The year is 2015. The pictures and quotes have been flying all over Facebook. In 1985, we were treated to the first part of one of the most excellent trilogies ever made... Back To The Future.
In the first movie, our protagonist starts out in 1985, a beautiful, perfect 1985 that now evokes nostalgia in everyone who was born before 1990. He gets dropped into 1955 in the first movie. In the second, he travels to 2015. In the third, he winds up in 1885. The year now is 2015, and we are finding that "the future" is sadly lacking in some areas, such as hoverboards and flying cars, but surprisingly similar in others, as the writers cleverly repeated trends as has always happened in the past and seems likely to continue into the future.
What I'd like to talk about, though, is the psychology and the sociology of the show. They hit upon one solid, repeatable truth, and gave us many excellent examples of it. A father's influence is vital within his entire family.
Note: If you have not seen the trilogy, stop now. Watch it through. Then read the rest of this post.
In the first movie, Marty McFly's father is not exactly an inspiring fellow. He is harried, submissive, and detached from other people. This deficit in his own behavior shows in his entire family. His wife drinks a little too much. (That point is subtle and takes some attention to detail.) His eldest struggles along as a night worker at a fast food restaurant, and his daughter is frumpy and consistently griping about her unpopularity. Marty himself is keeping himself from a potential career (or, at least, ten minutes of fame) as a musician by his crippling insecurity. During the course of the movie, George McFly learns how to be both assertive and connected, and his entire family benefits. His wife at the movie's end is healthier and happier, and their children are all progressing slowly towards successful lives of their own.
One instance, though, does not a trend make. In the second movie, Doc notes that Marty's family falls apart and traces the origin of the problem to his son's and daughter's arrest when his son gets browbeat into participating in criminal activity. As we see a night around the McFly table, however, we know that Doc is no expert in family sociology. (Did we expect him to be?) Marty is a manipulated blowhard. His wife married him for pity (not unlike his father's wife in the beginning of the first movie) and often goes out on long trips after work without letting him know where she has gone. His children have no respect for him. They are living in a neighborhood where the cops do not like to travel after dark. We do not see the end result when Marty changes his ways, but we clearly see how his wife and children's welfare depend heavily on his own behavior.
Families need their fathers.
In the same movie, we see that the antagonist Biff appears to have an absent mother and absent father. He is raised by his grandmother. We have no idea what happened to his parents. We do see his internal frustration with his grandmother and the way he takes it out on everyone else.
When Marty returns to 1985, or, rather, the problematic 1985A in which his father is dead and Biff has married his mother, we see the effects of Biff as a father once again spreading through the entire family. His mother is so beaten down that she justifies the abuse she suffers at his hands. Marty's older brother is on parole, and his sister can't seem to handle her money at all, as she has a dangerous amount of credit card debt. Marty himself apparently keeps getting thrown out of boarding schools. You almost can't blame Biff for griping about the "perfectly good money" he wastes on these "worthless kids".
Of course, the best movie isn't a hammer meant to drive a lesson deep into your head. The series has always been primarily about how you can improve your future by what you do today. In addition, the series is smart enough to not make a good father a guarantee of good children; Marty has his own problems even under the influence of his changed father, and one of the children of Lorraine's traditional 1950's father winds up in jail. Still, the message is clear, even if it is an unintentional result of a carefully-crafted series that pursues every thread to its most logical conclusion (flying cars aside)...
Families need their fathers. Of course, not everything relies wholly upon the father. However, he definitely has a profound effect on every member of his family.
We would do well to remember this.
Sunday, February 22, 2015
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, December 3, 2014
It's 'okay' to be X-Men
"Have you tried not being a mutant?"
One of my long-standing beefs with the newer X-Men live-action movie franchises can be summed up in that line from X2. For generations, X-Men has been a story about outcasts, weirdos, and freaks struggling to find a place in society and just be themselves. It calls out to virtually every teenager alive, who feels as if he or she is the only person in the world going through this bizarre body-morphing process while struggling to figure out whether he or she is a child or an adult.
Originally, mutants were sometimes seen as a rough analog to racism. (In one extremely cute moment in the Larger Universe of the franchise, a mutant sent back in time is almost 'charmed' to be denied a seat in a restaurant, not because she is a mutant, but because she is black.) The more recent trilogy, though, especially the second movie, leaned heavily on a connection with homosexuality instead. Of course, they probably immediately alienated everyone who wanted to make that connection in X3, when a mutant 'cure' was found and at least one pitiable case decided to take it...
The more I began to think about this connection, the more I realized that it was actually pretty useful in untangling the modern 'gay rights' movement, much more useful than it could have been in understanding racism. The standard factions of the X-Men franchise actually correlate fairly well to the factions in this particular struggle. Of course, it isn't a perfect correlation, as a significant group of people (myself included) do not believe that homosexual behavior is inborn, unavoidable, and morally neutral. (Granted, arguments could be made about the morality of a mutant ability that can only be used to make other people deathly ill.) Still, for what it's worth, here are the correlations:
Charles Xavier and the Rank-And-File: On the good side, you have Xavier's school for mutants and his undying efforts to tweak society gently into one in which a blue-skinned girl can walk down the street alongside her 'normal' friend without fear. He simply wants mutants and regular humans to live in peace. To that end, he encourages mutants to show a sense of propriety in public. Being blue-skinned isn't an invitation to walk around naked. There is no harm in using your ice power to cool your tea, but don't go flinging shards at the neighborhood bully. Live in peace inasmuch as you can. On the other side, he opposes the Mutant Registration Act, which tends to lead to big stomping robots going about genetically identifying mutants and putting them in prison.
In the realm of 'gay rights', these would be the people who are quite willing to work with a gay person, or have one in the apartment complex, as long as he and his partner aren't tongue-kissing out in front of the children or doing drugs... things that are utterly avoidable no matter your sexual preference.
"Friends of Humanity" and the genuinely afraid: Everyone can agree that these people are basically either bad or misguided, so I don't need to spend a lot of time on them. They are analogous to the people in the gay 'rights' debate who want to throw all homosexuals in jail, the ones who see these people not as sinners with the rest of us, but as being in some way subhuman. In an irony that carries over to the real world, some of the angriest anti-mutant folk have mutants in their family, and the hatred spills over from fear.)
Now here comes the interesting part of the discussion.
Magneto and his followers: Unlike Xavier, who wants peaceful coexistence, Magneto sees himself and other mutants as superior to humans and believe that mutants should rule. He takes it as a no-brainer that mutants should not only appear in their natural shapes in public, but should have free and unfettered exercise of their mutant powers. He believes that they are the next step in human evolution and that the regular humans should submit to them.
This is a clear and not often-explored goal among the gay 'rights' activists. Many homosexuals are just as willing as many non-homosexuals to simply live in peace, respecting each other's rights. Gays don't claim religious significance for acts that religions ban; straights don't confront them in alleyways telling them to 'repent' or take a beating. That would be the Charles Xavier way. Gay activists, however, insist that homosexual behavior will "strengthen" marriage... how? By redefining adultery and removing 'old-fashioned' notions of longevity. The gay relationship is, to them, the next step in human evolution, and they will ensure that everyone be forced to submit.
Mystique/Raven, being a blue-skinned shapeshifter with golden eyes, is drawn alternately in the most recent movies to Charles Xavier, who says that she should be able to go to school with the other children in the proper school uniform and not ostracized for her skin color, and Magneto, who says that she should be able to go to school utterly naked (the actress wears a latex suit) and the other people should have no right to object. I can't help but be reminded by the school officials who are willing to extend to a single-stalled bathroom to a physically male student who thinks he ought to be female, and the activists who insist that he should be allowed to enter a bathroom full of girls and neither the girls nor their parents have the right to object.
I have consistently taken Charles Xavier's side in the gay 'rights' fight, affirming the right of any peaceful citizen to live and travel peacefully. I wonder what would happen if I started referring to the gay activists as "Magneto". Perhaps that simple act would be enough to get the homosexual lobby to leave X-Men alone... and for the next generation of geeks and freaks who are not homosexual to feel comfortable, as has been for generations before us, identifying with the mutants.
One of my long-standing beefs with the newer X-Men live-action movie franchises can be summed up in that line from X2. For generations, X-Men has been a story about outcasts, weirdos, and freaks struggling to find a place in society and just be themselves. It calls out to virtually every teenager alive, who feels as if he or she is the only person in the world going through this bizarre body-morphing process while struggling to figure out whether he or she is a child or an adult.
Originally, mutants were sometimes seen as a rough analog to racism. (In one extremely cute moment in the Larger Universe of the franchise, a mutant sent back in time is almost 'charmed' to be denied a seat in a restaurant, not because she is a mutant, but because she is black.) The more recent trilogy, though, especially the second movie, leaned heavily on a connection with homosexuality instead. Of course, they probably immediately alienated everyone who wanted to make that connection in X3, when a mutant 'cure' was found and at least one pitiable case decided to take it...
The more I began to think about this connection, the more I realized that it was actually pretty useful in untangling the modern 'gay rights' movement, much more useful than it could have been in understanding racism. The standard factions of the X-Men franchise actually correlate fairly well to the factions in this particular struggle. Of course, it isn't a perfect correlation, as a significant group of people (myself included) do not believe that homosexual behavior is inborn, unavoidable, and morally neutral. (Granted, arguments could be made about the morality of a mutant ability that can only be used to make other people deathly ill.) Still, for what it's worth, here are the correlations:
Charles Xavier and the Rank-And-File: On the good side, you have Xavier's school for mutants and his undying efforts to tweak society gently into one in which a blue-skinned girl can walk down the street alongside her 'normal' friend without fear. He simply wants mutants and regular humans to live in peace. To that end, he encourages mutants to show a sense of propriety in public. Being blue-skinned isn't an invitation to walk around naked. There is no harm in using your ice power to cool your tea, but don't go flinging shards at the neighborhood bully. Live in peace inasmuch as you can. On the other side, he opposes the Mutant Registration Act, which tends to lead to big stomping robots going about genetically identifying mutants and putting them in prison.
In the realm of 'gay rights', these would be the people who are quite willing to work with a gay person, or have one in the apartment complex, as long as he and his partner aren't tongue-kissing out in front of the children or doing drugs... things that are utterly avoidable no matter your sexual preference.
"Friends of Humanity" and the genuinely afraid: Everyone can agree that these people are basically either bad or misguided, so I don't need to spend a lot of time on them. They are analogous to the people in the gay 'rights' debate who want to throw all homosexuals in jail, the ones who see these people not as sinners with the rest of us, but as being in some way subhuman. In an irony that carries over to the real world, some of the angriest anti-mutant folk have mutants in their family, and the hatred spills over from fear.)
Now here comes the interesting part of the discussion.
Magneto and his followers: Unlike Xavier, who wants peaceful coexistence, Magneto sees himself and other mutants as superior to humans and believe that mutants should rule. He takes it as a no-brainer that mutants should not only appear in their natural shapes in public, but should have free and unfettered exercise of their mutant powers. He believes that they are the next step in human evolution and that the regular humans should submit to them.
This is a clear and not often-explored goal among the gay 'rights' activists. Many homosexuals are just as willing as many non-homosexuals to simply live in peace, respecting each other's rights. Gays don't claim religious significance for acts that religions ban; straights don't confront them in alleyways telling them to 'repent' or take a beating. That would be the Charles Xavier way. Gay activists, however, insist that homosexual behavior will "strengthen" marriage... how? By redefining adultery and removing 'old-fashioned' notions of longevity. The gay relationship is, to them, the next step in human evolution, and they will ensure that everyone be forced to submit.
Mystique/Raven, being a blue-skinned shapeshifter with golden eyes, is drawn alternately in the most recent movies to Charles Xavier, who says that she should be able to go to school with the other children in the proper school uniform and not ostracized for her skin color, and Magneto, who says that she should be able to go to school utterly naked (the actress wears a latex suit) and the other people should have no right to object. I can't help but be reminded by the school officials who are willing to extend to a single-stalled bathroom to a physically male student who thinks he ought to be female, and the activists who insist that he should be allowed to enter a bathroom full of girls and neither the girls nor their parents have the right to object.
I have consistently taken Charles Xavier's side in the gay 'rights' fight, affirming the right of any peaceful citizen to live and travel peacefully. I wonder what would happen if I started referring to the gay activists as "Magneto". Perhaps that simple act would be enough to get the homosexual lobby to leave X-Men alone... and for the next generation of geeks and freaks who are not homosexual to feel comfortable, as has been for generations before us, identifying with the mutants.
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.
Thursday, August 21, 2014
Daddy's in Mexico with Sally
One of the bigger controversies of 80's films is Steven Spielberg's decision to replace guns with walkie-talkies in the DVD version of E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial. Remember that? Spielberg made a pretty little speech about how he felt the guns were 'too scary' for youngsters and he felt it was wrong to depict them in the movie.
Happily, Spielberg has seen the light, and regrets that decision. The guns will be back for the Blu-Ray release of the film.
That didn't stop me from thinking, though, as I listened to some E.T. soundtrack music while pinning and cutting a new dress on the dining room table. (Yes, I am that weird.) Spielberg was responding to a lot of criticism he received about that part of the movie. Apparently, there are many parents who believe that showing guns in a children's movie is just too scary. I have to wonder about their priorities. The scariest thing in that movie, for the children, has nothing to do with weapons or aliens.
Early in the movie, we are introduced to a family in crisis. The mother is obviously overtired and has little control over her kids. There is no sign of a father. We soon find out why, when the little one blurts out that "Daddy is with Sally in Mexico." From the way her older brothers hush her up, and her mother's shattered poise, it was obvious that only one member of the family did not know. The theme emerges a few more times. The boys are very obviously keeping important problems from their mother to spare her feelings and keep from burdening her further.
I was about eight years' old when the movie really hit the market and started being shown and reshown everywhere. I saw it at friends' houses, with that familiar green thing on the VHS tape making it easy to pick out from the others. I saw it at school for an 'afternoon treat' during a Christmas party. I saw it in a summertime drive-in theater. Right around that time, my closest neighborhood friend's parents got a divorce. It was like that in the mid-80's. You were going along your merry way and suddenly a friend, a neighbor, maybe even your own mom and dad were getting a divorce. In a way, it was like a battlefield. You never knew which of your fellow soldiers would fall next.
Spielberg chose to remove those guns from the DVD edition of the movie. Do I wish he had removed the parental abandonment angle from the movie? After all, in other famous kid movies, like Iron Giant and Toy Story, the missing father is barely alluded to, and his method of disappearance is never explained. No, I wouldn't want it removed. It is one of the major reasons, perhaps even stronger than the alien himself, this became such an iconic and important movies of the '80's. It dared to do what so many movies do not, and show all of us just how badly it hurts a family when "Daddy is in Mexico with Sally".
In this day and age, divorce is no longer a new and strange phenomenon. Our children are growing up with peers who never had a father, whose mothers never even married the guy, and they are being taught that this is fairly normal and no big deal. On top of that, we have seen all sorts of new gun legislation and attempts at gun legislation, enforcing and reinforcing the notion that guns are just too scary for children. Fatherlessness, though, that's just no big deal...
The idea of facing an adversary bearing weapons is practically second-nature to these kids. The guns aren't ever even pointed at them. Not a single shot is fired. What scares them is the lack of a parent, or the fear that, at any time, one of their parents may simply walk away... and go to Mexico with Sally.
Happily, Spielberg has seen the light, and regrets that decision. The guns will be back for the Blu-Ray release of the film.
That didn't stop me from thinking, though, as I listened to some E.T. soundtrack music while pinning and cutting a new dress on the dining room table. (Yes, I am that weird.) Spielberg was responding to a lot of criticism he received about that part of the movie. Apparently, there are many parents who believe that showing guns in a children's movie is just too scary. I have to wonder about their priorities. The scariest thing in that movie, for the children, has nothing to do with weapons or aliens.
Early in the movie, we are introduced to a family in crisis. The mother is obviously overtired and has little control over her kids. There is no sign of a father. We soon find out why, when the little one blurts out that "Daddy is with Sally in Mexico." From the way her older brothers hush her up, and her mother's shattered poise, it was obvious that only one member of the family did not know. The theme emerges a few more times. The boys are very obviously keeping important problems from their mother to spare her feelings and keep from burdening her further.
I was about eight years' old when the movie really hit the market and started being shown and reshown everywhere. I saw it at friends' houses, with that familiar green thing on the VHS tape making it easy to pick out from the others. I saw it at school for an 'afternoon treat' during a Christmas party. I saw it in a summertime drive-in theater. Right around that time, my closest neighborhood friend's parents got a divorce. It was like that in the mid-80's. You were going along your merry way and suddenly a friend, a neighbor, maybe even your own mom and dad were getting a divorce. In a way, it was like a battlefield. You never knew which of your fellow soldiers would fall next.
Spielberg chose to remove those guns from the DVD edition of the movie. Do I wish he had removed the parental abandonment angle from the movie? After all, in other famous kid movies, like Iron Giant and Toy Story, the missing father is barely alluded to, and his method of disappearance is never explained. No, I wouldn't want it removed. It is one of the major reasons, perhaps even stronger than the alien himself, this became such an iconic and important movies of the '80's. It dared to do what so many movies do not, and show all of us just how badly it hurts a family when "Daddy is in Mexico with Sally".
In this day and age, divorce is no longer a new and strange phenomenon. Our children are growing up with peers who never had a father, whose mothers never even married the guy, and they are being taught that this is fairly normal and no big deal. On top of that, we have seen all sorts of new gun legislation and attempts at gun legislation, enforcing and reinforcing the notion that guns are just too scary for children. Fatherlessness, though, that's just no big deal...
The idea of facing an adversary bearing weapons is practically second-nature to these kids. The guns aren't ever even pointed at them. Not a single shot is fired. What scares them is the lack of a parent, or the fear that, at any time, one of their parents may simply walk away... and go to Mexico with Sally.
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Illegal Immigration and Adverse Possession
I've heard this argument before, by people who are discussing the problems inherent in illegal immigration and amnesty. "It's as if they just walk into your house and say, 'I live here now; feed me!'" I'm not sure how it happened, but that argument developed in my brain until it became a possible solution for the problem we are currently facing: what do we do with the illegal immigrants who are already here?
Most of us can definitely agree that illegal immigration should be stopped, and we need to secure our borders. We face a plethora of problems, as simple as workers sneaking over the border to send money back home and as compelling as terrorists and human traffickers plying their trade in our cities. Right now, we are being given two main options in dealing with this problem: Amnesty and Deportation. Just yesterday, Eric Cantor was ousted in his primary by a candidate who ran on the Republican platform and only disagreed with Cantor on one issue: he favored deportation over amnesty.
This is the problem: Not all illegal immigrants are alike.
On one end of the spectrum, you have Jose (I'm making up names as examples here), a fellow in his fifties whose mother brought him in when he was three years old. Unaware for all of this time that he entered the country illegally, he has gone through the school system, apprenticed with a plumber, earned an associate's degree in business, and now works as a residential plumber as well. He owns his own home and pays both income and property tax. He knows retirement is drawing near, and he has been contributing to Social Security all his working years. He has just celebrated his twenty-fifth wedding anniversary with his lovely wife, and he has two grandchildren.
On the other end of the spectrum, you have Luis. He slipped into the country five years ago, because he saw an opportunity by which to earn a lot of money. Now he funnels teenaged girls from one station to another. They have been lied to; they believe that they will be married to rich American men, but they are about to learn that these men are going to shackle them to a wall in the basement and threaten them with deportation if they try to escape. As for himself, Luis is on Medicaid and receives food stamps in a state that does not check citizenship status for either. He's living off the fat of the land, and figures that he can become a secret millionaire by the end of the year.
Most people on the side of amnesty will agree that Luis is a problem. They are willing to sacrifice having Luis here if it means not deporting Jose. Most people on the side of deportation will agree that Jose is not a problem. They are willing to sacrifice deporting Jose if it means deporting Luis. I would like to offer a third way forward, and to do so, I would like to look at the old common laws regarding Adverse Possession, or squatter's law.
According to squatter's law, it is possible, but not easy, to gain ownership of a property that belonged to someone else. Squatting is not as simple as living secretly in the structure. To gain ownership, you have to live on the property openly, act as if you are the owner, and improve the property for your own use. You must maintain this 'ownership' for a number of years without being so much as challenged by the actual owner, and you must not conceal your possession from the owner. One good way to do this is to move into a vacant home and have the electricity turned back on in your name. If you have spent several years (the exact number depends on the state) paying the electrical and telephone bills, paying the property taxes to the town, and repairing the home, then you can go to the town hall and file for the title. If you are evicted from the land, or even if the owner tries to evict you from the land, your counter is reset to zero.
I would argue that our failure to oust Jose (in my example) is our problem, not his. I would like to offer guidelines for a sort of "amnesty" based on squatter's laws. We should unquestionably secure our borders and do a better job of preventing illegals from sneaking in. My solution is meant for the ones who are already here.
I propose that, if an illegal immigrant has lived openly in the United States for a period of years (I am flexible as to the specific number, but I recommend at least ten), has not committed any serious crime (I wouldn't count traffic violations, for instance), and has paid taxes and FICA, and the U.S. government has not at any time required him to so much as attend a court hearing on his immigration status. he should be granted legal immigration status. Note that this is not the same as offering full citizenship. He is now 'in the system', and can work towards citizenship if he so chooses, or face the general paperwork and cost involved in extending his stay.
As much as I hate the way the liberals twist and misuse the term "fairness", I find myself using the term in this instance. I do believe that it is honestly fair to consider squatter's law in cases like Jose's. The greatest benefit I can see with this system is that it will give illegal immigrants a disincentive to engaging in crime and an incentive to paying taxes. Right now, since they are 'already criminals' who might be deported (or ignored), there is little to prevent them from dealing drugs or engaging in other profitable crime. Under a 'squatter's law' system, the aspiring illegal immigrant may say, "There's no way I am going to deal drugs now. I'm two years away from filing for legal status, and if I'm caught selling, that goes right out the window." In addition, this proposal would better allow immigration officials to concentrate on the Luis's, because when Luis and Jose are considered utterly equal, going after Jose is much easier and better for their numbers. Depending on the way the law is written, it may also pave the way for diminishing or removing the hold that slavers have over their prey, which in turn will give law enforcement officers a powerful tool in cornering the actual criminals hiding easily in the illegal immigrant population.
I would love to see Republicans pushing this solution. The population that make up the majority of our illegal immigrants are, in matters of social issues and (among the Joses') work ethic, are the Republicans' natural allies.
Most of us can definitely agree that illegal immigration should be stopped, and we need to secure our borders. We face a plethora of problems, as simple as workers sneaking over the border to send money back home and as compelling as terrorists and human traffickers plying their trade in our cities. Right now, we are being given two main options in dealing with this problem: Amnesty and Deportation. Just yesterday, Eric Cantor was ousted in his primary by a candidate who ran on the Republican platform and only disagreed with Cantor on one issue: he favored deportation over amnesty.
This is the problem: Not all illegal immigrants are alike.
On one end of the spectrum, you have Jose (I'm making up names as examples here), a fellow in his fifties whose mother brought him in when he was three years old. Unaware for all of this time that he entered the country illegally, he has gone through the school system, apprenticed with a plumber, earned an associate's degree in business, and now works as a residential plumber as well. He owns his own home and pays both income and property tax. He knows retirement is drawing near, and he has been contributing to Social Security all his working years. He has just celebrated his twenty-fifth wedding anniversary with his lovely wife, and he has two grandchildren.
On the other end of the spectrum, you have Luis. He slipped into the country five years ago, because he saw an opportunity by which to earn a lot of money. Now he funnels teenaged girls from one station to another. They have been lied to; they believe that they will be married to rich American men, but they are about to learn that these men are going to shackle them to a wall in the basement and threaten them with deportation if they try to escape. As for himself, Luis is on Medicaid and receives food stamps in a state that does not check citizenship status for either. He's living off the fat of the land, and figures that he can become a secret millionaire by the end of the year.
Most people on the side of amnesty will agree that Luis is a problem. They are willing to sacrifice having Luis here if it means not deporting Jose. Most people on the side of deportation will agree that Jose is not a problem. They are willing to sacrifice deporting Jose if it means deporting Luis. I would like to offer a third way forward, and to do so, I would like to look at the old common laws regarding Adverse Possession, or squatter's law.
According to squatter's law, it is possible, but not easy, to gain ownership of a property that belonged to someone else. Squatting is not as simple as living secretly in the structure. To gain ownership, you have to live on the property openly, act as if you are the owner, and improve the property for your own use. You must maintain this 'ownership' for a number of years without being so much as challenged by the actual owner, and you must not conceal your possession from the owner. One good way to do this is to move into a vacant home and have the electricity turned back on in your name. If you have spent several years (the exact number depends on the state) paying the electrical and telephone bills, paying the property taxes to the town, and repairing the home, then you can go to the town hall and file for the title. If you are evicted from the land, or even if the owner tries to evict you from the land, your counter is reset to zero.
I would argue that our failure to oust Jose (in my example) is our problem, not his. I would like to offer guidelines for a sort of "amnesty" based on squatter's laws. We should unquestionably secure our borders and do a better job of preventing illegals from sneaking in. My solution is meant for the ones who are already here.
I propose that, if an illegal immigrant has lived openly in the United States for a period of years (I am flexible as to the specific number, but I recommend at least ten), has not committed any serious crime (I wouldn't count traffic violations, for instance), and has paid taxes and FICA, and the U.S. government has not at any time required him to so much as attend a court hearing on his immigration status. he should be granted legal immigration status. Note that this is not the same as offering full citizenship. He is now 'in the system', and can work towards citizenship if he so chooses, or face the general paperwork and cost involved in extending his stay.
As much as I hate the way the liberals twist and misuse the term "fairness", I find myself using the term in this instance. I do believe that it is honestly fair to consider squatter's law in cases like Jose's. The greatest benefit I can see with this system is that it will give illegal immigrants a disincentive to engaging in crime and an incentive to paying taxes. Right now, since they are 'already criminals' who might be deported (or ignored), there is little to prevent them from dealing drugs or engaging in other profitable crime. Under a 'squatter's law' system, the aspiring illegal immigrant may say, "There's no way I am going to deal drugs now. I'm two years away from filing for legal status, and if I'm caught selling, that goes right out the window." In addition, this proposal would better allow immigration officials to concentrate on the Luis's, because when Luis and Jose are considered utterly equal, going after Jose is much easier and better for their numbers. Depending on the way the law is written, it may also pave the way for diminishing or removing the hold that slavers have over their prey, which in turn will give law enforcement officers a powerful tool in cornering the actual criminals hiding easily in the illegal immigrant population.
I would love to see Republicans pushing this solution. The population that make up the majority of our illegal immigrants are, in matters of social issues and (among the Joses') work ethic, are the Republicans' natural allies.
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)