Sunday, August 30, 2009
health care reform
I have been thinking a lot about it, as I recovered from the flu. I keep wondering why someone doesn't show me how much money I will be saving with reform?
Right now, if you work they take medicare payments from your check - and you are not able to use it - so you're paying for insurance you can't use. When you can "qualify" for Medicare you still have to pay for it, and then pay out of pocket for the things that Medicare does NOT cover.
Then, if you are not on Medicare and still working, you are paying a premium for health insurance from a private company to insure yourself and your family. Most medical insurance policies dicatate that you have to pay a co-pay and a deductible when you do use your insurance, and there are limits on who takes the insurance, which hospitals you can go to and how much of your illness will or will not be considered "medically necessary" so you might have to pay even more. Some even are specific to locale, meaning there is no coverage, or limited coverage if you venture out of the "service area"
If you have a previously diagnoised illness it might not be covered, no matter how much you have paid into the system.
Some medical insurance has attached a prescription plans, others do not. Some cover glasses and dental work. No insurance I know if covers hearing aids, yet just as many people have hearing aids as do glasses any more. You don't get your medications for free, instead American citizens have to spend retail dollars to keep the American drug manufacturers "solvent" by paying the highest prices in the western world for drugs that can be bought much cheaper in other countries. Ah yes, you can get them discounted at specific pharmacies, but my question is if ONE pharmacy can sill make money selling the drugs that much cheaper why are we allowing other pharmicies to charge more for them?
So we let the pharmaceutical cojmpanies tell us what we can use and how much we can pay for it. We let the doctor's dictate where we can go for treatment and because they all don't accept the same insurance, and if you want Dr. X you have to go when he allows you to go when you need hospitalization. We have to stay within a rationed system of care going only to the places deemed acceptable to the insurer and doctor. And even doing so, we have to decide how much care we can afford to "buy".
Now...which part of this grand system seems better to you than paying ONE insurance premium via taxes and receiving 100% fee free care for ANY and ALL medical problems? Additionally , we would not be limited to location of service or the number of times that service is rendered.
How much,I wonder, does the accumulated cost per citizen in medicare cost, medicare usage fee, supplemental insurance, private health, dental and prescription premiums differ from any citizen paying no other fees, but their taxes for comprehansive health care? Has someone compared the numbers? The costs? If so, why the hell NOT?
Right now, if you work they take medicare payments from your check - and you are not able to use it - so you're paying for insurance you can't use. When you can "qualify" for Medicare you still have to pay for it, and then pay out of pocket for the things that Medicare does NOT cover.
Then, if you are not on Medicare and still working, you are paying a premium for health insurance from a private company to insure yourself and your family. Most medical insurance policies dicatate that you have to pay a co-pay and a deductible when you do use your insurance, and there are limits on who takes the insurance, which hospitals you can go to and how much of your illness will or will not be considered "medically necessary" so you might have to pay even more. Some even are specific to locale, meaning there is no coverage, or limited coverage if you venture out of the "service area"
If you have a previously diagnoised illness it might not be covered, no matter how much you have paid into the system.
Some medical insurance has attached a prescription plans, others do not. Some cover glasses and dental work. No insurance I know if covers hearing aids, yet just as many people have hearing aids as do glasses any more. You don't get your medications for free, instead American citizens have to spend retail dollars to keep the American drug manufacturers "solvent" by paying the highest prices in the western world for drugs that can be bought much cheaper in other countries. Ah yes, you can get them discounted at specific pharmacies, but my question is if ONE pharmacy can sill make money selling the drugs that much cheaper why are we allowing other pharmicies to charge more for them?
So we let the pharmaceutical cojmpanies tell us what we can use and how much we can pay for it. We let the doctor's dictate where we can go for treatment and because they all don't accept the same insurance, and if you want Dr. X you have to go when he allows you to go when you need hospitalization. We have to stay within a rationed system of care going only to the places deemed acceptable to the insurer and doctor. And even doing so, we have to decide how much care we can afford to "buy".
Now...which part of this grand system seems better to you than paying ONE insurance premium via taxes and receiving 100% fee free care for ANY and ALL medical problems? Additionally , we would not be limited to location of service or the number of times that service is rendered.
How much,I wonder, does the accumulated cost per citizen in medicare cost, medicare usage fee, supplemental insurance, private health, dental and prescription premiums differ from any citizen paying no other fees, but their taxes for comprehansive health care? Has someone compared the numbers? The costs? If so, why the hell NOT?
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Fat - it's all about choice
People complain about being fat, especially around here.
But This week I noticed something that may have escaped some folks.
The women who are the heaviest in the offices are the ones to eat more.
Lunch for the skinny ones are likely to be soup and a piece of fruit, or a yogurt and some fruit.
Lunch for the ever complaining heavy women consisted of Wendy's combo (with fries instead of a salad) or Hot Pockets, but not just one - which is one serving - but BOTH.
No wonder they complain. It's not easy to be thinner when you eat all the wrong foods.
But This week I noticed something that may have escaped some folks.
The women who are the heaviest in the offices are the ones to eat more.
Lunch for the skinny ones are likely to be soup and a piece of fruit, or a yogurt and some fruit.
Lunch for the ever complaining heavy women consisted of Wendy's combo (with fries instead of a salad) or Hot Pockets, but not just one - which is one serving - but BOTH.
No wonder they complain. It's not easy to be thinner when you eat all the wrong foods.
Sunday, August 02, 2009
the threshold
Having spent many of my formative years in less than ideal neighborhoods I can tell you I've seen it used repeatedly for years.
A cop is called to a home because of some suspected illegal activity or disturbance. If the call turns out to be a false alarm the cops don't want to have to log it as such. the police ask if the person will "step outside" for a moment. Now, woudlnt' you think a person would want to stay inside and keep such matters private?
I have see police officesrs question the owner of a property so they "annoy" the person. When the person become loud or asks for the badge number the police office or try to get information from the officer so he can be reported to his superiors the cop walks away - conviently outside of the residence - across the threshold.
Once the person who has been annoyed crosses the threshold the cop arrests him for distrubing the peace.
Apparently the charge can only be made if the person being charged is "in public" not in his own home/residence.
It's a tactic.
And it's wrong.
A cop is called to a home because of some suspected illegal activity or disturbance. If the call turns out to be a false alarm the cops don't want to have to log it as such. the police ask if the person will "step outside" for a moment. Now, woudlnt' you think a person would want to stay inside and keep such matters private?
I have see police officesrs question the owner of a property so they "annoy" the person. When the person become loud or asks for the badge number the police office or try to get information from the officer so he can be reported to his superiors the cop walks away - conviently outside of the residence - across the threshold.
Once the person who has been annoyed crosses the threshold the cop arrests him for distrubing the peace.
Apparently the charge can only be made if the person being charged is "in public" not in his own home/residence.
It's a tactic.
And it's wrong.
birth certificate
As soon as Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh produce an "original copy" of their birth certificates I will beleive they are US citizens and not illegal aliens, undocumented workers, who are capable of holding jobs in the United States of America. If the copies they produce are just the same authroized certified copies issued by the states in which they were hatche - er I mean born - then I will not beleive they have to rights granted as natural born US citizens, to claim freedom of speech so they can mud rack and scandalize every item of "news" they choose.
Until then I suspect they are really here in America to cause disention and disruption of our democracy.
Until then I suspect they are really here in America to cause disention and disruption of our democracy.
