As all two or three of my regular readers know, I am not one to heap praise on actions proposed by Barack Obama. However, sit down for this one: I strongly support one of his recent proposals!
He recently came out with a cost-savings measure in the federal bureaucracy that I can get behind and rally the populace from the rooftops. (That means it's doomed to failure, but at least he proposed it. I'll give him props for that...)
Somehow, in a discussion about how there were so many offices involved in international trade, and how foreign companies had to run the gauntlet of all of them, spanning several Cabinet departments, he actually said he wanted to combine the offices that did basically the same thing and streamline the process. Yes, he really used the words "combine" and "government agencies" in the same sentence -- and with a positive point of view!
I nearly pulled a Fred Sanford and called for Elizabeth, but, then I got a grip. I needed to examine if my ears were clear enough to understand that I had NOT mis-heard, and that I was not dreaming. I need to search to see exactly when he said it, and I'll work on doing more research to be able to discuss it more fully. And I heard it again on the following newscast. Hmmm...
As I said, I can enthusiastically support him on this (if it ever comes to pass). That doesn't mean he'll get my vote in November -- he won't -- but, at least a stopped clock is right twice a day, and I'll give him a round of applause for the idea.
Just sayin...
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Saturday, December 18, 2010
The End of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
As of the Senate vote today, it's all over but the shouting.
Sort of.
The US Senate voted today to repeal the military policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) that was first passed in 1993 as an upgrade to the former military policy on gay and lesbian personnel. Before that, it was possible to just whisper that Joe X. was a "homo" and the military could start on the procedures to drum him out.
Or not.
Back in the late 70's, I had a roommate who was gay. He was in the military and a flaming queen. He was also the chief steno to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with the concomitant security clearances, and for which he had just been re-certified. He died a few years later, and the military had to know he was gay, yet, because he was such a good steno, nothing was ever done about it.
Even during the Vietnam War, many men who were trying to avoid the conflict told their draft boards that they "had homosexual thoughts" or were "actively homosexual" and yet the military said, "So what? We still need you -- you're on your way to 'Nam. Have a nice trip."
When I was draft-eligible, in 1973, the war had wound down, and there was not much likelihood that I would face conscription, even though my draft lottery number was 70, and the first 95 were re-classified as 1-A (ready to go). College deferments were no longer available, and, if the military had needed us, we would have been drafted if our number was called.
Amazingly, when Vietnam was over and the US wasn't involved in active military operations, "we don't care" turned into "now, you got our attention." And, this was one of the factors that led to the 1992 Clinton-Gore campaign pledge of allowing open gays and lesbians to serve honorably.
In actual fact, all throughout history, gay men have fought and died along with their heterosexual comrades. Many countries have allowed open gays to serve in their military forces for years.
Needless to say, when Bill Clinton tried to change the policy in 1993, the "fit hit the shan," and the Congress got involved. The compromise that came about was DADT. Someone gay or lesbian could serve, but not be open about it. Essentially, the brass was told "Don't Ask," and the gay personnel were advised, "Don't Tell." The military would no longer go on a witch hunt and try to find out one's sexual orientation, but, if it became an issue, then, the military would, in its discretion, begin the separation proceedings.
Seems that nobody was happy with the results. Most Republicans, by and large, didn't want any change, liberal Democrats wanted a complete reversal of policy, and the affected gays and lesbians still had to be in the closet to stay in the service. Thus, the long battle to repeal DADT.
Things got so stupid that, back during the second Gulf War, there was a shortage of Arabic speakers, so the military offered training to people in Arabic, so that they could help translate television and radio broadcasts, newspapers, and documents seized. That should have greatly helped the war effort.
But, nooooooo....
Some thirty-seven of them were gay or lesbian! So, rather than use the talents of these translators, the military refused to use them. So, we had a shortage of translators, we trained people to be translators, and then we kicked three dozen or more to the curb because of their sexual orientation. Alllllrighty, then.
And just how did that work out for us? Intelligence, shmintelligence.
President Obama won election promising the repeal of DADT, yet, when challenged in the courts, his Administration pleaded for a stay of the court's ruling. Yes, the logic went, the Congress was the one that passed the original legislation, the Congress should be the one to repeal it.
What a concept! It went to the courts because the Congress had not acted.
I have spoken to, and know of, a number of former service personnel, most of whom were not even involved in the field of battle, but were separated because of DADT. They tell me they'd jump at the chance to get back in because they loved the military. Some even had more than a dozen years in and wanted to stay until retirement.
So, what happens now...?
Now that the repeal of DADT has passed, there are some questions that still need to be resolved. The legislation gives the Secretary of Defense the power to "certify" that the military is ready for repeal, but it's not effective until 60 days after that.
In the meantime:
Until we get more details on implementation, the answer remains: sort of.
Sort of.
The US Senate voted today to repeal the military policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) that was first passed in 1993 as an upgrade to the former military policy on gay and lesbian personnel. Before that, it was possible to just whisper that Joe X. was a "homo" and the military could start on the procedures to drum him out.
Or not.
Back in the late 70's, I had a roommate who was gay. He was in the military and a flaming queen. He was also the chief steno to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with the concomitant security clearances, and for which he had just been re-certified. He died a few years later, and the military had to know he was gay, yet, because he was such a good steno, nothing was ever done about it.
Even during the Vietnam War, many men who were trying to avoid the conflict told their draft boards that they "had homosexual thoughts" or were "actively homosexual" and yet the military said, "So what? We still need you -- you're on your way to 'Nam. Have a nice trip."
When I was draft-eligible, in 1973, the war had wound down, and there was not much likelihood that I would face conscription, even though my draft lottery number was 70, and the first 95 were re-classified as 1-A (ready to go). College deferments were no longer available, and, if the military had needed us, we would have been drafted if our number was called.
Amazingly, when Vietnam was over and the US wasn't involved in active military operations, "we don't care" turned into "now, you got our attention." And, this was one of the factors that led to the 1992 Clinton-Gore campaign pledge of allowing open gays and lesbians to serve honorably.
In actual fact, all throughout history, gay men have fought and died along with their heterosexual comrades. Many countries have allowed open gays to serve in their military forces for years.
Needless to say, when Bill Clinton tried to change the policy in 1993, the "fit hit the shan," and the Congress got involved. The compromise that came about was DADT. Someone gay or lesbian could serve, but not be open about it. Essentially, the brass was told "Don't Ask," and the gay personnel were advised, "Don't Tell." The military would no longer go on a witch hunt and try to find out one's sexual orientation, but, if it became an issue, then, the military would, in its discretion, begin the separation proceedings.
Seems that nobody was happy with the results. Most Republicans, by and large, didn't want any change, liberal Democrats wanted a complete reversal of policy, and the affected gays and lesbians still had to be in the closet to stay in the service. Thus, the long battle to repeal DADT.
Things got so stupid that, back during the second Gulf War, there was a shortage of Arabic speakers, so the military offered training to people in Arabic, so that they could help translate television and radio broadcasts, newspapers, and documents seized. That should have greatly helped the war effort.
But, nooooooo....
Some thirty-seven of them were gay or lesbian! So, rather than use the talents of these translators, the military refused to use them. So, we had a shortage of translators, we trained people to be translators, and then we kicked three dozen or more to the curb because of their sexual orientation. Alllllrighty, then.
And just how did that work out for us? Intelligence, shmintelligence.
President Obama won election promising the repeal of DADT, yet, when challenged in the courts, his Administration pleaded for a stay of the court's ruling. Yes, the logic went, the Congress was the one that passed the original legislation, the Congress should be the one to repeal it.
What a concept! It went to the courts because the Congress had not acted.
I have spoken to, and know of, a number of former service personnel, most of whom were not even involved in the field of battle, but were separated because of DADT. They tell me they'd jump at the chance to get back in because they loved the military. Some even had more than a dozen years in and wanted to stay until retirement.
So, what happens now...?
Now that the repeal of DADT has passed, there are some questions that still need to be resolved. The legislation gives the Secretary of Defense the power to "certify" that the military is ready for repeal, but it's not effective until 60 days after that.
In the meantime:
- The DOD will have to come up with procedures, training, and regulations regarding how the new law will be implemented. It's assumed this will take months, and will be phased in.
- The Secretary of Defense will certify that the military is ready for the changes to be effective.
- Sixty days thereafter, buh-byee DADT.
- What happens with investigations currently in the separation pipeline? If the policy is going to be repealed eventually, is there any reason to continue those investigations, especially in light of our budgetary crisis?
- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), with whom I rarely agree, did ask President Obama today to order the military to cease and desist any further investigations from here on out, since the repeal is coming.
- What will be done with re-admitting service members who wish to continue their military service after the repeal? Seniority, benefits, whatever else come into play. I'm assuming that will be handled in the DOD review of regulations, training, and so forth.
Until we get more details on implementation, the answer remains: sort of.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Call/E-mail your Senators NOW: NO on Senate Bill 510
This is sort of last minute, and I'm really sorry I didn't blog about this much earlier, but... the time for action is NOW. The US Senate has scheduled a vote on the amendments to and the final reader of Senate Bill 510, the "Food Safety" Act, for about 9:30 AM Eastern on Tuesday, November 30, 2010. A companion bill has already passed the House, and it would go to a conference committee for final language.
I strongly object to the bill on several fronts, and urge you to contact your Senators, either by phone, or by e-mail ASAP to see if we can't get this thing stopped.
First, if you're like me, you like wandering into a "health food store" and buying various vitamins and supplements that you choose to use for your health. I have taken 3,000 mg or more of Vitamin C per day when I've been sick, and I usually take at least 1,000 mg per day as a maintenance dose.
Under S. 510, you could no longer do that. The bill calls for "harmonization" with the Codex Alimentarius, a set of "standards" set by the UN's Food and Agriculture Office and the World Health Organization. For a fuller discussion, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Alimentarius
What should be most disturbing is the following, taken from the Wikipedia article:
It is reported that in 1996 the German delegation put forward a proposal that no herb, vitamin or mineral should be sold for preventive or therapeutic reasons, and that supplements should be reclassified as drugs.[4] The proposal was agreed, but protests halted its implementation.[4] The 28th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission was subsequently held July 4 - July 9, 2005.[5] Among the many issues discussed were the "Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements"[6], which were adopted during the meeting as new global safety guidelines.[7]
If you follow the links in the paragraph above for the Vitamin and Food Supplements "recommendations," you'll notice that, for Vitamin C, they suggest 90 mg.as the daily requirement, with a max of 2,000 mg. The paragraph also goes on to say that they are only "suggestions" and that member countries do not have to "impose" them.
Maybe someone should have told that to the European Union, which has legislated such guidelines in their member countries. Any Vitamin C tablets more than 100 mg must be obtained by prescription only.
"Harmonization" with the Codex will allow the FDA to require the same mandates here, and they're champing at the bit to do so. They have tried unsuccessfully for several years. This bill will give them carte blanche to impose it.
Secondly, the bill will allow the introduction of Genetically-Modified Organisms (GMOs) into our food supply. Now, if you want to allow GMO carrots into the market, for example, I have no real problem with that. Just tell me that the carrots are modified, and I'll make the choice whether to buy or not. I'll tell you now, I won't buy them.
However, this bill does not require informing the consumers that the foods they are purchasing are GMOs.
Now, follow the money trail for a moment. What companies are heavily into GMO research and development? How about Monsanto (who also owns the General Nutrition Center [GNC] chain)? How about ConAgra? Archer Daniels Midland? What do they all have in common? They're all Big Agra. And, yes, they're all very well politically connected. Yes, and they lavish their largesse on both the Dems and the Reps.
Finally, I object because the rules that govern calling produce "organic" would be so badly relaxed that almost anything could be called organic, and the consumer loses the freedom to choose again. After all, since many (including me) are willing to pay a slight premium on organic produce, what's to stop anyone from saying that their produce is organic -- even when it's not -- and charging the extra price?
I'm hoping that something happens to extend the time period on the vote, so we can rain messages on our Senators and get them to stop. At the very least, the next Congress should take it up, and we've got time to nip it in the bud there.
For Maryland residents, here are your direct office numbers:
Barbara Mikulski 202.224.4654
Benjamin Cardin 202.224.4524
For any other state, the Capitol Switchboard number is: 202-224-3121. Ask for your Senator's office by name, and you can ask for the direct number as well before they try to connect you.
"Food Safety"? Meh.
I strongly object to the bill on several fronts, and urge you to contact your Senators, either by phone, or by e-mail ASAP to see if we can't get this thing stopped.
First, if you're like me, you like wandering into a "health food store" and buying various vitamins and supplements that you choose to use for your health. I have taken 3,000 mg or more of Vitamin C per day when I've been sick, and I usually take at least 1,000 mg per day as a maintenance dose.
Under S. 510, you could no longer do that. The bill calls for "harmonization" with the Codex Alimentarius, a set of "standards" set by the UN's Food and Agriculture Office and the World Health Organization. For a fuller discussion, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Alimentarius
What should be most disturbing is the following, taken from the Wikipedia article:
It is reported that in 1996 the German delegation put forward a proposal that no herb, vitamin or mineral should be sold for preventive or therapeutic reasons, and that supplements should be reclassified as drugs.[4] The proposal was agreed, but protests halted its implementation.[4] The 28th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission was subsequently held July 4 - July 9, 2005.[5] Among the many issues discussed were the "Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements"[6], which were adopted during the meeting as new global safety guidelines.[7]
If you follow the links in the paragraph above for the Vitamin and Food Supplements "recommendations," you'll notice that, for Vitamin C, they suggest 90 mg.as the daily requirement, with a max of 2,000 mg. The paragraph also goes on to say that they are only "suggestions" and that member countries do not have to "impose" them.
Maybe someone should have told that to the European Union, which has legislated such guidelines in their member countries. Any Vitamin C tablets more than 100 mg must be obtained by prescription only.
"Harmonization" with the Codex will allow the FDA to require the same mandates here, and they're champing at the bit to do so. They have tried unsuccessfully for several years. This bill will give them carte blanche to impose it.
Secondly, the bill will allow the introduction of Genetically-Modified Organisms (GMOs) into our food supply. Now, if you want to allow GMO carrots into the market, for example, I have no real problem with that. Just tell me that the carrots are modified, and I'll make the choice whether to buy or not. I'll tell you now, I won't buy them.
However, this bill does not require informing the consumers that the foods they are purchasing are GMOs.
Now, follow the money trail for a moment. What companies are heavily into GMO research and development? How about Monsanto (who also owns the General Nutrition Center [GNC] chain)? How about ConAgra? Archer Daniels Midland? What do they all have in common? They're all Big Agra. And, yes, they're all very well politically connected. Yes, and they lavish their largesse on both the Dems and the Reps.
Finally, I object because the rules that govern calling produce "organic" would be so badly relaxed that almost anything could be called organic, and the consumer loses the freedom to choose again. After all, since many (including me) are willing to pay a slight premium on organic produce, what's to stop anyone from saying that their produce is organic -- even when it's not -- and charging the extra price?
I'm hoping that something happens to extend the time period on the vote, so we can rain messages on our Senators and get them to stop. At the very least, the next Congress should take it up, and we've got time to nip it in the bud there.
For Maryland residents, here are your direct office numbers:
Barbara Mikulski 202.224.4654
Benjamin Cardin 202.224.4524
For any other state, the Capitol Switchboard number is: 202-224-3121. Ask for your Senator's office by name, and you can ask for the direct number as well before they try to connect you.
"Food Safety"? Meh.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Miscellaneous Musings, #2: The US Postal "Service"
Just recently, the US Postal Service announced they had yet another loss in revenue and might have to think about raising rates. Well, isn't that special?
They cited things, such as increased use of e-mails and online payments, gas prices, the economy, and all sorts of good stuff like that. One thing they forgot to mention was "service."
Many people have anecdotes about dealing with that behemoth, and I'm going to add another. I still haven't figured out what happened, and, by now, I really don't care, as long as the problem is fixed, and that remains to be seen. The ball was dropped, and disappeared into the abyss.
Now, one would think that a change of address would be a simple thing, right? Especially when the Postal Service allows you to do it online. And charges your credit card $1.00 for the "service." You get a lovely confirmation and their message tells you that you should receive your mail at the new address in about 7-10 business days. What could be easier?
As part of their security efforts, they send a letter to your old address saying that someone has requested a change of address and list the named party(ies) that the change affects. This is a good and happy thing, because if you didn't order it, you could still stop it from going through.
I trustingly put my Change-of-Address Order (PS Form 3575) online on September 29, 2010, with an effective date of October 1, 2010. I paid my dollar, got the confirmation, and figured everything would be fine. After all, I'm only moving a few blocks away, it's even in the same zip code, so the same post office would handle everything. What could go wrong? Uh huh.
Now, I'm no slouch at getting mail. I get bills, junk mail, letters, all sorts of crap. I waited for the 7-10 business days. Nothing. I began to get mail at my new address with my new address on it, but, nothing that was addressed to the old. I had other fish to fry at that point, so I didn't make any inquiries. In the interim, I had received two envelopes with the yellow update stickers on them: one junk mail, and the other, from the state.
Now, to the intriguing part. Early in November, I received an Official Change of Address Confirmation Letter from the USPS, telling me that my change would be effective as of November 4, 2010. (Note: more than a month after I filed the request online.) I guess their concept of 7-10 business days differs from mine and the rest of the world's. And I wait.
A week or so later, my former roommate called me and told me he's still getting regular delivery of mail for me. I'm not sure why that's happening, but I figure now is the time to call the Postal Service and find out. I dutifully called the number on the Official Confirmation, and got the local number for my post office. I called and spoke with a very nice woman who said she'd check with the carrier and find out the status of the change.
A couple days later, she calls me back and said that the route carrier has no record of any change of address for me and that I should probably file another. OK, whatever.
But, wait, there's more! Now, how much would you pay? See your dollar stretch!
Remember the security letter that they send to verify the changes? In the stack of mail I picked up from my former roomie, the letter was there, dated October 4, 2010!
So, two days ago, I wandered into my local post office and spoke with a very nice lady who told me I didn't need to fill out another change, it would only confuse the issue.
Then, she gave me some very interesting information. When you file a change of address online, it goes directly to the change of address section in the main computer. However, that information doesn't seem to get passed on to where it really counts: the local post office and the carrier. One hand apparently doesn't know what the other hand is doing. Yet, they still took my dollar!
She suggested that, in the future, I go directly to the post office and file it there so that they have a local record. I hereby pass that on for your information.
I'm not sure they've ever dealt with streamlining their organization, which at one time supposedly had one supervisor for every 8 employees, one manager for every few supervisors, and on up the management food chain. If they haven't, then, that would be a start.
Supporters will say that the cost of postage really hasn't risen, it's merely being adjusted to inflation. That may be partially true, but I don't buy it. I'll bet if they improved their service, they might get a little more business and make the money they need.
I'm just sayin.
They cited things, such as increased use of e-mails and online payments, gas prices, the economy, and all sorts of good stuff like that. One thing they forgot to mention was "service."
Many people have anecdotes about dealing with that behemoth, and I'm going to add another. I still haven't figured out what happened, and, by now, I really don't care, as long as the problem is fixed, and that remains to be seen. The ball was dropped, and disappeared into the abyss.
Now, one would think that a change of address would be a simple thing, right? Especially when the Postal Service allows you to do it online. And charges your credit card $1.00 for the "service." You get a lovely confirmation and their message tells you that you should receive your mail at the new address in about 7-10 business days. What could be easier?
As part of their security efforts, they send a letter to your old address saying that someone has requested a change of address and list the named party(ies) that the change affects. This is a good and happy thing, because if you didn't order it, you could still stop it from going through.
I trustingly put my Change-of-Address Order (PS Form 3575) online on September 29, 2010, with an effective date of October 1, 2010. I paid my dollar, got the confirmation, and figured everything would be fine. After all, I'm only moving a few blocks away, it's even in the same zip code, so the same post office would handle everything. What could go wrong? Uh huh.
Now, I'm no slouch at getting mail. I get bills, junk mail, letters, all sorts of crap. I waited for the 7-10 business days. Nothing. I began to get mail at my new address with my new address on it, but, nothing that was addressed to the old. I had other fish to fry at that point, so I didn't make any inquiries. In the interim, I had received two envelopes with the yellow update stickers on them: one junk mail, and the other, from the state.
Now, to the intriguing part. Early in November, I received an Official Change of Address Confirmation Letter from the USPS, telling me that my change would be effective as of November 4, 2010. (Note: more than a month after I filed the request online.) I guess their concept of 7-10 business days differs from mine and the rest of the world's. And I wait.
A week or so later, my former roommate called me and told me he's still getting regular delivery of mail for me. I'm not sure why that's happening, but I figure now is the time to call the Postal Service and find out. I dutifully called the number on the Official Confirmation, and got the local number for my post office. I called and spoke with a very nice woman who said she'd check with the carrier and find out the status of the change.
A couple days later, she calls me back and said that the route carrier has no record of any change of address for me and that I should probably file another. OK, whatever.
But, wait, there's more! Now, how much would you pay? See your dollar stretch!
Remember the security letter that they send to verify the changes? In the stack of mail I picked up from my former roomie, the letter was there, dated October 4, 2010!
So, two days ago, I wandered into my local post office and spoke with a very nice lady who told me I didn't need to fill out another change, it would only confuse the issue.
Then, she gave me some very interesting information. When you file a change of address online, it goes directly to the change of address section in the main computer. However, that information doesn't seem to get passed on to where it really counts: the local post office and the carrier. One hand apparently doesn't know what the other hand is doing. Yet, they still took my dollar!
She suggested that, in the future, I go directly to the post office and file it there so that they have a local record. I hereby pass that on for your information.
I'm not sure they've ever dealt with streamlining their organization, which at one time supposedly had one supervisor for every 8 employees, one manager for every few supervisors, and on up the management food chain. If they haven't, then, that would be a start.
Supporters will say that the cost of postage really hasn't risen, it's merely being adjusted to inflation. That may be partially true, but I don't buy it. I'll bet if they improved their service, they might get a little more business and make the money they need.
I'm just sayin.
Miscellaneous Musings, #1: Westboro Baptist
I should probably sub-title this post: "Some Days, You Get the Bear; Some Days, the Bear Gets You."
Gotta hand it to the loons at the Westboro Baptist Church, the supposedly "Christian" family cult in Kansas that pickets the funerals of military personnel with signs such as "Thank God for IEDs," "God Hates Dead Soldiers," "God Hates You," and, of course, their standard "God Hates Fags." Why they have that particular bee, and not others as well, in their bonnet is anyone's guess.
Now, I am a strong defender of the First Amendment. I truly believe that, no matter how hateful and vile the messages they spew, they have the right to say it. I have the right not to agree with them, and I certainly don't.
Fred Phelps and his wife, Margie, are both attorneys as well as pastors of their kindred flock. They can choose to parse the English language any way they want, but I think most funerals are and should be private affairs, allowing the friends and family of the deceased time to grieve. The kinds of stunts they pull is, at the very least, a breach of etiquette and boorish behavior.
No matter, these self-righteous blowhards believe in what they're doing, and they spend lots of time and money going around to various funerals to do their shtick. Many states have enacted laws against protesting at a funeral, and the church has been sued over it, and one case from Maryland, Snyder v. Phelps, was just argued at the Supreme Court last month.
I reacted with mild amusement at how our local news radio station reported what happened last weekend. Maybe you didn't hear about the event, at which a van, containing 6 of the faithful, showed up.
Apparently, the folks in Tulsa, OK, were ready. A local motorcycle club got between the protesters and the funeral, and, while they were shouting, the bikers revved their engines to drown them out. I hate when that happens.
But the part that really amused me was how the reporter told about the group going back to its van... and finding all four tires slashed. But the fun was only beginning for their intrepid crew. As they drove away on rims, they tried to find somewhere to replace the tires. Nobody in Tulsa would help them. Guess whoever did eventually help them got a nice sale: 4 tires, 4 rims, and all the trimmings.
I will say categorically that I don't condone willful destruction of personal property.
Ya know, though, sometimes, you spew your hate and filth all over the place and claim you are totally in the right. But that doesn't stop someone who finds you really offensive from reacting a little outside the law.
I'm just sayin.
Gotta hand it to the loons at the Westboro Baptist Church, the supposedly "Christian" family cult in Kansas that pickets the funerals of military personnel with signs such as "Thank God for IEDs," "God Hates Dead Soldiers," "God Hates You," and, of course, their standard "God Hates Fags." Why they have that particular bee, and not others as well, in their bonnet is anyone's guess.
Now, I am a strong defender of the First Amendment. I truly believe that, no matter how hateful and vile the messages they spew, they have the right to say it. I have the right not to agree with them, and I certainly don't.
Fred Phelps and his wife, Margie, are both attorneys as well as pastors of their kindred flock. They can choose to parse the English language any way they want, but I think most funerals are and should be private affairs, allowing the friends and family of the deceased time to grieve. The kinds of stunts they pull is, at the very least, a breach of etiquette and boorish behavior.
No matter, these self-righteous blowhards believe in what they're doing, and they spend lots of time and money going around to various funerals to do their shtick. Many states have enacted laws against protesting at a funeral, and the church has been sued over it, and one case from Maryland, Snyder v. Phelps, was just argued at the Supreme Court last month.
I reacted with mild amusement at how our local news radio station reported what happened last weekend. Maybe you didn't hear about the event, at which a van, containing 6 of the faithful, showed up.
Apparently, the folks in Tulsa, OK, were ready. A local motorcycle club got between the protesters and the funeral, and, while they were shouting, the bikers revved their engines to drown them out. I hate when that happens.
But the part that really amused me was how the reporter told about the group going back to its van... and finding all four tires slashed. But the fun was only beginning for their intrepid crew. As they drove away on rims, they tried to find somewhere to replace the tires. Nobody in Tulsa would help them. Guess whoever did eventually help them got a nice sale: 4 tires, 4 rims, and all the trimmings.
I will say categorically that I don't condone willful destruction of personal property.
Ya know, though, sometimes, you spew your hate and filth all over the place and claim you are totally in the right. But that doesn't stop someone who finds you really offensive from reacting a little outside the law.
I'm just sayin.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Access to Healthcare for All Medicare Patients?
In this post, I suggest that the new healthcare bill will have unintended consequences of reducing the availability of primary care available to Medicare patients once it goes into effect.
The following is text captured from a thread that I participated in shortly after the House vote dealing with the question of access for more Americans under the new healthcare plan. My church friend, XXX, and I have discussed the issue at length over recent months, and we have agreed to disagree agreeably.
The reason I'm quoting the thread is that in a related post coming soon from Under My Rock, entitled "Well, Isn't THAT Special?? Is This Really Debate?," you can see how, apparently, I ruffled someone's feathers and that person's reaction to the following:
======================================
Steve Boone
No, XXX, when your health care is provided by the government and you can't get quick treatment by a primary care doc *because there are too few to go around*, I hope you'll still be as exultant as you are now.
XXX
Your statement does not represent this bill (health care will not be exclusively covered by the government) and is completely unrealistic. You are certain the insurance companies have your back, Steve? They make their money denying claims. No secret there. You favor insurance companies rights to jack your premiums at will? Want to discuss pre-existing conditions or meeting runaway Cobra payments? Leaving the millions of hard working unisured is better than coverage? Mandated access to prevantative care is cruel? This is a quantum leap towards a healthier and well cared for society. I am sorry
you do not see it that way. How do you propose to care for the uninsured.
Steve Boone
XXX, first of all, let me repeat again what I have said to you in the past. YES, there is a need for health care reform in this country, a serious need. However, this is not the way to do it.
I realize you’re one of those people who ignores one little fact time after time: You can no more change the characteristics of The Market than you can stand on the shore and stop the waves. The Market will always do what The Market does.
Screw with The Market and you have “unintended consequences.”
Example? Your buddy, [Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley] Marty O’s brainstorm to raise the sales tax to 6% [in a 2007 Special Session of the General Assembly]. Should bring in more revenue, right? WRONG! The State Comptroller’s Office reported that, a year later, sales tax revenues were DOWN $76 MILLION. People who wouldn’t normally bother going to Delaware to pay 0% sales tax or wanted to buy clothes in Pennsylvania and save 6% sales tax DID so. The hit was hardest on the Eastern Shore. Who’d’a thunk it?
Now, remember what I do for a living. Healthcare billing. Yes, I’m aware that getting insurance companies to pay is a little more difficult nowadays. But Nancy Pelosi promised us that this new bill would increase access to care for all Americans. Bull.
Here’s just one example of where that pesky Market comes in: Medicare reimbursement will be cut by 20%. It’s in the bill, and CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) has suspended all payments since 2/28/10 until the new fee schedules are approved by Congress. This means that if I got $40.00 reimbursement for an office visit, [now] I would then only get $32.00.
If I’m a primary care physician with a geriatric patient population, what’s going to happen? My income is going to dive. I will have 20% less to pay my office space, my staff, my overhead, whatever. I have a couple of choices now. If I’m running a marginal practice, just eking by, I will probably close my doors. I’ll give people 3 months or so and close the practice because I no longer can afford to stay in business. Put that in 1,000 doctors’ situations, and what happens? The access to health care shrinks because there are fewer primary care docs to take care of Medicare patients!
Now, I’m running an OK practice, doing all right. I have a mix of patients, both Medicare and private insurances. The hit will be less on me, but, I may have to do the math and determine I can no longer afford to accept Medicare patients because it isn’t worth the paperwork and hassle and the reimbursement sucks. I send all my Medicare patients a note saying “due to reductions in payments by Medicare, I will no longer accept Medicare after May 1, 2010. Where’s the access to care now for these Medicare patients?
Now, I’m doing fairly well at my practice, I have a lot of well-to-do patients. I’m tired of messing with the insurance companies, I don’t want to deal with any of that any more. I can do the latest fad: tell everyone that I am changing my practice to a boutique operation, and if they pay me a retainer of, say $2,000 a year, I’ll see them whenever they need me, night or day. But, it’s a cash retainer, paid in advance. Again, there goes the number of available doctors!
And this is only a minor part of the bill, dealing with Medicare patients...
======================================
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Rising Health Care Costs - Some Reasons
Part of the "Healthcare Crisis" which has everyone calling for relief is the fact that the cost of medical services keeps rising. It's getting more and more expensive to see even a primary care doctor, and the time we actually see doctors in those visits seems to keep getting shorter and shorter.
For one of the many reasons this is happening, we need to look back in history some 50 years. Back to the "good old days." What's changed since then?
Back in the day, there were insurances, yes. Blue Cross and Blue Shield policies were probably among the most popular at the time. Many plans offered an 80/20 split, where the Blues would pay 80% of the charge, and you'd pay 20% as a co-insurance.
But millions of people didn't have any. They didn't really need it.
You'd go to the doctor, he'd see you for, say, 20 minutes, and charge you $25.00. If you needed penicillin, he'd come through with the pills you needed, charge you a nominal fee for the drug, and you'd be on your way. If he wanted you to take something he didn't have in stock, he'd write a prescription, and you'd take it to the drug store.
If you had no insurance, you'd pay the $25.00 in full and that would be it. If you had the Blues, you'd pay $5.00 and be out the door, with Blue Shield picking up the $20.00. Easy, right?
Well, yeah, basically.
Then along came President Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, with his Great Society program. They were going to end poverty, fix all the social ills, and a new utopia was going to emerge. Under his administration, the government got involved in a lot of areas where it hadn't before. Enter federal involvement in health care.
Stories abounded how grandma had to eat cat food because she couldn't afford to go to the doctor. (No, I don't think grandma should have to eat cat food, either--that's not what I'm saying!) But, something had to be done about it! So, Congress worked and worked.
The result was Medicare in 1965.
At the start, Medicare acted just like a regular health insurance. They paid 80%, and the patient paid 20%, allowing the patient to have a little more cash available for other expenses. Many doctors accepted Medicare because it was just as good as Blue Shield. Some seniors even picked up Blue Shield or another insurance policy like AARP to pay the 20% co-insurance.
But, sooner or later, with the War in Vietnam in full swing, it became time to save money in the federal budget. So, what happened?
In a cost-cutting move, Medicare began to say:
"We have decided that the office visit you're charging $25 for is really only worth $20, so that's what we're going to allow you to be paid for a Medicare patient in your care. That means we're going to pay you 80% of what we allow, or $16, and you can collect $4 from the patient."
"Oh," the doctor replies, "so what happens to the $5 you don't allow?"
"You have to write it off, of course! You cannot bill the patient for the difference."
Well, now it's time to do a little simple math.
Let's say Dr. Smith needs revenues of $50,000 per year to meet her expenses for office space, office staff, taxes, and to give herself a salary. 20% of her revenues are Medicare patients with that level of service, or $10,000. Medicare revenues are now $8,000, instead of $10,000, a hit of $2,000, or 4% of gross revenues. Maybe that's absorbable, maybe it's not.
Now, let's say Dr. Jones has an older practice, and he serves mostly the elderly. Many of his patients love him and have been with him for years. He still needs that $50,000 in revenues, but fully 50% of his practice is on Medicare. $25,000 in charges turns out to be $20,000 in Medicare allowed charges. He's writing off that $10,000 in revenue, but that doesn't meet his expenses. He's taken a 20% hit in revenue, and cannot make ends meet on that level.
What is going to happen in either case? Something's gotta give to bring the gross revenues back up to the $50,000 level, right? Well, there are five obvious answers. The doctors either have to:
*(1) Raise the prices for office visits for all patients to make up the difference in what Medicare is forcing them to write off, or
*(2) Work longer hours and see more patients to make up the difference, or
*(3) Refuse to take new Medicare patients into the practice, or, worse yet for the patients
*(4) Refuse to take any Medicare patients, forcing them to go to other doctors, or
*(5) Simply close up shop (or, like what's happening now, set a date certain, then refuse all insurances and become a "boutique" doctor, where the patient pays a large retainer to call the doctor 24/7 when needed.)
Well, of course, the most common answer was #1. Raise rates. Maybe Dr. Smith could get by with raising her rates only $5.00 a visit, but that paltry amount wasn't going to get Dr. Jones' budget back in shape. And, guess who gets hit hardest by these increases? Who else--the patient without insurance!
Additionally, every year, Medicare revises its fee schedule--the allowed amount for the coming year for a host of procedure codes.
Is this a simplistic presentation? You bet! But as simplistic as it seems, it's accurate for what has happened.
In the 1970s, inflation ran amok. Inflation was measured by the "market basket." Remember it? The cost of a specific set of products at the supermarket would change month-to-month, and, imagine that, the cost of that basket pretty much always rose. The dollar bought less and less as it fell in value. Guess what happened to all the other prices? Same thing, they had to go up.
Since medical expenses are not in a bubble, they went up, too. And, insurance policies became pretty much an absolute necessity in order to help patients pay for medical care.
Although we haven't had the roaring inflation of the 70s since then, inflation hasn't stopped, it's only moderated a bit here and there. Prices of goods still go up even though inflation is fairly low, especially over the course of 30 years.
Next post: "Managed care" comes on the scene.
For one of the many reasons this is happening, we need to look back in history some 50 years. Back to the "good old days." What's changed since then?
Back in the day, there were insurances, yes. Blue Cross and Blue Shield policies were probably among the most popular at the time. Many plans offered an 80/20 split, where the Blues would pay 80% of the charge, and you'd pay 20% as a co-insurance.
But millions of people didn't have any. They didn't really need it.
You'd go to the doctor, he'd see you for, say, 20 minutes, and charge you $25.00. If you needed penicillin, he'd come through with the pills you needed, charge you a nominal fee for the drug, and you'd be on your way. If he wanted you to take something he didn't have in stock, he'd write a prescription, and you'd take it to the drug store.
If you had no insurance, you'd pay the $25.00 in full and that would be it. If you had the Blues, you'd pay $5.00 and be out the door, with Blue Shield picking up the $20.00. Easy, right?
Well, yeah, basically.
Then along came President Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, with his Great Society program. They were going to end poverty, fix all the social ills, and a new utopia was going to emerge. Under his administration, the government got involved in a lot of areas where it hadn't before. Enter federal involvement in health care.
Stories abounded how grandma had to eat cat food because she couldn't afford to go to the doctor. (No, I don't think grandma should have to eat cat food, either--that's not what I'm saying!) But, something had to be done about it! So, Congress worked and worked.
The result was Medicare in 1965.
At the start, Medicare acted just like a regular health insurance. They paid 80%, and the patient paid 20%, allowing the patient to have a little more cash available for other expenses. Many doctors accepted Medicare because it was just as good as Blue Shield. Some seniors even picked up Blue Shield or another insurance policy like AARP to pay the 20% co-insurance.
But, sooner or later, with the War in Vietnam in full swing, it became time to save money in the federal budget. So, what happened?
In a cost-cutting move, Medicare began to say:
"We have decided that the office visit you're charging $25 for is really only worth $20, so that's what we're going to allow you to be paid for a Medicare patient in your care. That means we're going to pay you 80% of what we allow, or $16, and you can collect $4 from the patient."
"Oh," the doctor replies, "so what happens to the $5 you don't allow?"
"You have to write it off, of course! You cannot bill the patient for the difference."
Well, now it's time to do a little simple math.
Let's say Dr. Smith needs revenues of $50,000 per year to meet her expenses for office space, office staff, taxes, and to give herself a salary. 20% of her revenues are Medicare patients with that level of service, or $10,000. Medicare revenues are now $8,000, instead of $10,000, a hit of $2,000, or 4% of gross revenues. Maybe that's absorbable, maybe it's not.
Now, let's say Dr. Jones has an older practice, and he serves mostly the elderly. Many of his patients love him and have been with him for years. He still needs that $50,000 in revenues, but fully 50% of his practice is on Medicare. $25,000 in charges turns out to be $20,000 in Medicare allowed charges. He's writing off that $10,000 in revenue, but that doesn't meet his expenses. He's taken a 20% hit in revenue, and cannot make ends meet on that level.
What is going to happen in either case? Something's gotta give to bring the gross revenues back up to the $50,000 level, right? Well, there are five obvious answers. The doctors either have to:
*(1) Raise the prices for office visits for all patients to make up the difference in what Medicare is forcing them to write off, or
*(2) Work longer hours and see more patients to make up the difference, or
*(3) Refuse to take new Medicare patients into the practice, or, worse yet for the patients
*(4) Refuse to take any Medicare patients, forcing them to go to other doctors, or
*(5) Simply close up shop (or, like what's happening now, set a date certain, then refuse all insurances and become a "boutique" doctor, where the patient pays a large retainer to call the doctor 24/7 when needed.)
Well, of course, the most common answer was #1. Raise rates. Maybe Dr. Smith could get by with raising her rates only $5.00 a visit, but that paltry amount wasn't going to get Dr. Jones' budget back in shape. And, guess who gets hit hardest by these increases? Who else--the patient without insurance!
Additionally, every year, Medicare revises its fee schedule--the allowed amount for the coming year for a host of procedure codes.
Is this a simplistic presentation? You bet! But as simplistic as it seems, it's accurate for what has happened.
In the 1970s, inflation ran amok. Inflation was measured by the "market basket." Remember it? The cost of a specific set of products at the supermarket would change month-to-month, and, imagine that, the cost of that basket pretty much always rose. The dollar bought less and less as it fell in value. Guess what happened to all the other prices? Same thing, they had to go up.
Since medical expenses are not in a bubble, they went up, too. And, insurance policies became pretty much an absolute necessity in order to help patients pay for medical care.
Although we haven't had the roaring inflation of the 70s since then, inflation hasn't stopped, it's only moderated a bit here and there. Prices of goods still go up even though inflation is fairly low, especially over the course of 30 years.
Next post: "Managed care" comes on the scene.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Health Care Reform? The Debate Looms. . .
A brief introduction. . .
For the first few months of this year, I have been a frequent flyer as a consumer of medical care. I was an inpatient with three stays at two different local hospitals as well as an outpatient with a number of different providers, even including urgent care. Additionally, my work as a medical biller has helped me keep my own health care costs more contained. As the debate on healthcare reform nears, it is one in which I have some very definite ideas.
-----------------
Starting off, I want to say that I believe our healthcare mess did not develop overnight, and no "magic bullet" is going to fix it immediately. It's also an issue that cannot be discussed in a single post, so watch this space for new postings in the next few days. There isn't just one factor contributing to it, there are many, and they involve many different groups. In the next few posts, I will name names of those I think have had a hand in bringing the problem about. Some may even surprise you.
I don't have all the answers, and I won't claim to. I do have some ideas that should alleviate some of the crisis aspects, but they're not going to turn this situation around quickly. Nor will any of the "reforms" being discussed at this point in Washington or Annapolis.
All that having been said, welcome! Please, if you see something with which you disagree, post a comment! Likewise, if you see something with which you happen to agree, please feel free to add your comments, too. Lively discussions can be both very informative and helpful in framing an issue. Who knows? Offer a convincing enough argument, and you may get someone else to think differently. Maybe even me.
Some of the questions we'll explore will include:
* Why are health care costs so high?
* Why are health insurance rates so high?
* What about a single-payer insurance system?
* Why are people willing to gamble on no insurance coverage?
* Should people be forced to have health insurance coverage?
* Should we have a national health care system like Britain or Canada?
* Should we develop our own version of a national health care system?
* Why shouldn't the government just go ahead and regulate health care costs?
All right, then. I've already been working on my first "culprit" post, and I should have it done by tomorrow midnight or so. If real inspiration hits, there may be more "culprits" exposed by that time. Watch this space, and let's have a good discussion!
For the first few months of this year, I have been a frequent flyer as a consumer of medical care. I was an inpatient with three stays at two different local hospitals as well as an outpatient with a number of different providers, even including urgent care. Additionally, my work as a medical biller has helped me keep my own health care costs more contained. As the debate on healthcare reform nears, it is one in which I have some very definite ideas.
-----------------
Starting off, I want to say that I believe our healthcare mess did not develop overnight, and no "magic bullet" is going to fix it immediately. It's also an issue that cannot be discussed in a single post, so watch this space for new postings in the next few days. There isn't just one factor contributing to it, there are many, and they involve many different groups. In the next few posts, I will name names of those I think have had a hand in bringing the problem about. Some may even surprise you.
I don't have all the answers, and I won't claim to. I do have some ideas that should alleviate some of the crisis aspects, but they're not going to turn this situation around quickly. Nor will any of the "reforms" being discussed at this point in Washington or Annapolis.
All that having been said, welcome! Please, if you see something with which you disagree, post a comment! Likewise, if you see something with which you happen to agree, please feel free to add your comments, too. Lively discussions can be both very informative and helpful in framing an issue. Who knows? Offer a convincing enough argument, and you may get someone else to think differently. Maybe even me.
Some of the questions we'll explore will include:
* Why are health care costs so high?
* Why are health insurance rates so high?
* What about a single-payer insurance system?
* Why are people willing to gamble on no insurance coverage?
* Should people be forced to have health insurance coverage?
* Should we have a national health care system like Britain or Canada?
* Should we develop our own version of a national health care system?
* Why shouldn't the government just go ahead and regulate health care costs?
All right, then. I've already been working on my first "culprit" post, and I should have it done by tomorrow midnight or so. If real inspiration hits, there may be more "culprits" exposed by that time. Watch this space, and let's have a good discussion!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
