Got Dem Cosmic Car Blues - Well the car is still in the shop, although I figure that there is about a 40% chance that the repairs might be completed today. I say 40% because they said it "should" be done today, which in the parlance of autobody shops translates to either...
"Yes, it will be ready, if for no other reason than the fact that we are tired of you calling"
or
"Nope, not a chance, but we will tell you that if it makes you feel better"
Regardless, not having a car is getting old. Strange in that I technically own three of them, but yet when I need one other than the one I normally drive there isn't another one to be had.
Another Side Effect...of not having a car is that I have to wait to get a ride to work, which I absolutely hate. I'd much prefer to get there now and get ready for this class I have to teach this afternoon. As it stands, I will probably not get into the office until about 7:45am.
Abortion Coverage, Part 1 - Up until this past week, it seems that the healthcare plan offered by the Republican National Committee (RNC) actually provided abortion procedure coverage. Hmmmmm, very interesting. Upon this being pointed out, RNC Chairman Michael Steele immediately:
1. Apologized to Rush Limbaugh (I know, he didn't, but I just couldn't help myself)
2. Took steps to have coverage for abortions removed from policy
What's interesting here is the hypocrisy of it all. While Republicans are quick to point out the hypocrisy of the likes of Bill Clinton & Ted Kennedy (for support of female causes while simultaneously having "spotted" records with the opposite sex), they themselves show us once again that disconnects between "saying" and "doing" are not unique to liberals.
Abortion Coverage, Part 2 - It is my personal option that healthcare coverage provided by any governmental entity (either as a employment benefit OR through a subsidized welfare benefit) should not provide for elective abortions. Now I am not suggesting that every time the government spends money that such spending needs to go through a taxpayer popularity contest. I am, instead, suggesting that there are many, many reasonable individuals who pay taxes that find this kind of coverage morally offensive. Forget the fruitcakes out there from Operation Rescue; I'm talking about average folks who pay taxes and believe that abortion is murder. Effectively forcing these individuals to pay for something through their taxes that they believe is murder seems unreasonable.
Note that my opinion above exists in an environment where abortion is still legal. If someone who becomes pregnant wants to have an abortion, I would not stop them, but I would not pay for it either. If this is something they want to do, this is something they should pay for themselves. "Personal responsibility" is more than 2 words and 21 letters.
Hypocrisy or Urban Legend? - While I am on the subjects to hypocrisy and healthcare, once in a while you hear/read stories about how many healthcare plans provide for E.D. coverage (i.e., Viagra) but do not provide for female contraception coverage. Now to be fair, I conducted a quick article search on this topic before I started to write this and couldn't find much that was current and which pointed to a wide-spread application of what I consider to be this blatant hypocrisy. Maybe this really isn't an issue any more. Hopefully this isn't an issue anymore. While I acknowledge that some may object to artificial contraception, I don't view those objections as having the same weight as, say, opposition to abortion. Why? Well first because this is my blog and my opinion, and second, the vast majority of Americans believe that artificial contraception isn't the same as abortion. In fact, polls show that a majority of Catholics...in a Church that opposes all forms of artificial contraception...believe that such contraception should be allowed (one of many citations here). Finally, I am not claiming that all forms of artificial contraception are created equal (that's another post for another day), but clearly some barrier forms of contraception do in fact prevent a pregnancy from ever occurring, which prevents the need to even think about abortion...and there is nothing hypocritical about that.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Car Trouble
My car has been in the shop since yesterday morning. This means that I get a ride to work, which means that I can't get out for a quick lunch errand, which means that I have to wait for a ride home. The worst is the last consequence. I absolutely HATE sitting and waiting to be picked up. Yesterday, since the weather was nice, I decided to walk home from work. It's about a mile and a half, give or take, which took me a little less than a half hour, including time to look at the odd thing or two on the ground or talk to the maintenance staff at Kennedy Elementary.
Another impact of the car problem is that it throws off my entire schedule. I normally have this time in the morning to think my thoughts and occasionally write some of them down here. With having to wait for a ride, it just throws the whole system off. By the way, I could walk to work, but it's all up-hill, it's chillier now, and it's also dark. While none of those reasons is really a good excuse for not hoofing it, they work.
We are all so spoiled, but in my defense I pay for three cars in this house. One would think that I could somehow borrow one of the other ones now and then, but such a thing would cause more political trouble than I care to deal with. I have a much lower tolerance for certain things, including drama surrounding my own need for a reasonable accommodation ever now and then. In short, some things are just not worth it.
Now my car might be done today, but more likely we are talking about tomorrow. Regardless, it can't come soon enough. I freely admit it: I'm a car loving American. This does, however, remind me to count these kinds of blessings.
Another impact of the car problem is that it throws off my entire schedule. I normally have this time in the morning to think my thoughts and occasionally write some of them down here. With having to wait for a ride, it just throws the whole system off. By the way, I could walk to work, but it's all up-hill, it's chillier now, and it's also dark. While none of those reasons is really a good excuse for not hoofing it, they work.
We are all so spoiled, but in my defense I pay for three cars in this house. One would think that I could somehow borrow one of the other ones now and then, but such a thing would cause more political trouble than I care to deal with. I have a much lower tolerance for certain things, including drama surrounding my own need for a reasonable accommodation ever now and then. In short, some things are just not worth it.
Now my car might be done today, but more likely we are talking about tomorrow. Regardless, it can't come soon enough. I freely admit it: I'm a car loving American. This does, however, remind me to count these kinds of blessings.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
For-Profit Healthcare: A Conflict by Definition?
"...directors and officers of a company are bound by fiduciary duties to act in the best interest of the shareholders..."
(www.companiesinc.com & other common references)
In the current debate about healthcare, there is a simple question that needs to be asked: where does the real obligation of a publicly traded heathcare provider lie, in maximizing the value to shareholders OR in providing necessary/proper care to subscribers?
In the business of running a for-profit healthcare company, the revenue comes from subscriber payments and the expenses come from providing healthcare services. Now when any of us are faced with a revenue shortfall in our own personal lives, typically one of the first things we look to do is to reduce our expenses, right? Why wouldn't the same hold true for a healthcare company? What's the roadblock that prevents such a company from denying appropriate/reasonable care simply to maximize profits?
I know, I know, the usual retort is one of "well for-profit healthcare providers earn revenue NOT by cutting back on care, but rather by becoming more efficient", which is at least partially true. However efficiency as a concept always curves, meaning that you can never continue to gleam efficiency benefits from a process at a constant rate forever. It's simply not possible, as there are only so many ways that any particular thing can be done "faster, better, cheaper" while maintaining the same rate of quality. What's left is the simple notion that the "real" money to be made in for-profit healthcare lies in finding ways to not provide services, so that the revenue which would have been spent on services is instead returned to shareholders in the form of profits. Sure, these companies can encourage people to be healthier and therefore need fewer services, but that's not nearly as easy as simply denying or cutting back on care. That's not pretty, but that's how business works. The sad part is that most people really don't want to think about this inherent conflict. Personally I've put my money where my mouth is in the issue by not selecting for-profit healthcare providers at work. I want the comfort of knowing that my provider is looking out for me first (not shareholders).
In the end, all of this is summed up in the Gospel of Luke, Chapter 16 verse 13:
More true words have never been spoken.
(www.companiesinc.com & other common references)
In the current debate about healthcare, there is a simple question that needs to be asked: where does the real obligation of a publicly traded heathcare provider lie, in maximizing the value to shareholders OR in providing necessary/proper care to subscribers?
In the business of running a for-profit healthcare company, the revenue comes from subscriber payments and the expenses come from providing healthcare services. Now when any of us are faced with a revenue shortfall in our own personal lives, typically one of the first things we look to do is to reduce our expenses, right? Why wouldn't the same hold true for a healthcare company? What's the roadblock that prevents such a company from denying appropriate/reasonable care simply to maximize profits?
I know, I know, the usual retort is one of "well for-profit healthcare providers earn revenue NOT by cutting back on care, but rather by becoming more efficient", which is at least partially true. However efficiency as a concept always curves, meaning that you can never continue to gleam efficiency benefits from a process at a constant rate forever. It's simply not possible, as there are only so many ways that any particular thing can be done "faster, better, cheaper" while maintaining the same rate of quality. What's left is the simple notion that the "real" money to be made in for-profit healthcare lies in finding ways to not provide services, so that the revenue which would have been spent on services is instead returned to shareholders in the form of profits. Sure, these companies can encourage people to be healthier and therefore need fewer services, but that's not nearly as easy as simply denying or cutting back on care. That's not pretty, but that's how business works. The sad part is that most people really don't want to think about this inherent conflict. Personally I've put my money where my mouth is in the issue by not selecting for-profit healthcare providers at work. I want the comfort of knowing that my provider is looking out for me first (not shareholders).
In the end, all of this is summed up in the Gospel of Luke, Chapter 16 verse 13:
"No servant can serve two masters"
More true words have never been spoken.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Apology
(picture link: http://www.boingboing.net/images/_drewfriedman_images_The-New-Godfather.jpg)
It's been a while since Michael Steele last apologized to Rush Limbaugh. I'm thinking a new apology is due. Maybe Mr Steele had a errant thought or two. Maybe he accidentally made a "Hillbilly Heroin" joke. Maybe he had an non-orthodox thought.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Shame, DA Style
There is nothing better than seeing politicians squirm, and that's just what Luzerne County DA Jackie Musto Carroll did this past week when faced with numerous questions from a panel investigating Luzerne County's new claim to fame: Judges who sold children for money.
Make no mistake about it:
1. District Attorneys are politicians & politics play a role in how they run their offices
2. The lack of legal representation for children in those courtrooms was painfully obvious
3. Many, many blind eyes were turned via some convoluted "the ends justify the means" logic
One needs to wonder whether or not Attorney Musto Carroll, on some level, thought that the politics of getting tough on juvenile offenders was good for her career. After all, highly political school administrators apparently thought the world of the "get tough" policies that existed in Luzerne County, and being in the prosecution business that was bound to help Attorney Musto Carroll. Politics indeed.
What happened in Luzerne County was evil, and the inaction from so many quarters not only allowed it to continue, it actually encouraged it further. The controls that should have been in place, such as officers of the court who are supposedly charged with seeing to it that justice is served, seem to have given way to an attitude of 'who cares/it's not my business/I'm afraid of the judge". Ignorance of the law (i.e. knowing the everyone must be informed of their right to legal representation in a courtroom) clearly is not the case here, as surely a sitting DA is well schooled in courtroom requirements. All that's left in this case is the notion that either Attorney Musto Carroll approved of the tactics of the judges in question (perhaps for the reasons noted above) OR she didn't care enough do anything about those tactics. Either defense is disgusting and shameful when paired to the facts of this situation.
It seems to me that calling Attorney Musto Carroll passively complicit in what happened in Luzerne County is reasonable....in fact, it's much more reasonable than, say, allowing a 13 year old to go to juvie-jail for some minor offense.
Attorney Musto Carroll should resign from her position.
The citizens of Luzerne County (of which I am not one...) deserve someone in the District Attorney's office who not only knows the law, but who also has the spine to stand up when others in their very presence flagrantly violate it.
Make no mistake about it:
1. District Attorneys are politicians & politics play a role in how they run their offices
2. The lack of legal representation for children in those courtrooms was painfully obvious
3. Many, many blind eyes were turned via some convoluted "the ends justify the means" logic
One needs to wonder whether or not Attorney Musto Carroll, on some level, thought that the politics of getting tough on juvenile offenders was good for her career. After all, highly political school administrators apparently thought the world of the "get tough" policies that existed in Luzerne County, and being in the prosecution business that was bound to help Attorney Musto Carroll. Politics indeed.
What happened in Luzerne County was evil, and the inaction from so many quarters not only allowed it to continue, it actually encouraged it further. The controls that should have been in place, such as officers of the court who are supposedly charged with seeing to it that justice is served, seem to have given way to an attitude of 'who cares/it's not my business/I'm afraid of the judge". Ignorance of the law (i.e. knowing the everyone must be informed of their right to legal representation in a courtroom) clearly is not the case here, as surely a sitting DA is well schooled in courtroom requirements. All that's left in this case is the notion that either Attorney Musto Carroll approved of the tactics of the judges in question (perhaps for the reasons noted above) OR she didn't care enough do anything about those tactics. Either defense is disgusting and shameful when paired to the facts of this situation.
It seems to me that calling Attorney Musto Carroll passively complicit in what happened in Luzerne County is reasonable....in fact, it's much more reasonable than, say, allowing a 13 year old to go to juvie-jail for some minor offense.
Attorney Musto Carroll should resign from her position.
The citizens of Luzerne County (of which I am not one...) deserve someone in the District Attorney's office who not only knows the law, but who also has the spine to stand up when others in their very presence flagrantly violate it.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Sure Sign of the Apocalypse #34: Ford to Replace the Crown Vic
Article link here.
Yes, that favorite of police departments and the over age 70 set is set to be phased out of production by 2011. This is a car that enjoys cutting-edge (of the 1970's) technology plus more interior room than the average Cuban house, not to mention a trunk more than fit for mafia body dumping duties.
One of my favorite things to do with my girls when we would go on long trips was to guess who was driving the Crown Vic's we saw on the road...old ladies or unmarked police.
What's next, replace the hot dog with some form of textured soy product? Put real cheese in cheese wiz?
My Least Healthy Relationship
Somehow I forgot over the years what the connection was between eating and actually being hungry. It almost became second nature to always just constantly be eating, not because I was hungry, but more so because that's just what I did. Maybe that makes sense in some way. Now I am not much of stress eater, although there are times when I was under stress and I would eat impulsively, but the additional eating load then didn't see much worse that the normal. For me, this whole disconnection between eating and hunger is about 90% of my problem.
Now doing something about this 90% problem is easier said than done, although I will say that I've been doing better lately. In some ways maybe I have/had a food addiction, if that's possible. What kind of addiction? I think I was more addicted to the act of eating more than I was the actual food itself. This just proves what I've heard from some very smart people over the years: weight loss and weight maintenance are not physical things, they are mental things.
This is tough to admit: I, Steve Albert, the guy who prides himself on usually having this "stuff" together, for keeping a calm head when all around him is swirling in disarray, has a mental health problem when it comes to his relationship with food. Ironic, huh? Now it's not as if I am morbidly obese or in danger of stroking out anytime soon, because that's clearly not the case at all. What is true is that ever since graduation from college, my weight has trended up.
Why?
I don't think that I ever really learned how to eat well growing up. That's not a negative against my mother, as she was faced with a Herculean task of raising four sons (all one year apart) all on her own. Probably more of the culprit is the fact that I had such a hyper metabolism as a teenager that I could eat anything and still be rail thin. Of course getting older put a stop to the metabolism, but while my body could not longer handle the constant eating that I learned as a teenager, my head was still wired to the behavior.
Speaking of my mother, she is a big supporter of the notion that you never stop learning new things. I agree. Lately, the newest thing I'm trying to learn is to change my relationship with food. The thought process is pretty simple:
...Eat when actually hungry
...Keep track of what I eat
...Don't eat so much that I end up feeling worse after eating than I did before eating
...Eat more slowly
...Eat better things
I don't have the discipline to diet. I've tried it and it failed, mainly because it's a quick fix that does nothing to change the underlying problems. I once did drop about 50lbs, the right way mind you, but I ended gaining much of it back because of this unhealthy relationship. It's like going back to that old girl/boyfriend you know will be there and who also know isn't really all that good for you. In the end I have to grow up and actually own what I consume. This includes acknowledging the problems I've had, and constantly being on vigil for those times when it's far too easy slip into a bad habit than it is to do the right thing.
Now doing something about this 90% problem is easier said than done, although I will say that I've been doing better lately. In some ways maybe I have/had a food addiction, if that's possible. What kind of addiction? I think I was more addicted to the act of eating more than I was the actual food itself. This just proves what I've heard from some very smart people over the years: weight loss and weight maintenance are not physical things, they are mental things.
This is tough to admit: I, Steve Albert, the guy who prides himself on usually having this "stuff" together, for keeping a calm head when all around him is swirling in disarray, has a mental health problem when it comes to his relationship with food. Ironic, huh? Now it's not as if I am morbidly obese or in danger of stroking out anytime soon, because that's clearly not the case at all. What is true is that ever since graduation from college, my weight has trended up.
Why?
I don't think that I ever really learned how to eat well growing up. That's not a negative against my mother, as she was faced with a Herculean task of raising four sons (all one year apart) all on her own. Probably more of the culprit is the fact that I had such a hyper metabolism as a teenager that I could eat anything and still be rail thin. Of course getting older put a stop to the metabolism, but while my body could not longer handle the constant eating that I learned as a teenager, my head was still wired to the behavior.
Speaking of my mother, she is a big supporter of the notion that you never stop learning new things. I agree. Lately, the newest thing I'm trying to learn is to change my relationship with food. The thought process is pretty simple:
...Eat when actually hungry
...Keep track of what I eat
...Don't eat so much that I end up feeling worse after eating than I did before eating
...Eat more slowly
...Eat better things
I don't have the discipline to diet. I've tried it and it failed, mainly because it's a quick fix that does nothing to change the underlying problems. I once did drop about 50lbs, the right way mind you, but I ended gaining much of it back because of this unhealthy relationship. It's like going back to that old girl/boyfriend you know will be there and who also know isn't really all that good for you. In the end I have to grow up and actually own what I consume. This includes acknowledging the problems I've had, and constantly being on vigil for those times when it's far too easy slip into a bad habit than it is to do the right thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
