AAUUGH!!!!!
Monday, July 31, 2017
Friday, July 28, 2017
Still Waiting for Democrat Leadership to Step Up ... ND Heitkamp ... CO Bennett ...
I have a feeling that whichever Democrats step to the plate to start bridging the partisan gap are going to be the ones to give their Party the leadership it needs onto a new path. The old path doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
Sitting on your hands with your noses in the air isn't an effective way to help the nation of which your constituents are a part.
I used to live in North Dakota, so Heidi this is for you.
I now live in Colorado, so Michael Bennett this is for you too.
Somebody has to step up, speak out, 'break ranks' if you have to, and show us Independents that this nation might have two viable parties after all, who aren't allergic to each other. Show us what you're made of. Step up. Now would be good.
The United States of America means something pretty special to me, especially the 'United' part. Prove she means something to you too.
Thoughts on Repeal/Replace
Below is a post I wrote just the other day, only to find that the next step seems to be a side-step. I wonder how many people are more than halfway wishing they could recall their Representatives and (especially) Senators right about now? Unfortunately, that's not an option.
Apparently the Republican Senators have (finally) managed to agree on something when it comes to the ACA.
That's a step in the right direction.
From what I read and hear, division continues regarding how to proceed from here, and that's to be expected. Different populations in different States have different ideas about what they want from a health care system; their Senators are duty-bound to represent those different ideas.
And me, to whom it doesn't personally matter one way or another, I'm sitting here thinking about it because what DOES matter to me is everyone else in my nation.
Some want this; some want that; some flat refuse to even consider alternatives ... but alternatives it's going to have to be I think.
Last week I think it was, I heard an echo of what has been in mine own head for a while now.
How about a compromise?
Before you start in on the concept as either selling out or being pig-headed, remember the vast variety of opinions that are represented in our Senate. Each and all of them are just as important as every one of the others, all have equal status. It might not seem that way, and no doubt plenty of folk don't really believe it is that way, or should be that way. BUT it IS that way.
Back to the thought of compromise.
For the folks who insist that a 'single payer' plan is the only thing they'll even consider, why can't we give them that, within reason?
For the folks who insist that they want to be able to choose their own plans and have no interest whatsoever in any kind of government interference in their health care (or their lives at all for that matter), why can't we give them that too, within reason?
The thought is to provide the best of both to everyone.
People get (or not) whatever insurance they choose for themselves to cover most things; that's a bow to those who refuse to 'not get to choose'.
But set a limit on what those policies have to cover (and what the premiums can be) with a 'safety net' single payer (government) coverage for catastrophic types of things; an equal bow to the other end of the spectrum..
The reasoning is that there are plenty of objections to an overall plan where the healthy don't get to choose whether or not they're going to foot the bill for folks who, for example, take their child in for every runny nose.
There are also justifiable objections to outrageous premiums for those whose very lives are dependent on what have become extremely expensive medications, and/or those whose lives are abruptly interrupted by an accident with the accompanying out of pocket expenses that can and do break them financially.
So why can there not be something that considers both sides of the whole thing?
You get your own insurance to cover your child's runny noses; the 'safety net' is in place if one of those runny noses turns out to be a life-threatening situation that's not covered by your insurance policy.
People who might object to paying for you to take your kid to the doctor for every last little sniffle are probably the first ones to organize a local fundraiser for someone who has been in an accident. While they might not see the logic behind covering somebody else's (preventable) sinus infections, they are likely absolutely willing to kick into the kitty in cases of emergency.
Insurance companies might appreciate having regular customers (who, having to pay for their own basic health care might actually start taking an interest in preventive measures and not use their insurance quite as much) without having to try to cope with huge claims (because that's where the 'safety net' comes in) and make their basic premiums reasonable, maybe on a sliding scale that takes into consideration individual income and health history.
Health care providers might feel the same way and make their basic care costs reasonable.
I'm not too sure about pharmaceutical companies making their products reasonably affordable but have a feeling that any who DO would find themselves with a lot more customers.
Medicaid and Medicare are in place, and will remain in place, for the vulnerable among us. That's not the issue here as I see it. We all kick into the kitty for that and the individual States choose for themselves what they're going to do with the funds we provide them with for the care of our vulnerable.
Balancing personal responsibility with societal responsibility seems to me common sense.
Those who are so attached to the ACA that they cannot let go of it will retain the societal responsibility associated with it via that 'safety net'; those who are of the opinion that people need to start contributing to their own health and well-being will be vindicated as personal responsibility becomes expected.
It's a win-win in my opinion, but what do I know?
I'm more an advocate for personal responsibility when it comes to health care issues, but I am not the only person in the whole wide world and I full well know it.
There's no reason in said whole wide world that a reasonable compromise cannot be reached that will meet the needs/demands of everyone involved. I'm not talking about 'replacing' the ACA but repealing it in toto and developing an entirely different plan of action on behalf of all of us - a reasonable compromise among reasonable people who actually care enough about one another to respect each other's needs and are willing to meet halfway.
XXX
Apparently the Republican Senators have (finally) managed to agree on something when it comes to the ACA.
That's a step in the right direction.
From what I read and hear, division continues regarding how to proceed from here, and that's to be expected. Different populations in different States have different ideas about what they want from a health care system; their Senators are duty-bound to represent those different ideas.
And me, to whom it doesn't personally matter one way or another, I'm sitting here thinking about it because what DOES matter to me is everyone else in my nation.
Some want this; some want that; some flat refuse to even consider alternatives ... but alternatives it's going to have to be I think.
Last week I think it was, I heard an echo of what has been in mine own head for a while now.
How about a compromise?
Before you start in on the concept as either selling out or being pig-headed, remember the vast variety of opinions that are represented in our Senate. Each and all of them are just as important as every one of the others, all have equal status. It might not seem that way, and no doubt plenty of folk don't really believe it is that way, or should be that way. BUT it IS that way.
Back to the thought of compromise.
For the folks who insist that a 'single payer' plan is the only thing they'll even consider, why can't we give them that, within reason?
For the folks who insist that they want to be able to choose their own plans and have no interest whatsoever in any kind of government interference in their health care (or their lives at all for that matter), why can't we give them that too, within reason?
The thought is to provide the best of both to everyone.
People get (or not) whatever insurance they choose for themselves to cover most things; that's a bow to those who refuse to 'not get to choose'.
But set a limit on what those policies have to cover (and what the premiums can be) with a 'safety net' single payer (government) coverage for catastrophic types of things; an equal bow to the other end of the spectrum..
The reasoning is that there are plenty of objections to an overall plan where the healthy don't get to choose whether or not they're going to foot the bill for folks who, for example, take their child in for every runny nose.
There are also justifiable objections to outrageous premiums for those whose very lives are dependent on what have become extremely expensive medications, and/or those whose lives are abruptly interrupted by an accident with the accompanying out of pocket expenses that can and do break them financially.
So why can there not be something that considers both sides of the whole thing?
You get your own insurance to cover your child's runny noses; the 'safety net' is in place if one of those runny noses turns out to be a life-threatening situation that's not covered by your insurance policy.
People who might object to paying for you to take your kid to the doctor for every last little sniffle are probably the first ones to organize a local fundraiser for someone who has been in an accident. While they might not see the logic behind covering somebody else's (preventable) sinus infections, they are likely absolutely willing to kick into the kitty in cases of emergency.
Insurance companies might appreciate having regular customers (who, having to pay for their own basic health care might actually start taking an interest in preventive measures and not use their insurance quite as much) without having to try to cope with huge claims (because that's where the 'safety net' comes in) and make their basic premiums reasonable, maybe on a sliding scale that takes into consideration individual income and health history.
Health care providers might feel the same way and make their basic care costs reasonable.
I'm not too sure about pharmaceutical companies making their products reasonably affordable but have a feeling that any who DO would find themselves with a lot more customers.
Medicaid and Medicare are in place, and will remain in place, for the vulnerable among us. That's not the issue here as I see it. We all kick into the kitty for that and the individual States choose for themselves what they're going to do with the funds we provide them with for the care of our vulnerable.
Balancing personal responsibility with societal responsibility seems to me common sense.
Those who are so attached to the ACA that they cannot let go of it will retain the societal responsibility associated with it via that 'safety net'; those who are of the opinion that people need to start contributing to their own health and well-being will be vindicated as personal responsibility becomes expected.
It's a win-win in my opinion, but what do I know?
I'm more an advocate for personal responsibility when it comes to health care issues, but I am not the only person in the whole wide world and I full well know it.
There's no reason in said whole wide world that a reasonable compromise cannot be reached that will meet the needs/demands of everyone involved. I'm not talking about 'replacing' the ACA but repealing it in toto and developing an entirely different plan of action on behalf of all of us - a reasonable compromise among reasonable people who actually care enough about one another to respect each other's needs and are willing to meet halfway.
Saturday, July 22, 2017
Regarding Minneapolis
While I think perhaps the shouting and chanting may have been avoided, please note that nobody hauled off and punched anybody else in the (apparently) disparate crowd that gathered when their mayor announced the naming of a new police chief. I say 'apparently' because to look at them, about the only thing they have in common is their area of residence - their outrage at conditions in said area - and their determination to make their voices heard.
I do not know whether they requested an opportunity to speak prior to the press conference or not. If they did, it seems they must have been denied. If they did not, they perhaps ought to have. Either way, they certainly put their voices to use for the purpose they intended to use them.
The day following doesn't seem to have produced any looting or rioting or fighting in the streets or it would have been splashed all over the place. I've seen reports of marches in Australia but have heard of no violence having occurred there, either.
One hopes it will remain so.
It seems a different sort of population has begun to come to the fore. They don't seem intent on violence, but rather the reverse, and also don't seem to be all that intimidated. I've already heard criticism from some about the folks who stood up to their mayor and called for her to step down. I've also not heard about any violence being involved, either at the press conference they usurped or since.
So the question is open: What next?
Will the city of Minneapolis give its citizens a forum from which to speak? Again, one would hope so.
Will the natives of Minneapolis be able to achieve their stated goal/s without doing harm to their own city as they try to heal it? Well, so far so good on that front from what I gather, so once more one the word that comes to mind is 'hope'.
One commentator, I don't remember which, insinuated that these are folks who rarely vote. If so, still again the word 'hope' comes into play. Maybe now they will. Not that I for one minute believe that everyone would agree with me about that possibility becoming reality being a good thing. Me, I think it would be a very good thing.
Whether they can come up with a representative candidate; whether they can present a cohesive plan of political action; whether they can demand and get a recall election and succeed in obtaining the necessary votes to oust their mayor I have no idea.
But they've made two things perfectly clear: One is that they aren't going to just sit down and shut up. The other is that they don't want violence.
The question will remain open until the natives of Minneapolis, and its current administration, answer it.
And the world will be watching to see what that answer is going to be.
I do not know whether they requested an opportunity to speak prior to the press conference or not. If they did, it seems they must have been denied. If they did not, they perhaps ought to have. Either way, they certainly put their voices to use for the purpose they intended to use them.
The day following doesn't seem to have produced any looting or rioting or fighting in the streets or it would have been splashed all over the place. I've seen reports of marches in Australia but have heard of no violence having occurred there, either.
One hopes it will remain so.
It seems a different sort of population has begun to come to the fore. They don't seem intent on violence, but rather the reverse, and also don't seem to be all that intimidated. I've already heard criticism from some about the folks who stood up to their mayor and called for her to step down. I've also not heard about any violence being involved, either at the press conference they usurped or since.
So the question is open: What next?
Will the city of Minneapolis give its citizens a forum from which to speak? Again, one would hope so.
Will the natives of Minneapolis be able to achieve their stated goal/s without doing harm to their own city as they try to heal it? Well, so far so good on that front from what I gather, so once more one the word that comes to mind is 'hope'.
One commentator, I don't remember which, insinuated that these are folks who rarely vote. If so, still again the word 'hope' comes into play. Maybe now they will. Not that I for one minute believe that everyone would agree with me about that possibility becoming reality being a good thing. Me, I think it would be a very good thing.
Whether they can come up with a representative candidate; whether they can present a cohesive plan of political action; whether they can demand and get a recall election and succeed in obtaining the necessary votes to oust their mayor I have no idea.
But they've made two things perfectly clear: One is that they aren't going to just sit down and shut up. The other is that they don't want violence.
The question will remain open until the natives of Minneapolis, and its current administration, answer it.
And the world will be watching to see what that answer is going to be.
Tuesday, July 18, 2017
The Health and Well-Being of We The People ... it's up to us
dated 6/30/17 :
Just repeal the stupid thing already, and give the 50 States (and DC I suppose) 90 days to submit their own State's plans for the 'replace' part of the whole thing.
Tell 'em the current budget numbers for Medicaid/Medicare are what they have to work with on that front, and have them present their ideas about how they're going to deal with whatever else has to be dealt with.
If they don't have and/or can't come up with a plan to care for their own, recommend they invest in U-Haul stock because their citizens are likely going to head on out to the States that know what they're doing, or can at least come up with something that makes them LOOK like they might know what they're doing.
While all that is going on, make the insurance companies submit THEIR best plans of action to all the States. Premiums, choices, coverage ... yada yada ... the whole nine yards.
Rules and regulations out the window for the time being, people want to know what kind of coverage they can get for what premiums from which providers.
Apparently at the moment something like 80% of Americans have health issues and/or are at risk of developing serious problems. That, to me, says that for some reason the healthy, strong 20% are being expected to pay for the health care of that 80%.
Excuse me, but that's flat out not fair.
Update 7//18/17 :
*laughing*
Ya think frustration might be raising its wicked head?
It looks like the above is pretty close to what's happening, except the 90 day thing is actually two years.
This coming twelve-month period will give us a darned clear picture of how our health care community and insurers are going to react to our rejection of the way things have been for way too long.
Tempting as it is, the ACA cannot be blamed for the current state of affairs. Had everything been working effectively and efficiently, it would not have been an issue. All the ACA did was make promises that could not be implemented. That's a bad thing, surely, but it is not the root of the problem. The ACA does not need fixing. It would be just 'second verse same as the first' because the problem lies directly in the same health care system and insurance system that existed and caused such problems in the first place that the ACA was adopted in desperation, only to totally NOT address the underlying issues and therefore totally fail. Repealing it isn't going to make the least bit of difference and neither would replacing it with something else that wouldn't end up being any better.
Now we're kind of back to square one.
The health care industry and its related insurers failed us, true enough. Another big FAIL goes to the pharmaceutical industry. We also basically failed ourselves when it comes right down to it. We did not HAVE to strain the system in the first place by overusing it for trivial non-essential stuff like runny noses every other week.
So what are we going to do about it?
Since this is just a personal blog that is rarely read by anyone I get to yammer on about what I think with nobody to say me nay, so that's what I'll just do thank you very much.
I'm rather an outsider to this whole thing. I haven't had to go to a doctor in more years than I can remember (knock wood) so I'm not directly affected by any of this. I also haven't been able to afford health care in a long time, again not a huge issue for me since I wouldn't have used it anyway and it would have been a financial burden I'd have had a real hard time justifying for my own too-small budget let alone the cost it would have been for my employer's bigger part of the policy expense (which has risen exponentially). Just because it doesn't directly affect me doesn't mean I'm not interested in the issue. I care a heck of a lot about the ones who ARE affected. Since I don't have a horse in this race, and don't even have any bets down on it, I'm essentially a neutral party here.
So.
Since I don't happen to believe health care is in any way covered in our Constitution, I also don't happen to believe the Federal government has any 'jurisdiction' one way or the other. It falls under the 10th Amendment and belongs to the States/People.
When it comes right down to it, the people of the nation are going to have to be the ones who 'regulate' things. That's a right complicated thing because we mostly have no idea that we even have a say in anything (although thankfully that seems to be changing a mite just lately) and don't realize we can say NO to anybody or anything.
We can do it; we just don't. Well we haven't, anyway. At least not yet. As long as we believe we're locked into 'the system' that might not change a whole lot.
Onward, b.
Yeh.
Over the course of the next year or so, I want to see the health care industry openly telling us what services they provide, how much stuff costs, what their budgets are, and the credentials of their staff. I want the same thing from pharmaceutical companies. I want the same thing from insurers.
Without that information (documented and verified) available to the public, we're screwed, blued, and tattooed. Nothing is going to change in any way we might appreciate.
Because I do NOT expect the current crop to comply in a forthright manner, I'm going to be on the lookout for new developments on a smaller scale.
The thing is that nobody ever ever lowers their prices. That's what we've lived with forever and a day (gas prices being the exception, which really goes to prove that yes it can be done). So how did that industry manage to do it? I don't know but I'll find out if ever I find the time and motivation in conjunction with each other.
Realistically speaking, we need to be taking more personal responsibility for our own health care. An ounce of prevention is worth way more than a pound of cure these days, believe you me. I'm a big believer (justifiably) in taking care of one's own self and one's own family. Sometimes it doesn't even take an ounce of prevention. An example? A few drops of hydrogen peroxide once a month or so apparently kept sinus infections and earaches totally out of the lives of me and my children for the entirety of their growing up years. Or maybe we were just lucky, really really lucky.
Has it dawned on anybody that people with BMIs ranging from 17 to say 22 are likely to be a heck of a lot healthier than other folks? Has the thought crossed anybody's mind that fast food and an addiction to electronic devices might not be real healthy choices?
Of course.
Everybody knows those things.
So where is the fuss about our nation being 80% not exactly in the healthy zone?
Instead, I see a fuss if anybody should dare to bring it up. We're all supposed to just love our selves and our bodies exactly the way they are.
I call bullshit on that.
I do not love the fat in my belly that I put there my own self by indulging in too much sugar. I do not like the way it affects how my clothes look on me.
Just because I'm healthy and strong now doesn't mean I don't have to be careful about things. I know darned well that my sugar habit can and will make me sick if I don't knock it off. That's up to me.
When it comes to health care, I think our related industries have been making a killing off the unhealthy choices of us as individuals. A person can't really blame them for taking full advantage of a population of people who don't care enough about themselves to take care of themselves. We can (and should) blame the industries for becoming so greedy that even those of us who are most oblivious can't help but notice. If they'd (the industries) reined themselves in a long time ago, we might have never noticed that they were scalping us.
Since there's no going back, we have to look ahead, right?
IF we're serious about reining in health care and insurance costs we'd best be looking a lot closer to home for solutions because the big companies are not going to be on our side. It would be a shock to their systems and they are not going to want to go there. A sick population is much more to their liking for obvious reasons.
Again, where is the outrage over the statistics relating to us as a nation of unhealthy people? Where are the advocates of reasonable BMIs? Where is the social pressure to become healthy? Where is the determination of us as a people to take some responsibility for our own well-being?
What if, heaven forbid, the American people as a people got a collective wild hair and decided to regulate our health care system ourselves?
Huh?!?
Well geez.
What do we expect from profit-oriented industries when we're so dumb as to continue to provide them with exactly what they want from us?
How badly do we want this issue resolved?
Badly enough to get up onto our feet and do something about it, other than to participate in a protest now and then?
I wish I could say that we as a nation cared enough about ourselves and each other to do exactly that but I've got my doubts. We didn't get to 80% at risk by giving a damn about ourselves and each other, did we?
Nope.
And we want Uncle Sam to 'fix' us.
Let me tell you something.
Uncle Sam did not force feed us junk food. Uncle Sam does not make me indulge in way too much sugar for my own good. Uncle Sam is not in charge of our individual daily lives and the choices we make in them. Uncle Sam does not get to mandate such things. We do.
You know what?
All that sugar I ingest would not be the issue it is if I'd get up off my (skinny and almost non-existent) backside more often and go for walks around the block, or walk the mile to work and back three times a week. But I don't. It's not that big a deal to me right now.
See, that's exactly the kind of thinking I need to work on.
We've got two years, America.
Two years.
Can we bring our national statistics, our need for health care, down to a reasonable level in that time?
Of course we can.
If we want to.
Set a goal. Meet it. Set another one. Meet that one too.
Or we can remain on our backsides and keep on whining about something that we've created for ourselves.
IF we take the steps we need to take as the People of America, we can reduce the demand for health care services down to whatever level we collectively want it at.
Would I be resentful if I were a healthy young person expected to cover the expenses of a bunch of people who are essentially sick because of their own choices? Hell yes.
IF we, those of us who can, would just eat right, rest right, exercise right, and bloody take care of our own selves, those of us who actually NEED health care services might not have to pay an arm and a fricking leg for them.
But I don't suppose that thought has even crossed the mind of very many of us. Nope. It's been 'all about me' for a long time.
A while back, don't remember precisely date or place, I wrote a suggestion for insurers regarding policy prices. Base them on the person's BMI with the ones in the 'green zone' getting practically a free pass even though that might seem counter-productive from a business point of view. Later on, that might be true. For now, because of the statistics, it would work in the favor of the insurers because hardly anybody's in that zone. IF they went that route, it might be a great incentive for folks to get themselves into that zone. By the time that happens, there will be lots and lots of folks paying not too much for insurance they'll rarely need because they'll be healthy, leaving more for those who are in true need.
And I cannot believe I'm getting this wrought up about something that doesn't even have much of anything to do with me personally.
I think it's almost cool enough out there by now for me to be able to mow my yard without falling prey to heat stroke.
I have a feeling I ought to just go out there and do that.
Just repeal the stupid thing already, and give the 50 States (and DC I suppose) 90 days to submit their own State's plans for the 'replace' part of the whole thing.
Tell 'em the current budget numbers for Medicaid/Medicare are what they have to work with on that front, and have them present their ideas about how they're going to deal with whatever else has to be dealt with.
If they don't have and/or can't come up with a plan to care for their own, recommend they invest in U-Haul stock because their citizens are likely going to head on out to the States that know what they're doing, or can at least come up with something that makes them LOOK like they might know what they're doing.
While all that is going on, make the insurance companies submit THEIR best plans of action to all the States. Premiums, choices, coverage ... yada yada ... the whole nine yards.
Rules and regulations out the window for the time being, people want to know what kind of coverage they can get for what premiums from which providers.
Apparently at the moment something like 80% of Americans have health issues and/or are at risk of developing serious problems. That, to me, says that for some reason the healthy, strong 20% are being expected to pay for the health care of that 80%.
Excuse me, but that's flat out not fair.
xxx
Update 7//18/17 :
*laughing*
Ya think frustration might be raising its wicked head?
It looks like the above is pretty close to what's happening, except the 90 day thing is actually two years.
This coming twelve-month period will give us a darned clear picture of how our health care community and insurers are going to react to our rejection of the way things have been for way too long.
Tempting as it is, the ACA cannot be blamed for the current state of affairs. Had everything been working effectively and efficiently, it would not have been an issue. All the ACA did was make promises that could not be implemented. That's a bad thing, surely, but it is not the root of the problem. The ACA does not need fixing. It would be just 'second verse same as the first' because the problem lies directly in the same health care system and insurance system that existed and caused such problems in the first place that the ACA was adopted in desperation, only to totally NOT address the underlying issues and therefore totally fail. Repealing it isn't going to make the least bit of difference and neither would replacing it with something else that wouldn't end up being any better.
Now we're kind of back to square one.
The health care industry and its related insurers failed us, true enough. Another big FAIL goes to the pharmaceutical industry. We also basically failed ourselves when it comes right down to it. We did not HAVE to strain the system in the first place by overusing it for trivial non-essential stuff like runny noses every other week.
So what are we going to do about it?
Since this is just a personal blog that is rarely read by anyone I get to yammer on about what I think with nobody to say me nay, so that's what I'll just do thank you very much.
I'm rather an outsider to this whole thing. I haven't had to go to a doctor in more years than I can remember (knock wood) so I'm not directly affected by any of this. I also haven't been able to afford health care in a long time, again not a huge issue for me since I wouldn't have used it anyway and it would have been a financial burden I'd have had a real hard time justifying for my own too-small budget let alone the cost it would have been for my employer's bigger part of the policy expense (which has risen exponentially). Just because it doesn't directly affect me doesn't mean I'm not interested in the issue. I care a heck of a lot about the ones who ARE affected. Since I don't have a horse in this race, and don't even have any bets down on it, I'm essentially a neutral party here.
So.
Since I don't happen to believe health care is in any way covered in our Constitution, I also don't happen to believe the Federal government has any 'jurisdiction' one way or the other. It falls under the 10th Amendment and belongs to the States/People.
When it comes right down to it, the people of the nation are going to have to be the ones who 'regulate' things. That's a right complicated thing because we mostly have no idea that we even have a say in anything (although thankfully that seems to be changing a mite just lately) and don't realize we can say NO to anybody or anything.
We can do it; we just don't. Well we haven't, anyway. At least not yet. As long as we believe we're locked into 'the system' that might not change a whole lot.
Onward, b.
Yeh.
Over the course of the next year or so, I want to see the health care industry openly telling us what services they provide, how much stuff costs, what their budgets are, and the credentials of their staff. I want the same thing from pharmaceutical companies. I want the same thing from insurers.
Without that information (documented and verified) available to the public, we're screwed, blued, and tattooed. Nothing is going to change in any way we might appreciate.
Because I do NOT expect the current crop to comply in a forthright manner, I'm going to be on the lookout for new developments on a smaller scale.
The thing is that nobody ever ever lowers their prices. That's what we've lived with forever and a day (gas prices being the exception, which really goes to prove that yes it can be done). So how did that industry manage to do it? I don't know but I'll find out if ever I find the time and motivation in conjunction with each other.
Realistically speaking, we need to be taking more personal responsibility for our own health care. An ounce of prevention is worth way more than a pound of cure these days, believe you me. I'm a big believer (justifiably) in taking care of one's own self and one's own family. Sometimes it doesn't even take an ounce of prevention. An example? A few drops of hydrogen peroxide once a month or so apparently kept sinus infections and earaches totally out of the lives of me and my children for the entirety of their growing up years. Or maybe we were just lucky, really really lucky.
Has it dawned on anybody that people with BMIs ranging from 17 to say 22 are likely to be a heck of a lot healthier than other folks? Has the thought crossed anybody's mind that fast food and an addiction to electronic devices might not be real healthy choices?
Of course.
Everybody knows those things.
So where is the fuss about our nation being 80% not exactly in the healthy zone?
Instead, I see a fuss if anybody should dare to bring it up. We're all supposed to just love our selves and our bodies exactly the way they are.
I call bullshit on that.
I do not love the fat in my belly that I put there my own self by indulging in too much sugar. I do not like the way it affects how my clothes look on me.
Just because I'm healthy and strong now doesn't mean I don't have to be careful about things. I know darned well that my sugar habit can and will make me sick if I don't knock it off. That's up to me.
When it comes to health care, I think our related industries have been making a killing off the unhealthy choices of us as individuals. A person can't really blame them for taking full advantage of a population of people who don't care enough about themselves to take care of themselves. We can (and should) blame the industries for becoming so greedy that even those of us who are most oblivious can't help but notice. If they'd (the industries) reined themselves in a long time ago, we might have never noticed that they were scalping us.
Since there's no going back, we have to look ahead, right?
IF we're serious about reining in health care and insurance costs we'd best be looking a lot closer to home for solutions because the big companies are not going to be on our side. It would be a shock to their systems and they are not going to want to go there. A sick population is much more to their liking for obvious reasons.
Again, where is the outrage over the statistics relating to us as a nation of unhealthy people? Where are the advocates of reasonable BMIs? Where is the social pressure to become healthy? Where is the determination of us as a people to take some responsibility for our own well-being?
What if, heaven forbid, the American people as a people got a collective wild hair and decided to regulate our health care system ourselves?
Huh?!?
Well geez.
What do we expect from profit-oriented industries when we're so dumb as to continue to provide them with exactly what they want from us?
How badly do we want this issue resolved?
Badly enough to get up onto our feet and do something about it, other than to participate in a protest now and then?
I wish I could say that we as a nation cared enough about ourselves and each other to do exactly that but I've got my doubts. We didn't get to 80% at risk by giving a damn about ourselves and each other, did we?
Nope.
And we want Uncle Sam to 'fix' us.
Let me tell you something.
Uncle Sam did not force feed us junk food. Uncle Sam does not make me indulge in way too much sugar for my own good. Uncle Sam is not in charge of our individual daily lives and the choices we make in them. Uncle Sam does not get to mandate such things. We do.
You know what?
All that sugar I ingest would not be the issue it is if I'd get up off my (skinny and almost non-existent) backside more often and go for walks around the block, or walk the mile to work and back three times a week. But I don't. It's not that big a deal to me right now.
See, that's exactly the kind of thinking I need to work on.
We've got two years, America.
Two years.
Can we bring our national statistics, our need for health care, down to a reasonable level in that time?
Of course we can.
If we want to.
Set a goal. Meet it. Set another one. Meet that one too.
Or we can remain on our backsides and keep on whining about something that we've created for ourselves.
IF we take the steps we need to take as the People of America, we can reduce the demand for health care services down to whatever level we collectively want it at.
Would I be resentful if I were a healthy young person expected to cover the expenses of a bunch of people who are essentially sick because of their own choices? Hell yes.
IF we, those of us who can, would just eat right, rest right, exercise right, and bloody take care of our own selves, those of us who actually NEED health care services might not have to pay an arm and a fricking leg for them.
But I don't suppose that thought has even crossed the mind of very many of us. Nope. It's been 'all about me' for a long time.
A while back, don't remember precisely date or place, I wrote a suggestion for insurers regarding policy prices. Base them on the person's BMI with the ones in the 'green zone' getting practically a free pass even though that might seem counter-productive from a business point of view. Later on, that might be true. For now, because of the statistics, it would work in the favor of the insurers because hardly anybody's in that zone. IF they went that route, it might be a great incentive for folks to get themselves into that zone. By the time that happens, there will be lots and lots of folks paying not too much for insurance they'll rarely need because they'll be healthy, leaving more for those who are in true need.
And I cannot believe I'm getting this wrought up about something that doesn't even have much of anything to do with me personally.
I think it's almost cool enough out there by now for me to be able to mow my yard without falling prey to heat stroke.
I have a feeling I ought to just go out there and do that.
Monday, July 17, 2017
community health care
I wonder if health care might not just have to bite the bullet and fix itself.
What if ...
What if a bunch of new providers offered great services at low prices?
Hmm ... ?
I say 'new' because most of the 'old' ones can't be expected to lower their prices. If they were thoughtful that way, we wouldn't be in this boat; the prices wouldn't have skyrocketed in the first place.
I'm not talking about insurance here, folks.
I'm talking about the ones who actually provide the services.
Independent practitioners, not mega-corporations.
Imagine that.
They'd likely be so busy we'd need an army of them.
In my long-lost youth we had a doctor in our small town, for example. He knew all of us and we all knew him.
When it comes right down to it, guess what.
We the People, believe it or not, are the authority when it comes to governing ourselves.
So could we not kind of go back to the olden days, sort of?
Is there anything forbidding individual communities from searching for their own local doctors and other medical professionals? Is there anything forbidding us from getting together and deciding to hire people, locally, to fill niches that seem to be opening up all over the place because the big keep getting bigger and the small are just disappearing on account of it?
So ... what if ...
Say a community gathers itself and chooses this route? That community sets its standards and goes looking for like-minded professionals, offering young (or old) professionals whatever incentives they can to come to their community. It might be an agreement among all to be loyal to their new community member/s; it might be good deals on housing; it might be anything the community can come up with when they decide to make their offer. Stipulations, the standards set by the community, would have to be agreed to, of course. They would likely boil down to accessibility, great services, and prices that aren't going to kill anybody if whatever ails them doesn't. Seems to me I remember hearing a story pretty much like that about how that small town of my youth got our doctor ... he was a good one and he stayed with us. Does nobody do that any more?
The thing is that we keep looking to Washington to 'fix' things. That's where our government is, right? And isn't the government supposed to fix things for us?
Well yes, that's true.
Oh.
Have we forgotten something of vital importance to us as United States citizens?
Hmm ... ?
Oh yeah.
This is still the United States of America if I'm not mistaken. We are still governed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights as far as I know. And guess where the governing authority resides, according to those documents?
Yep.
Take a look at your hands, a good long look at those capable hands of yours, the strong palms and all those attached fingers that you use for a million things every single day. Smooth or callused, big or small, young or old, those are the hands that hold the reins in this nation. Maybe we need to think about gathering those reins into those hands again, eh? YOUR hands, my hands, Grandma's hands, Auntie's hands, neighbor's hands ... hands that we see every day doing those millions of things.
As a nation we are a Constitutional Republic. We are too big for pure democracy to function effectively when we are taken as a whole. It is at the community level that democracy can and does function darned well.
If our health care woes are to be 'fixed' we might have to step up to the plate and start looking closer to home for solutions.
And no, I'm not suggesting the quest would be an easy one, or necessarily a quick one, or that success is in any way guaranteed, or that anybody but me might think it's a good idea. I'm just saying that we've been inside this box for so long that we've maybe forgotten we might actually have options outside of the box.
And I'm not talking about major things here. Just about every town I know of has at least one ambulance for things a local doctor/clinic/pharmacy would have to refer out. I'm talking about everyday ordinary things like physicals, or if you've got the flu but it isn't all THAT bad (yet), or whatever other stuff that pops up in a general population.
Since I'm pattering here, dreaming about the good old days, what if a community lucks out (or puts the effort in) and finds a doctor who believes that the general health and well-being of his/her community is a priority. I don't know about you, but I've been getting the impression that the health care providers almost prefer us to be continually sick in every way you can think of and a lot that might never cross your mind. Job security no doubt. But what if not everyone thinks that way and you can find someone who prefers a healthy population? What if you found a doctor who would focus on prevention instead, someone who would go to your local PTA meetings, or visit organizations, or whatever, and clue you in about all the things you can do your own self to first of all prevent a LOT of ailments and secondly try yourself before you call the doctor? What if a community sets its own health goals? What if they say, with the full backing of their doctor, 'We're going to be healthy and careful this year and we're going to cut our doctor/medication bill in half.' Instead of putting their doctor out of business, they could give him/her a raise and have a celebration. S/he could go on a lecture tour telling all about it, and not worry about the home folk because everyone would be healthy.
Hmmm ... ?
What if ...
The specialists are forever and always going to be needed but IF we on a local level get a grip on those reins with our own strong capable hands and become a stronger healthier nation at that level, maybe the health care issue can be dealt with, or at least addressed, within our own communities.
Remnants of the good old days really do still linger, if only in the memories of some of us, although there might still be places out there that are fortunate enough to have held onto some of the best of those good old days.
I think if you break our current 'health care crisis' down, you might find that insurance is expensive because costs are prohibitive. Pharmaceuticals are outrageous, and it seems like EVERYTHING has to have a prescription even though there are other options - either preventative or steps a person can take on their own to, for example, nip a sinus infection in the bud ... but people go with the pharmaceuticals because 'insurance covers it' and they pay an arm and a leg for that insurance so they're by golly going to use it.
Now there's some 'logic' for you. Talk about a vicious cycle.
Well.
That's about enough of that rant, eh?
What if ...
What if a bunch of new providers offered great services at low prices?
Hmm ... ?
I say 'new' because most of the 'old' ones can't be expected to lower their prices. If they were thoughtful that way, we wouldn't be in this boat; the prices wouldn't have skyrocketed in the first place.
I'm not talking about insurance here, folks.
I'm talking about the ones who actually provide the services.
Independent practitioners, not mega-corporations.
Imagine that.
They'd likely be so busy we'd need an army of them.
In my long-lost youth we had a doctor in our small town, for example. He knew all of us and we all knew him.
When it comes right down to it, guess what.
We the People, believe it or not, are the authority when it comes to governing ourselves.
So could we not kind of go back to the olden days, sort of?
Is there anything forbidding individual communities from searching for their own local doctors and other medical professionals? Is there anything forbidding us from getting together and deciding to hire people, locally, to fill niches that seem to be opening up all over the place because the big keep getting bigger and the small are just disappearing on account of it?
So ... what if ...
Say a community gathers itself and chooses this route? That community sets its standards and goes looking for like-minded professionals, offering young (or old) professionals whatever incentives they can to come to their community. It might be an agreement among all to be loyal to their new community member/s; it might be good deals on housing; it might be anything the community can come up with when they decide to make their offer. Stipulations, the standards set by the community, would have to be agreed to, of course. They would likely boil down to accessibility, great services, and prices that aren't going to kill anybody if whatever ails them doesn't. Seems to me I remember hearing a story pretty much like that about how that small town of my youth got our doctor ... he was a good one and he stayed with us. Does nobody do that any more?
The thing is that we keep looking to Washington to 'fix' things. That's where our government is, right? And isn't the government supposed to fix things for us?
Well yes, that's true.
Oh.
Have we forgotten something of vital importance to us as United States citizens?
Hmm ... ?
Oh yeah.
This is still the United States of America if I'm not mistaken. We are still governed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights as far as I know. And guess where the governing authority resides, according to those documents?
Yep.
Take a look at your hands, a good long look at those capable hands of yours, the strong palms and all those attached fingers that you use for a million things every single day. Smooth or callused, big or small, young or old, those are the hands that hold the reins in this nation. Maybe we need to think about gathering those reins into those hands again, eh? YOUR hands, my hands, Grandma's hands, Auntie's hands, neighbor's hands ... hands that we see every day doing those millions of things.
As a nation we are a Constitutional Republic. We are too big for pure democracy to function effectively when we are taken as a whole. It is at the community level that democracy can and does function darned well.
If our health care woes are to be 'fixed' we might have to step up to the plate and start looking closer to home for solutions.
And no, I'm not suggesting the quest would be an easy one, or necessarily a quick one, or that success is in any way guaranteed, or that anybody but me might think it's a good idea. I'm just saying that we've been inside this box for so long that we've maybe forgotten we might actually have options outside of the box.
And I'm not talking about major things here. Just about every town I know of has at least one ambulance for things a local doctor/clinic/pharmacy would have to refer out. I'm talking about everyday ordinary things like physicals, or if you've got the flu but it isn't all THAT bad (yet), or whatever other stuff that pops up in a general population.
Since I'm pattering here, dreaming about the good old days, what if a community lucks out (or puts the effort in) and finds a doctor who believes that the general health and well-being of his/her community is a priority. I don't know about you, but I've been getting the impression that the health care providers almost prefer us to be continually sick in every way you can think of and a lot that might never cross your mind. Job security no doubt. But what if not everyone thinks that way and you can find someone who prefers a healthy population? What if you found a doctor who would focus on prevention instead, someone who would go to your local PTA meetings, or visit organizations, or whatever, and clue you in about all the things you can do your own self to first of all prevent a LOT of ailments and secondly try yourself before you call the doctor? What if a community sets its own health goals? What if they say, with the full backing of their doctor, 'We're going to be healthy and careful this year and we're going to cut our doctor/medication bill in half.' Instead of putting their doctor out of business, they could give him/her a raise and have a celebration. S/he could go on a lecture tour telling all about it, and not worry about the home folk because everyone would be healthy.
Hmmm ... ?
What if ...
The specialists are forever and always going to be needed but IF we on a local level get a grip on those reins with our own strong capable hands and become a stronger healthier nation at that level, maybe the health care issue can be dealt with, or at least addressed, within our own communities.
Remnants of the good old days really do still linger, if only in the memories of some of us, although there might still be places out there that are fortunate enough to have held onto some of the best of those good old days.
I think if you break our current 'health care crisis' down, you might find that insurance is expensive because costs are prohibitive. Pharmaceuticals are outrageous, and it seems like EVERYTHING has to have a prescription even though there are other options - either preventative or steps a person can take on their own to, for example, nip a sinus infection in the bud ... but people go with the pharmaceuticals because 'insurance covers it' and they pay an arm and a leg for that insurance so they're by golly going to use it.
Now there's some 'logic' for you. Talk about a vicious cycle.
Well.
That's about enough of that rant, eh?
Tuesday, July 11, 2017
Integration vs Segregation: Role Reversal In Progress?
Something has been nagging at the back of my mind for a while now, presenting me with a sense of unease because I couldn't quite identify what exactly was bothering me, couldn't get a handle on it enough to figure out what was behind it.
My mind kept going back to a time in my life when I was in college (for the third or fourth time as Life kept interfering with my education). One of my jobs was Recording Secretary for the Standing Committees of Student Government, the allocating committees that were assigned budgets and had to dispense funds to cover the different needs of our university population.
When a brand new committee was formed in the second half of the eighties, I kept records of its meetings. At the time it was called the MAC - Multicultural Awareness Committee - soon changed to Multicultural Activities Committee. I was asked, and accepted, a dual role: Recording Secretary and full member.
The population of our university wasn't huge at the time, maybe ten thousand, but the variety of folks was more than you might expect in an upper mid-western environment. The groups who organized themselves into Student Organizations came to the MAC for help in funding their activities and events. The principle goals of the Student Organizations were two-fold: first to offer support and friendship to their memberships; second to reach out to the larger university community to share the unique cultures of the different organizations. Some groups were large; others not so much. Even so, each and all shared those common goals.
The thing that sticks in my mind about those days is that the different organizations seemed to be simply wanting to share what made them unique, to present to the community of which they were a part information about the wider-than-expected diversity encapsulated within the sphere of our university environment.
I thought then and believe still that each and all of us have an inherent need to be understood and to be accepted as an integral part of a greater whole. I thought then and believe still that this nation, the United States of America, epitomizes that concept. We were doing our best in our own small way to exemplify that.
Quietly and generally without a whole lot of fanfare, we celebrated the inclusion of those of us who were maybe in some ways a mite different from the majority of the community we shared. It was informational, and fun, and I think it helped all of to grow as we learned from each other.
A couple of decades before my (too brief) time on the MAC, things had been different. We had among us those who remembered those times all too well. They remembered segregation, had battled with all that they had in them to bring it to an end.
I think that what has made the United States strong enough to have survived has been un underlying powerful belief that the forging of the strength of this nation lies not in her diversity per se but in the one-ness that makes the sum of the whole much greater than the parts.
There are any number of instructional articles and videos about the making of steel. There are any number of uses said steel can be put to.
That's sort of how I view our nation. We are forging something that will stand the test of time here.
To do it requires many different components put to many uses in many ways. It requires the integration of the many into the whole. Each standing apart cannot become what is needed. By the same token, the whole will not be indeed what it needs to be if any of the components are left out.
And so ... for a time the vision was to forge a new way, incorporating all of the parts necessary to make the whole as strong as it needs to be.
Have we lost that vision?
Because just lately it's come to me what has been nagging at me for so long.
I see and hear an entirely different version of our vision, and yes it bothers me.
Are the various parts now struggling to return to segregation, leaving the strength of an integrated whole? Do any of you recall the old catch-phrase 'separate but equal'? Seems to me that didn't work out all that well. Separation is not exactly much of a sign of equality, if you ask me. Yet it seems factions are developing that desire separation, and equality is left in the dust ... or the ashes ... take your pick.
You know, just because one group is smaller in size doesn't make it less vital to the forging of the whole. If you took it out of the mix, the result would be different all right - probably not nearly as strong. Try leaving one 'minor' ingredient out of a recipe once. It might still be okay but it surely won't be what it was supposed to be. The same goes for forging steel and just about everything else - including nations.
So really. Those who seem to be trying to 'set themselves apart' ... stop it. Just stop it. We are all just as important as each other, no more and no less. We will not become less than we are as a nation, and this re-segregation is not going to work.
In closing (I heard that sigh of relief) I refer you to the stars that grace the Flag of the United States of America. Yes I know they represent each and all of the States of our Nation. They can also represent the forging of this Nation, one made up of many. You notice that each of those stars is the same size; each is equal to all of the others. The fact that Texas and Alaska are far bigger than Rhode Island and Delaware is entirely moot. They share equal status, and our Flag needs ALL of her stars to be complete. Not a single one of those stars carries a label but together they, and the stripes of red and white that flank them, represent one nation. One. Recognizing and respecting individuality in NO way diminishes what that means but enhances it.
God Bless America
Indivisible
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)