I really miss the concept of shame...not the stone the fallen woman type. The type of shame that I miss is the let's feel accountable for our own choices type. I miss the concept of privacy.
Lately, I have been spending a lot of time in airports, over hearing cellphone conversations. A couple of things are becoming very clear to me. First, no one is accountable for their problems. Either the evil company or coworker or some other being caused their problem.
No, the individual complaining didn't contribute to the situation.
Secondly, people seem to be entitled to promotions, bonuses, jobs, unemployment, free health care, free food, pay without work, etc...not on the basis of hard work, but just because they showed up and spent the time.
Thirdly, corporations, the media and politicians are collections of people--individuals, and should be judged accordingly. All (fill in the blank) are not the same. Like people there are good corporations, media and politicians, just like there are bad ones.
Now back to the cell phone. Here are some basic rules to keep in mind:
* If your conversation involves sex, body parts, body functions or things that come out of body parts--don't discuss it in public.
* At least two people in any waiting area know your company, and probably one of the people you just maligned.
* Yes, you are great and all knowing. Everyone else is misguided and too stupid to take your advice...Isn't it enough for you to know that? Must I know it, too? I don't even know your name.
* If you are not ethnic, and do not actually come from an ethnic background, don't add it for affect in your cellphone conversations. (If I hear one more white man talking like a tv ghetto woman, or one more young girl trying to sound like a gangster...I will be a headline)
* Mostly, I know you are as bored in the airport as I am. Don't let boredom rob you of your privacy and dignity. Think about how you would perceive a stranger having your conversation in public. Then picture that person sitting across from you at a job interview...would you hire them?
Monday, September 7, 2009
Friday, August 7, 2009
Health Care Reform/Independence
The Wall Street Journal published an article entitled, "Spine Surgery Found No Better Than Placebo". Let's not get caught up in whether or not the spinal surgery works, let's look at the politics of this article. Health care reform, as currently proposed, allows the government to use "expert advise, based on the 'best' research to determine which procedures will be paid for by health insurance...not just government insurance, but health insurance. These decisions, in theory will be based on, independent studies. Who funded these studies? The federal government. Doesn't that make these studies about as independent as my right hip is from left hip?
One can not be considered independent if you have dog in the fight. The studies were conducted in the US, Britain and Australia. Does it matter that two of the three countries have government health care? Does it matter that the sample of participants was limited in the US because many surgeons who believe the procedure refused to participate? Does this affect the sample, and thus the outcome? Maybe.
What is clear, is that the outcome of these government funded studies may allow the governments to stop covering a service that people and physicians have evidence is helpful to patients.
The issue here is the definition of independence. Shame on the researchers and the reporters who use the word independent in this situation. We must change our thinking to match the times!
One can not be considered independent if you have dog in the fight. The studies were conducted in the US, Britain and Australia. Does it matter that two of the three countries have government health care? Does it matter that the sample of participants was limited in the US because many surgeons who believe the procedure refused to participate? Does this affect the sample, and thus the outcome? Maybe.
What is clear, is that the outcome of these government funded studies may allow the governments to stop covering a service that people and physicians have evidence is helpful to patients.
The issue here is the definition of independence. Shame on the researchers and the reporters who use the word independent in this situation. We must change our thinking to match the times!
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Faith of My Father
My father is buried at Logan National Cemetery under a federal headstone with a cross on it. Around him and near him are those with Stars of David on their stones. They are buried on federally owned ground. The federally owned ground that they died protecting.
The Mojave Desert Cross, a memorial to World War I veterans, has been declared unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court of the United States will hear an appeal of this ruling. This simple cross, that has stood for 75 years as a symbol of healing for veterans was attacked by a person in Oregon who felt that if they should ever drive through the Mojave desert, the sight of this cross would offend them.
There is a wonderful video at http://www.donttearmedown.com. This cross is currently hidden from those it heals by an ugly plywood box. I don't want to see Arlington Cemetery or any other military cemeteries shrouded in plywood. This must stop now!
If this case is won by the ACLU, how much time do think it will take before they want to cover the crosses, stars of David and other religious symbols on these Federal sites.
Please share this. Stop the madness! Donate what you can to the wonderful lawyers who are willing to fight for those who fought and died for us. If you are offended by my father’s or other soldier’s faith, then don’t look, but let them keep in death, the symbols that meant so much to them in life!
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Do Big Tents Work?
I just had a birthday. Thank you. As part of this birthday, friends from all walks of life and times of my life contacted me to say HBD. One friend, who is really family and someone that I can truly say I love indicated that he felt that abortion was one of the topics where our President wants a big tent.
I am trying to figure out what a big tent means. Not just for abortion, but for any life and death, health or hurt issue.
It is vital to have big tents for talking. We need safe places to speak with one another. To talk and really listen to one another, or no new ideas or changes can ever occur. However, at some point we must agree to disagree. At that point how do we stay under the same tent? Supporting the same people?
Do we vote against our core beliefs in order to stay under the tent? Do we give our resources and support to those who work against what we feel is right?
At what point must we stand up and say, "This is what I believe. There is no way that I can acquiesce to your wishes?"
Can we stand together, under the same tent if the result is that I condone, support the death of the innocent with my presence and gentleness?
When is it time to step out of the tent, brave the weather, fight the fight? How surprised will we be when we see all those willing to leave the tent with us?
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Government Health Care means Government Choice
2009 has been an eventful year for me. One of those events was the opportunity for this adjunct professor of health administration to travel to Canada to learn a little about the Canadian health care system. Like many Americans, I have been guilty of considering Canada as the attic where our strangely bilingual cousins who have some weird relationship with the British Royal Family live.
There is so much to learn from Canada's health care system as we think of reform. Oh and the Canadian health care system has a name--Medicare. You know, the same name as our government-operated health care program that is eating the Federal budget like a PAC Man on methamphetamine? Here are some observations:
You Say Single Payer-I Say Socialized--proponents of the Canadian system like to point out that in socialized systems doctors are employees of government. In Canada, doctors do not work for the government, instead the government is the only payer. You say potaaato, I say potahto. The docs still have their own offices, overhead, etc. Government run health care is socialized health care.
Payment/Insurance does not Equal Access to Care Interestingly enough, Canada proved that payment for care does not equal access. My favorite quote on this is from Canadian Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverly McLachin, "Access to a waiting list is not access to health care." Access is such an issue that Canada has a 10 year plan to improve wait times. There are websites operated by each Territory/Province publishing the wait times for covered procedures. Just a couple of examples--Manitoba-15 weeks for a Stress Test; British Columbia--8 weeks for cataracts surgery and 12 weeks for knee replacement.
Taxes? Many like to cite Canada's 29% average federal tax rate as proof that government funded health care won't be expensive. I say, not so fast. Since the Territories/Provinces operate these programs, lets add in the average ~15% tax that are collected at this level. For those who are math challenged that's 44% income tax. Did I mention a tax up to 1.95% on employers, too.
Premiums Yes. In addition to the tax load and the 30% average out of pocket expenditures for health care, many of the Territories/Provinces charge a monthly premium for this care. Folks under US Medicare you need supplemental insurance for very high co-pays and deductible (unless you join a private managed care plan), many items aren't covered and in some areas, not a single physician will accept assignment(in other words you pay and wait for the government to reimburse you). Does this sound familiar?
Private insurance is another cost for Canadians Until 2005, when the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that Canadians have the right to buy private insurance, Canada, Cuba and North Korea were the only countries in which private health insurance was illegal and one was not allowed to pay privately for any service covered by Medicare.
Payer's Choice Don't forget that the payer decides what is covered. Consider that Canada is a country without any restriction on abortions and it pays for those services through Medicare. There are waiting list for so many services, but the money is there to make sure that even someone in the last trimester of pregnancy can get an abortion without a wait. If we, in the United States, turn our health care over to government, we will turnover our right to decide what services we want covered.
Instead of building a system that 3 of the Supreme Court Justices in Canada see as possibly unconstitutional, why not just fix our system. How you ask? http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006813
Address the 10% fraud and abuse in the health care system.
Address the 5-9% costs of excessive liability in our system (by this I mean frivolous lawsuits, punitive damages, the defensive practice of medicine. No, I do not mean taking away a persons right to sue for real damages related to medical malpractice or abuse)
Use the real numbers to discuss the issue of the uninsured. If we have 50 million uninsured, consider that we have between 12 and 20 million illegal immigrants here who do not have access to insurance. Government health care will not, should not address this prior to addressing the issue of illegal immigration. What about those with access to affordable insurance who do not enroll--students, young adults,etc.
Let's not throw out a system that works for 84% of Americans without first addressing the problems that we can easily fix.
There is so much to learn from Canada's health care system as we think of reform. Oh and the Canadian health care system has a name--Medicare. You know, the same name as our government-operated health care program that is eating the Federal budget like a PAC Man on methamphetamine? Here are some observations:
You Say Single Payer-I Say Socialized--proponents of the Canadian system like to point out that in socialized systems doctors are employees of government. In Canada, doctors do not work for the government, instead the government is the only payer. You say potaaato, I say potahto. The docs still have their own offices, overhead, etc. Government run health care is socialized health care.
Payment/Insurance does not Equal Access to Care Interestingly enough, Canada proved that payment for care does not equal access. My favorite quote on this is from Canadian Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverly McLachin, "Access to a waiting list is not access to health care." Access is such an issue that Canada has a 10 year plan to improve wait times. There are websites operated by each Territory/Province publishing the wait times for covered procedures. Just a couple of examples--Manitoba-15 weeks for a Stress Test; British Columbia--8 weeks for cataracts surgery and 12 weeks for knee replacement.
Taxes? Many like to cite Canada's 29% average federal tax rate as proof that government funded health care won't be expensive. I say, not so fast. Since the Territories/Provinces operate these programs, lets add in the average ~15% tax that are collected at this level. For those who are math challenged that's 44% income tax. Did I mention a tax up to 1.95% on employers, too.
Premiums Yes. In addition to the tax load and the 30% average out of pocket expenditures for health care, many of the Territories/Provinces charge a monthly premium for this care. Folks under US Medicare you need supplemental insurance for very high co-pays and deductible (unless you join a private managed care plan), many items aren't covered and in some areas, not a single physician will accept assignment(in other words you pay and wait for the government to reimburse you). Does this sound familiar?
Private insurance is another cost for Canadians Until 2005, when the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that Canadians have the right to buy private insurance, Canada, Cuba and North Korea were the only countries in which private health insurance was illegal and one was not allowed to pay privately for any service covered by Medicare.
Payer's Choice Don't forget that the payer decides what is covered. Consider that Canada is a country without any restriction on abortions and it pays for those services through Medicare. There are waiting list for so many services, but the money is there to make sure that even someone in the last trimester of pregnancy can get an abortion without a wait. If we, in the United States, turn our health care over to government, we will turnover our right to decide what services we want covered.
Instead of building a system that 3 of the Supreme Court Justices in Canada see as possibly unconstitutional, why not just fix our system. How you ask? http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006813
Address the 10% fraud and abuse in the health care system.
Address the 5-9% costs of excessive liability in our system (by this I mean frivolous lawsuits, punitive damages, the defensive practice of medicine. No, I do not mean taking away a persons right to sue for real damages related to medical malpractice or abuse)
Use the real numbers to discuss the issue of the uninsured. If we have 50 million uninsured, consider that we have between 12 and 20 million illegal immigrants here who do not have access to insurance. Government health care will not, should not address this prior to addressing the issue of illegal immigration. What about those with access to affordable insurance who do not enroll--students, young adults,etc.
Let's not throw out a system that works for 84% of Americans without first addressing the problems that we can easily fix.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Moral Double Standards!
Humor me. As a 50+ former beauty queen type this whole thing with Carrie Prejean is making me crazy. Not because of the beauty queen stuff, but because a conservative, especially a Christian, is held to a much different standard than other people. For example, liberal feminists(?)who fought to protect a man who callously and wantonly used women as disposal sex tools--Bill Clinton, wouldn't stand up for the women who were his victims.
Now a very honest liberal I know once explained it this way--"We don't claim to have any moral standards, so we can't be held accountable for not living up to them. You claim standards, so you are accountable."
Interestingly, enough we can tell that they have no moral standards--let's see their longest serving Senator is a former Exalted Cyclops of the KKK; all of the state houses flying the "stars and bars" Rebel flag had those raised by Democrat governors; plagiarist as the VP; tax cheaters everywhere, but most notably heading the agency that collects taxes and prosecutes the rest of us if we make the same "honest mistakes". Need I say more.
Ms. Prejean is being persecuted for posing in lingerie ads, not smut, not porn. But the arbiters of right, who have no moral standards feel qualified to apply our moral standards for us. Let's just forget that her true crime was standing up for the Biblical definition of marriage. Oh, for those of you who think we who think that marriage is a man and a woman, but if you must then have a domestic partnership. WE are not intolerant. We love the sinner not the sin. Please try to remember that the radical Islamist that you think we should just talk with, that you defend as poor victims of our imperialism, they stone, behead, etc. homosexuals. That's to me is intolerance and wrong. Expressing an opinion should not be.
For those of you who feel the need to apply our standards for us--Please try to remember that Christians are forgiven, not perfect. And that one stubble does not negate the validity of the walk.
Anyone recall that her stance on gay marriage was the same as President Obama? Oh and by the way, Ms. Prejean should thank liberal critics. Do you know the name of the winner of the Miss USA pageant?
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
My I See Identification Please!
Conservatives are talking a lot about how to win in the 2010. I humbly suggest that until voter fraud is fixed no one has a hope of a fair and honest election. Voters should have to show an ID!
Think of all the activities that require identification--have you taken a plane or train lately, applied for public assistance or Medicaid, applied for social security or Medicare, agreed to volunteer for any activity that includes other peoples children, cashed a check, checked into a hotel room, used a credit card, purchased a firearm? If you said yes, then you have been asked for ID.
So tell me, how is it discriminatory to ask for identification when people vote? The very poor have IDs to get cash assistance and Medicaid...the very wealthy to fly. Everyone in between to do everything in between.
It does discriminate against groups and candidates who bus ineligible people to the polls. Or against those who are voting for the illegal aliens given drivers licenses and registered to vote in lieu of being turned into INS for $5,000 per person in an unnamed southern county. I wonder what that sheriff and judge did with the money? I wonder who those illegals voted for in the last election?
Think of all the activities that require identification--have you taken a plane or train lately, applied for public assistance or Medicaid, applied for social security or Medicare, agreed to volunteer for any activity that includes other peoples children, cashed a check, checked into a hotel room, used a credit card, purchased a firearm? If you said yes, then you have been asked for ID.
So tell me, how is it discriminatory to ask for identification when people vote? The very poor have IDs to get cash assistance and Medicaid...the very wealthy to fly. Everyone in between to do everything in between.
It does discriminate against groups and candidates who bus ineligible people to the polls. Or against those who are voting for the illegal aliens given drivers licenses and registered to vote in lieu of being turned into INS for $5,000 per person in an unnamed southern county. I wonder what that sheriff and judge did with the money? I wonder who those illegals voted for in the last election?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)