MEandering

Happy Holidays and a Joyous New Year

And the angel said unto them,

"Fear not!

For, behold, I bring you

tidings of great joy,

Which shall be to all people.

"For unto you is born

this day in the city of David

A Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

And this shall be a sign unto you:

Ye shall find the babe

wrapped in swaddling clothes,

Lying in a manger.

~ St. Luke 2:10-12

They convinced me!

Protect Insurance Companies PSA from Will Ferrell

"No one should die because they cannot afford health care...

I confess, I consider Facebook to be a waste of time. The status update request,

"No one should die because they cannot
afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick.
If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day"

came to me as a part of reading random news articles because my Facebook friends list is so short that none of them had yet jumped on the bandwagon.

It occurred to me that maybe it is just simple enough that it may convince a few more of we-the-people to see that the real issue is not that complex. National health care is all about providing health care to the nation in a fashion that is available to everyone. The "debate" is really complex, but the issue is not.

My Facebook status has been updated, and now so has my blog. Maybe I will add it to my email signature line also.

Reality, Sgt. James Crowley, and Mr. Henry Louis Gates Jr.

alternate title: Annie's Theory of What Happened

Reality sometimes bites.

Reality: Mr. Gates feels, correctly, that he has earned respect.

Reality: Sgt. Crowley feels, correctly, that police serve an important function and should be respected.

The above facts led to each of the gentlemen in question behaving in a fashion that impinged upon the feelings on the other gentleman.

My simple explanation ignores a bunch of stuff--racism, class, etc..--that might have also been in the mix. However, I'm certain that Sgt. Crowley mostly has easier dealings across racial lines and that Mr. Gates normally has easier dealings across class lines, so that "other stuff" cannot be the primary explanation.

In simple terms, I believe that each of the two nice gentlemen got his feelings hurt and did not know how to communicate the fact to the other nice gentleman.

Better communication skills on each of their parts would have resulted in no arrest, no national uproar, no beer with the president and with each gentleman experiencing generally good feeling towards each other.

Of course, our society does generally frown on tough guys who sob out their hurts to each other and end unpleasant encounters with a hug.

Oh Dear Me!

I seem to have been so traumatized by the Dashle disappointment that I completely forgot this page for awhile. (Either that or Annie Gabhow, running around Toontown, took up the attention that would have otherwise been directed here.)

However it happened, I have completely neglected all two (maybe even three) of my readers for these many months and I extend my sincerest apologies for doing so.

Apology out of the way, I would like to direct your attention to the Civil Politics page and pledge. If you read this far, you can read it for yourself without any assistance from me. I admit that, other than the fun of watching the numbers grow, I have no real interest in whether you take the pledge in so public a manner.

We, if we are ever going to be an "adult" society, need to become a society that can discuss issues intelligently. Take the pledge. In public, for the sake of my enjoyment. In private, for the sake of our nation.

Tom Daschle GETS It!

Health care is a complex topic, but myths should not cover up a simple truth: We are wasting money by paying top dollar for mediocre results.
Tom Daschle (See full article)

The quotation above is taken from an article written by the gentleman who has probably been chosen as our new Health and Human Services Secretary. I have not yet read enough about his thoughts on how to get health care for every American to know whether I agree with what he thinks is the best way to go. However, the fact that he sees the situation as it is means that we-the-people may get a form of national health care that provides better medical care instead of higher profits for insurers.

Yes! We Can!

The candidate was not the story. The story was We-The-People.

I liked the message. I liked the fact that the message was delivered by a speaker who sounded like he believed what he was saying.

I love the fact that the message was heard, and believed, by millions of Americans who took that belief to the polls.

It was we-the-people in action, believing that, if we want things to be different, to be better, it is up to us, individually and collectively, to make them different.

I cannot predict how well the new President-elect will do as President. I can predict that the army of we-the-people who worked so hard, and so effectively, to make him President will continue to make a difference in America.

Many members of that army woke up on November 5^th , 2008 with a feeling of letdown. The war over, victory won and, “What do I do now?”

I doubt that many of them will fall back to the pre-Obama helplessness of waiting for someone else, not even Obama, to take the full burden of making America the nation it could be. They have learned the real American lesson that, once learned, is unlikely to ever be forgotten.

All positive change starts with one person believing: Yes! I can!

Thank You Sarah Palin

Thanks Sarah!

Is it just me? Have you noticed that John McCain did not do too badly in the election? The large difference in electoral votes may mask the fact that the popular vote was something like 52% Obama to 46% McCain. Had three voters in each hundred switched from Obama to McCain, the race would have been a tie. Four voters switching would have seen a President-elect McCain instead of President-elect Obama.

Sixty percent of the public feels that Sarah Palin is not qualified to be the President of this nation. When sixty of every hundred say that she is unqualified, is it any stretch to guess that she cost McCain at least four votes from each hundred?

Thank you Sarah Palin. The world is in your debt.

Trick-or-Treat!

Halloween 2008

Bluehost - aka Ethical Management

I do not, in general, go in for product endorsements, paid or otherwise. This, for the record, is a product endorsement and it is one that I have not been paid to make.

The Gabston-Howell's online presence is hosted by Bluehost and has been for a few years now. After we decided that we needed the stability of a paid service, we started shopping for a company that would meet our needs. We signed up with Bluehost and have never regretted it.

For me, the best thing about dealing with them is the fact that I normally don't need to deal with them. I pay for a service, I get a service. The good job that Bluehost does is something I take for granted. Although this is how it should be, it is rare that this is what actually exists.

The other day, we had a rare interruption in service. We turned on the tap but no water flowed. Our pages did not display when the URLs were typed into the address bar. Bluehost took too long to fix it.

The thing that made our experience with Bluehost different from our experiences with other companies was that, throughout, it was possible to call and talk to a person. Nobody denied responsibility or acted like we were being unreasonable to expect service. We were not forced to prove that we really could spell our own names before the company admitted that there was a problem.

The reason for the interruption was that Bluehost had overlooked minor mistakes while providing a free upgrade to our plan (free upgrades have been frequent, unrequested and always impressive throughout our time with the company) and had not noticed until we called. Even though the interruption was as a result of trying to improve service, they did not attempt to excuse the problem.

They recognized that they had messed up, told us they would fix it, then they fixed it. I am back to being mostly unaware that Bluehost exists. This is as I think it should be.

Please see http://mattheaton.com/ , Mr. Bluehost's blog. Pay special attention to his January 12, 2008 post. The man, and therefore the man's business, clearly understands that when you turn on the tap, the water should flow and that when this does not happen, the proper response is to correct the problem and render an apology.

(Drum roll please) If you are considering a paid hosting service, please consider Bluehost.

On the Other Side of the Fence

Envy is silly and unproductive but sometimes it sneaks up on me. My usual attitude about somebody else having something that I want is to figure out how to get it and decide whether the cost is something that I am willing to pay.

Over the years, this cost/benefit analysis has often led to the conclusion that, although I could have whatever it was I was drooling over, I did not want it enough to be willing to give up something else that I already had or had been working toward. Having a family of any size--let alone one the size of my own--very often means that I do not get to have the latest, greatest new thing on the market. That is not said out of regret, far from it. In a Silas Marner-like fashion, I count my gold and feel complete. Other people may have their treasures, but my own treasure--my children and spouse--are riches enough for me.

Yesterday morning, I stumbled. I felt near-overwhelming envy. Although it lasted for only a moment or two, it was real and definite. For whole, precious seconds I felt like throwing myself to the floor, kicking and screaming and demanding my share of what someone else has.

If the emotion had risen to the level of rational thought, it would have been expressed in the words: It's not fair!

I got over it quickly. I counted my gold and realized, yet again, how great is my own wealth.

The catalyst for my momentary fall from grace? My oldest daughter--the one who first taught me that the joy of parenthood, for me, is so great that any claims of 'sacrificing for my children's sake' is mendacious--sent me a text message.

Dr. Daughter is all grown up now. She has made very different choices in life. As a rule, her accomplishments are something that I am smugly proud of. My 'child' has grown up into a fantastic person. When I look at her, at how far she has traveled, at who she made herself become, I feel a physical surge of parental pride. She is herself and complete, but she is a piece of my soul that stands outside of me, that I can look at and love and admire without feeling hedonistic.

Her different life choices have led to different experiences that--usually--do not inspire envy. I like my life. The cost of having the life that I have is not having the life that she has. I am very much okay with that. Usually.

Just for a moment, though, I turned green with envy over something that my child has earned that I have not. She could afford this week what I probably will not be able to afford for myself for years. She revealed, in her text message, that she spent fifteen hours on herself.

Fifteen hours.

Where's the love, ya'll?

Happy Valentine's Day!

The Cat Bowling Coach

Not feeling so good about your WII Bowling score? Never fear, Cat Coach is here!

Everyone Knows That We Cannot Afford National, Single-Payer Health Care

I know that I am something of a contrarian. I have the bad habit of doubting popular opinion and this habit is not always limited by whether or not popular opinion is based on fact. My first instinct is to doubt--irregardless of subject--, when I hear the words, or even the strong implication of the words, "Everyone knows."

I have known, for most of my life, that a national single-payer health care model would be a bad thing for the United States. Or rather, I have known that 'everyone' knows this. Genetically and environmentally prone to being contrary, I have never actually believed it, but never bothered to do enough research to satisfy myself that my opinion did not merely represent another instance of my own contrary nature.

I recently decided to find out what it is that "everyone knows" on this subject and whether they know what they "know".

Asking people what they thought of the government taking over the financial burden of paying for everyone's health care, I got the expected answer. My friends--the people most us mean when we say "everyone"--mostly believe it would be a bad idea. (The exception to the 'mostly' were, by and large, those who grew to maturity in another country that does have national health care. )

Everyone knows that we cannot afford national, single-payer health care. Everyone's taxes would increase, I was told, to pay to cover the uninsured. A subset of my "everyone" believes that it might be financially feasible to have national health care if we could manage to send all the illegal immigrants away, because their care is a huge factor in the nation's health care expense. Another subset believes it would be too expensive because the government is so incompetent that any health care plan overseen by them would actually increase the expense of medical care and lead to things like taxpayer dollars paying $100 for an aspirin.

Interestingly enough, of the members of my "everyone" that I talked to, some of the "illegal immigrants drive up costs" people are legal immigrants and most of the "incompetent government would drive up costs" people are Los Angeles County employees.

This unscientific research,--conducted by asking my friends, "What do you think of the idea of national health care?" and nodding a lot to encourage them to give me the full benefit of their wisdom on the subject, --convinced me that "everyone" does indeed know that we cannot afford single-payer national heath care.

It turns out that my "everyone" does not know quite as much as they think they do.

FACT: The vast majority of people lacking health insurance in the United States were born in the United States.
FACT: A large percentage of those lacking health insurance are employed full time.
FACT: Many of the people who have health insurance lack actual access to care because they are under-insured and cannot afford deductibles and co-pays required by their insurance provider.
FACT: Many people who are fully insured currently will lack access if they experience a serious illness when they lose insurance coverage because of a job loss or are dropped by their insurance provider.
FACT: The U.S. government already pays for much of the health care in the nation. With programs to cover some elderly and/or disabled adults, some children and some impoverished U.S. residents and with laws mandating emergency room treatment, We-the-People already are the single largest health insurance provider in the nation, providing coverage--back in 2004--for approximately 45% of the nation's health care costs.
FACT: Although the U.S. is one of the few nations in the world that does not guarantee health care for everyone, counting only U.S. government expenditures, this nation is among the top 10 nations in the world in terms of per capita health care spending.
FACT: Once we add the cost borne by employers, individuals and other non-government health care funding to the cost borne by the government, We-the-people pay more per capita than any nation in the world for health care, but--according to the World Health Organization--the care we get ranks 37th in overall performance and 72nd in overall level of health among the 191 nations compared.

We-the-people seem pretty convinced nowadays that we have to make certain that everyone has access to health care, but "everyone" seems convinced that the way to provide that access is by forcing everyone who can afford it to buy private health insurance and by paying for/helping to pay for private health insurance for those who cannot afford it.

Contrary me looked at a sample of the facts available and decided that the cheapest, most efficient way to go is single-payer. We-the-people have a responsibility to each other to guarantee heath care and the cheapest, most reliable way to do that is NOT to pay a health insurance company to pay a health care provider. We tried that already and the result is paying more and getting less for our money.

It is clear to me that we cannot afford not to have a single-payer, national health care plan.

+++++++++++++++++++

JAMA. 2003;289:1165.
It is only partially true to say that the United States doesnot currently have a national health care system. The Centersfor Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) estimated the 1999government share of total US health spending as 45.2% ($548billion).¹ This estimate includes funding for Medicare, Medicaid,workers' compensation, the Department of Veterans Affairs, publichospitals, and government public health activities. Thus, publicfunds directly pay for the health care of many people in theUnited States. Read the entire JAMA article.

One out of six Americans under age sixty-five lacks healthinsurance, a situation that imposes sizable hidden costs uponsociety. The poorer health and shorter lives of those withoutcoverage account for most of these costs. Other impacts aremanifested by Medicare and disability support payments, demandson the public health infrastructure, and losses of local healthservice capacity. We conclude that the estimated value of healthforgone each year because of uninsurance ($65-$130 billion)constitutes a lower-bound estimate of economic losses resultingfrom the present level of uninsurance nationally. Read the entire Project Hope article.

Wikipedia article with links to sources.

Data below from US Census Bureau, August 2007 release.

The number of people without health insurance coverage rose from 44.8 million (15.3 percent) in 2005 to 47 million (15.8 percent) in 2006.

Overview

The number of uninsured children increased from 8 million (10.9 percent)
in 2005 to 8.7 million (11.7 percent) in 2006.

Race and Hispanic Origin (Race data
refer to those reporting a single race only)

The number of uninsured, as well as the rate without health insurance,
remained statistically unchanged in 2006 for non-Hispanic whites (at 21.2
million or 10.8 percent). For blacks, the number and percentage increased,
from 7 million in 2005 to 7.6 million and from 19 percent in 2005 to 20.5
percent. The number of uninsured Asians remained statistically unchanged,
at 2 million in 2006, while their uninsured rate declined to 15.5 percent
in 2006, from 17.2 percent in 2005.
The number and percentage of uninsured Hispanics increased from 14 million
(32.3 percent) in 2005 to 15.3 million (34.1 percent).
Based on a three-year average (2004-2006), 31.4 percent of people who
reported American Indian and Alaska Native as their race were without coverage.
The three-year average for Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders
was 21.7 percent.

Nativity

Between 2005 and 2006, the number of U.S.-born residents who were uninsured
increased from 33 million to 34.4 million, and their uninsured rate increased
from 12.8 percent in 2005 to 13.2 percent. The number of foreign-born who
were uninsured rose from 11.8 million in 2005 to 12.6 million, and their
rate was statistically unchanged at 33.8 percent in 2006.

Regions

The Midwest had the lowest uninsured rate in 2006, at 11.4 percent, followed
by the Northeast (12.3 percent), the West (17.9 percent) and the South (19
percent). The Northeast and South experienced increases in their uninsured
rates — their 2005 rates were 11.7 percent and 18 percent, respectively.

States

Rates for 2004-2006 using a three-year average show that Texas (24.1
percent) had the highest percentage of uninsured. The rates for Minnesota,
Hawaii, Iowa, Wisconsin and Maine were lower than the rates of the other
45 states and the District of Columbia. The rates for these five states
were not statistically different from one another.
Fifteen states had an uninsured rate that was statistically higher than
the national rate of 15.3 percent, while 29 states and the District of Columbia
had rates statistically lower than the U.S. average. Six states had rates
that were not statistically different from the national average.

Common Sense

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom." --Thomas Paine--

I am following, with some fascination, the whole "Is waterboarding torture?" thing playing out in the news and on the Internet. It used to be torture. It may or may not be torture now. Somehow, there stopped being a simple answer around the time we-the-people decided that torture is illegal in the United States.

The statement now, from those who have used waterboarding, plan to use waterboarding in the future, or just want to keep their options open is apparently, "Torture is illegal but waterboarding is not torture, therefore waterboarding is legal."

It is interesting how true Mr. Paine's words continue to be. A person in power wanted the freedom to do as he pleased. People who worked for him, although paid from the taxpayer's purses, told the boss that he could do what he wanted. Years of being allowed to ignore an inconvenient law has given the habit the appearance of being right. The 'superficial appearance' has lead to the public revelation of what was previously only suspected.

Now we get to endure the campaign to convince we-the-people--who really can read and who really do sometimes think about what we read--that what we have read does not actually say what we think it says. It is, quite clearly, Mr. Paine's "formidable outcry in defense of custom" as if they were following a script.

I would like, someday, to see a different script read. Instead of a spin-campaign when government strays from the path of righteousness, how about full-disclosure and a simple statement that says, "We apologize. We were wrong. We will do everything in our power to prevent anything like this from ever happening again."

It would be a start.