Ok, the whole 'transgender rights' thing has shown up in front of the Supreme Court, so I'm going to start seeing articles and discussions and accusations and justifications on the subject, left, right, and center. I've spent some time thinking about it, and would like to present an alternate view. It starts with a question that is going to seem odd, and will probably need a small history lesson and slightly larger science lesson. I'll try to avoid being pedantic about it. So strap yourselves in...
What rights should society give to hysterical women?
I don't mean women who are laughing hysterically, or acting hysterically in grief. The term "Hysteria" used to be a genuine medical term with a genuine medical definition. Technically speaking, Hysteria was a psychoneurosis marked by emotional excitability and disturbances of the psychogenic, sensory, vasomotor, and visceral functions. (The term 'visceral' means 'involving the inner organs'.)
In practice, this became something to diagnose women with if they seemed to show emotional 'excess' (or too much restraint), sleeplessness and irritability, 'excessive' interest in sex, or even such vague and dangerous symptoms as "arguing/causing trouble with others". In short, there was this view of what women should be within society and, if they didn't meet the expectations, they had Hysteria.
So what rights should we give women who have been diagnosed with this condition? I am sure that the early Women's Rights groups would have had several ideas to offer. How about the right to not be involuntarily committed to a mental institution for the diagnosis? How about retaining the right of ownership to your own property, whether that be a house or simply a bag of trinkets? How about the right to talk about politics, read about religion, and other such activities that suggested, in that time period, a disturbance in a woman's brain?
Well, actually, Hysteria was often treated by masturbation, or by high-pressure cold water showers. So should they be asking for the right to masturbate in public?
Imagine that. Imagine a group of women before the Supreme Court, demanding the right to masturbate in public, as a necessary accommodation to their medical condition of Hysteria. Since they're actually arguing for their rights in front of a court, you know they all have to have it by the old historic definition. Ridiculous, right? Well, let's take a moment and divert from history into science.
What is the difference between a man and a woman. The transgender argument must start here. If we can't define the boundaries they want to cross, how can we discuss their efforts to cross them and society's proper reaction? So let's talk biology. I suspect that many people these days believe that the only difference between the male body and the female body is the reproductive system. Let's dispel that myth. Did you know that archaeologists can unearth a single part of the skeleton and know whether it belonged to a man or a woman? The pelvic bones are noticeably different, but there are other differences throughout the entire skeleton. The male skull has a taller and narrower brow and a more pronounced jawbone; the man's arms and legs are longer, and the bones tend to have more pronounced corners.
So let's put the skeleton aside for a moment. Did you know that every single internal organ has a different size and efficiency in a man than in a woman? Some are larger, and some are smaller. One of the complaints of feminists is that most medication dosage and effectiveness has been derived from studies on males. The female, in the pharmaceutical world, is often treated like a smaller man. I have sat in on several discussions among women with ADHD, for instance, and they all agree that all ADHD medication becomes ineffective during the few days before the onset of menstruation.
That doesn't mean that the reproductive system isn't part of the picture, of course. The body is fully interconnected, with each system supporting and affecting the others, and that's the point. A woman's heart beats at a faster resting rate on average than a man's. Her heart is smaller. That's okay, though, because her blood has less hemoglobin and more water in it by volume. It moves more easily through her circulatory system. Now here's where it gets interesting: a sex hormone is responsible for this difference. Testosterone prompts higher production of hemoglobin, making the blood thicker. In a woman, higher testosterone makes the blood more like a man's.
See, the entire body is affected by the sex hormones in various ways, and the entire body is optimized for the changes made to the body by the sex hormones. The heart, lungs, liver, spleen, kidneys, stomach and intestines - all of these changes by gender, larger or smaller, more slow-twitch or fast-twitch muscles, blood volume and ideal heart rate/blood pressure - it's all geared towards the health of the male body or the female body as a whole. Once you change part of it, like the sex hormones, you are giving your body all sorts of conflicting instructions to produce certain muscles, deposit fat in certain areas, change your blood composition, change the chemical content being processed by your liver etc. in a way that puts a great deal more wear and tear on your body. Transgender/transsexual transition surgery is done only on the reproductive organs; the transgender person is not given the heart, liver, kidneys, adrenal glands, or skeletal structure of the other sex.
Back to Hysteria, just for a second.
We now know that Hysteria isn't a thing, not really. It's a catch-all for a variety of medical conditions, many of which actually do affect the female reproductive system (such as endometriosis or fibroids) or brain differences (such as ADHD or autism, both of which present differently in women than in men). It would seem bizarre to us to diagnose a woman with autism and then explain that this meant she had to try to masturbate regularly and thus seek accommodations through the Supreme Court to pleasure herself in the workplace. In fact, to divert from that a little, autistic people are now speaking strongly against the application of ABA therapy in the 70's, 80's, and 90's, causing trauma and, sometimes, lasting physical damage, in order to force autistic people to mimic 'normal people' instead of the newer, gentler, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), which focuses more on coping techniques and self-advocacy.
But instead of asking ourselves if there is treatment for the differences in the brain that seem to set apart many transgender people, whether it be chemical or cognitive behavioral therapy, we seem caught in the Dark Ages of trying to treat thoughts in the mind by throwing every single other system in the body out of whack. The activists and their insistence on 'transgender rights' are advocating a type of ABA for these people, with the only 'natural' endgame being a chemical and surgical process that belongs back in the annals of Medieval and Victorian medicine along with Hysteria.
Transgenderism starts with the belief that your thoughts and emotions and patterns of behavior do not fit into that of your birth sex. Hysteria starts with the belief that your thoughts and emotions and patterns of behavior do not fit into that of your birth sex. Can't we do better than fighting over whether the government should be able to order a business to allow a 'transitioning male-to-female' person to wear dresses to work in a formal-attire environment?
Showing posts with label healthcare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label healthcare. Show all posts
Thursday, October 10, 2019
Thursday, July 12, 2018
Immigration and Health Care - what can we afford?
This is, as usual with me, kind of a sideways look at the issues that people have been bringing up lately, mostly in liberal forums and among liberal friends' facebook posts. The issues might seem only tangentially related, but, when I look at them together, I find an interesting set of connections. These issues are illegal immigration (specifically, open borders), and single-payer health care.
What connected the two for me was a series of articles (isn't it funny how each day seems to have a 'theme', in which articles show up in multiple disparate feeds and sources?) about the struggle that much of Western Europe is having with their health care systems, and the effect that an increased flow of refugees has had upon them. In parts of Sweden, overcrowding and a lack of funding has actually led health care groups to start giving rural families lessons on how to deliver a baby by themselves.
Now, Western Europe is learning a lesson that I learned in childhood. I did not grow up in a wealthy family. Actually, I grew up in a family that bounced back and forth between working poor and lower-middle class. At some times, we were actually quite poor by U.S. standards. We never lacked food, shelter, clothing, or medical care, however, and we actually had a fair number of nice toys. How did we do it? My mother prioritized, and she passed down that skill to us. In fact, I learned to prioritize, myself, as a child, for the toys that I wanted. I knew for a fact that I could not have all of the toys I wanted. I taught myself to think about what I wanted, check the prices, consider our family situation, and place all of my energies towards begging specifically for the subset of toys where "they can afford it" crossed with "I want it most". I found that, if I did that, I would pretty reliably wind up with what I wanted most on my birthday and Christmas, and I could build up my toybox over time on these principles. This served me well when I started earning my own money.
What happens when we look at the issues of immigration and single-payer together? Actually, I was able to come up with a chart that gave me an interesting view of the political philosophies and their response to these two issues. It is doubly interesting when I view these two issues as mutually exclusive in that we simply cannot, as a country and a society, afford both of them.
Conservatives oppose both open borders and single-payer health care. Why choose between two burdens upon the society?
Libertarians (large-L on purpose, as libertarians differ widely and overlap with conservatives) are in favor of open borders, but oppose single-payer health care. This is generally on principle, though some have tried to explain how it would still work when reality is applied.
Moderates want to kind of half-do both things; open up immigration further without inadvertently letting in the gang members and human traffickers, and have government-paid/government-involved health care without making it an actual universal social welfare program. As is usual for treading the very line of a fence without falling to either side, it's a very delicate balancing point with a very narrow margin for error.
Liberals want to do both, Western Europe be hanged (unless they're using it as an example that is, at this point, largely imaginary).
Now here's the interesting part. From what I've seen and read, there's a new (tiny) faction to consider, the one that actually deserves the badly misapplied label "Alt Right". And their stance is distinct from the rest. They seem to approve single-payer, but oppose open borders; in fact, they seem to oppose all immigration and all citizenship by people who are not white. Ironically, the system they desire is like the one that is breaking down in Sweden. Conservatives have oft celebrated the fact that our system works best in our country because of the great diversity of peoples and cultures; the Alt Right would sacrifice diversity in favor of socialism, while the Liberals seem determined against all notions of reality to force both to happen.
What connected the two for me was a series of articles (isn't it funny how each day seems to have a 'theme', in which articles show up in multiple disparate feeds and sources?) about the struggle that much of Western Europe is having with their health care systems, and the effect that an increased flow of refugees has had upon them. In parts of Sweden, overcrowding and a lack of funding has actually led health care groups to start giving rural families lessons on how to deliver a baby by themselves.
Now, Western Europe is learning a lesson that I learned in childhood. I did not grow up in a wealthy family. Actually, I grew up in a family that bounced back and forth between working poor and lower-middle class. At some times, we were actually quite poor by U.S. standards. We never lacked food, shelter, clothing, or medical care, however, and we actually had a fair number of nice toys. How did we do it? My mother prioritized, and she passed down that skill to us. In fact, I learned to prioritize, myself, as a child, for the toys that I wanted. I knew for a fact that I could not have all of the toys I wanted. I taught myself to think about what I wanted, check the prices, consider our family situation, and place all of my energies towards begging specifically for the subset of toys where "they can afford it" crossed with "I want it most". I found that, if I did that, I would pretty reliably wind up with what I wanted most on my birthday and Christmas, and I could build up my toybox over time on these principles. This served me well when I started earning my own money.
What happens when we look at the issues of immigration and single-payer together? Actually, I was able to come up with a chart that gave me an interesting view of the political philosophies and their response to these two issues. It is doubly interesting when I view these two issues as mutually exclusive in that we simply cannot, as a country and a society, afford both of them.
Conservatives oppose both open borders and single-payer health care. Why choose between two burdens upon the society?
Libertarians (large-L on purpose, as libertarians differ widely and overlap with conservatives) are in favor of open borders, but oppose single-payer health care. This is generally on principle, though some have tried to explain how it would still work when reality is applied.
Moderates want to kind of half-do both things; open up immigration further without inadvertently letting in the gang members and human traffickers, and have government-paid/government-involved health care without making it an actual universal social welfare program. As is usual for treading the very line of a fence without falling to either side, it's a very delicate balancing point with a very narrow margin for error.
Liberals want to do both, Western Europe be hanged (unless they're using it as an example that is, at this point, largely imaginary).
Now here's the interesting part. From what I've seen and read, there's a new (tiny) faction to consider, the one that actually deserves the badly misapplied label "Alt Right". And their stance is distinct from the rest. They seem to approve single-payer, but oppose open borders; in fact, they seem to oppose all immigration and all citizenship by people who are not white. Ironically, the system they desire is like the one that is breaking down in Sweden. Conservatives have oft celebrated the fact that our system works best in our country because of the great diversity of peoples and cultures; the Alt Right would sacrifice diversity in favor of socialism, while the Liberals seem determined against all notions of reality to force both to happen.
Monday, April 11, 2016
The 2016 Election Season and Asimov's Caliban
From time to time, I focus on one of the books I've read as a good way to describe and understand the political climate. Lately, I have been reminded most strongly of the Caliban trilogy, sometimes called the "Second Robot Series", written by Roger McBride Allen, but set in Isaac Asimov's 'universe' from which came the well-known Three Laws of Robotics.
While Asimov spent a lot of time delving into discussion of what would happen when the Three Laws go wrong, Allen built his trilogy based on what might happen if the Three Laws worked just as they were meant to. He envisions worlds in which the people have cocooned themselves, living in large houses by themselves, every need and whim provided by the robots. The household robots, in addition to seeking their master's physical safety, also seek to meet his emotional needs. Understanding only that change is scary, they try to keep their masters soothed by 'protecting' them from any alteration in schedule. Overuse of robots has become combined with the belief that such overuse is necessary; people may have one robot driver for each day of the week, despite the fact that just one robot comes equipped with the ability to drive the vehicle, clean the house, cook the food, and manage the master's schedule.
In the course of the trilogy, the government needs to use robot labor to fix the terraforming job on the planet of Inferno, so the number of robots permitted in each household is limited to ten. Of course, there is widespread outrage, but this occurs at the same time that a leading roboticist begins to question the role of robots and humanity's perceived need for them. Many people begin to realize that they prefer having some human agency restored to them. They find that they like choosing their own clothing, standing at a balcony without five robots fretting over whether they might suddenly fall. and basically interacting with each other and their own lives in a way they have not done for decades.
The ACA, otherwise known as Obamacare, is unquestionably an unmitigated disaster. Even in the states where it was perfectly implemented, costs have become ridiculously high. Millions of people have lost their insurance plans. The HMO/PPO plan, once considered the standard of care, is now treated like a bauble for the wealthy. Before Obamacare, 1 in 10 people refused medical care at some point during a year because they could not afford it; last year, 1 in 3 people had the same problem. Just two years previous to that, the number was 1 in 4, so the problem is worsening.
At the same time, though, Obamacare did us a service that was likely unintended by its creators. Those of us who lost our insurance and could not afford another policy are discovering what health care actually costs, and how we can save for it ourselves. Even those who have a policy are forced by higher deductibles and lower coverage percentages to think about the care we are purchasing and how we can lower our costs. Unfortunately, due to the structure of Obamacare, we cannot lower costs sufficiently to please the government without foregoing care that we need, and monthly premiums are often so high that care cannot be obtained once they have been paid. People are starting to understand that they have to choose between having insurance and affording health care.
In short, I am not praising Obamacare.
However, many conservative and libertarian proposals which seemed terrifying in the days of the HMO/PPO are now looking more and more reasonable. People have been forced off the teat and crushed under a heavy burden, and they are more amenable to changes that would lift that burden than they were when they thought that they could not survive without the teat. They are beginning to understand that a single bout of strep throat will not bankrupt them. They are beginning to realize the reality of the study done pre-Obamacare, in which the uninsured reported the same level of satisfaction, availability, and affordability of care as the average Canadian citizen.
These people, who would have panicked had they been offered a market in which the high deductible plan would likely be king when they thought that the HMO/PPO was necessary for life and health, are now far more amenable to a deregulated market. They, like the people of Inferno as they were bereft of many of their robot coddlers, are beginning to enjoy their human agency in this new situation, and many may be unwilling to return from crushing government regulation to heavy government regulation when they have much more to gain from lightening the load far more than they would have dared in the 1990's.
While Asimov spent a lot of time delving into discussion of what would happen when the Three Laws go wrong, Allen built his trilogy based on what might happen if the Three Laws worked just as they were meant to. He envisions worlds in which the people have cocooned themselves, living in large houses by themselves, every need and whim provided by the robots. The household robots, in addition to seeking their master's physical safety, also seek to meet his emotional needs. Understanding only that change is scary, they try to keep their masters soothed by 'protecting' them from any alteration in schedule. Overuse of robots has become combined with the belief that such overuse is necessary; people may have one robot driver for each day of the week, despite the fact that just one robot comes equipped with the ability to drive the vehicle, clean the house, cook the food, and manage the master's schedule.
In the course of the trilogy, the government needs to use robot labor to fix the terraforming job on the planet of Inferno, so the number of robots permitted in each household is limited to ten. Of course, there is widespread outrage, but this occurs at the same time that a leading roboticist begins to question the role of robots and humanity's perceived need for them. Many people begin to realize that they prefer having some human agency restored to them. They find that they like choosing their own clothing, standing at a balcony without five robots fretting over whether they might suddenly fall. and basically interacting with each other and their own lives in a way they have not done for decades.
The ACA, otherwise known as Obamacare, is unquestionably an unmitigated disaster. Even in the states where it was perfectly implemented, costs have become ridiculously high. Millions of people have lost their insurance plans. The HMO/PPO plan, once considered the standard of care, is now treated like a bauble for the wealthy. Before Obamacare, 1 in 10 people refused medical care at some point during a year because they could not afford it; last year, 1 in 3 people had the same problem. Just two years previous to that, the number was 1 in 4, so the problem is worsening.
At the same time, though, Obamacare did us a service that was likely unintended by its creators. Those of us who lost our insurance and could not afford another policy are discovering what health care actually costs, and how we can save for it ourselves. Even those who have a policy are forced by higher deductibles and lower coverage percentages to think about the care we are purchasing and how we can lower our costs. Unfortunately, due to the structure of Obamacare, we cannot lower costs sufficiently to please the government without foregoing care that we need, and monthly premiums are often so high that care cannot be obtained once they have been paid. People are starting to understand that they have to choose between having insurance and affording health care.
In short, I am not praising Obamacare.
However, many conservative and libertarian proposals which seemed terrifying in the days of the HMO/PPO are now looking more and more reasonable. People have been forced off the teat and crushed under a heavy burden, and they are more amenable to changes that would lift that burden than they were when they thought that they could not survive without the teat. They are beginning to understand that a single bout of strep throat will not bankrupt them. They are beginning to realize the reality of the study done pre-Obamacare, in which the uninsured reported the same level of satisfaction, availability, and affordability of care as the average Canadian citizen.
These people, who would have panicked had they been offered a market in which the high deductible plan would likely be king when they thought that the HMO/PPO was necessary for life and health, are now far more amenable to a deregulated market. They, like the people of Inferno as they were bereft of many of their robot coddlers, are beginning to enjoy their human agency in this new situation, and many may be unwilling to return from crushing government regulation to heavy government regulation when they have much more to gain from lightening the load far more than they would have dared in the 1990's.
Monday, April 13, 2015
Religious Freedom leading to higher costs for nonbelievers?
My husband and I were discussing our health insurance situation this morning. We are on that very uncomfortable line in which we may possibly see only a very small increase in income, and it will be enough to make health insurance vastly more expensive under the ACA. I listed the alternatives I'd been considering. Chief among them was a Christian medi-share program, which has held costs down by refusing to cover 'vices' (birth control, abortion, sex-change surgery, etc.) and by not being subject to all the vagueries and bizarrities of the ACA which is driving up costs all over the country.
(Aren't costs coming down? Sort of. The cost of care is rising. The amount of money spent on care is falling. How does that work? A recent study shows that 25% of insured Americans are now putting off needed care because they cannot afford it!)
This is actually not my topic for the day.
As I explained our options, I suddenly realized something strange. "The situation is crazy," I told my husband as I put dishes into the dishwasher (yes, I leave supper dishes until the next morning), "but between our intelligence and our easily-proven adherence to our faith, we should be able to get by."
The original intent of the First Amendment statement on religion was to prevent the Federal Government from interfering in the free expression of religion. Among the first and most common practices defeated by application of the First Amendment were mandates and 'taxes' requiring everyone, whether a member or not, to contribute to the state-sanctioned church. In short, one of the biggest fears the Democrats plant in our minds regarding religion is that we may, if it is not suppressed, be forced to pay extra money to the government simply for the 'crime' of not adhering to the government-approved religion.
Curiously, a twisted version of this is now happening, and the Democrats are the ones responsible.
Now that the government has been reaching deeper and deeper into our personal lives, to the point where it not only can order us to purchase medical insurance, but also decide how much we should pay, what coverages we should receive, and how our doctors should be allowed to treat our ailments, it must satisfy the First Amendment by permitting religious organizations to take an exemption. This is especially true due to the Contraception Mandate, which I've spoken of before.
Now this is the fascinating result. Since people are increasingly being pidgeonholed into expensive, inefficient government programs and not being permitted by law to solve their problems through simpler measures that work well, only the religious folk are capable of living well with less income by taking advantage of the religious exemption. By all of my research, if we get bumped just barely into that higher ACA cost level, being Christians instead of atheists is going to save us at least an estimated $5,000 per year.
I know this isn't a very new thing. The Amish, for instance, are allowed to exempt themselves from Social Security taxes, and the Social Security program is certainly problematic. However, the ACA is now kicking this disparity into high gear.
From here, we have two alternatives. The Democrats would weaken these religious exemptions, damage the First Amendment if it could not be reworded into uselessness completely, ushering in a new era of religious persecution as people of faith are forced to openly celebrate and directly fund evil of various sorts. The Republicans would reduce government reach and control until an atheist could once again receive equal treatment from the government, and the lifestyles of people of faith would not have to conflict with theirs.
(Aren't costs coming down? Sort of. The cost of care is rising. The amount of money spent on care is falling. How does that work? A recent study shows that 25% of insured Americans are now putting off needed care because they cannot afford it!)
This is actually not my topic for the day.
As I explained our options, I suddenly realized something strange. "The situation is crazy," I told my husband as I put dishes into the dishwasher (yes, I leave supper dishes until the next morning), "but between our intelligence and our easily-proven adherence to our faith, we should be able to get by."
The original intent of the First Amendment statement on religion was to prevent the Federal Government from interfering in the free expression of religion. Among the first and most common practices defeated by application of the First Amendment were mandates and 'taxes' requiring everyone, whether a member or not, to contribute to the state-sanctioned church. In short, one of the biggest fears the Democrats plant in our minds regarding religion is that we may, if it is not suppressed, be forced to pay extra money to the government simply for the 'crime' of not adhering to the government-approved religion.
Curiously, a twisted version of this is now happening, and the Democrats are the ones responsible.
Now that the government has been reaching deeper and deeper into our personal lives, to the point where it not only can order us to purchase medical insurance, but also decide how much we should pay, what coverages we should receive, and how our doctors should be allowed to treat our ailments, it must satisfy the First Amendment by permitting religious organizations to take an exemption. This is especially true due to the Contraception Mandate, which I've spoken of before.
Now this is the fascinating result. Since people are increasingly being pidgeonholed into expensive, inefficient government programs and not being permitted by law to solve their problems through simpler measures that work well, only the religious folk are capable of living well with less income by taking advantage of the religious exemption. By all of my research, if we get bumped just barely into that higher ACA cost level, being Christians instead of atheists is going to save us at least an estimated $5,000 per year.
I know this isn't a very new thing. The Amish, for instance, are allowed to exempt themselves from Social Security taxes, and the Social Security program is certainly problematic. However, the ACA is now kicking this disparity into high gear.
From here, we have two alternatives. The Democrats would weaken these religious exemptions, damage the First Amendment if it could not be reworded into uselessness completely, ushering in a new era of religious persecution as people of faith are forced to openly celebrate and directly fund evil of various sorts. The Republicans would reduce government reach and control until an atheist could once again receive equal treatment from the government, and the lifestyles of people of faith would not have to conflict with theirs.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
A Primer for Handling Anxiety Attacks
As part of my unfortunate, perpetually-undiagnosed "female complaint", each month at PMS time I do what I call "reaching into the grab bag". The "grab bag" is a hypothetical place filled with the entire list of possible PMS symptoms, which can be found on just about any medical website. I "reach into the grab bag" and I pull out three symptoms more or less at random. Those are the ones I have to deal with for that given month. The symptoms are discarded within a day or two of actual onset of menstruation, and next month I reach in for another three, at random.
This month, I happen to have picked out "anxiety attacks".
Now this is not terribly new for me. I have been officially diagnosed with "Generalized Anxiety Disorder", which basically means that I may get anxiety attacks sometimes for no particular reason. Oh, we are sure that there is a reason. Perhaps there is a hormone drop, or surge, or a neurotransmitter glitch. The problem with finding an intermittent error in any system, as I'm finding with a really bizarre personal computer problem involving a disappearing hard drive, is that if you don't catch the problem in the middle of happening, the diagnostics all check out as normal. Suffice to say that I have identified a few triggers, but have no hopes of catching all of them.
So I have decided to take a moment and create a primer, for family, friends, and whoever might benefit from the information, on how to identify and treat an anxiety attack from the perspective of the sufferer's family member, friend, or whoever happens to be accompanying her when it happens. I am doubly encouraged by a scene the Disney movie Frozen. Anxiety sufferers cringe at the reprise to "For the First Time In Forever", in which Elsa very clearly displays every sign of a physical anxiety attack, and Anna does everything wrong in trying, with an open heart and honest desire to help, to make things better. I know you guys want to help your friend. I'm going to help you figure out how.
Step 1: Identifying an anxiety attack
Anxiety attacks often start with a surge of panic. At this point, I know the feeling well enough that I don't actually feel "afraid", so I could dispassionately describe it as an adrenaline surge. It's the same feeling you get when you are driving down a snowy road, you turn the wheel, and nothing happens. In fact, the entire anxiety attack pretty much follows your physical symptoms after you do something like that. The person may start trembling, sweating, or shivering, may rest her hand near her neck to feel her heart pounding, may blink rapidly, and her breathing will change. If she's a pro at dealing with the attacks, her breathing may become deeper, slower, and more deliberate. If she doesn't have a handle on it, her breathing may become shorter, faster, and shallower. If the attack is severe or she doesn't know how to identify or manage it, she might even start to cry.
There may be no obvious trigger, and anxiety often builds to an attack (secretly and in the background) rather than hitting the rapid onset that you would feel if you had just entered a genuinely dangerous situation. She may have been mall-walking for an hour and a half and suddenly get hit with a full-fledged attack while doing nothing in particular. Even when you have been having anxiety attacks for years and are pretty well used to them, the opening surge still blindsides you.
Step 2: Shift your focus
In the scene from Frozen, the first mistake Anna makes is to assume that Elsa is "afraid", and that figuring out what is frightening her and easing her fears will make her reaction go away. This is actually 100% wrong. Whether the trigger is emotional or physical, the anxiety attack response is utterly and fully physical, and "solving the problem" will do absolutely nothing for the symptoms. In fact, attempting to "solve the problem" will be useless on two fronts: you are repeatedly applying a potential (probably a likely) trigger for the attack, and she is not going to be able to deal with any underlying emotional state in a reasonable manner. If she had an attack of leg cramps, you wouldn't push her to keep jogging while telling her that she can 'get through this'. You'd let her stop until the cramps ease and help her work them out of her leg. You need to do the same thing here.
So the wrong thing to say is, "Are you scared?" or "What are you afraid of?" or "How are things going at home?" The right thing to say is, "Are you having an anxiety attack?"
Now that isn't to say that being a counselor is the wrong thing to do overall. There is obviously an underlying stressor causing the problem, and you might want to talk to her later on and find out if it's emotional. Never do it during the attack, or even in the immediate aftermath. You want to be in "nurse mode" with your friend right now, not "counselor/psychologist mode".
You may have noticed by now that I keep using the phrase "anxiety attack" instead of "panic attack". I almost wish I could invent another word for it. When I have an attack, I am not "panicking". In fact, I'm probably completely calm to all outward appearances. I am having a physical reaction, like cramps or hives. (I am not entirely typical. Usually the person having an anxiety attack will have an emotional reaction as well. In that case... it is still merely a physical, chemical reaction and ought to be treated as one.)
Step 3: Managing an attack
Now that you know that you're dealing with a physical/medical event, you will find it much easier to learn how to treat the attack. The first and best thing to do, especially with someone who has a history of anxiety attacks, is to ask, "What can I do?" and "What do you need?" Then listen. That seems obvious, but in that Frozen scene, it is one thing that Anna does not do. Her sister puts out very clear "back away" signals and even states clearly that she is making it worse, but she just keeps persisting, certain that the Power of Friendship will solve the issue. Some people may feel better if you hold hands, or give a hug, but some will not, and it is neither your fault nor a rejection of you as a friend.
Because I am sensitive in a number of ways I don't understand, I perceive people as if they have 'zones of influence' or 'zones of personality' (commonly called 'auras', mostly in spiritual circles to which I do not belong) extending for a short distance around them. When I am dealing with an anxiety attack, I am managing my own 'aura', doing a balancing act. I do not need your 'aura' getting into my zone and throwing off all my readings. Now that's my personal experience. Frequent sufferers generally already know what works and can tell you what you can do, or just communicate whether they need closeness or space. If you are going to hug or hold hands, for heaven's sake keep yourself calm, because they might be feeding off your mood in hopes of stabilizing theirs.
There are several medical/physical steps that can shorten an anxiety attack. Forcing yourself to breathe deeply and slowly will slow the heartbeat and help kick the body off of its adrenaline surge. Massaging the vagus nerves (roughly where the jawbone meets the ear and just behind it) will also help. You could give your friend a drink and encourage her to sip it slowly once the initial surge starts to recede. Do not give her anything with caffeine in it. She should probably avoid caffeine completely for the rest of the day. Visualization also helps, but it has to be a place that she finds relaxing, not a place that you find relaxing. Though the two may coincide, don't depend on it!
If your friend has a chronic problem, she may have been prescribed medication. Alprazolam (Xanax) is a fairly common "take-as-needed" medication for anxiety attacks. Check the bottle and do her a favor - offer to drive home. Most anti-anxiety medications cause mild or marked drowsiness.
Anxiety attacks typically peak within the first ten minutes and take about a half hour to really resolve. Serious problems like allergic reactions and cardiac difficulties (she might mistake an anxiety attack for either of these, and might even be convincing to bystanders and helpful medical staff) will continue or get worse.
Step 4: Aftermath
Anxiety attacks are like earthquakes. They tire people out, and the larger ones commonly have 'aftershocks'. Your friend might need to cut your trip/visit short, eliminate an event from her schedule, or simply needs to go right home as soon as the symptoms subside. If she decides to power through the rest of the day (whether she powers through or goes home, she is just as frustrated with cutting it short as you are), just keep an eye out and be aware that the attack will have sapped her energy and lowered her ability to cope with stress triggers. If you leave the mall to find that your planned dinner spot is crammed full of noise and bright light, feel free to suggest a different spot!
Basically, just be aware that it is possible to have multiple anxiety attacks in a day, and each one weakens her resistance to the next. If the attack was severe, she might need a couple of days to fully recover.
When the physical effects of the attack have faded away, it may be a good time to encourage your friend to check on her stressors and triggers. Now is the time to find out if she has been facing a bad situation at work, or whether she is just at a bad point in her hormonal cycle. Dealing with the triggers ahead of time will prevent or at least lessen future attacks.
Be patient... anxiety disorders often require lifelong management, like diabetes or Crohn's, and it may be decades in the future (or longer!) before we can even identify the underlying problem, never mind finding a full-out cure. A person with an anxiety disorder can still lead a perfectly fine, happy, fun, fulfilling life, as long as her family and friends can patiently deal with the attacks and move on to the good stuff.
This month, I happen to have picked out "anxiety attacks".
Now this is not terribly new for me. I have been officially diagnosed with "Generalized Anxiety Disorder", which basically means that I may get anxiety attacks sometimes for no particular reason. Oh, we are sure that there is a reason. Perhaps there is a hormone drop, or surge, or a neurotransmitter glitch. The problem with finding an intermittent error in any system, as I'm finding with a really bizarre personal computer problem involving a disappearing hard drive, is that if you don't catch the problem in the middle of happening, the diagnostics all check out as normal. Suffice to say that I have identified a few triggers, but have no hopes of catching all of them.
So I have decided to take a moment and create a primer, for family, friends, and whoever might benefit from the information, on how to identify and treat an anxiety attack from the perspective of the sufferer's family member, friend, or whoever happens to be accompanying her when it happens. I am doubly encouraged by a scene the Disney movie Frozen. Anxiety sufferers cringe at the reprise to "For the First Time In Forever", in which Elsa very clearly displays every sign of a physical anxiety attack, and Anna does everything wrong in trying, with an open heart and honest desire to help, to make things better. I know you guys want to help your friend. I'm going to help you figure out how.
Step 1: Identifying an anxiety attack
Anxiety attacks often start with a surge of panic. At this point, I know the feeling well enough that I don't actually feel "afraid", so I could dispassionately describe it as an adrenaline surge. It's the same feeling you get when you are driving down a snowy road, you turn the wheel, and nothing happens. In fact, the entire anxiety attack pretty much follows your physical symptoms after you do something like that. The person may start trembling, sweating, or shivering, may rest her hand near her neck to feel her heart pounding, may blink rapidly, and her breathing will change. If she's a pro at dealing with the attacks, her breathing may become deeper, slower, and more deliberate. If she doesn't have a handle on it, her breathing may become shorter, faster, and shallower. If the attack is severe or she doesn't know how to identify or manage it, she might even start to cry.
There may be no obvious trigger, and anxiety often builds to an attack (secretly and in the background) rather than hitting the rapid onset that you would feel if you had just entered a genuinely dangerous situation. She may have been mall-walking for an hour and a half and suddenly get hit with a full-fledged attack while doing nothing in particular. Even when you have been having anxiety attacks for years and are pretty well used to them, the opening surge still blindsides you.
Step 2: Shift your focus
In the scene from Frozen, the first mistake Anna makes is to assume that Elsa is "afraid", and that figuring out what is frightening her and easing her fears will make her reaction go away. This is actually 100% wrong. Whether the trigger is emotional or physical, the anxiety attack response is utterly and fully physical, and "solving the problem" will do absolutely nothing for the symptoms. In fact, attempting to "solve the problem" will be useless on two fronts: you are repeatedly applying a potential (probably a likely) trigger for the attack, and she is not going to be able to deal with any underlying emotional state in a reasonable manner. If she had an attack of leg cramps, you wouldn't push her to keep jogging while telling her that she can 'get through this'. You'd let her stop until the cramps ease and help her work them out of her leg. You need to do the same thing here.
So the wrong thing to say is, "Are you scared?" or "What are you afraid of?" or "How are things going at home?" The right thing to say is, "Are you having an anxiety attack?"
Now that isn't to say that being a counselor is the wrong thing to do overall. There is obviously an underlying stressor causing the problem, and you might want to talk to her later on and find out if it's emotional. Never do it during the attack, or even in the immediate aftermath. You want to be in "nurse mode" with your friend right now, not "counselor/psychologist mode".
You may have noticed by now that I keep using the phrase "anxiety attack" instead of "panic attack". I almost wish I could invent another word for it. When I have an attack, I am not "panicking". In fact, I'm probably completely calm to all outward appearances. I am having a physical reaction, like cramps or hives. (I am not entirely typical. Usually the person having an anxiety attack will have an emotional reaction as well. In that case... it is still merely a physical, chemical reaction and ought to be treated as one.)
Step 3: Managing an attack
Now that you know that you're dealing with a physical/medical event, you will find it much easier to learn how to treat the attack. The first and best thing to do, especially with someone who has a history of anxiety attacks, is to ask, "What can I do?" and "What do you need?" Then listen. That seems obvious, but in that Frozen scene, it is one thing that Anna does not do. Her sister puts out very clear "back away" signals and even states clearly that she is making it worse, but she just keeps persisting, certain that the Power of Friendship will solve the issue. Some people may feel better if you hold hands, or give a hug, but some will not, and it is neither your fault nor a rejection of you as a friend.
Because I am sensitive in a number of ways I don't understand, I perceive people as if they have 'zones of influence' or 'zones of personality' (commonly called 'auras', mostly in spiritual circles to which I do not belong) extending for a short distance around them. When I am dealing with an anxiety attack, I am managing my own 'aura', doing a balancing act. I do not need your 'aura' getting into my zone and throwing off all my readings. Now that's my personal experience. Frequent sufferers generally already know what works and can tell you what you can do, or just communicate whether they need closeness or space. If you are going to hug or hold hands, for heaven's sake keep yourself calm, because they might be feeding off your mood in hopes of stabilizing theirs.
There are several medical/physical steps that can shorten an anxiety attack. Forcing yourself to breathe deeply and slowly will slow the heartbeat and help kick the body off of its adrenaline surge. Massaging the vagus nerves (roughly where the jawbone meets the ear and just behind it) will also help. You could give your friend a drink and encourage her to sip it slowly once the initial surge starts to recede. Do not give her anything with caffeine in it. She should probably avoid caffeine completely for the rest of the day. Visualization also helps, but it has to be a place that she finds relaxing, not a place that you find relaxing. Though the two may coincide, don't depend on it!
If your friend has a chronic problem, she may have been prescribed medication. Alprazolam (Xanax) is a fairly common "take-as-needed" medication for anxiety attacks. Check the bottle and do her a favor - offer to drive home. Most anti-anxiety medications cause mild or marked drowsiness.
Anxiety attacks typically peak within the first ten minutes and take about a half hour to really resolve. Serious problems like allergic reactions and cardiac difficulties (she might mistake an anxiety attack for either of these, and might even be convincing to bystanders and helpful medical staff) will continue or get worse.
Step 4: Aftermath
Anxiety attacks are like earthquakes. They tire people out, and the larger ones commonly have 'aftershocks'. Your friend might need to cut your trip/visit short, eliminate an event from her schedule, or simply needs to go right home as soon as the symptoms subside. If she decides to power through the rest of the day (whether she powers through or goes home, she is just as frustrated with cutting it short as you are), just keep an eye out and be aware that the attack will have sapped her energy and lowered her ability to cope with stress triggers. If you leave the mall to find that your planned dinner spot is crammed full of noise and bright light, feel free to suggest a different spot!
Basically, just be aware that it is possible to have multiple anxiety attacks in a day, and each one weakens her resistance to the next. If the attack was severe, she might need a couple of days to fully recover.
When the physical effects of the attack have faded away, it may be a good time to encourage your friend to check on her stressors and triggers. Now is the time to find out if she has been facing a bad situation at work, or whether she is just at a bad point in her hormonal cycle. Dealing with the triggers ahead of time will prevent or at least lessen future attacks.
Be patient... anxiety disorders often require lifelong management, like diabetes or Crohn's, and it may be decades in the future (or longer!) before we can even identify the underlying problem, never mind finding a full-out cure. A person with an anxiety disorder can still lead a perfectly fine, happy, fun, fulfilling life, as long as her family and friends can patiently deal with the attacks and move on to the good stuff.
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Your new, improved insurance company has now become That Person!
Dear [patient name],
To help you get safe, high-quality medical care, we review your health records -- your doctor visits, prescriptions, lab results, and tests and procedures. We compare your records to the highest standards of care as recommended by the medical community. If we find a way to improve your care -- or find a possible drug interaction -- we contact you. Your doctor may also be notified.
Call your doctor about this health issue
Talk to your doctor about the health message(s) on the following page.
(etc).
To Aetna:
I was motivated to write to you and let you know that I received one of your lovely new letters from your lovely new initiative to offer aid and advice that has neither been solicited nor desired.
I have a health care provider, in case you were not entirely aware. My provider has gone through years of medical school, and has many more years of experience in her field. Most importantly, my provider has actually seen me in person, listened to my concerns, and watched me for every single sign that cannot be possibly conveyed by diagnosis code, like body language, tone of voice, and nonverbal gesticulation, such as Pointing To The Part Where It Hurts.
You are my insurance company. I give you money because the government says that I have to. In return, you are supposed to pay my claims. You do not do this. Failing that, you should at least be able to negotiate a lower rate on my medical bills. You do not do this either. You managed, according to my paperwork, to bravely and skillfully talk down a $500 claim to $200, but what you did not realize was that I had already talked to the secretary and was assured that, if I had no medical insurance at all, I would not be charged more than $170. (Soon, more and more people will realize firsthand that this little game of bureaucratic footsie costs us more than it saves.)
You are not my provider. It is not your job to go peeking through my codes so that you can provide the same service that I can obtain from any harried hypochondriac who knows how to Google their way through WebMD.
My provider entered a variety of codes and information about my claim. For some bizarre reason, you decided to jump upon the least of these, and offer your utterly useless and outdated advice. The specific test that you recommended (via Harvard, alma mater of George W Bush and Barack H Obama, yippity skippity!) is based on information that has not been current for over a decade. My provider has already performed the correct, up-to-date test (as well as doing your recommended check, for different reasons involving my other, more serious health issues) and eliminated both factors as a cause.
In fact, my provider has already found the real cause for this particular issue, and we are already treating the problem properly. This is because she is, as I iterated above, my provider. She has stepped out of the bureaucratic current and actually bothered to see the patient. This has helped her to handle a case which is not (as the case often is for me) kind enough to follow the standard textbook models for your benefit.
I suggest you let my provider do her job. She's really very good at it.
Please save your money so that you can do yours.
To help you get safe, high-quality medical care, we review your health records -- your doctor visits, prescriptions, lab results, and tests and procedures. We compare your records to the highest standards of care as recommended by the medical community. If we find a way to improve your care -- or find a possible drug interaction -- we contact you. Your doctor may also be notified.
Call your doctor about this health issue
Talk to your doctor about the health message(s) on the following page.
(etc).
To Aetna:
I was motivated to write to you and let you know that I received one of your lovely new letters from your lovely new initiative to offer aid and advice that has neither been solicited nor desired.
I have a health care provider, in case you were not entirely aware. My provider has gone through years of medical school, and has many more years of experience in her field. Most importantly, my provider has actually seen me in person, listened to my concerns, and watched me for every single sign that cannot be possibly conveyed by diagnosis code, like body language, tone of voice, and nonverbal gesticulation, such as Pointing To The Part Where It Hurts.
You are my insurance company. I give you money because the government says that I have to. In return, you are supposed to pay my claims. You do not do this. Failing that, you should at least be able to negotiate a lower rate on my medical bills. You do not do this either. You managed, according to my paperwork, to bravely and skillfully talk down a $500 claim to $200, but what you did not realize was that I had already talked to the secretary and was assured that, if I had no medical insurance at all, I would not be charged more than $170. (Soon, more and more people will realize firsthand that this little game of bureaucratic footsie costs us more than it saves.)
You are not my provider. It is not your job to go peeking through my codes so that you can provide the same service that I can obtain from any harried hypochondriac who knows how to Google their way through WebMD.
My provider entered a variety of codes and information about my claim. For some bizarre reason, you decided to jump upon the least of these, and offer your utterly useless and outdated advice. The specific test that you recommended (via Harvard, alma mater of George W Bush and Barack H Obama, yippity skippity!) is based on information that has not been current for over a decade. My provider has already performed the correct, up-to-date test (as well as doing your recommended check, for different reasons involving my other, more serious health issues) and eliminated both factors as a cause.
In fact, my provider has already found the real cause for this particular issue, and we are already treating the problem properly. This is because she is, as I iterated above, my provider. She has stepped out of the bureaucratic current and actually bothered to see the patient. This has helped her to handle a case which is not (as the case often is for me) kind enough to follow the standard textbook models for your benefit.
I suggest you let my provider do her job. She's really very good at it.
Please save your money so that you can do yours.
Friday, June 6, 2014
The Law that Must Not Be Named
I noticed an interesting trend today. I've been hearing it for several months now, without really thinking about it. Today, however, it happened twice in a row, within less than a half hour, from two different people, and I found it rather disturbing. Note: I live in a state full of Independents, but most of them vote Democrat most of the time. Technically I live in a "blue state", though that doesn't quite describe the situation.
In both cases, we were talking about health insurance, because the first person was trying to help me sort out my paperwork. He was neither family nor friend; he had come specifically to "help me sign up for Medicaid", only to discover that I had already received my children's confirmation letter, and was still waiting for their cards. He nodded as I told him how our employer's PPO had more than doubled in price.
"Yes," he said. "I know, the same thing happened to me. Ever since," he began, paused, and said delicately, "the thing a few years ago, you know..."
"Yes, I know," I replied, and the conversation continued on from there.
My sister's boyfriend's mother drove in as the first fellow was leaving, and we got to talking about why he was here and the bureaucracy we were dealing with. "Oh, I know!" she said. "We lost our insurance! Right around the time that, you know..."
What is this? The Law that Must Not Be Named? Are people afraid? I talked to my House Representative staff yesterday, calling to complain about the problems with the ACA/Obamacare and the way it was affecting us. The staff member proceeded to tell me that people mistakenly thought that the ACA was involved in these problems, when in fact it was not. "Oh," I could not help saying, though I was trying to be nice, "See, I was under the impression that a law mandating a significant expansion of Medicaid had something to do with delays caused by significantly expanding Medicaid."
She deferred.
Yes, my House Representative is a Democrat and one that has remained in favor of the ACA.
A lot of people are angry about the changes. A lot of people are suffering. There are tons of stories like mine. I'm actually very lucky, in that we have not yet been turned down for treatment of serious health problems. Don't we have the right to speak up, speak out, speak amongst ourselves, and discuss this clearly? Are people afraid to criticize the ACA openly? Why are we suddenly saying "You know" and "That thing"?
This is the United States!
What's going on here?
In both cases, we were talking about health insurance, because the first person was trying to help me sort out my paperwork. He was neither family nor friend; he had come specifically to "help me sign up for Medicaid", only to discover that I had already received my children's confirmation letter, and was still waiting for their cards. He nodded as I told him how our employer's PPO had more than doubled in price.
"Yes," he said. "I know, the same thing happened to me. Ever since," he began, paused, and said delicately, "the thing a few years ago, you know..."
"Yes, I know," I replied, and the conversation continued on from there.
My sister's boyfriend's mother drove in as the first fellow was leaving, and we got to talking about why he was here and the bureaucracy we were dealing with. "Oh, I know!" she said. "We lost our insurance! Right around the time that, you know..."
What is this? The Law that Must Not Be Named? Are people afraid? I talked to my House Representative staff yesterday, calling to complain about the problems with the ACA/Obamacare and the way it was affecting us. The staff member proceeded to tell me that people mistakenly thought that the ACA was involved in these problems, when in fact it was not. "Oh," I could not help saying, though I was trying to be nice, "See, I was under the impression that a law mandating a significant expansion of Medicaid had something to do with delays caused by significantly expanding Medicaid."
She deferred.
Yes, my House Representative is a Democrat and one that has remained in favor of the ACA.
A lot of people are angry about the changes. A lot of people are suffering. There are tons of stories like mine. I'm actually very lucky, in that we have not yet been turned down for treatment of serious health problems. Don't we have the right to speak up, speak out, speak amongst ourselves, and discuss this clearly? Are people afraid to criticize the ACA openly? Why are we suddenly saying "You know" and "That thing"?
This is the United States!
What's going on here?
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Obamacare and the Flu Season
In my state, Influenza is now supposedly "Widespread". The number of reported cases approach a tenth of a percent of the general population in some areas. The news media, however, apparently does not find this to be terribly newsworthy. Their stories are focusing in another area; the effect of influenza on hospital admissions.
WFSB News, located in Hartford, says that ten percent of emergency room visits are from people with influenza symptoms. In the previous two seasons, the percentage never topped eight. Over nine percent of hospital visits are from patients with pneumonia. This percentage usually does not top six percent. Of course, WFSB is a CBS station and, as such, is part of the mainstream media. Therefore, these high percentages are attributed to a seriously terrible pandemic, something on the order of the Black Plague, perhaps. I see a different story, untold.
Democrats are not focusing much on the CBO report estimating that tens of millions of people will lose their health insurance under Obamacare. This statistic, however, hit my family and a few others whom we know personally. Our insurance premium doubled for Year 2013 to 12% of our income. Unable to afford the expenditure, we had to switch to an Obamacare-friendly catastrophic plan. (Long story. Needless to say, if we want a doctor's office appointment, we have to pay the entire thing ourselves.)
Now, I have needed medical help once for influenza, and other members of my family have had pneumonia problems several times over the years. We did not once go to the hospital. Who needs to? The doctor's office can diagnose and lay out a treatment plan with no problem at all. So who goes to the emergency room for something that can be treated at the doctor's office?
People who cannot afford healthcare.
We already know that healthcare spending is on the decline, yet the cost of actual healthcare has not waned. This piece of information fits into the same puzzle. Obamacare was supposed to lower healthcare spending. Now we know how.
WFSB News, located in Hartford, says that ten percent of emergency room visits are from people with influenza symptoms. In the previous two seasons, the percentage never topped eight. Over nine percent of hospital visits are from patients with pneumonia. This percentage usually does not top six percent. Of course, WFSB is a CBS station and, as such, is part of the mainstream media. Therefore, these high percentages are attributed to a seriously terrible pandemic, something on the order of the Black Plague, perhaps. I see a different story, untold.
Democrats are not focusing much on the CBO report estimating that tens of millions of people will lose their health insurance under Obamacare. This statistic, however, hit my family and a few others whom we know personally. Our insurance premium doubled for Year 2013 to 12% of our income. Unable to afford the expenditure, we had to switch to an Obamacare-friendly catastrophic plan. (Long story. Needless to say, if we want a doctor's office appointment, we have to pay the entire thing ourselves.)
Now, I have needed medical help once for influenza, and other members of my family have had pneumonia problems several times over the years. We did not once go to the hospital. Who needs to? The doctor's office can diagnose and lay out a treatment plan with no problem at all. So who goes to the emergency room for something that can be treated at the doctor's office?
People who cannot afford healthcare.
We already know that healthcare spending is on the decline, yet the cost of actual healthcare has not waned. This piece of information fits into the same puzzle. Obamacare was supposed to lower healthcare spending. Now we know how.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Women's Body-Altering Fashion
There was a time when women wore corsets so tightly that they actually had ribs surgically removed. They compressed their organs to the point where they did internal damage to themselves. That's because society desired for them to have smaller waists than a normal woman is naturally given.
There was a time when women practiced breast-binding. They put themselves at further risk of breast-related diseases and medical conditions. They did this because society desired them to have smaller breasts than a normal woman is naturally given. The same has been done in Asian countries with women's feet, for the same reason, with similar dangers and results.
There was a time when women were basically expected to wear four-inch high heels all over the place, to everything and everywhere. The heels pushed their leg muscles up to an unnatural extent, gave them the illusion of greater height, and eventually malformed both feet and legs... raising the risk for back injury, shortening important calf tendons, and causing permanent damage to the feet. Society desired them to have a differently shaped leg and butt than the average woman is given by nature.
More recently, I've heard of all sorts of incredible stuff that women end up doing to themselves for the sake of society's flouting of nature. Women have botox injections on their face. Increasingly, I'm hearing of women having botox injections in their butt to make it bigger and plumper. Then we have breast implants and all their associated dangers. There seems to be no end to the number of things that women treat as essential, things that have one purpose... to alter a woman's natural body in such a way as to make it more 'acceptable' to society.
Now Obama insists that hormonal contraception pills are a woman's right and so must be provided by her employer for free, even at the cost of violating the employer's and/or other employees' faith.
What is the hormonal contraception pill? To be fair, for some women, it is a needed medication. However, the majority of women taking it are/were normal, healthy women who found, yet again, that society needed them to be something different from what women naturally are. To support society's current penchant for rampant sexual promiscuity, women must render themselves artificially infertile. The pill comes with its dangers, including an increased risk of breast cancer and potentially fatal blood clots. Then again, women's attempts to alter themselves for the latest fashion have almost always resulted in painful consequences.
Obama and his group (I cannot in good conscience say 'all Democrats' as many Democrats oppose this latest move) are spinning this horrendous new directive as "women's health", and many of the discussions surrounding it have focused on pitting "women's health" or "sexual freedom" against "religious liberty". But I'd like to take a moment and put a new spin on it, asking those of you who read this post to answer this simple question:
When will society favor the real, natural woman in all of her real, natural glory?
There was a time when women practiced breast-binding. They put themselves at further risk of breast-related diseases and medical conditions. They did this because society desired them to have smaller breasts than a normal woman is naturally given. The same has been done in Asian countries with women's feet, for the same reason, with similar dangers and results.
There was a time when women were basically expected to wear four-inch high heels all over the place, to everything and everywhere. The heels pushed their leg muscles up to an unnatural extent, gave them the illusion of greater height, and eventually malformed both feet and legs... raising the risk for back injury, shortening important calf tendons, and causing permanent damage to the feet. Society desired them to have a differently shaped leg and butt than the average woman is given by nature.
More recently, I've heard of all sorts of incredible stuff that women end up doing to themselves for the sake of society's flouting of nature. Women have botox injections on their face. Increasingly, I'm hearing of women having botox injections in their butt to make it bigger and plumper. Then we have breast implants and all their associated dangers. There seems to be no end to the number of things that women treat as essential, things that have one purpose... to alter a woman's natural body in such a way as to make it more 'acceptable' to society.
Now Obama insists that hormonal contraception pills are a woman's right and so must be provided by her employer for free, even at the cost of violating the employer's and/or other employees' faith.
What is the hormonal contraception pill? To be fair, for some women, it is a needed medication. However, the majority of women taking it are/were normal, healthy women who found, yet again, that society needed them to be something different from what women naturally are. To support society's current penchant for rampant sexual promiscuity, women must render themselves artificially infertile. The pill comes with its dangers, including an increased risk of breast cancer and potentially fatal blood clots. Then again, women's attempts to alter themselves for the latest fashion have almost always resulted in painful consequences.
Obama and his group (I cannot in good conscience say 'all Democrats' as many Democrats oppose this latest move) are spinning this horrendous new directive as "women's health", and many of the discussions surrounding it have focused on pitting "women's health" or "sexual freedom" against "religious liberty". But I'd like to take a moment and put a new spin on it, asking those of you who read this post to answer this simple question:
When will society favor the real, natural woman in all of her real, natural glory?
Monday, January 10, 2011
Death Panels explained: Part 1
I've been hearing people claim that, without Obamacare, there will be medical scarcity. The truth is that Obamacare artificially creates medical scarcity. Granted, the current way Medicaid and Medicare are run already artificially creates a certain level of medical scarcity. Obamacare just makes it worse.
The new phrase to learn is "Pay for Performance". This is something that has been implemented privately already within some hospitals and publicly with some state-run programs. This is how it works: When the P4P group reimburses the doctor, they look at his rating. The rating is used as a modifier to decide how much he is reimbursed. This rating may be created in many different ways, but Obamacare has a specific means in mind.
Obamacare, I must add, reserves this wonderful new measure for Medicare and Medicaid.
Medicare and Medicaid are already notorious for under-compensating the doctors. If a Medicare patient goes to the doctor with a bad cough and is charged, say, $150 for the visit, Medicare will pay the doctor, on average, about $50-70. If our private insurance companies did that, then the doctor would charge us the other $80-100. However, in Medicare and Medicaid, the doctor is not permitted to make any effort towards regaining his lost income. Now, most doctors do not work with a profit margin of 60% of their intake. Therefore, all Medicaid and Medicare patients provide a loss.
This is, by the way, why doctor's offices will only take a certain number of Medicare or Medicaid patients. This is why it's hard for them to find doctors. Each doctor can only afford to take so much of a loss before he risks bankruptcy. Only a small percentage of his patients can come from Medicare or Medicaid.
Now P4P will create a rating for each doctor that is based nearly entirely on his cost effectiveness. What does this mean? Suppose a 95-year-old woman needs a knee replacement to remain mobile. She has two choices: Have the operation and stay on her feet, or consign herself to a wheelchair for the rest of her life. Usually, she would make that decision depending on affordability versus usefulness, and she would make it based on her own beliefs and ideals. If she is a sedentary woman, she may find the wheelchair to be an easier path, but if she is an active runner, she might think that it is worth any cost to give her that ability back again.
In Obamacare, however, if she has that operation and then dies of pneumonia 18 months later, her operation is deemed to have not been cost-effective and her doctor's score goes down.
That score is used along with a multiplier to decide how much the doctor gets paid by Medicare or Medicaid patients. If he refuses to do the operation for her, he keeps a Grade A rating and may receive something like $100, or maybe even $120, for the $150 office visits. If he does it, however, his rating drops and his reimbursement does as well, for every Medicare or Medicaid patient he takes.
Why on earth would anybody set up something like that? The problem is that liberals do not understand why the doctor makes the medical decisions that he makes. See, there really is a mild problem with doctors over-prescribing and over-treating certain situations. For instance, a patient with bronchitis is likely to be able to clear it up with his own immune system inside of a week or two. However, the doctor is likely now to prescribe antibiotics whether he needs them or not. Why?
The current system of malpractice suits allows anyone who can convince a judge that he has been wronged by his doctor to sue, not only for damages, but for 'pain and suffering' as well. Suppose that doctor does not give out the antibiotics, and tells the patient to return within a week or if certain systems develop. Suppose that patient doesn't see the doctor in a week and gets worse and worse, until he has to come in and receive an emergency course of antibiotics for, say, $800 all told. Now he can sue that doctor for $800 in costs and $10K, or maybe $100K, or any arbitrary number, for pain and suffering.
The Republican answer to this problem was a proposal to cap pain and suffering malpractice payments and to set up a special court system allowing people with medical knowledge to judge whether or not the doctor did the wrong thing. That's because the Republicans understood that the reason why doctors over-treat is because of fear of lawsuit.
Obama told us a bunch of stories about pediatricians removing tonsils from children and physicians amputating the feet of diabetics in order to make more money. That's right, Obama and those who created Obamacare firmly believe that the only reason why doctors over-treat (and perform regular acts of malpractice) is to line their own pockets. Naturally, they believe that the best way to rein in these evil doctors is to pay them less for over-treating their patients.
That leaves doctors in a catch 22. They will have a choice with Medicaid and Medicare patients between risking higher bills by being sued for perceived under-treatment or risking lower payments from the government for perceived over-treatment. Since so many doctors are still small business owners working under private practices, the best and safest answer is clear: Stop taking Medicare and Medicaid patients at all.
The new phrase to learn is "Pay for Performance". This is something that has been implemented privately already within some hospitals and publicly with some state-run programs. This is how it works: When the P4P group reimburses the doctor, they look at his rating. The rating is used as a modifier to decide how much he is reimbursed. This rating may be created in many different ways, but Obamacare has a specific means in mind.
Obamacare, I must add, reserves this wonderful new measure for Medicare and Medicaid.
Medicare and Medicaid are already notorious for under-compensating the doctors. If a Medicare patient goes to the doctor with a bad cough and is charged, say, $150 for the visit, Medicare will pay the doctor, on average, about $50-70. If our private insurance companies did that, then the doctor would charge us the other $80-100. However, in Medicare and Medicaid, the doctor is not permitted to make any effort towards regaining his lost income. Now, most doctors do not work with a profit margin of 60% of their intake. Therefore, all Medicaid and Medicare patients provide a loss.
This is, by the way, why doctor's offices will only take a certain number of Medicare or Medicaid patients. This is why it's hard for them to find doctors. Each doctor can only afford to take so much of a loss before he risks bankruptcy. Only a small percentage of his patients can come from Medicare or Medicaid.
Now P4P will create a rating for each doctor that is based nearly entirely on his cost effectiveness. What does this mean? Suppose a 95-year-old woman needs a knee replacement to remain mobile. She has two choices: Have the operation and stay on her feet, or consign herself to a wheelchair for the rest of her life. Usually, she would make that decision depending on affordability versus usefulness, and she would make it based on her own beliefs and ideals. If she is a sedentary woman, she may find the wheelchair to be an easier path, but if she is an active runner, she might think that it is worth any cost to give her that ability back again.
In Obamacare, however, if she has that operation and then dies of pneumonia 18 months later, her operation is deemed to have not been cost-effective and her doctor's score goes down.
That score is used along with a multiplier to decide how much the doctor gets paid by Medicare or Medicaid patients. If he refuses to do the operation for her, he keeps a Grade A rating and may receive something like $100, or maybe even $120, for the $150 office visits. If he does it, however, his rating drops and his reimbursement does as well, for every Medicare or Medicaid patient he takes.
Why on earth would anybody set up something like that? The problem is that liberals do not understand why the doctor makes the medical decisions that he makes. See, there really is a mild problem with doctors over-prescribing and over-treating certain situations. For instance, a patient with bronchitis is likely to be able to clear it up with his own immune system inside of a week or two. However, the doctor is likely now to prescribe antibiotics whether he needs them or not. Why?
The current system of malpractice suits allows anyone who can convince a judge that he has been wronged by his doctor to sue, not only for damages, but for 'pain and suffering' as well. Suppose that doctor does not give out the antibiotics, and tells the patient to return within a week or if certain systems develop. Suppose that patient doesn't see the doctor in a week and gets worse and worse, until he has to come in and receive an emergency course of antibiotics for, say, $800 all told. Now he can sue that doctor for $800 in costs and $10K, or maybe $100K, or any arbitrary number, for pain and suffering.
The Republican answer to this problem was a proposal to cap pain and suffering malpractice payments and to set up a special court system allowing people with medical knowledge to judge whether or not the doctor did the wrong thing. That's because the Republicans understood that the reason why doctors over-treat is because of fear of lawsuit.
Obama told us a bunch of stories about pediatricians removing tonsils from children and physicians amputating the feet of diabetics in order to make more money. That's right, Obama and those who created Obamacare firmly believe that the only reason why doctors over-treat (and perform regular acts of malpractice) is to line their own pockets. Naturally, they believe that the best way to rein in these evil doctors is to pay them less for over-treating their patients.
That leaves doctors in a catch 22. They will have a choice with Medicaid and Medicare patients between risking higher bills by being sued for perceived under-treatment or risking lower payments from the government for perceived over-treatment. Since so many doctors are still small business owners working under private practices, the best and safest answer is clear: Stop taking Medicare and Medicaid patients at all.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
The New House and Obamacare
The new House started yesterday, with a reluctant Pelosi handing the gavel to Boehner, who immediately demonstrated that he knew just what to do with it. (No, he didn't hit Pelosi in the head.)
New House rules include a reading of the U.S. Constitution on the House floor today. That's a one-time thing, but there are other rules that are very nice, including a mandatory 72-hour online posting of bills before they are voted upon. People, they're giving us the responsibility. Find the website where they are doing this (I'll give you a link when I find it myself) and read those bills! Write to your Congressmen! The 2010 midterm election should be a beginning for the TEA Party, not an end. Now is not the time to sit back and start ignoring politics, not now that we have people in there who will listen to us! Now is the time to speak!
They also have modified "pay-go" into "cut-go", meaning that new spending must be paid for by cuts elsewhere, but tax cuts do not need to be 'paid for'. Considering that Bush's tax cut resulted in more tax money received by the Federal Government, I believe that we are on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve and 'paying for' tax cuts through spending cuts is unnecessary.
Here's the rule I like best: All new bills must be accompanied by a statement in the Congressional Record pointing out the specific Constitutionally-granted Federal power being exercised in order to justify the law.
Boehner has quickly shown that he's got the balls that so many Republicans have lacked over the past four or more years. The new regulations, set up to make laws more difficult to pass, have been waived for the first order of business which has also been declared exempt of all amendments. This first order of business is a call to repeal Obamacare, plain and simple. Will they do it? Yes. Will they succeed? Not likely, but our new Republicans already have a multi-pronged plan by which to rend Obamacare into unusable pieces.
Speaking of which, I want to show this around. Five top Democrat senators sent Boehner a letter warning him that the Senate will definitely block any repeal of Obamacare, so he may as well not try, because it will be a waste of time. Boehner's office sent back a prompt reply:
Senators Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Murray and Stabenow:
By the way, YouCut has been moved from the Minority Whip website to the Majority Leader website. The choices have not changed since the previous YouCut week, but the blog strongly suggests that the next set will arrive shortly.
New House rules include a reading of the U.S. Constitution on the House floor today. That's a one-time thing, but there are other rules that are very nice, including a mandatory 72-hour online posting of bills before they are voted upon. People, they're giving us the responsibility. Find the website where they are doing this (I'll give you a link when I find it myself) and read those bills! Write to your Congressmen! The 2010 midterm election should be a beginning for the TEA Party, not an end. Now is not the time to sit back and start ignoring politics, not now that we have people in there who will listen to us! Now is the time to speak!
They also have modified "pay-go" into "cut-go", meaning that new spending must be paid for by cuts elsewhere, but tax cuts do not need to be 'paid for'. Considering that Bush's tax cut resulted in more tax money received by the Federal Government, I believe that we are on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve and 'paying for' tax cuts through spending cuts is unnecessary.
Here's the rule I like best: All new bills must be accompanied by a statement in the Congressional Record pointing out the specific Constitutionally-granted Federal power being exercised in order to justify the law.
Boehner has quickly shown that he's got the balls that so many Republicans have lacked over the past four or more years. The new regulations, set up to make laws more difficult to pass, have been waived for the first order of business which has also been declared exempt of all amendments. This first order of business is a call to repeal Obamacare, plain and simple. Will they do it? Yes. Will they succeed? Not likely, but our new Republicans already have a multi-pronged plan by which to rend Obamacare into unusable pieces.
Speaking of which, I want to show this around. Five top Democrat senators sent Boehner a letter warning him that the Senate will definitely block any repeal of Obamacare, so he may as well not try, because it will be a waste of time. Boehner's office sent back a prompt reply:
Senators Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Murray and Stabenow:
Thank you for reminding us – and the American people – of the backroom deal that you struck behind closed doors with ‘Big Pharma,’ resulting in bigger profits for the drug companies, and higher prescription drug costs for 33 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Part D, at a cost to the taxpayers of $42.6 billion.Thank you, Boehner, new Speaker of the House, for showing the rest of them how it's done.
The House is going to pass legislation to repeal that now. You’re welcome.
- Speaker-Designate John Boehner’s Press Office
By the way, YouCut has been moved from the Minority Whip website to the Majority Leader website. The choices have not changed since the previous YouCut week, but the blog strongly suggests that the next set will arrive shortly.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Yesterday, I took my copy of Disney's Hunchback of Notre Dame to my grandmother's house. She hasn't kept up with Disney movies since Pocahontas, and I wanted to assure her that they were still turning out quality stuff. I went alone, because the kids are too young to see it, and we sat and visited afterwards.
This post has nothing to do with the Hunchback whatsoever.
We got to talking about Obamacare and its implications for the aging. It wasn't until I was driving home, however, that a really odd thought hit me.
Our parents take care of us when we are infants, when we're young children, patiently changing our diapers and mashing our food and talking to us when we can't talk in return. I've always thought that one good deed deserves another, and so this culture teaches us that we pay our gratitude forward in caring for our own children. Increasingly, we are teaching and therefore learning that the way of things is that the children are our future and of utmost importance, while the job of the elderly is to pass on and allow the younger ones to take the field.
I am now thinking that this is wrong.
Instead, this is what happens. When you are a child, your parents care for you. As you mature, however, they slowly begin to revert. As a person gets older, he finds his memory beginning to slip. His words become muddled. He may no longer be able to reliably clean up after himself. He may lose his teeth. He is 'regressing' in behavior and abilities to a more childlike state. That is when you pay, not forward, but back.
That is when the right thing to do is to care for your childlike elderly parent as that parent has cared for you. That is when you return all the gentility and dignity with which they have endowed you.
Of course you should care for your own children, but not out of a debt to your parents. You care for them because you love them and give of yourself, literally, for their creation and subsistence. You do not repay a debt to your parents by raising your children and abandoning the elderly to their fate. You repay a debt to your parents by caring for your parents.
My grandmother is still in full possession of her faculties. She and my grandfather still live independently. I hope I will always find time to spend with them while they can still intelligently answer my questions and share their thoughts and discoveries. As they age and become more childlike, I hope I will be able to give them the same care, kindness, and basic human decency as they gave me when I was 'knee-high to a grasshopper'.
This post has nothing to do with the Hunchback whatsoever.
We got to talking about Obamacare and its implications for the aging. It wasn't until I was driving home, however, that a really odd thought hit me.
Our parents take care of us when we are infants, when we're young children, patiently changing our diapers and mashing our food and talking to us when we can't talk in return. I've always thought that one good deed deserves another, and so this culture teaches us that we pay our gratitude forward in caring for our own children. Increasingly, we are teaching and therefore learning that the way of things is that the children are our future and of utmost importance, while the job of the elderly is to pass on and allow the younger ones to take the field.
I am now thinking that this is wrong.
Instead, this is what happens. When you are a child, your parents care for you. As you mature, however, they slowly begin to revert. As a person gets older, he finds his memory beginning to slip. His words become muddled. He may no longer be able to reliably clean up after himself. He may lose his teeth. He is 'regressing' in behavior and abilities to a more childlike state. That is when you pay, not forward, but back.
That is when the right thing to do is to care for your childlike elderly parent as that parent has cared for you. That is when you return all the gentility and dignity with which they have endowed you.
Of course you should care for your own children, but not out of a debt to your parents. You care for them because you love them and give of yourself, literally, for their creation and subsistence. You do not repay a debt to your parents by raising your children and abandoning the elderly to their fate. You repay a debt to your parents by caring for your parents.
My grandmother is still in full possession of her faculties. She and my grandfather still live independently. I hope I will always find time to spend with them while they can still intelligently answer my questions and share their thoughts and discoveries. As they age and become more childlike, I hope I will be able to give them the same care, kindness, and basic human decency as they gave me when I was 'knee-high to a grasshopper'.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
When the doctor is wrong
Most mothers of young children will run across this problem at one time or another. It seems that the standard pediatrician office, even the excellent one, still may be behind the times in dealing with child-rearing. Their advice is unlikely to hurt your child, but you still may end up reading the newer publications and gaining quite a different opinion from theirs. What do you do then?
I ran across this problem just a few days ago. My daughter had her nine-month appointment, and they checked her weight and height. Her height was fine by their standards, lying right along the same point in the growth curve as her last appointments. Her weight, however, had barely moved. She had not lost any weight, but she did not gain enough to maintain her point on the curve, or even the point below it.
"We're not concerned yet," the pediatrician told me. "But I would like for you to push solids four or five times daily. Sit her down in her chair and feed her all she'll take. I'm an advocate of breastfeeding, and I breastfed my own children, the last one for two and a half years. But sometimes they just need that extra help. Besides, they say that you need to introduce solids during this time period or the child may become resistant to them."
Fair enough, I suppose. So I took her home and gave it a try.
My first problem was that my baby is not interested in solids. Oh, she loves to eat from a spoon, but she'll only consume an ounce or two before losing interest. To put this into perspective, the baby food jars labeled for her age are six ounce containers. Then, despite having eaten only one ounce of food, she will skip half a nursing session. That means that she loses probably about four ounces of breastmilk for one or two ounces of solids. The calorie count of solids runs from seven calories per ounce for vegetables like carrots or green beans to eighteen calories per ounce for a banana and cereal mixture. The average calorie count for breastmilk is twenty calories per ounce. So this effort is not likely to help her gain any extra weight.
I suppose that many doctors assume that low weight gain after six months on mostly breastmilk is a case of low milk output from the mother, and we will be able to add solids without reducing the amount of nursing sessions. This is not the case for my baby. I'm an overproducer, and she just isn't hungry.
My mother assured me that I underwent the exact same weight change at the exact same age. I told her the doctor's recommendations, and she told me that her doctor had made the exact same recommendation... thirty years ago! She had obediently pushed solids. "Did it work?" I asked. "Did I gain the way they wanted to see?" No, I hadn't, but introducing more solids into my diet hadn't seemed to hurt, either.
This is not the case for my baby, which brings me to the second problem with following the pediatrician's advice. From her earliest days, my baby has been strongly prone to intestinal trouble. Every feeding results in gassiness, and she used to have frequent episodes of reflux. These episodes died down over the past month or two, and I was hoping that the trouble was behind her. Every time I feed her, I sit with her for a while afterwards and help her work the worst of the bubbles out of her body.
Now I'd like to take this moment to clarify that I have not actually refused to start her on solids. In the morning, either I or my mother (if I am working) tries her on a basic, First-Foods item. She'll eat an ounce of it, or, some days, two ounces. It causes her a little bit of intestinal discomfort at times, but not too much. Then, in the late afternoon, she often gets fussy and wants frequent feedings while I'm trying to get supper on the table. I sit her in her chair and give her a handful of Cheerios. She eats most of them, and I get a break to cook and eat!
I took her home from the doctor's office and started her immediately on the solids regimen. On the first day, she ate pretty well, and I thought that this was surely the right thing to do! But on the second day, her appetite had fallen off significantly, and by the third she was in agony for most of the day with stomach trouble and constipation. On the fourth day, she ate very little and then threw up in the evening...
What do you do when the doctor is wrong?
I had a long talk with my mother and with the lactation consultant, and they both told me the same thing I had already guessed in my own heart. This baby is not like the typical bottle-fed baby not moving to the next step quickly enough. This baby is a different case. It's in her genetics to slow her weight gain at this juncture. Her ribs do not show, she has little fat folds on her legs, and she sleeps through the night. She is a very happy, active, healthy baby when she is not having severe intestinal pain. I have been reading about some babies whose intestinal tract mature more slowly than others. Some of them need to be nearly exclusively breastfed for two or three years as they are very slowly transitioned to other foods. Nearly all of them have shed the majority of their difficulties by age six.
Therefore, I am going on record to say that I will not be following my pediatrician's advice. I am going to return to her previous schedule, with a mashed food introduced in the morning and Cheerios (or bread) given in the evening, and I am going to keep breastfeeding her as much as she'll take. Now for the concern... am I going to get into trouble?
In this country, there seems to be a movement towards further government interference in the health of the population, which often translates to further government interference in the raising of young children. Already, doctors can label a child with the dreaded FTT (Failure To Thrive), and that diagnosis can cause a good parent all sorts of trouble if that good parent would rather follow the guidelines of the World Health Organization instead of the conventional wisdom of thirty years ago. Some pediatricians are more proactive than others and will put you in contact with the dreaded Social Services... simply over their disagreement with your method of parenting.
Some pediatrician groups are convinced that they know what's best for your child and you do not. These are the ones who groan when they find out that one or more of your children are homeschooled, because that immediately puts you into a different group entirely, an independent-thinking, intelligent woman who is not likely to follow their advice to the letter if she disagrees with it. Admittedly, sometimes they have cause for concern. At times like this, however, it may simply mean that they become frustrated with the mother's refusal to fit like a cog into the Great Machine.
Now I may be maligning my own pediatric group, so let me state that they have typically taken the individual approach much more kindly than most. I do not foresee being sent to Social Services over the amount of green beans that my baby may not be consuming instead of breastmilk. Still, I find myself making my decision and then preparing for my next appointment as if for battle, to fight for my right to care for this baby in the way I feel best.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Sheeple
It's been a good couple of days for this old accusation. Let me take a moment and repeat verbatim what I was told on my journal recently:
This happened over the weekend, and Rush Limbaugh was not there to tell us poor sheeple what to think. We got the next best thing, however, when the American Family Association (Dr. Dobson's "empire") released a statement on Facebook giving praise that the amendment had been added to the bill. There, we sheeple were told what to think. Right? People like the poster quoted above, would probably think so.
That's not what happened.
The majority of comments were not in agreement with AFA. Within ten minutes, over thirty people had weighed in to explain that the amendment was not a victory, as without it the bill probably would not have passed. These people having been given the cues to cheer, refused. Each one spoke with different wording, and many approached the issue from different angles, making it very unlikely that they were parroting from the same source.
Now, the first Rush Limbaugh show since the vote is running. The transcripts have, of course, not yet been released, but the gist of it is that Rush was talking about the terrorist attack until a caller brought up the healthcare bill. What did the caller say? He said that he wasn't happy about the Stupak amendment merely because it made the healthcare bill a pleasant enough pill for the blue dog Democrats to get on board and pass it.
Think about that for a moment. We sheeple, who are supposed to take our cues from our masters, openly defied one and told another what we thought of the issue before he even brought it up. Isn't that kind of odd behavior for people who can't form an opinion on their own?
The sheer fact that you take Rush Limbaugh seriously tells me that I shouldn't pay attention to anything you have to say at all. Thanks for being such a sheeple, and for not actually thinking through what Rush says.I was thinking about this when I heard that the House had passed a healthcare bill even larger and more dangerous than the one we successfully shot down in town hall meetings earlier this year. It seems that the Stupak Amendment, which prohibits federal funding of abortion in government-run health care, was added to the bill and several blue-dog Democrats decided to vote in favor.
This happened over the weekend, and Rush Limbaugh was not there to tell us poor sheeple what to think. We got the next best thing, however, when the American Family Association (Dr. Dobson's "empire") released a statement on Facebook giving praise that the amendment had been added to the bill. There, we sheeple were told what to think. Right? People like the poster quoted above, would probably think so.
That's not what happened.
The majority of comments were not in agreement with AFA. Within ten minutes, over thirty people had weighed in to explain that the amendment was not a victory, as without it the bill probably would not have passed. These people having been given the cues to cheer, refused. Each one spoke with different wording, and many approached the issue from different angles, making it very unlikely that they were parroting from the same source.
Now, the first Rush Limbaugh show since the vote is running. The transcripts have, of course, not yet been released, but the gist of it is that Rush was talking about the terrorist attack until a caller brought up the healthcare bill. What did the caller say? He said that he wasn't happy about the Stupak amendment merely because it made the healthcare bill a pleasant enough pill for the blue dog Democrats to get on board and pass it.
Think about that for a moment. We sheeple, who are supposed to take our cues from our masters, openly defied one and told another what we thought of the issue before he even brought it up. Isn't that kind of odd behavior for people who can't form an opinion on their own?
Friday, October 9, 2009
So simple, even a housewife can understand
This feels strange. These days, I read the news, and I immediately spot the flaws in the Democrats' plans. I do not own a business. I have had no formal education in business. My bachelor's degree is in Computer Science, for heaven's sake. Yet still, I can read these proposals, and the flaws show as clear as day for me. Is there something unusual about me, or about them?
Today's beauty comes from a Reuters article that I picked up from Newsmax:
Only a fool would consider it a victory to let someone else take his profits and use them to buy his product.
Remember that profit is what's left after you have paid for your supplies and paid your workers. It's the part that you get to keep for yourself. It's a percentage, sometimes a small percentage, of what your actual product costs. In this plan, you are only going to recover a small percentage of what was taken away.
Now we've had some discussions about profit. Where does it actually go? It pays the salary of the business owner. So technically, if you earn $25,000 per year as a business owner, you have a profit margin of $25,000. In this society, however, it is also paid out in percentages to stockholders. Who owns stock in the company? Why, anybody can own stock, including the workers, who often are given stock as part of their pay.
If your salary is being decreased by the government and you need more money, the only way to do it is to lower your costs or raise the price of your product.
So where will this "windfall tax" money be coming from? Part of it will come from the CEO's salary, and I am sure that's what the Democratic Party is claiming as the source of the entire tax. In truth, only part, probably a small part, will come from there. The rest of the money will come from the middle and lower class in the form of raised premiums, lower stock returns, and fewer workers employed.
Yet again, the Democrat plan basically involves taking from us to spend on us... retaining a percentage for their own purposes, of course. It's a scam, and as scams go it may look good on the surface, but it is fundamentally flawed.
I'm just bewildered that it seems so obvious to me. After all, I am not one of the elite ruling class that the Democrats deem capable of making my own financial decisions. How can I be clever enough to understand the problems with the way they want to spend my money?
Today's beauty comes from a Reuters article that I picked up from Newsmax:
Democrats are looking at the possibility of a windfall profits tax on insurance companies as part of healthcare reform, House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Thursday.
Pelosi said she had asked House Ways and Means Committee chairman Charles Rangel to examine the possibility and report back to her.
"This is very preliminary," she told reporters.
But she added that insurance companies would get some 50 million new consumers, many subsidized by taxpayers, under reforms Democrats are planning and "we think they can put more on the table."
Okay, it doesn't take a genius to put this plan together. We're talking about switching out the public option (at least in part) for taxpayer-subsidized private options, kind of like what Congress has... but not quite as posh. It seems they want to keep from raising taxes on the middle class by doing it to the insurance companies instead.
Only a fool would consider it a victory to let someone else take his profits and use them to buy his product.
Remember that profit is what's left after you have paid for your supplies and paid your workers. It's the part that you get to keep for yourself. It's a percentage, sometimes a small percentage, of what your actual product costs. In this plan, you are only going to recover a small percentage of what was taken away.
Now we've had some discussions about profit. Where does it actually go? It pays the salary of the business owner. So technically, if you earn $25,000 per year as a business owner, you have a profit margin of $25,000. In this society, however, it is also paid out in percentages to stockholders. Who owns stock in the company? Why, anybody can own stock, including the workers, who often are given stock as part of their pay.
If your salary is being decreased by the government and you need more money, the only way to do it is to lower your costs or raise the price of your product.
So where will this "windfall tax" money be coming from? Part of it will come from the CEO's salary, and I am sure that's what the Democratic Party is claiming as the source of the entire tax. In truth, only part, probably a small part, will come from there. The rest of the money will come from the middle and lower class in the form of raised premiums, lower stock returns, and fewer workers employed.
Yet again, the Democrat plan basically involves taking from us to spend on us... retaining a percentage for their own purposes, of course. It's a scam, and as scams go it may look good on the surface, but it is fundamentally flawed.
I'm just bewildered that it seems so obvious to me. After all, I am not one of the elite ruling class that the Democrats deem capable of making my own financial decisions. How can I be clever enough to understand the problems with the way they want to spend my money?
Sunday, August 9, 2009
How dare you question my wisdom?
It looks as if town hall meetings are no longer meant to give us a forum in which to express our concerns and hear lawmakers try to support their decisions. It is now a forum in which the lawmakers tell us what we are going to roll over and allow them to do. It is no longer a place of persuasion and debate, but a place of demands and coercion. What happened?
Well, apparently Obama got tired of hearing people object to his plan, and so he rustled up his union buddies to go attend these town hall meetings. The result: Thursday night featured the first bouts of actual violence in the entire government-run healthcare debate.
A note about the protestors and town hall participants: They raised their voices. They held signs. They chanted sometimes. That's it. They are not violent people. They are not terrorists. They're people like you and me. The initial town hall meetings reminded me a bit of heavy metal fans. Now that probably sounds like an odd correlation to make. Let me explain it.
My sister and I attended a heavy metal concert with a couple of other friends. We found ourselves, country mice on a long journey, in the part of Poughkeepsie where the cops don't go, in line with a bunch of people (mostly men) wearing black leather, chains, spikes, ponytails, and various piercings. To hear the major news media reporting on town hall protests, you'd think these people had attended them. You might not be off the mark.
Why? Because they turned out to be the friendliest, gentlest, most respectable and respectful people you could hope to share an auditorium with. Imagine this: at a standing-room-only concert, I tried to step forward to get a better look at the band. The people in the audience readily parted for me, giving me an excellent view close to the stage. You could get bumped into in a crowd like that, but not without an exchange of "I'm sorry" and "Excuse me" and "That's alright". There were a couple of bouncers on hand, who were not needed. There was no violence, no trampling, no accidental injury, and the fans even left the place clean as it was when they arrived.
From what I have seen and heard of the town meetings, the people were very much like that. They would rail and shout, but nobody was getting trampled, nobody was getting separated from their group, and nobody was getting frightened... except for the Democrats up on stage, who are not used to having their wisdom questioned and did not know how to deal with well-reasoned opposition from the people who are supposed to follow like sheep.
Then Obama spoke up. He sent out emails to his supporters asking them to show up at the town hall meetings to shout down the protesters. This act made apparent that he was not looking for actual discussion. At the absolute best, he was hoping for a photo-op of people not disagreeing with his plan. Oh, he got a photo-op alright. The pictures and video taken of the violence has hit Youtube and, as the phrase goes, "gone viral". (This despite having not hit the major news media in any way except a vague sort of "there was violence between opposing groups" without revealing who was actually throwing people against walls.)
Now I've heard people raise various possibilities of why Thursday night's violence happened. The kindest opinion, however, is just as bad as the least kind. The least kind opinion is pretty obvious. Many people believe that Barry Obama, Chicago politician, purposely rounded up the union people in order to intimidate and attack the town hall attendees. They account the violence, which resulted in torn shirts, bruising, and one man beaten into the hospital, directly to his fault. They view him as a modern-day crime boss telling his minions to go out there and break a few knees.
The kindest opinion is that Obama is so blindingly inept at the only job he has any real experience in, community organizing, that he simply did not know what happens when you ask union officials to get their guys to show up and provide a counter to a protest. Despite my adventures to places like heavy metal concerts, I have grown up in a fairly sheltered community, among Christians and homeschoolers, in a rural neighborhood. Even I knew exactly what was going to happen once union thugs got involved in this wasn't-yet-a-mess. If even a rural Connecticut housewife knows how they behave, how could an urban community organizer and Chicago politician have no clue whatsoever?
Of course, this raises serious questions about our president. Is he utterly inept and astonishingly naive? Or is he purposely intimidating ordinary citizens with the only means of force that will target innocent people? Note that these first clashes were not against police (who were already monitoring the protests long before Thursday) or military (who have not been called in), but union people proudly wearing their union shirts.
In either case, it seems that the one thing the Democrats do not want us to do is to object to their plans. They are not interested in compromise; they are not even interested in our opinion. Now we find out whether they can strong-arm the American People into backing down and giving them their own way. If this issue is decided by force, our way of life just might be over.
Well, apparently Obama got tired of hearing people object to his plan, and so he rustled up his union buddies to go attend these town hall meetings. The result: Thursday night featured the first bouts of actual violence in the entire government-run healthcare debate.
A note about the protestors and town hall participants: They raised their voices. They held signs. They chanted sometimes. That's it. They are not violent people. They are not terrorists. They're people like you and me. The initial town hall meetings reminded me a bit of heavy metal fans. Now that probably sounds like an odd correlation to make. Let me explain it.
My sister and I attended a heavy metal concert with a couple of other friends. We found ourselves, country mice on a long journey, in the part of Poughkeepsie where the cops don't go, in line with a bunch of people (mostly men) wearing black leather, chains, spikes, ponytails, and various piercings. To hear the major news media reporting on town hall protests, you'd think these people had attended them. You might not be off the mark.
Why? Because they turned out to be the friendliest, gentlest, most respectable and respectful people you could hope to share an auditorium with. Imagine this: at a standing-room-only concert, I tried to step forward to get a better look at the band. The people in the audience readily parted for me, giving me an excellent view close to the stage. You could get bumped into in a crowd like that, but not without an exchange of "I'm sorry" and "Excuse me" and "That's alright". There were a couple of bouncers on hand, who were not needed. There was no violence, no trampling, no accidental injury, and the fans even left the place clean as it was when they arrived.
From what I have seen and heard of the town meetings, the people were very much like that. They would rail and shout, but nobody was getting trampled, nobody was getting separated from their group, and nobody was getting frightened... except for the Democrats up on stage, who are not used to having their wisdom questioned and did not know how to deal with well-reasoned opposition from the people who are supposed to follow like sheep.
Then Obama spoke up. He sent out emails to his supporters asking them to show up at the town hall meetings to shout down the protesters. This act made apparent that he was not looking for actual discussion. At the absolute best, he was hoping for a photo-op of people not disagreeing with his plan. Oh, he got a photo-op alright. The pictures and video taken of the violence has hit Youtube and, as the phrase goes, "gone viral". (This despite having not hit the major news media in any way except a vague sort of "there was violence between opposing groups" without revealing who was actually throwing people against walls.)
Now I've heard people raise various possibilities of why Thursday night's violence happened. The kindest opinion, however, is just as bad as the least kind. The least kind opinion is pretty obvious. Many people believe that Barry Obama, Chicago politician, purposely rounded up the union people in order to intimidate and attack the town hall attendees. They account the violence, which resulted in torn shirts, bruising, and one man beaten into the hospital, directly to his fault. They view him as a modern-day crime boss telling his minions to go out there and break a few knees.
The kindest opinion is that Obama is so blindingly inept at the only job he has any real experience in, community organizing, that he simply did not know what happens when you ask union officials to get their guys to show up and provide a counter to a protest. Despite my adventures to places like heavy metal concerts, I have grown up in a fairly sheltered community, among Christians and homeschoolers, in a rural neighborhood. Even I knew exactly what was going to happen once union thugs got involved in this wasn't-yet-a-mess. If even a rural Connecticut housewife knows how they behave, how could an urban community organizer and Chicago politician have no clue whatsoever?
Of course, this raises serious questions about our president. Is he utterly inept and astonishingly naive? Or is he purposely intimidating ordinary citizens with the only means of force that will target innocent people? Note that these first clashes were not against police (who were already monitoring the protests long before Thursday) or military (who have not been called in), but union people proudly wearing their union shirts.
In either case, it seems that the one thing the Democrats do not want us to do is to object to their plans. They are not interested in compromise; they are not even interested in our opinion. Now we find out whether they can strong-arm the American People into backing down and giving them their own way. If this issue is decided by force, our way of life just might be over.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
We value your input
"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."
This simple statement has set off a firestorm across the country, among just about everybody who opposes the Democrat-proposed government-run health care plan, which is a majority, and even among some who support the plan. Some have argued that the White House plans to make an 'enemies list' by identifying people who disagree with them. Others have scoffed at the notion, noting that we have not currently lost the right to free speech. One person said, "Has it ever occurred to you knuckle-dragging sheep that he just wants your input?"
I immediately answered, "No."
I find myself once more in the "middle of the right". I do not believe that the original intent of this post was to mark conservatives for destruction. I don't think we'll be wearing little yellow stars on our coats anytime soon. After all, we outnumber him, and the military is majority-conservative. Even the liberal members would not fire on their own, and yes, I have heard that many of them are already considering what they would do if they were asked. The atmosphere is that volatile. Still, as I said, I don't take the worst possible interpretation of the White House request.
Even so, the nicest possible interpretation is not good. I answered "No" because Obama has not shown any interest whatsoever in changing his bill to meet our concerns. He has merely claimed that he wants to hear them so that he can refute them, so that he can explain them away, so that we will 'see the light' and stop opposing his plan. I also noted that the original forum poster listed a fact and a group of people were heartily agreeing with it, while Obama was trying to force something down our throats that we don't want "for our own good". Who was treating us like "knuckle-dragging sheep"? As you might have guessed, I was a little riled.
I have good reason to be. Under ordinary circumstances it would be nothing more than a poor choice of wording. However, with this administration, we have to look at it with the 'abusive-boyfriend principle' I noted in my previous post. "Joe the Plumber" opposed Obama's plans within Obama's earshot and look what happened to him. Then we got the Homeland Security memo that labeled those who peaceably assemble to protest liberal policies as "terrorist-lite". Now Obama wants to know what YOU think of his plan. Of course, his request has a nasty little Orwellian twist to it.
The White House blog could have said: "We understand that you have some concerns about the plan. Please feel free to send those concerns to this address so that we can address them." We're not fools, and we'd still know that he was interested more in denying our concerns than incorporating language into the bill to put our minds at ease. It still would have been an improvement over what was said, which basically amounts to this:
"We want you to send us logs of private conversations you've had with people who oppose this bill."
The same person who called me a knuckle-dragging sheep claimed that Obama was only looking for our opinion. I replied, "If you want our opinion, ask us to send in OUR opinion! Don't ask people to send in their NEIGHBOR's opinions!" That wording alone, even without the example of "Joe the Plumber", is enough to rattle a generation who grew up learning how Things Were Done in the Soviet Union. If a secretly-recorded conversation is submitted in a court case, the judge must rule whether it is admissible as evidence. Shouldn't there be some sort of consideration taken before asking people to basically submit private conversations to the Federal Government?
This nation, God love 'em, is still full of the same types of personalities who stood up to the British long ago. It is still full of people who emigrated here to escape totalitarian regimes. I have heard from a number of people who have chosen to send their own concerns about the White House request for other people's private conversations straight to that email. I am going to join them and send this post...
...but I'll use my spam-catcher email address.
This simple statement has set off a firestorm across the country, among just about everybody who opposes the Democrat-proposed government-run health care plan, which is a majority, and even among some who support the plan. Some have argued that the White House plans to make an 'enemies list' by identifying people who disagree with them. Others have scoffed at the notion, noting that we have not currently lost the right to free speech. One person said, "Has it ever occurred to you knuckle-dragging sheep that he just wants your input?"
I immediately answered, "No."
I find myself once more in the "middle of the right". I do not believe that the original intent of this post was to mark conservatives for destruction. I don't think we'll be wearing little yellow stars on our coats anytime soon. After all, we outnumber him, and the military is majority-conservative. Even the liberal members would not fire on their own, and yes, I have heard that many of them are already considering what they would do if they were asked. The atmosphere is that volatile. Still, as I said, I don't take the worst possible interpretation of the White House request.
Even so, the nicest possible interpretation is not good. I answered "No" because Obama has not shown any interest whatsoever in changing his bill to meet our concerns. He has merely claimed that he wants to hear them so that he can refute them, so that he can explain them away, so that we will 'see the light' and stop opposing his plan. I also noted that the original forum poster listed a fact and a group of people were heartily agreeing with it, while Obama was trying to force something down our throats that we don't want "for our own good". Who was treating us like "knuckle-dragging sheep"? As you might have guessed, I was a little riled.
I have good reason to be. Under ordinary circumstances it would be nothing more than a poor choice of wording. However, with this administration, we have to look at it with the 'abusive-boyfriend principle' I noted in my previous post. "Joe the Plumber" opposed Obama's plans within Obama's earshot and look what happened to him. Then we got the Homeland Security memo that labeled those who peaceably assemble to protest liberal policies as "terrorist-lite". Now Obama wants to know what YOU think of his plan. Of course, his request has a nasty little Orwellian twist to it.
The White House blog could have said: "We understand that you have some concerns about the plan. Please feel free to send those concerns to this address so that we can address them." We're not fools, and we'd still know that he was interested more in denying our concerns than incorporating language into the bill to put our minds at ease. It still would have been an improvement over what was said, which basically amounts to this:
"We want you to send us logs of private conversations you've had with people who oppose this bill."
The same person who called me a knuckle-dragging sheep claimed that Obama was only looking for our opinion. I replied, "If you want our opinion, ask us to send in OUR opinion! Don't ask people to send in their NEIGHBOR's opinions!" That wording alone, even without the example of "Joe the Plumber", is enough to rattle a generation who grew up learning how Things Were Done in the Soviet Union. If a secretly-recorded conversation is submitted in a court case, the judge must rule whether it is admissible as evidence. Shouldn't there be some sort of consideration taken before asking people to basically submit private conversations to the Federal Government?
This nation, God love 'em, is still full of the same types of personalities who stood up to the British long ago. It is still full of people who emigrated here to escape totalitarian regimes. I have heard from a number of people who have chosen to send their own concerns about the White House request for other people's private conversations straight to that email. I am going to join them and send this post...
...but I'll use my spam-catcher email address.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
The Government Relationship
This thought has been percolating in my head all day. I don't know if I have enough of it to put out a long, nicely-reasoned post, but I would like to get it out there for you anyways. It's been a long day with a tired baby, so if I get short and incomprehensible, please leave me a comment and I'll fix it!
Conservatives are starting to bring up things that Obama and other Democrats have said in the past regarding taxpayer-funded, single-payer healthcare. Most of it has gone along the lines of "We won't be able to do it to them right away because they'd never accept it, but be sure that we're starting a process if we regain Congress and the White House!" Meanwhile, liberals are complaining mightily that it doesn't conclusively prove anything. That last part, about conclusively proving, is the point.
See, the Scientific Method and the criminal court system are very good and useful in their place. However, they can be overused and often are in modern society. You have to prove your religious beliefs by the Scientific Method or they're invalid. You have to prove your political stance by the Innocent-Until-Proven-Guilty method... only when you're going up against the liberal Democrats, of course. However, you shouldn't need to go that far to oppose new legislation. After all, our government was built in such a way as to make it difficult to pass a new law.
As a woman, I have a certain frame of reference that I use when considering liberal Democrat promises about the health care plan. (This is, by the way, a government-run health care plan meant to fix a private medical insurance issue, not a "public health care option" or a medical insurance fix to a medical insurance issue. Anyways.) My frame of reference is that of a woman seeking to avoid becoming a victim of domestic abuse.
You learn quickly, or you end up learning by experience. You can't try too hard to prove conclusively and without a shadow of a doubt that the guy is going to hit you. You can't analyze him through the scientific method or put him on trial to deliver a guilty verdict only if you are convinced beyond all reasonable doubt. You have to be on your guard, and you have to keep your eyes open.
See, if you confront him directly, you bet he'll say, "Oh no, baby, I would never hurt you." But if he's been rough and physical, pushed you around a little, if he's told his friends he'd smack around any woman of his who didn't get his dinner on time, if he's been known to hit previous girlfriends... you had better start making tracks now. Don't move in with him. For heaven's sake don't have sex with him.
When I view the evidence presented that the liberals are taking us on a trip towards a truly socialist system, that this is just the first step and groundwork is being laid for more, I can't take for granted their claims that it just isn't so. I can't assume that they won't use a power that their bill is giving them just because they said they won't use it. After all, Obama said that he didn't want to run auto companies, and see where that's taken us.
I don't need the proof of the scientific method, or the guilty verdict in a criminal case, to hesitate at handing over the power of my health and life to the government. All I need is about the same level of suspicion that would prompt me to back away from a potentially abusive boyfriend.
Conservatives are starting to bring up things that Obama and other Democrats have said in the past regarding taxpayer-funded, single-payer healthcare. Most of it has gone along the lines of "We won't be able to do it to them right away because they'd never accept it, but be sure that we're starting a process if we regain Congress and the White House!" Meanwhile, liberals are complaining mightily that it doesn't conclusively prove anything. That last part, about conclusively proving, is the point.
See, the Scientific Method and the criminal court system are very good and useful in their place. However, they can be overused and often are in modern society. You have to prove your religious beliefs by the Scientific Method or they're invalid. You have to prove your political stance by the Innocent-Until-Proven-Guilty method... only when you're going up against the liberal Democrats, of course. However, you shouldn't need to go that far to oppose new legislation. After all, our government was built in such a way as to make it difficult to pass a new law.
As a woman, I have a certain frame of reference that I use when considering liberal Democrat promises about the health care plan. (This is, by the way, a government-run health care plan meant to fix a private medical insurance issue, not a "public health care option" or a medical insurance fix to a medical insurance issue. Anyways.) My frame of reference is that of a woman seeking to avoid becoming a victim of domestic abuse.
You learn quickly, or you end up learning by experience. You can't try too hard to prove conclusively and without a shadow of a doubt that the guy is going to hit you. You can't analyze him through the scientific method or put him on trial to deliver a guilty verdict only if you are convinced beyond all reasonable doubt. You have to be on your guard, and you have to keep your eyes open.
See, if you confront him directly, you bet he'll say, "Oh no, baby, I would never hurt you." But if he's been rough and physical, pushed you around a little, if he's told his friends he'd smack around any woman of his who didn't get his dinner on time, if he's been known to hit previous girlfriends... you had better start making tracks now. Don't move in with him. For heaven's sake don't have sex with him.
When I view the evidence presented that the liberals are taking us on a trip towards a truly socialist system, that this is just the first step and groundwork is being laid for more, I can't take for granted their claims that it just isn't so. I can't assume that they won't use a power that their bill is giving them just because they said they won't use it. After all, Obama said that he didn't want to run auto companies, and see where that's taken us.
I don't need the proof of the scientific method, or the guilty verdict in a criminal case, to hesitate at handing over the power of my health and life to the government. All I need is about the same level of suspicion that would prompt me to back away from a potentially abusive boyfriend.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Let's show them how we do things in cyberspace!
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_12/news/37125-1.html?type=printer_friendly
**************************************************
I say let's show this "government of transparency" what happens when they try to block Republicans from showing us what's really going on. Please feel free to post/spread this on your own blog and/or email, complete with link to the PDF file. After the fiasco surrounding the DVD encryption key, the Democrats should know that you can't just hide things from the citizenry anymore.
Congressional rules for franked mail bar Members from using taxpayer-funded mail for newsletters that use “partisan, politicized or personalized” comments to criticize legislation or policy.
The dispute over Brady’s chart is being reviewed by the franking commission, which must approve any mail before it can be sent. No decision had been made on the matter by press time.
Brady adamantly denied that the chart was misleading and said Democrats are simply threatened by the content of the graphic.
“I think their review was laughable,” Brady said. “It’s ... downright false in most of the cases. The chart depicts their health care plan as their committees developed it.”
“The chart reveals how their health care bureaucracy works, and people are frightened by it,” he added. “So this is their effort to try and discredit” the chart.
Republican Members have made 20 requests to mail a version of the chart to their constituents and have been told that the requests are being delayed while the commission reviews allegations that the chart is misleading.
...UPDATE: Congressman Carter's Twitter confirms this report in the blogosphere: The Democrats are blocking free speech in the House. We can not use the words "Democrats" or "Government Run Healthcare" in official mail.
The dispute centers on a chart (view PDF) created by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) and Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee to illustrate the organization of the Democratic health care plan.
At first glance, Brady’s chart resembles a board game: a colorful collection of shapes and images with a web of lines connecting them.
But a closer look at the image reveals a complicated menagerie of government offices and programs that Republicans say will be created if the leading Democratic health care plan becomes law.
****************************************
I say let's show this "government of transparency" what happens when they try to block Republicans from showing us what's really going on. Please feel free to post/spread this on your own blog and/or email, complete with link to the PDF file. After the fiasco surrounding the DVD encryption key, the Democrats should know that you can't just hide things from the citizenry anymore.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
If Cars Were People
I was honestly on my way to write this idea when a fellow blogger wrote this far better than I ever could. So without further ado, here is friday's description of health insurance... for cars...
My fellow Americans, we have a crisis in our nation. We have people driving around across this bountiful land with their engine light on, their oil light on, and no muffler. We have people who have to choose between going another 1,000 miles between oil changes or buying dinner. There have been stories told of people watering down their anti-freeze, disconnecting their O2 sensor, and some never changing their air filter because our auto repair industry is corrupt, overpriced, and needs reform.
These are the facts: Most employers do not provide their employees with adequate auto insurance. Most auto insurance is unaffordable and only covers accidents. Some auto insurance only pays for the other person's car in the case of an accident.
The fact is, lack of comprehensive auto insurance, including insurance for minor repairs and routine maintenance, is the leading cause of death in this country*. Most repair jobs are drastic and overpriced because Americans could not afford routine maintenance. Many people are forced to take public transportation, or walk to work which costs them their jobs or results in them dying of exposure. If we provided comprehensive auto insurance and repairs to every American, we could actually save money by preventing the need for drastic repairs.
Now, I know the opposition thinks we should keep the status quo. They say we should do nothing, let the chips fall where they may. Well, I tell you that we are a generous nation and auto care is a right, not just something for the privileged few rich people in our country. It makes no sense, in our rich country, for Americans to be going without proper brake fluid levels.
It is time to introduce a public option for auto insurance and repairs. It is time to make sure that every American is able to live and work and drive without having to worry where their next fillup will come from or if they will be able to survive if their alternator dies.
Now, I don't want to run the auto insurance or repair industry. That should be up to the private sector. That is why I am proposing a government funded public auto insurance and repair program that anyone can subscribe to and it will be subsidized and free for many. Some people say that this is socialist. That's ridiculous. I don't have time to run the auto repair industry. A public option won't undercut or replace private insurers, it will just compete with them at a far lower subsidized price.
To pay for it, we will cut funding to public transportation. This will save us billions of dollars. We will also tax gasoline additives, racing tires, tinted windows and performance products that cause people to take unnecessary risks and add unnecessary wear and tear on their vehicles. We will put together a computer database of every driver with their tickets, average mileage, and other factors to determine the best treatment of their vehicles. If they drive too fast, we won't pay for certain repairs. Also, to cut costs in the repair industry we won't allow for repairs on vehicles over 15 years old or 200,000 miles. Every year you will have to provide proof or auto insurance or you and your employer will each be taxed an additional 8% of your salary. These measures will make universal auto insurance and repairs deficit neutral.
To ensure high quality of repairs, anyone who works on a car in the public or private arena must have a federal license and at least 6 years of college education in automotive studies. Now, I don't want to choose your mechanic for you, so as long as you pick the most local, experienced mechanic matched to you by our database, you can have any mechanic you want.
Right now our automotive repair industry is worse than most third world countries**! This is America. I hope we can change this. I know we can do better and end the status quo. Please submit your ideas and questions via youtube.com, and we will give a prize of $2,500 to the individual who submits the question that best illustrates why we need universal auto care.
We must pass this quickly. America is relying on us and every day more cars die and more people die because of it. We can't afford not to reform our auto insurance and repair industry.
*Taking into account deaths caused by faulty auto repairs, automobile accidents, possible exposure caused by walking, suicides potentially related to not having a car, suicides with a car, deaths in subway systems and public transportation apparatus and global warming deaths.
**Taking into account total number of repairs, average cost for repairs, and how long individuals keep their cars before selling them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)