Check out this nightmare

House Ways & Means Committee defeated an amendment aimed at preventing illegals from getting proposed Obamacare. Read Michelle Malkin's take on it here. I shouldn't read things like this. Knew it would get worse during this administration, but...

Progress Report

Ok people, here's my progress (re everything):

1. Got my foot surgery done on Friday & am recoop'ing fine. Many thanks to all (drs nurses, staff) who made the thing go as smoothly, comfortably and painless as possible. Honorable mention to Rachel, the RN who did my IV insertion - the insertion was pain-free, expertly done and the resulting mark is tiny. It's an art. Loved the efficiency of the whole process (surgery, from prep to finish), prep info calls & reminders, the warmed blankets provided before & during the procedure and the hot tea in post-op.

Further thanks to all who have called, emailed, Facebooked good wishes for my recovery.

Number one thanks to my DH Jeff who shepherded me home, has been great moral support & ordered pizza for lunch yesterday (he'd get that last one). Super luv!

2. I'm starting chapter 25 in my Accounting book. After that, only one more chapter!

3. I'm on p162 of Kingmakers, a book club selection that is rather challenging - Middle East history with all the dizzying number of players involved. I march on.

4. Was contacted by an Accounting placement firm earlier this week (after they saw my resume on Monster.com - yeah!) & had a chance to meet with them. This is a hopeful development. Also, it was nice to be contacted by an actual human being, instead of an auto-generated email response. Wish me luck that something comes up.

5. I'm in a very good mood. Not really a novel development, but helps immeasurable with my energy levels.

That's all for now folks.

It's for the chiiiildddren!

This SCHIP business burns me up. As a matter of fact, the only part I like is that the proposed expansion would be funded with cigarette taxes. Trust me, there are enough die-hard (heh) smokers still around to fund a program.

But back to the story. Advocates of this program reference all the uninsured CHILDREN who desperately need coverage. Now, this involves all those NOT covered by Medicaid. So, we're talking about children from MIDDLE CLASS families.

First, it's politically expedient (especially on the left) to verbally isolate CHILDREN as if they just popped up on their own, defenseless, and need to be taken care of. This rhetoric disregards and relieves of the responsibility, the duties and obligations of the PARENTS. Now, I believe that anyone who cannot provide ALL the basic requirements for children - healthcare definitely included - should not have the children in the first place. But what still endures from the hippie days is that freedom (e.g., sexual freedom and "reproductive freedom" and in this case) means doing anything you want regardless of the consequences and sloughing off the responsibility of those consequences to someone else.

Second, this program is to cover those children whose parents make too much to be eligible for Medicaid. So, we're increasing the level of the nanny state for those who are middle class. There's a lot of talk about those parents who work hard and yet have no healthcare coverage. Why not? If you had kids, wouldn't you target jobs that offered healthcare coverage as part of the compensation package? I mean, when I was working at GWU Medical Center, everyone who was a full-time, permanent employee - regardless of pay-grade - had access to a selection of HMOs & PPOs, partially subsidized by GWU.

Third, proponents claim that illegals are excluded from this program. And because the federal government has done such a terrific job of keeping them out of the country, I really believe they can keep them from taking advantage of this program too. Sarcasm. You got that?

So, what this expansion of an EXISTING program means bigger nanny state, less personal responsibility expected of the parents and people in general, and you can take advantage of this even if you're middle class and probably even if you're illegal. BAD.

Here's a recent article about President Bush's veto of the current version of this bill, fyi.

On depression

There's a good article in the Health section of WaPo yesterday (7/10/07) on depression from a sufferer's perspective. I can identify with much of what she says about not wanting to use meds to alleviate it; feeling like it was the easy way out; feeling relief and a sense of optimism and purpose when the meds kicked in; acknowledging that meds can make things more tolerable; but they don't magically resolve anything; however, they can be a good and useful tool when dealing with depression. Check it out.

Heathcare on the quick

There's an article in WaPo today about a new trend(?) by some drugstores and such to provide "quick-stop healthcare," that is, physician assistants and nurse practitioners on site (like at CVSs and such) that provide such healthcare services as diagnosis and treatment of common maladies (such as strep throat) and administration vaccinations. The up side to this is that these stations are very accessible, available more convenient and longer hours, and charge reasonable prices for their services.

On the one hand, one can see the attraction to patients over regular medical centers and doctors' offices: no waiting, accessibility, availability of vaccines such as flu shots, reasonable charges, no hassle. I know for a fact that it can be very inconvenient to make a regular appointment at my medical center - one must schedule a month ahead to be sure and you have to go through the healthcare insurance system. Then you have to hope that the office staff are competent in submitting accurate and appropriate charges to the PPO/HMO/insurance company (I had an incident recently where that was not the case, and I had been dealing with the same office for years). Sometimes that's simply not acceptable or feasible.

On the other hand, regular healthcare facilities are concerned that there's no continuity of care, and that this may end up jeopardizing the health and wellbeing of the most vulnerable patients - children. One can also see that these "quick-stop" stations take a chunk out of doctors'/healthcare facilities' profit. I perused my latest statement from my PPO and for what was a straight-forward shot, administered by a nurse, the PPO was charged for "follow-up care" and for the physician of record's time (when I didn't actually see or speak to the physician at all - just the nurse). And not cheap either.

I think this is a really interesting situation to consider. We have these "help stations" serving a need and solving existing (and continuing) healthcare issues - great for the consumer. Look, I have a CVS across the street from where I live. Would I be happy to mosey on over, let's say, on a Sunday to get a flu shot? You bet. Would I mind that they're not MDs but PAs and NPs? No, because I've had PAs/NPs treat me frequently in a regular healthcare facility over the years with no ill effects & they tend to be easier to deal with than some doctors. Plus, no middleman with staff & insurance. Just pay the fee. On the other hand, if patient histories aren't taken/taken carefully, and if the treatment information isn't conveyed to the primary doctor/facility, there could be serious problems. Evidently, these stations do take care of the above items. And they're not performing brain surgery - just minor - but necessary - procedures. Well, perhaps (and this thought is discussed in the article too) regular facilities need to be more patient-friendly and take a lesson from these retail-based stations.

Technorati topic: healthcare

Vaccinations, anyone?

In the WaPo today is an article about the whole vaccination issue and why so many school children didn’t have the required vaccinations by the time school started. Here’s a gem:

This time, Mazyck said, the reason for spotty compliance has a much more prosaic cause: Parents have said they had too little time and too much else to do. (WaPo, January 9, 2007).

You know, I don’t recall my parents ever making that excuse, because, wait a minute, my parents 1) had more than two brain cells to rub together and thus 2) understood their parental responsibilities vis-à-vis protecting their offspring from dangerous diseases. Clearly neither aspect is present in the referenced “parents.”

I have several thoughts, but I'll concentrate on one for your consumption: if you can't be bothered to immunize your children (you know, those little humans you claim to love so much?), perhaps you shouldn't have hatched them in the first place.

Technorati topics: diseases, parenting