the economy to start taking off immediately, the same way that it tanked as soon as Ø won in '08. Of course Bush was responsible for that tanking, because he was still president, and a Democratic Party controlled Congress, and the knowledge that a far left/marxist sympathizing (at best) President was going to take over in two months couldn't have had anything to do with it. Likewise if we see improvements after November but before swearing R/R in, it will all be due to Ø's fantastic policies, and we should have just given him that extra four years.
Sigh.
They will never admit that JFK was probably to the right of Romney; although they idolize JFK, they've been brainwashed to assume that the Dems have always been as they are now, and that that is always best for anyone who isn't a millionaire, and why would anyone who isn't a millionaire want to vote against their personal interests? These are the same people who when I pointed out where things were going with the passing of ObamaCare, told me that there was no way companies would stop providing employee health insurance because they want to keep good workers. (Of course they'll also agree that companies don't give a crap about their employees because they just want the profits.) I've shown them the articles where benefits companies tell how 50% or more of their clients are planning or at least considering dropping benefits and dumping their employees on the exchanges.
I wonder if they'll pay all my other bills when work drops coverage, and the government unilaterally changes their contract with my Navy retiree husband and starts making us pay for our Tricare, to the tune of what we'd have to pa on the exchange, which for us is 9.5% of our total income, which will be over $7000, up from my current $2K and his free. I don't know about anyone else but we don't have a spare $100 a week lying around and of course there will still be significant co-pays and stuff we need like new glasses for growing girls that isn't covered. As it is, if we don't get an extension on the Evil Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich Only (TM) and the SS deductions go back up that 2%, we'll be seeing at least $50 less a week after January, not to mention gas going up, oil going up, groceries going up, etc., etc., etc. And if, God forbid, all this were to come to pass, they would never believe that their vote choices might have had anything to do with it.
Ouch.
I guess it's proof that I'm getting older even if I don't feel it.
Every few years I have to completely rearrange the back journal shelving at work (360 or so shelves) because of changes in subscriptions, running out of room for the stuff we still get, having too much space after stuff we've discontinued, etc., etc., etc.
I was shifting a handful of journals (six or eight shelf inches) as a bunch from a bottom shelf in one stack to the fourth of six shelves in the next column and twisted just wrong. I know I have muscles and connective tissue from my waist down over my hip joint and into my thigh. It's just that the waist area of the IT band stuff doesn't usually seize up. So know I'm sitting at my desk, trying to stretch it out, which is hard because I have very loose joints and can't bend far enough to stretch already too long connective tissue, and trying not to breath too hard.
Hopefully it will ease off soon, so I can get some lunch without squeaking with every step. Work will not be happy if I break myself again just doing my job. I was on "light duty" for a wrist injury for two months, ending less than two months ago.
Growing old sucks, but it does beat the alternative.
Every few years I have to completely rearrange the back journal shelving at work (360 or so shelves) because of changes in subscriptions, running out of room for the stuff we still get, having too much space after stuff we've discontinued, etc., etc., etc.
I was shifting a handful of journals (six or eight shelf inches) as a bunch from a bottom shelf in one stack to the fourth of six shelves in the next column and twisted just wrong. I know I have muscles and connective tissue from my waist down over my hip joint and into my thigh. It's just that the waist area of the IT band stuff doesn't usually seize up. So know I'm sitting at my desk, trying to stretch it out, which is hard because I have very loose joints and can't bend far enough to stretch already too long connective tissue, and trying not to breath too hard.
Hopefully it will ease off soon, so I can get some lunch without squeaking with every step. Work will not be happy if I break myself again just doing my job. I was on "light duty" for a wrist injury for two months, ending less than two months ago.
Growing old sucks, but it does beat the alternative.
There was a convention?
I know there was, because none of my usual Thursday night TV fare was on. So instead I went to the pharmacy to pick up an antihistamine refill. I found it much more edifying and happy making.
The nice discovery for the evening was that sometime in the last few months, my drug of choice, Clarinex, has gone generic. The insurance companies keep trying to practice medicine without a license and force me to use OTC claritin. I use Clarinex because the -tin knocks me out. I can't drive, I can't do any work if I make it to work alive, I can't even read or watch a mindless TV show, I'm so sleepy. I actually had to get a script of Claritin last spring so that I could "prove" to the company that I had tried the stuff. Buying it over the counter or using samples from the doctor's office didn't cut it, because they had no proof, not even believing the doctor. So I filled a script, gave the entire thing to my daughter, since she also has a script for it, and it works for her, and then, with proof in hand, they were willing to cover it. Idiots.
I'm waiting to see what our share of the hospital insurance premiums looks like for next year. If it goes up as much as other Aetna products have been lately, I may drop it, stick with just Tricare, and put the premium money in a savings account. I can go through all my Aetna record for this year, but I think without the Aetna, we wouldn't have spent $2K after whatever Tricare paid, and I need to save up $2K over the next year or so for some major dental work.
Dental insurance is another scam. I'm getting at least what I put in back since it's a family plan, but the maximum payouts haven't changed in 30 years, while the costs of the work have gone up more than a bit. Certainly once the girls are off the family plan, I'd be better off just putting the money away and paying all dental costs out of pocket, since I pretty much am anyway.
The nice discovery for the evening was that sometime in the last few months, my drug of choice, Clarinex, has gone generic. The insurance companies keep trying to practice medicine without a license and force me to use OTC claritin. I use Clarinex because the -tin knocks me out. I can't drive, I can't do any work if I make it to work alive, I can't even read or watch a mindless TV show, I'm so sleepy. I actually had to get a script of Claritin last spring so that I could "prove" to the company that I had tried the stuff. Buying it over the counter or using samples from the doctor's office didn't cut it, because they had no proof, not even believing the doctor. So I filled a script, gave the entire thing to my daughter, since she also has a script for it, and it works for her, and then, with proof in hand, they were willing to cover it. Idiots.
I'm waiting to see what our share of the hospital insurance premiums looks like for next year. If it goes up as much as other Aetna products have been lately, I may drop it, stick with just Tricare, and put the premium money in a savings account. I can go through all my Aetna record for this year, but I think without the Aetna, we wouldn't have spent $2K after whatever Tricare paid, and I need to save up $2K over the next year or so for some major dental work.
Dental insurance is another scam. I'm getting at least what I put in back since it's a family plan, but the maximum payouts haven't changed in 30 years, while the costs of the work have gone up more than a bit. Certainly once the girls are off the family plan, I'd be better off just putting the money away and paying all dental costs out of pocket, since I pretty much am anyway.
Wednesday, September 05, 2012
The DNC is getting into full swing
And I just can't bring myself to watch any of it. From reading the blogs and news sites this morning it seems to be strictly Abortion! Abortion! Abortion!
Seriously, who cares? If we're all broke, how are we supposed to pay for your damn free abortions?
And really, how is not paying for something for someone else automatically denying them the right to buy said product or service? If refusing to pay for someone else's contraceptives or abortion is denying them the right to medical care, their refusal to pay for my rent or mortgage is obviously denying me my right to shelter. But I don't see anyone making that claim. Which is silly, because shelter from the elements is obviously a much more important "right" than something to help you deal with your poor life choices. (And yes, I know that not everyone who gets an abortion is doing it for convenience, just 95%+ of them; if it's an ectopic pregnancy, I'll drive you to the clinic myself.)
Add in the new add, where we are told that the only thing we all belong to is The Government.
I am NOT a slave or indentured servant. I may belong to a country, a church, a family, a social club. My membership in these things is just that, MEMBERSHIP. It is, even with family, voluntary. It is a mutual contract, which can be broken at any time. But I don't have membership in the "government". The only way I can belong to said government is as a chattel.
I am NOT Julia. I do not need the government to step in and do everything for me, without my even trying to get ahead on my own first.
I am NOT Julia. I have a man in my life, whom I love, and who is helping me make a home and raise a family. We are a package deal. I can't have that package with the feds. Or I suppose I could have something similar, but then it would be some creepy blend of Julia and the Lebensborn.
I am NOT Julia. I AM free. I WILL stay that way.
Seriously, who cares? If we're all broke, how are we supposed to pay for your damn free abortions?
And really, how is not paying for something for someone else automatically denying them the right to buy said product or service? If refusing to pay for someone else's contraceptives or abortion is denying them the right to medical care, their refusal to pay for my rent or mortgage is obviously denying me my right to shelter. But I don't see anyone making that claim. Which is silly, because shelter from the elements is obviously a much more important "right" than something to help you deal with your poor life choices. (And yes, I know that not everyone who gets an abortion is doing it for convenience, just 95%+ of them; if it's an ectopic pregnancy, I'll drive you to the clinic myself.)
Add in the new add, where we are told that the only thing we all belong to is The Government.
I am NOT a slave or indentured servant. I may belong to a country, a church, a family, a social club. My membership in these things is just that, MEMBERSHIP. It is, even with family, voluntary. It is a mutual contract, which can be broken at any time. But I don't have membership in the "government". The only way I can belong to said government is as a chattel.
I am NOT Julia. I do not need the government to step in and do everything for me, without my even trying to get ahead on my own first.
I am NOT Julia. I have a man in my life, whom I love, and who is helping me make a home and raise a family. We are a package deal. I can't have that package with the feds. Or I suppose I could have something similar, but then it would be some creepy blend of Julia and the Lebensborn.
I am NOT Julia. I AM free. I WILL stay that way.
Sunday, September 02, 2012
Dr. Who
Not much to say about it but that it was worth the wait.
And yes, I am slow. I didn't get the bit about the soufflé until the doctor spelled it out.
And yes, I am slow. I didn't get the bit about the soufflé until the doctor spelled it out.
Saturday, September 01, 2012
Offense
Not the military kind.
The kind which one gives.
The State Department obviously has employees who don't have enough to do, so they put out a department magazine. It would seem to be bi-monthly, and the latest issue is found here: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/195572.pdf
Go to page 8, and read. I'll wait.
It's short but jam packed with inaccuracies. As well as giving as much offense as it claims to be trying to prevent us from giving. "Vicious Native American intruders"?!?!?!?! I thought they were supposedly here first, making those "holding down the fort" the intruders. Not to mention, as at least one other blogger has, that forts did exist before the U.S. Army started building them on our western frontier. I seem to recall a few in Gaul.
But the author of that piece is black, so he is categorically incapable of giving offense, because his skin color somehow filters it out or something. It is only us poor deluded evil white folks who have to worry about that sort of stuff.
The kind which one gives.
The State Department obviously has employees who don't have enough to do, so they put out a department magazine. It would seem to be bi-monthly, and the latest issue is found here: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/195572.pdf
Go to page 8, and read. I'll wait.
It's short but jam packed with inaccuracies. As well as giving as much offense as it claims to be trying to prevent us from giving. "Vicious Native American intruders"?!?!?!?! I thought they were supposedly here first, making those "holding down the fort" the intruders. Not to mention, as at least one other blogger has, that forts did exist before the U.S. Army started building them on our western frontier. I seem to recall a few in Gaul.
But the author of that piece is black, so he is categorically incapable of giving offense, because his skin color somehow filters it out or something. It is only us poor deluded evil white folks who have to worry about that sort of stuff.
Friday, August 31, 2012
School fun and games
My elder daughter is attending a new magnet high school. The state has decided that parents should be able to get reimbursement of a token amount from their local school districts for transporting their own children if the town does not offer transportation to that particular school.
However, the state only decided to allow for parent reimbursement this summer, and hasn't sent the districts the info. It requires a "contract" between the district and the parent. It requires that this all be completed and submitted to the state by September 17th, so that the town can get reimbursement and then give it to the parent. It sounds like my district doesn't think they can get it done before then, since it's a new legal thing.
Hopefully it's just that the person I was talking to meant we wouldn't be able to get it done in the next week, not that we wouldn't be able to get it done before the 17th.
Sigh.
At least the BoE is beginning the termination process for our Superintendent, who, based on the letter he wanted to read at the meeting last night, has some serious psychological issues (not to mention what he did that has brought us to this point).
However, the state only decided to allow for parent reimbursement this summer, and hasn't sent the districts the info. It requires a "contract" between the district and the parent. It requires that this all be completed and submitted to the state by September 17th, so that the town can get reimbursement and then give it to the parent. It sounds like my district doesn't think they can get it done before then, since it's a new legal thing.
Hopefully it's just that the person I was talking to meant we wouldn't be able to get it done in the next week, not that we wouldn't be able to get it done before the 17th.
Sigh.
At least the BoE is beginning the termination process for our Superintendent, who, based on the letter he wanted to read at the meeting last night, has some serious psychological issues (not to mention what he did that has brought us to this point).
Back again. Maybe.
Maybe it's time to start taking out my frustrations on a seldom read, minimally known blog rather than driving my leftie family and acquaintances nuts by posting on Facebook and Twitter... 8)
Friday, July 31, 2009
HR 3200 Sec, 113, 114, 115, 116
Sec.113 INSURANCE RATING RULES
a) allows for limited variations in rates QHBPs charge enrollees
b)1) requires a study of large groups, self-insured employers vs. those with a bought plan, including solvency issues for the self-insured.
b)2) requires a report on this study to with recommendations to make sure that there are no incentives for smaller employers to self-insure, or which will "create adverse selection in risk polls of large group insureres of self insured employers". Is this adverse selection adverse to the insurers or the insured?
Sec. 114 Nondiscrimination in benefits.
a) To understand this properly you have to look us sec 702 ERISA 1974, Sec 2702 Public Health Services Act, and Sec 9802 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Which I haven't got to yet.
b) requires parity in mental health and substance abuse benefits, making the provisions of Sec 2705 of the PHSA applicable to all plans, both individual and group, as long as they are not superceded by or inconsistent with Subtitle C.
Sec. 115 ENSURING ADEQUACY OF PRIVIDER NETWORKS.
a) QHBPS areto have enough profiders in their networks that their enrollees can actually get the covered services. What happens if no QHBPs in a geographic area can get enough folks to accept their plans?
Transparency in the cost-share differential between in network and out-of-network is required. Every plan I've ever had had this in the enrollment book and printed on the insurance cards.
Sec. 116 ENSURING VALUE AND LOW PREMIUMS
a) seems to basically mean that if a QHBP takesi n more than a pre-set % of what it pays out it must rebate the excess to enrolees. The term medical loss ratio is used, which seems to mean the portion of premiums taken in that is used to cover enrollees claims.
b) the Commissioner is to use HHS methodology to set the MLR. It must be high enough to get insurers to participate. Though if the MLR is what they pay out, it would seem that they mean setting the percentage of premiums NOT spent on enrollee claims high enough.
a) allows for limited variations in rates QHBPs charge enrollees
b)1) requires a study of large groups, self-insured employers vs. those with a bought plan, including solvency issues for the self-insured.
b)2) requires a report on this study to with recommendations to make sure that there are no incentives for smaller employers to self-insure, or which will "create adverse selection in risk polls of large group insureres of self insured employers". Is this adverse selection adverse to the insurers or the insured?
Sec. 114 Nondiscrimination in benefits.
a) To understand this properly you have to look us sec 702 ERISA 1974, Sec 2702 Public Health Services Act, and Sec 9802 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Which I haven't got to yet.
b) requires parity in mental health and substance abuse benefits, making the provisions of Sec 2705 of the PHSA applicable to all plans, both individual and group, as long as they are not superceded by or inconsistent with Subtitle C.
Sec. 115 ENSURING ADEQUACY OF PRIVIDER NETWORKS.
a) QHBPS areto have enough profiders in their networks that their enrollees can actually get the covered services. What happens if no QHBPs in a geographic area can get enough folks to accept their plans?
Transparency in the cost-share differential between in network and out-of-network is required. Every plan I've ever had had this in the enrollment book and printed on the insurance cards.
Sec. 116 ENSURING VALUE AND LOW PREMIUMS
a) seems to basically mean that if a QHBP takesi n more than a pre-set % of what it pays out it must rebate the excess to enrolees. The term medical loss ratio is used, which seems to mean the portion of premiums taken in that is used to cover enrollees claims.
b) the Commissioner is to use HHS methodology to set the MLR. It must be high enough to get insurers to participate. Though if the MLR is what they pay out, it would seem that they mean setting the percentage of premiums NOT spent on enrollee claims high enough.
"Fixing" health care
I was thinking about this topic this morning (surprise) and wondered: in all this rush to "fix" health care in the US, have any of those folks in Washington DC who are writing the bills actually studied the problem to find out not only what things aren't working for folks (costs are high, and not everyone has insurance which will cover all the unexpected stuff), but also what works?
We're told that 85% of Americans are pretty happy with how things are now. Have any policy makers actually talked to them to find out what they're happy with?
It's as if my current employer suddenly started getting surveys back saying 15% of our patients were unhappy, so the solution is obviously to raze the whole building to the ground, fire everyone, and start from scratch, with no real data as to what made the other 85% satisfied.
We're told that 85% of Americans are pretty happy with how things are now. Have any policy makers actually talked to them to find out what they're happy with?
It's as if my current employer suddenly started getting surveys back saying 15% of our patients were unhappy, so the solution is obviously to raze the whole building to the ground, fire everyone, and start from scratch, with no real data as to what made the other 85% satisfied.
Monday, July 27, 2009
John Conyers is an ass.
John Conyers actually has the nerve to say there is no reason for our legislators to read the bills put before them. Since the health care bill would take two days and two lawyers to understand, they shouldn't bother.
Patronizing is one of the nicer terms I can think of. I mean, us poor stupid voters, how can we think that our representatives ought to know what they're doing when they vote on something?
Here is the news item, with a video clip :http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51610&print=on
Edited on Friday, July 31st to add:
I've been told that what he was saying was that there was no point in reading the current version of the bill because it was that long and complex and was going to be changed in committee anyway.
However.... it will probably be easier to understand the changes if one understands what was there to be changed, and if they had come up with a bill out of committee on Wednesday, I'd be willing to bet that they'd still expect the House to vote on it by today, even if the members hadn't had the two days and two lawyers to help them out.
Patronizing is one of the nicer terms I can think of. I mean, us poor stupid voters, how can we think that our representatives ought to know what they're doing when they vote on something?
Here is the news item, with a video clip :http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51610&print=on
Edited on Friday, July 31st to add:
I've been told that what he was saying was that there was no point in reading the current version of the bill because it was that long and complex and was going to be changed in committee anyway.
However.... it will probably be easier to understand the changes if one understands what was there to be changed, and if they had come up with a bill out of committee on Wednesday, I'd be willing to bet that they'd still expect the House to vote on it by today, even if the members hadn't had the two days and two lawyers to help them out.
HR 3200, Sec. 100, 101, 102, 111, 112.
OK, I started reading this thing and taking notes on it yesterday.
Text in red is directly from the GPO pdf of the bill.
Dr. Who is much more interesting.
DIVISION A - AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE CHOICES
Sec. 100 PURPOSE; TALBLE OF CONTENTS OF DIVISION; GENERAL DEFINITIONS
a)1) The purpose of this division is to provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending.
Will the bill ever address how you can increase the number of people utilizing our health care system without increasing the amount you need to spend?
a)2) actually uses the word "broken" to describe aspects of the health care system.
a)3) discusses how the bill will reform health insurance.
a)4) Entitled HEALTH DELIVERY REFORM
First the snarky question - how do you deliver health? Second - similar question to a1, how do you increase quality of health care to more people while spending less per person?
b) the table of contents
c) general definitions used throughout the bill, with many references to ERISA 1974
c)25) Y1 ... and similar subsequently numbered terms, mean 2013 and subsequent years, respectively.
Do most folks who are pushing for this realize that it won't help anyone for at least 4 years?
Now we get to the actual TITLE I of the bill - PROTECTIONS AND STANDARDS FOR QUALIRIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS.
Subtitle A - General Standards
Sec. 101 REQUIREMENTS REFORMING HEALTH INSURANCE MARKETPLACE
That is an exact quote from the GPO copy of the bill. Does anyone out there know what it means? Otherwise the section is actually comprehensible, at least to someone with a postgraduate level of education.
Sec. 102 PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE
a) defines grandfathered coverage. If I'm reading this right, only individual plans (not group, or employer plans) can be grandfathered. However, per b)1) there is a 5 year transition period for group plans.
a)1) beginning with day 1 of Y1, no new enrollees in existing plans, except for adding dependents.
a)2) NOTHING about a plan can change except for the premiums or other changes required by law.
a)3) defines the premium increase rules.
b)1) by the beginning of Y6, all employment based plans must meet requirements of Sec 101 for QHBPs, i.e., unless your plan already met the requirements on Day 1, Y1, YOU CAN NO LONGER KEEP YOUR
PLAN
b)2) beginning with Day1, Y1, the only individual plans for new enrollees must be QHBPs and must be Exchange participating.
Subtitle B - Standards Guaranteeing Access to Affordable Coverage
Sec. 111 PROHIBITING PRE-EXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSIONS
A short section, only one paragraph, which prohibits QHBPs from imposing pre-existing condition exclusions or limits.
Sec. 112 GUARANTEED ISSUE AND RENEWAL FOR INSURED PLANS
This is a little unclear on initial reading, partly because it references sections 2711 and 2712 of the Public Health Service Act, but it sounds like once someone is in a plan, as long as they pay their premiums they can never be dropped, for any reason. As a reasonable person, I would read this section to say that a) an insured can never be dropped unless they fail to pay their premiums, and b) as long as a single insured wishes to keep their plan, the insurer MUST keep insuring them.
Does this mean that once a plan is offered the insurance company can never stop offering it? i.e., if BigInsCo decides they no longer want to offer group plans, they must continue for as long as a single
client wishes to use that plan?
Text in red is directly from the GPO pdf of the bill.
Dr. Who is much more interesting.
DIVISION A - AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE CHOICES
Sec. 100 PURPOSE; TALBLE OF CONTENTS OF DIVISION; GENERAL DEFINITIONS
a)1) The purpose of this division is to provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending.
Will the bill ever address how you can increase the number of people utilizing our health care system without increasing the amount you need to spend?
a)2) actually uses the word "broken" to describe aspects of the health care system.
a)3) discusses how the bill will reform health insurance.
a)4) Entitled HEALTH DELIVERY REFORM
First the snarky question - how do you deliver health? Second - similar question to a1, how do you increase quality of health care to more people while spending less per person?
b) the table of contents
c) general definitions used throughout the bill, with many references to ERISA 1974
c)25) Y1 ... and similar subsequently numbered terms, mean 2013 and subsequent years, respectively.
Do most folks who are pushing for this realize that it won't help anyone for at least 4 years?
Now we get to the actual TITLE I of the bill - PROTECTIONS AND STANDARDS FOR QUALIRIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS.
Subtitle A - General Standards
Sec. 101 REQUIREMENTS REFORMING HEALTH INSURANCE MARKETPLACE
That is an exact quote from the GPO copy of the bill. Does anyone out there know what it means? Otherwise the section is actually comprehensible, at least to someone with a postgraduate level of education.
Sec. 102 PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE
a) defines grandfathered coverage. If I'm reading this right, only individual plans (not group, or employer plans) can be grandfathered. However, per b)1) there is a 5 year transition period for group plans.
a)1) beginning with day 1 of Y1, no new enrollees in existing plans, except for adding dependents.
a)2) NOTHING about a plan can change except for the premiums or other changes required by law.
a)3) defines the premium increase rules.
b)1) by the beginning of Y6, all employment based plans must meet requirements of Sec 101 for QHBPs, i.e., unless your plan already met the requirements on Day 1, Y1, YOU CAN NO LONGER KEEP YOUR
PLAN
b)2) beginning with Day1, Y1, the only individual plans for new enrollees must be QHBPs and must be Exchange participating.
Subtitle B - Standards Guaranteeing Access to Affordable Coverage
Sec. 111 PROHIBITING PRE-EXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSIONS
A short section, only one paragraph, which prohibits QHBPs from imposing pre-existing condition exclusions or limits.
Sec. 112 GUARANTEED ISSUE AND RENEWAL FOR INSURED PLANS
This is a little unclear on initial reading, partly because it references sections 2711 and 2712 of the Public Health Service Act, but it sounds like once someone is in a plan, as long as they pay their premiums they can never be dropped, for any reason. As a reasonable person, I would read this section to say that a) an insured can never be dropped unless they fail to pay their premiums, and b) as long as a single insured wishes to keep their plan, the insurer MUST keep insuring them.
Does this mean that once a plan is offered the insurance company can never stop offering it? i.e., if BigInsCo decides they no longer want to offer group plans, they must continue for as long as a single
client wishes to use that plan?
Why I don't favor a rush to "fix" health care
I spent several years on Tricare (it's still my secondary), and rather longer before that in Ireland in their NHS system. Which is why I worked hard to get a good job so I would have something NOT run by a gov't. The Navy tried quite hard to kill my eldest child, and I still have occasional problems stemming from the post-appendectomy abscess in Galway ("Oh, but 10% to 20% of all appendectomies get post-op abscesses!")
At least HR 3200 is currently not quite as bad as HR 676 - Medicare for all! No co-pays, ever! No for-profits of any kind anywhere in the health care system (we'll buy them out forcibly)! The gov't will decide in advance how much they will allow a geographical region to spend on care for the year! (Ask the UK how that's doing - no money for cleaning and other basic supplies.) A rather Orwellian/Soviet-sounding "National Board of Universal Quality and Access"! What could go wrong?
Yes, the current system needs some fixing. But handing it over to gov't bean counters to decide whether the only treatment that will cure me is "cost-effective" or if I’m far enough up the queue is not something I ever want to deal with again.
One place to start reform is letting the uninsured pay the same as is accepted from insurance. I've been charged $70 for an inhaler when Tricare's computers were down and there was no proof that I was still insured. Two days later when they were back up, the pharmacy accepted a total of $40 between insurance and co-pay for the same med. But federal law requires that they charge the uninsured full freight, even though they must accept the lower amount from the feds. Why should a lack of insurance mean you have to pay 50-100% more for all your medical care? I'd like to see a provider being allowed to recieve the same amount for the same service, no matter who pays. The feds are responsible for that, so they could fix it pretty fast, if they were willing to. However, if they did, they'd have to up what they pay, since providers tend to lose money on the federal patients, and have to make it up on privately insured, and uninsured.
We could also buy basic private insurance for all the legally-here uninsured for far less over the next 10 years than the projected costs of HR 3200.
I just worry that if we get system which divorces end users even more from the costs, inspite of gov't rhetoric, the only way to contain costs will be rationing, and then we'll end up with folks dying of curable diseases, simply because it costs too much to do detection testing, such as pap smears on women under 25, because we know that they never get cervical cancer, or because at 80 how much use will you really get out of that pace-maker?
The problems with our current delivery of quality health care and - perhaps even more so - sick care are complex, and to ram through a fix on a rapid time frame, designed by who-knows-who, and voted on by legislators who don't even read, much less understand, what they vote on, just so we can say we "fixed health care!" will create even more problems.
Utah has what looks to be a distinct possibility in improving access to health care, MA's system is going (gone?) broke, Hawai'i tried something for kids which they had to stop within 7 months, because they didn't account for human nature and it cost way more than expected. Let's see how all these experiments work before we rush into fixing a damaged, but still functional-for-the-majority system.
At least HR 3200 is currently not quite as bad as HR 676 - Medicare for all! No co-pays, ever! No for-profits of any kind anywhere in the health care system (we'll buy them out forcibly)! The gov't will decide in advance how much they will allow a geographical region to spend on care for the year! (Ask the UK how that's doing - no money for cleaning and other basic supplies.) A rather Orwellian/Soviet-sounding "National Board of Universal Quality and Access"! What could go wrong?
Yes, the current system needs some fixing. But handing it over to gov't bean counters to decide whether the only treatment that will cure me is "cost-effective" or if I’m far enough up the queue is not something I ever want to deal with again.
One place to start reform is letting the uninsured pay the same as is accepted from insurance. I've been charged $70 for an inhaler when Tricare's computers were down and there was no proof that I was still insured. Two days later when they were back up, the pharmacy accepted a total of $40 between insurance and co-pay for the same med. But federal law requires that they charge the uninsured full freight, even though they must accept the lower amount from the feds. Why should a lack of insurance mean you have to pay 50-100% more for all your medical care? I'd like to see a provider being allowed to recieve the same amount for the same service, no matter who pays. The feds are responsible for that, so they could fix it pretty fast, if they were willing to. However, if they did, they'd have to up what they pay, since providers tend to lose money on the federal patients, and have to make it up on privately insured, and uninsured.
We could also buy basic private insurance for all the legally-here uninsured for far less over the next 10 years than the projected costs of HR 3200.
I just worry that if we get system which divorces end users even more from the costs, inspite of gov't rhetoric, the only way to contain costs will be rationing, and then we'll end up with folks dying of curable diseases, simply because it costs too much to do detection testing, such as pap smears on women under 25, because we know that they never get cervical cancer, or because at 80 how much use will you really get out of that pace-maker?
The problems with our current delivery of quality health care and - perhaps even more so - sick care are complex, and to ram through a fix on a rapid time frame, designed by who-knows-who, and voted on by legislators who don't even read, much less understand, what they vote on, just so we can say we "fixed health care!" will create even more problems.
Utah has what looks to be a distinct possibility in improving access to health care, MA's system is going (gone?) broke, Hawai'i tried something for kids which they had to stop within 7 months, because they didn't account for human nature and it cost way more than expected. Let's see how all these experiments work before we rush into fixing a damaged, but still functional-for-the-majority system.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
HR 3200
So I'm starting to read this 1000+ page monstrosity. Lets see if I can make any sense of it....
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Response to a responses to post at Cranky Prof's place.
Here is the original post and comments.
Most hospitals and doctors in this country are more than happy to work with folks with no insurance. Especially the non-profit hospitals, such as the one I work at. We have foundations and other programs specifically to help people in your position. I know of no-one who has been denied lifesaving treatments solely because of lack of insurance or another way to pay. If you get your insurance through your employer, especially if it's a larger employer, the plan they offer HAS to take you, though some do deny payments on pre-existing conditions for up to 12 months. After that period, you ARE covered. And I know a lot of doctors who would rather do so-called charity work, than see medicaid or medicare patients, because at least with the charity case, their office doesn't have to spend hours trying to get the gov't to cough up the insurance payment, which is always less than the cost of the billing office's time, never mind the doctor's. And they legally DO have to bill the gov't, they can't just write it off.
I am a medical librarian, so I get to read a lot of the British medical literature - we subscribe to both Lancet and BMJ as well as some of the specialty journals. When patients have to wait over 6 months between cardiac imaging studies and the stenting those studies show is required, patients die. When studies show that of patients considered curable at the time they go on the list to recieve chemo or radiation treatment for cancer at least 10% have their disease advance to the uncurable stage before they can even begin treatment, it is obvious to most that that system is far more broken than the one in the US.
Remember, that if your insurance denies you, you have options which include legal, such as suing the bastards, changing your insurance, and if the bill is small enough, paying for it yourself. In a lot of nationalized systems, you aren't allowed to pay for procedures the gov't plan won't cover. For that matter, if the gov't plan won't cover it, the doctor probably can't even offer the procedure. If there is only one plan nationally, and it only covers certain drugs within a class, the other drugs cease to be available, as they are no longer financially viable for the manufacturer. I can't use albuterol sulfate for nebulizer treatments, since it makes me throw up for the first few doses, and then attacks my guts, which take years to recover (if ever). If the gov't plan becomes the only one, and they decide that they're only going to cover generic albuterol, and not Zopenex, I'm in deep s**t the next time I get bronchitis or pneumonia, because the xopenex will no longer be there at all, no matter how it's paid for.
I lived in Ireland for 8 years and because of my age I was on the national health system, and the waiting for anything other than my GP was months, and a lot of the stuff that had to be done at clinics was stuff my GPs here in the States have always been able to do in their offices. I've had to deal with only one drug in a given class being allowed, and that was one I had vile reactions to, so my options was to pay myself (very expensive) or do without. I was told I had a 6 to 12 month waits to have a "wart" removed at the clinic, when it wasn't even a wart, and if my GP hadn't been willing to inject a local and attack it with a scalpel, I'd have waited the 9 months or so for ineffective treatment, and then another God-knows-how-long for another appointment for them to try to figure out what it was (a dermatofibroma) and then who knows how much longer after that for an appointment to have it removed. In the US I made one appointment with a dermatologist, who looked at it (it had grown back due to not being completely excised in Ireland) and removed it that visit. And yes, my insurance covered it, but I bet it cost them a lot less than the three visits would have cost the Irish NHS.
Our system is hardly perfect, but instituting a gov't plan which due to it's subsidy by the gov't will put all the private insurers out of business it not the way to go. When patients are insulated from the actual costs of their treatments, a lot of unnecessary stuff is done (e.g. it is quite possible to diagnose appendicitis without a $2K CT scan, which also exposes the patient to LOTS of unnecessary radiation). And when there is only one plan and it's run by the gov't there will be no recourse when they tell you you're too old for a kidney transplant or a hip replacement, or not sick enough for the drugs which may not cure the problem but which will allow you to have a decent quality of life.
Most hospitals and doctors in this country are more than happy to work with folks with no insurance. Especially the non-profit hospitals, such as the one I work at. We have foundations and other programs specifically to help people in your position. I know of no-one who has been denied lifesaving treatments solely because of lack of insurance or another way to pay. If you get your insurance through your employer, especially if it's a larger employer, the plan they offer HAS to take you, though some do deny payments on pre-existing conditions for up to 12 months. After that period, you ARE covered. And I know a lot of doctors who would rather do so-called charity work, than see medicaid or medicare patients, because at least with the charity case, their office doesn't have to spend hours trying to get the gov't to cough up the insurance payment, which is always less than the cost of the billing office's time, never mind the doctor's. And they legally DO have to bill the gov't, they can't just write it off.
I am a medical librarian, so I get to read a lot of the British medical literature - we subscribe to both Lancet and BMJ as well as some of the specialty journals. When patients have to wait over 6 months between cardiac imaging studies and the stenting those studies show is required, patients die. When studies show that of patients considered curable at the time they go on the list to recieve chemo or radiation treatment for cancer at least 10% have their disease advance to the uncurable stage before they can even begin treatment, it is obvious to most that that system is far more broken than the one in the US.
Remember, that if your insurance denies you, you have options which include legal, such as suing the bastards, changing your insurance, and if the bill is small enough, paying for it yourself. In a lot of nationalized systems, you aren't allowed to pay for procedures the gov't plan won't cover. For that matter, if the gov't plan won't cover it, the doctor probably can't even offer the procedure. If there is only one plan nationally, and it only covers certain drugs within a class, the other drugs cease to be available, as they are no longer financially viable for the manufacturer. I can't use albuterol sulfate for nebulizer treatments, since it makes me throw up for the first few doses, and then attacks my guts, which take years to recover (if ever). If the gov't plan becomes the only one, and they decide that they're only going to cover generic albuterol, and not Zopenex, I'm in deep s**t the next time I get bronchitis or pneumonia, because the xopenex will no longer be there at all, no matter how it's paid for.
I lived in Ireland for 8 years and because of my age I was on the national health system, and the waiting for anything other than my GP was months, and a lot of the stuff that had to be done at clinics was stuff my GPs here in the States have always been able to do in their offices. I've had to deal with only one drug in a given class being allowed, and that was one I had vile reactions to, so my options was to pay myself (very expensive) or do without. I was told I had a 6 to 12 month waits to have a "wart" removed at the clinic, when it wasn't even a wart, and if my GP hadn't been willing to inject a local and attack it with a scalpel, I'd have waited the 9 months or so for ineffective treatment, and then another God-knows-how-long for another appointment for them to try to figure out what it was (a dermatofibroma) and then who knows how much longer after that for an appointment to have it removed. In the US I made one appointment with a dermatologist, who looked at it (it had grown back due to not being completely excised in Ireland) and removed it that visit. And yes, my insurance covered it, but I bet it cost them a lot less than the three visits would have cost the Irish NHS.
Our system is hardly perfect, but instituting a gov't plan which due to it's subsidy by the gov't will put all the private insurers out of business it not the way to go. When patients are insulated from the actual costs of their treatments, a lot of unnecessary stuff is done (e.g. it is quite possible to diagnose appendicitis without a $2K CT scan, which also exposes the patient to LOTS of unnecessary radiation). And when there is only one plan and it's run by the gov't there will be no recourse when they tell you you're too old for a kidney transplant or a hip replacement, or not sick enough for the drugs which may not cure the problem but which will allow you to have a decent quality of life.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Watching the DOW tank
Interesting how this bill that everyone was so desperate to get passed (do it now or we'll all DIIEEEEE!!!!!) isn't reassuring the markets. Porkulus is being signed today, and the markets are already down another 250. They are obviously feeling stimulated.
And concerning the actualy signing.... Remember how everyone got so upset about the car company executives flying to DC on their corporate jets. It was wasting fuel and bad for the environment, much better to spend hours in a "green" car? Well, it's just fine for the administration to fly one of the (D) senators back to DC from his mother's wake so they could get this thing passed. And then O flies himself and his family back to Chicago for the weekend, then back to DC yesterday, and off to Denver today. Between that and keeping the Oval Office at over 80° what's his carbon footprint? How come only us peons have to conserve?
And concerning the actualy signing.... Remember how everyone got so upset about the car company executives flying to DC on their corporate jets. It was wasting fuel and bad for the environment, much better to spend hours in a "green" car? Well, it's just fine for the administration to fly one of the (D) senators back to DC from his mother's wake so they could get this thing passed. And then O flies himself and his family back to Chicago for the weekend, then back to DC yesterday, and off to Denver today. Between that and keeping the Oval Office at over 80° what's his carbon footprint? How come only us peons have to conserve?
Monday, February 16, 2009
I'm having fun on twitter, under my real name, NancyGilly.
Primarily following #tcot. It's nice to know that I'm not the only one thinking torches and pitchforks, or at least tar and feathers.
Primarily following #tcot. It's nice to know that I'm not the only one thinking torches and pitchforks, or at least tar and feathers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)