As I was driving my youngest daughter to work today (yes...to work...and that's another line of thought all together) I was thinking about how I should really take a moment this morning and note all of the things I am thankful for, which generated the typical list-type thing in my head.
Then I thought to myself "nahhhhhh". It's not for lack of being thankful, but coming up with a 1-2-3 list isn't "real", rather it's a list for the sake of a list. So I thought to myself, "what are you really, really thankful for?"...you know, what's something that really leaves me genuinely grateful. To be honest, I can think of a few things that fall into that category, but for whatever reason one popped immediately into my head: Second Changes.
I am thankful for all the second changes I have been given in my life. Whether it's the opportunity to become more healthy, re-learn something I've long forgotten or fix something I've broken, life seems to always provide me with opportunities for doing it right. I suspect that I'm not alone in this regard, which is yet another great thing about second chances: they are available to all. The notion of second chances also flows well into my life philosophy (and the title of this blog): namely that it's not about where you get to or what you have, but rather what's really important is the journey you take in life. It's the journey that fills the space between life and death; the journey is what gives you sense of perspective as you look back on where you've been and look forward to where you can go. Looking back I have lots of fond memories, but also memories that aren't maybe so fond. The beauty of second chances is that while it doesn't un-do the past, it is always available to turn regret into an accomplishment.
Here's to second chances.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Things I Am NOT Thankful For...
(Inspiration from Ken at leavethebuilding.com)
This year I am NOT thankful for...
This year I am NOT thankful for...
- The Abuse of Children - Nothing is more horrible or cowardly.
- Religious Hypocrites - People who point fingers at others for sins they themselves are guilty of are at the top of my list.
- Chicken Hawks - People who are willing to send others off to die, but did not/would not serve if were their turn. Conservative commentators seem especially guilty of this kind of stuff. Special Note...while I disagree with Sarah Palin's politics, since she is the parent of a service member I can at least respect her opinion when it comes to matters of military commitments.
- Limousine Liberals - It's easy to preach compassion and care for the poor from the rear seat of your E-Class while drinking Cavasier, isn't it?
- The Pennsylvania Legislature - Every single member. If you ever want to see an "entitlement mentality" at work, don't go to an inner-city housing project...instead simply to go Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
- Excessive Consumption - Whether it's a middle-class couple buying a McMansion or a family on Welfare using a cellphone, people just need to learn to live within their means.
- Tobacco Companies - If I sold a product that killed everyone that bought it, I'd be in jail. Funny, but tobacco companies do that every day and get rewarded for their efforts.
- The Abuse of Science - Science brings you to conclusions based on a theory; the abuse of Science involves having a conclusion and then searching for (or creating) "facts" to support it.
- Bernie Madoff - Greed is not good.
- Fear Mongers - Some people seem to believe that you can win an argument by simply scaring people into believing you. That's not persuasion, it's one of the worst low-ball tactics employed in the public arena today.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Which newspapers, magazines or books do you read?
I am purposefully trying to not pay attention to the Sarah Palin book tour. Why? Well I have nothing against Ms Palin as a person, as a mother, hell as mayor of a small Alaskan city. I do have a problem when she is propelled to prospect of a national leadership position, simply because it creates the potential for her to impact my life AND she is grossly unqualified for any such position. When last I checked. "folksy" doesn't qualify you for anything, other than maybe becoming a grandparent.
Anyway, events have prevented me from completely ignoring the book tour. For example, I read where she was complaining about the Katie Couric "Ambush" interview. You know that one, don't you? The one where that sneaky Ms Couric dared to ask Ms Palin what newspapers, magazines or books she reads. I know, how dare she. Now Ms Palin could have said such titles as "American Conservative", "National Review" or any number of other smart conservative publications. Did she? No. Her response was, and I quote,
I'm sorry, but if Palin lacks the extemporaneous skills to handle Katie Couric, then I question her ability to handle other where the stakes might actually be higher (such as a world leader). I know, the people that want to believe in Ms Palin will make all manner of excuses for her, including "everyone has a bad day". Too bad. This was not a difficult question. This is a question that anyone on the street could answer.
For the record, I read the following:
Newspapers -
The Scranton Times (every day), USA Today (once or twice a week). I read many, many on-line news sources daily, including the Drudgereport, CNN, MSNBC and Fox.
Magazines -
I subscribe to Business Week, Fast Company, PC World and (believe it or not) Entertainment Weekly
Books -
I usually have a book going at any given time. I mostly enjoy reading biographies.
See, that wasn't so hard. Since I could answer that, does it mean I'm better qualified to be Vice President than Ms Palin? Of course not, but then again I don't think Ms Palin is qualified to be Vice President either.
Anyway, events have prevented me from completely ignoring the book tour. For example, I read where she was complaining about the Katie Couric "Ambush" interview. You know that one, don't you? The one where that sneaky Ms Couric dared to ask Ms Palin what newspapers, magazines or books she reads. I know, how dare she. Now Ms Palin could have said such titles as "American Conservative", "National Review" or any number of other smart conservative publications. Did she? No. Her response was, and I quote,
"All of 'em, any of 'em that have been in front of me over all these years."
I'm sorry, but if Palin lacks the extemporaneous skills to handle Katie Couric, then I question her ability to handle other where the stakes might actually be higher (such as a world leader). I know, the people that want to believe in Ms Palin will make all manner of excuses for her, including "everyone has a bad day". Too bad. This was not a difficult question. This is a question that anyone on the street could answer.
For the record, I read the following:
Newspapers -
The Scranton Times (every day), USA Today (once or twice a week). I read many, many on-line news sources daily, including the Drudgereport, CNN, MSNBC and Fox.
Magazines -
I subscribe to Business Week, Fast Company, PC World and (believe it or not) Entertainment Weekly
Books -
I usually have a book going at any given time. I mostly enjoy reading biographies.
See, that wasn't so hard. Since I could answer that, does it mean I'm better qualified to be Vice President than Ms Palin? Of course not, but then again I don't think Ms Palin is qualified to be Vice President either.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Fairy Tales (Dunmore PA edition)
"Fairy tales can come true, it can happen to you..."
(Young At Heart)
While I don't expect many folks to really care about the on-going Dunmore budget saga, I personally find it very, very interesting.
The latest installment can be found here.
So what's so interesting? Well Dunmore PA is a small borough that lies right next to the city of Scranton. It has a population that is a hair below 14,000 (statistics here), and like most towns in NEPA, it is has been slowly losing population over time. From a governing perspective, many of the things that are wrong with Scranton on a larger scale are wrong with Dunmore on a smaller scale. This includes gems like:
...entrenched, glad-handing politicians
...high expenses for governance
...incredibly unrealistic budgets
...reliance on one-time revenue sources/gifts (sometimes from a certain businessman...)
One of the unique things about Dunmore is that, despite it's size, it has a paid Fire Department. Oh, and they have a 1% wage tax. Oh, and they have their own school system. Seeing a pattern here? From my perspective, Dunmore lives on a macro level like those folks (who live in McMansions & finance a lifestyle via credit cards) live on a micro level: one heartbeat away from disaster. Well that disaster may have come, in two forms:
1. A recession that is sapping already inadequate revenues
2. Looming pension cost increases for education professionals
In the end, you simply can't spend more than you have, no matter how good your intentions. It's nothing short of a fairy tale on the part of any Dunmore resident who believes that they can have their paid fire department and other larger town attributes and still maintain the tax structure of a borough. Adding a little comic relief here, what was one of biggest issues facing the borough last year? The imbalanced budget? Nope. The fact that the Mayor has had virtually no opposition in 15 years in office? Nope. The looming pension crisis? Nope. Nope...it was a controversy surrounding a bench, outside of a fire house.
Look, I'm not someone living in a glass house throwing stones. I know how messed up things are in my hometown of Scranton. The scary part is that I'm not entirely sure that many Dunmore residents can say the same thing.
(Young At Heart)
While I don't expect many folks to really care about the on-going Dunmore budget saga, I personally find it very, very interesting.
The latest installment can be found here.
So what's so interesting? Well Dunmore PA is a small borough that lies right next to the city of Scranton. It has a population that is a hair below 14,000 (statistics here), and like most towns in NEPA, it is has been slowly losing population over time. From a governing perspective, many of the things that are wrong with Scranton on a larger scale are wrong with Dunmore on a smaller scale. This includes gems like:
...entrenched, glad-handing politicians
...high expenses for governance
...incredibly unrealistic budgets
...reliance on one-time revenue sources/gifts (sometimes from a certain businessman...)
One of the unique things about Dunmore is that, despite it's size, it has a paid Fire Department. Oh, and they have a 1% wage tax. Oh, and they have their own school system. Seeing a pattern here? From my perspective, Dunmore lives on a macro level like those folks (who live in McMansions & finance a lifestyle via credit cards) live on a micro level: one heartbeat away from disaster. Well that disaster may have come, in two forms:
1. A recession that is sapping already inadequate revenues
2. Looming pension cost increases for education professionals
In the end, you simply can't spend more than you have, no matter how good your intentions. It's nothing short of a fairy tale on the part of any Dunmore resident who believes that they can have their paid fire department and other larger town attributes and still maintain the tax structure of a borough. Adding a little comic relief here, what was one of biggest issues facing the borough last year? The imbalanced budget? Nope. The fact that the Mayor has had virtually no opposition in 15 years in office? Nope. The looming pension crisis? Nope. Nope...it was a controversy surrounding a bench, outside of a fire house.
Look, I'm not someone living in a glass house throwing stones. I know how messed up things are in my hometown of Scranton. The scary part is that I'm not entirely sure that many Dunmore residents can say the same thing.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Random Teenage Memories
For no reason, in no order and having no particular meaning...
...pay phones
...the smell of the Globe Store (especially the book department, which was near the restaurant)
...graduating from high school and having the principal not mention my name while handing out diplomas
...actually being good at basketball in during high school gym class
...wearing size 36 waist jeans and having them still falling down
...walking to school
...when people used to hitch-hike
...when there were "drunk comics" (like Foster Brooks); now days, for some strange reason, people think drunks are like dangerous or something
...putting plastic models together; at one time I think I had the entire Luftwaffe in my bedroom
...this blue plastic radio my mother had that we would listen to on Christmas Eve
...when cable consisted of about 20 channels
...wearing a Holter Monitor for a day in high school
...filling out the entrance application at Bishop Hannan
...serving at the morning Masses for a week a month at Holy Family with my brother Rich
...absolutely hating Ash Wednesday
...when people could smoke anywhere
...the green/orange 1974 Plymouth Duster that was so basic that it lacked carpeting (rubber mat) and a radio
...installing an FM Converter in my mother's Chevy Nova
...trying to get the courage up to ask someone to my Jr Prom
...listening to Pink Floyd and not getting what all the fuss was about
...when dances at school had live bands
...having an 8 track tape player
...the first album I ever bought (Parallel Lines by Blondie...I might still have it BTW)
...discovering the White Album by the Beatles
...working at 4H Camp during the summer
...delivering newspapers
...when it came to girls really, seriously not knowing what the hell I was doing (and in a purely karmic act, now having 3 daughters)
and last...
...thinking that "by the time the year 2000 comes around, my life will be all set"
...pay phones
...the smell of the Globe Store (especially the book department, which was near the restaurant)
...graduating from high school and having the principal not mention my name while handing out diplomas
...actually being good at basketball in during high school gym class
...wearing size 36 waist jeans and having them still falling down
...walking to school
...when people used to hitch-hike
...when there were "drunk comics" (like Foster Brooks); now days, for some strange reason, people think drunks are like dangerous or something
...putting plastic models together; at one time I think I had the entire Luftwaffe in my bedroom
...this blue plastic radio my mother had that we would listen to on Christmas Eve
...when cable consisted of about 20 channels
...wearing a Holter Monitor for a day in high school
...filling out the entrance application at Bishop Hannan
...serving at the morning Masses for a week a month at Holy Family with my brother Rich
...absolutely hating Ash Wednesday
...when people could smoke anywhere
...the green/orange 1974 Plymouth Duster that was so basic that it lacked carpeting (rubber mat) and a radio
...installing an FM Converter in my mother's Chevy Nova
...trying to get the courage up to ask someone to my Jr Prom
...listening to Pink Floyd and not getting what all the fuss was about
...when dances at school had live bands
...having an 8 track tape player
...the first album I ever bought (Parallel Lines by Blondie...I might still have it BTW)
...discovering the White Album by the Beatles
...working at 4H Camp during the summer
...delivering newspapers
...when it came to girls really, seriously not knowing what the hell I was doing (and in a purely karmic act, now having 3 daughters)
and last...
...thinking that "by the time the year 2000 comes around, my life will be all set"
Response to Comments, November 17th Posting
In the "I've been meaning to do this" department, I've been wanting to respond to Father Bechtel's comment to my posting about For-Profit Healthcare (Link here), but haven't really had the mental energy. Well I can't claim to be filled with energy or motivation at the moment, but I do love a good discussion, so here goes.
For the record, I've posted Father Bechtel's comments verbatim, with my comments/responses in [larger dark red bold bracketed text]. I apologize in advance for any spelling errors, as I'm not going to do much editing. Also, I made my response text larger so that it was easier for me...someone who has relatively poor vision...to read more easily, not to in any way diminish Father Bechtel's comments, which stand out well on their own.
*******************
For the record, I've posted Father Bechtel's comments verbatim, with my comments/responses in [larger dark red bold bracketed text]. I apologize in advance for any spelling errors, as I'm not going to do much editing. Also, I made my response text larger so that it was easier for me...someone who has relatively poor vision...to read more easily, not to in any way diminish Father Bechtel's comments, which stand out well on their own.
*******************
Hi Steve-
Actually I believe it is false that non-profit companies look out for you first. [For the record, I am not claiming that not-for-profits (NFP for sake of typing ease) are an ideal structure for healthcare delivery, but rather that they have a different set of motivators than for-profits (FP). Put anther way, as a private-sector guy, I recognize that the Private Sector is really, really good at some things, but really, really bad at others.] Look at the government. They are not for profit, yet what is their first goal? [Bad comparison Padre. Even the government itself recognizes in the tax code that there are really three types of organizational structures in the US economy...For Profit, Charitable, Governmental. For an example of what I mean, refer to section 400 of the Internal Revenue code, where section 401 deals with for-profit org. pensions, 403 deals with NFP/charitable org. pensions, and section 457 deals with governmental pensions. These different sections of the IRC exist in part because each type of organization has different drivers and goals.] Maintaining the establishment THEN looking out for you. You think congress will take a pay cut so that the government can provide more services? [No, but again there is a vast difference between a NFP and a governmental organization.] You think congress will give up their perks in order that taxes won't have to go up? [No, but again I think your comparison is flawed.] You think congress is going to subject themselves to the health care they want to give us? [In fact I agree with you about Congress. The US Federal government is (in)famous for exempting themselves from the rules the push on the rest of us. The is a classic example in the US Printing office, where wage/hour laws didn't apply. Again though, while I agree with your comments about the government, I disagree that you can draw a comparison between it and a NFP.]
Look at Ted Kennedy. He was a champion of government run health care- yet where was the first place he went for treatment? A private hospital with the best doctors available. Would WE be given that same preference under his plan, or would be stand in line behind everyone else and hope they get to us in time? I would like to ask Nancy Pelosi- if government run health care is supposed to be so wonderful- why won't you subject yourself to what you want to "give" us? The government wants to do everything "for us" yet the first place the government runs when it needs something is the PRIVATE SECTOR! [In point of fact, many Presidents (including Conservative icon Ronald Reagan) and members of Congress have, in fact, gotten healthcare treatment from Walter Reed Hospital. Now is Walter Reed some paragon of Private Sector healthcare success? No. It is run by the United States government. Does this make Walter Reed better than a private sector hospital? No, but it does point to the fact that the government can deliver healthcare...and I am not supportive of the government delivering healthcare.]
ANY Not for profit company first goal is ALWAYS maintenance of the establishment, THEN working on what it is set up for. That is the nature of things- that is how it is, because if the organization does not survive it cannot look out for you. As a result- not for profit companies like for profit companies look out for themselves first. [With all due respect Father, your point is a generalization. Some NFP do exist to maintain the status quo; others, such as St Jude Children's Research Hospital (www.stjude.org) are actually quite innovative. The point of my post was simple: FP organizations MUST benefit shareholders FIRST. That's not a generalization...it's a fact. That is, again, different than your generalization.]
I disagree that not for profit health care companies look out for you first. They look out for themselves first. They don't answer to shareholders, and granted they don't make money for anyone- but they still have to maintain the status quo. The FIRST goal of ANY organization, for profit or not is themselves. [The heart of my argument Father was that FP's have a legal obligation to shareholders first. Again, that is a LEGAL FACT. Your point is an educated opinion about the nature of NFP's...certainly based on your experience...but an opinion never the less. I'd say that my argument has slightly more weight.]
Not for profit companies just like for profit companies have to worry about the bottom line, which means they also want to do things "better, faster, cheaper" and they also want to decrease expenses while increasing revenue. [And many, many FPs decrease expenses not by the mantra of "faster, better, cheaper" but rather by the mantra of simply "cheaper". What's more, the profit motivation doesn't guarantee that the results of efficiency gains will go to customers...in fact, if you think about it, any efficiency gains actually go to shareholders.
By the way, look at the overhead rate for Medicare (about 3-8% I believe) vs the overhead rate in private-sector healthcare insurers (around 15% + I believe) who act as paying agents. The difference? Well FP companies, in order to satisfy investors, typically want a Return on Equity of around 10-12%+.]
Look at what they are doing at the not for profit public schools- more government funding- what do they do? Hire more administrators to "oversee" things, which creates more read tape, and thus less and less effeciency. [Father, I do think there is a substantial difference between NFP and the government. Schools are actually a great example...government run schools are in some measures much less efficient that the schools run by a little NFP organization you may be somewhat familiar with...you know, the Roman Catholic Church. EVEN YOU would have to admit that there is a distinct difference between the government and NFP in the education example. If you admit that in education...an example you brought up...that there is a substantial difference between an NFP and the government, then does that not taint your comparing NFPs to the government in other arenas?]
My approach to government, Steve, is I admit conservative. I believe less government control and more local involvement. I believe the government should stay out of our lives as much as possible and simply let us be. Don't "give" me anything if you have to raise my taxes to do it. Just let me live my life, and leave me alone. [I agree, which is why I don't want the government universally providing healthcare. But my distrust doesn't extend to just the government. I've worked in the private sector for 25 years, and one thing I've learned is that, at the end of the day, "the business of business is business" (to quote a famous person I don't recall at the moment)...it's NOT in looking out for you or me Padre. I find it AMAZING that many conservatives distrust the government as too big, too intrusive, too impersonal, etc., but yet BLINDLY TRUST business.
What I seek in healthcare is a motivation that centers around patients, not maximizing profits. I realize that there is no perfect model out there, but all my experience tells me that the current system in the US will never deliver cost-effective healthcare, simply because the profit motivation is simply stronger than the patient care motivation.]
Care to comment on my rant? [Response concluded :-).]
Father Dave Bechtel
I Get Tired Sometimes...
...although I'd like to think that I don't ever get tired, reality does have this knack for biting you on the ass to remind you that it is neither predictable, fair, or even reasonable.
So why all the doom-n-gloom? This already is starting out like the prepared speech of someone at the podium of Scranton City Council meeting.
The honest answer is that I don't think there is any one single thing that gets me discouraged. Despite what some who casually may know me think, I'll all-in-all a very positive guy. I love getting up and doing things. I love accomplishing things. Hell, I was up at 5:30am this morning thinking about what I was going to clean. I honestly just love living and breathing. It's just that sometimes the weight of things becomes so heavy that I grow tired of carrying it.
There are some things that at the moment weigh more heavily on me than others. Speaking of weight, one that I will mention is that I've been working hard at eating better since the beginning of the month. I have gone through these phases where I can be very disciplined about how and what I eat (I once lost nearly 60 pounds), and other times when I'm think I'm a living example of the Mr Creosote Sketch (note that this is not for the faint of heart). So far I've done well, but one of the things about weight loss is that it works like a football game: things can start off with a bang, but the game is won (or lost) slugging it out on the line. The "bang" for me was that I've quickly dropped almost 10 pounds, but now it's back to line and slugging it out a pound at a time. Now I'm not looking to even lose weight, truth be told. Instead, I'm just looking to eat less, eat better, and if the weight comes off, great. One of the things I learned from my last bout of weight loss is that you can't diet and be successful over the long term: diets simply don't work. Yes you can lose weight on a diet, but if you don't change your eating habits to something you can sustain after the diet, you simply gain all the weight back. Anyway, I continue to slug it out in the healthy eating trenches.
Another thing that "gets my goat" of late is that some people just suck. I know, that's crude sounding and at best sophomoric, but it is also true. Whether it's the person on a conference call that makes the off-handed-but-stupid comment (because they think their phone is on mute when it really isn't) or the individuals that you deal with who go from hot one minute to cold the next, it's just tiring as hell trying to deal with people. I just need some kindness and consistency.
Finally there is the issue of responsibility. I think we live in the age of no responsibility. Everyone wants it all, and they want it now. You go the store and you see people plunking down wads of cash to buy smokes and then paying for groceries with an Access Card. You see people who seem physically incapable of the very simple act of picking up after themselves. You see people who believe that luxuries are somehow God-given rights. Honestly, and this will sound harsh, but I just want to be responsible for me. I'm all for two people mutually helping each other...hell, that's what I call an even trade. But this one-way stuff makes me very tired.
Damn, this does sound gloomy. But you know what? I feel better after having written it, and maybe, just maybe, that's good enough. Here's to a more positive Sunday for one and all.
So why all the doom-n-gloom? This already is starting out like the prepared speech of someone at the podium of Scranton City Council meeting.
The honest answer is that I don't think there is any one single thing that gets me discouraged. Despite what some who casually may know me think, I'll all-in-all a very positive guy. I love getting up and doing things. I love accomplishing things. Hell, I was up at 5:30am this morning thinking about what I was going to clean. I honestly just love living and breathing. It's just that sometimes the weight of things becomes so heavy that I grow tired of carrying it.
There are some things that at the moment weigh more heavily on me than others. Speaking of weight, one that I will mention is that I've been working hard at eating better since the beginning of the month. I have gone through these phases where I can be very disciplined about how and what I eat (I once lost nearly 60 pounds), and other times when I'm think I'm a living example of the Mr Creosote Sketch (note that this is not for the faint of heart). So far I've done well, but one of the things about weight loss is that it works like a football game: things can start off with a bang, but the game is won (or lost) slugging it out on the line. The "bang" for me was that I've quickly dropped almost 10 pounds, but now it's back to line and slugging it out a pound at a time. Now I'm not looking to even lose weight, truth be told. Instead, I'm just looking to eat less, eat better, and if the weight comes off, great. One of the things I learned from my last bout of weight loss is that you can't diet and be successful over the long term: diets simply don't work. Yes you can lose weight on a diet, but if you don't change your eating habits to something you can sustain after the diet, you simply gain all the weight back. Anyway, I continue to slug it out in the healthy eating trenches.
Another thing that "gets my goat" of late is that some people just suck. I know, that's crude sounding and at best sophomoric, but it is also true. Whether it's the person on a conference call that makes the off-handed-but-stupid comment (because they think their phone is on mute when it really isn't) or the individuals that you deal with who go from hot one minute to cold the next, it's just tiring as hell trying to deal with people. I just need some kindness and consistency.
Finally there is the issue of responsibility. I think we live in the age of no responsibility. Everyone wants it all, and they want it now. You go the store and you see people plunking down wads of cash to buy smokes and then paying for groceries with an Access Card. You see people who seem physically incapable of the very simple act of picking up after themselves. You see people who believe that luxuries are somehow God-given rights. Honestly, and this will sound harsh, but I just want to be responsible for me. I'm all for two people mutually helping each other...hell, that's what I call an even trade. But this one-way stuff makes me very tired.
Damn, this does sound gloomy. But you know what? I feel better after having written it, and maybe, just maybe, that's good enough. Here's to a more positive Sunday for one and all.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Road Apples, #51
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.
"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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)