My son has been visiting my Dad in Virginia for a few weeks this summer. He attended a basketball camp the first week he was there. His report: "It was fun!" He learned a bit about basketball, had a good time with his cousins who were also attending the camp, and yes, he'd like to do it again next year.
This past week, he attended the accurately-named "Adventure Camp." At this camp, the kids went caving, mud-pit jumping, hiking, swimming, zip-lining, and more. My son’s report: "It was so awesome!!! It was so fun!!! I loved it!!! I want to do it again next week!!!"
I pressed for details. What made it so great?
Disclaimer: I may have some of the details not-quite-right. I got part of the story from my son, and part from my Dad, and my son was so excited and talking so fast that it was hard to understand half of what he said, but this is what I got out of what they both told me:
For starters, he learned that he is, as he put it, "slightly claustrophobic," meaning that when they went caving, he "freaked out" because the walls seemed like they were closing in, and he had to go back outside. But the camp counselors were awesome (and patient) and knew some shortcuts, so after a short while, he agreed to go back in, and they took a couple of the shortcuts and caught up to the rest of the group. He was so proud and happy that he overcame his fear and finished the caving expedition.
They also got to a place where there was a ledge and they had to jump down about three feet, but they made it, and it was "awesome!" (My son is 10. He is only about four feet tall, and he is generally scared of heights, so this was a huge big deal to him!)
And then ("the best part!"), coming out the other side, the kids unintentionally re-created a scene from Winnie the Pooh.
As in, a rather large child got literally stuck in the cave entrance (exit?).
Some kids were still inside the cave, behind him. Others had already emerged from the cave. So the kids outside pulled and the kids inside pushed and they pulled and pushed and pushed and pulled and ... nothing. Someone eventually called 911. The emergency crews came, and it took them 2 hours to remove the kid from the cave entrance. When he was successfully removed from the cave entrance, there was applause and cheering all ‘round.
This was, according to my son, "awesome!"
At first I was a little taken aback, but my son reassured me that the kid was laughing, not crying, and no one was teasing him or making fun of him. They all just thought it was a great adventure, and a great story to tell.
On a different day, they did some sort of zip-lining.
A child got stuck at one of the poles when the pulley jammed. He was dangling from the wire many feet above the ground while one of the camp counselors poked at the pulley with a stick. No luck. So another camp counselor had to climb the pole and work him loose. Again, the kid was stuck for about an hour, dangling from a wire, while they got it figured out.
My son’s report: "Awesome!!"
Again, the kid was laughing about it, and no one was traumatized, apparently...
Then on another day, they were swinging on a rope over a giant deep mud pit and doing cannonballs into the mud. My son apparently had a hard time getting out. It was thick and hard to move and.... well, the other kids had to all grab him and pull.
My son’s report: "Awesome!!"
As a parent in our "safety first" society, I feel like I should be cringing and swearing I’ll never send him to that camp again and/or trying to get it shut down. Too dangerous or something. But I don’t feel that way at all.
Instead, as a parent of a kid who is generally somewhat bookish a little timid, but came away from these scary events laughing and saying "Awesome!!" I feel like I ought to be writing the camp directors a big thank you letter.
Because in the end, no one was seriously injured, everyone came out of things ok, and what the kids learned (whether they realize it or not) was that there IS risk in great adventures. (As my husband would say, it’s that "air of danger" that makes it fun!) And if you’re going to have a great adventure, you need to be willing to accept the risk that something might go wrong. But also, when things do go wrong, you don’t panic, you stick together, you figure out a way to solve the problem, and you laugh about it afterwards because crying about it is just no fun at all.
So, he had fun, he overcame some fears, and he learned a bit about handling "sticky" situations. Sounds like an "awesome" week to me!
Showing posts with label just my two cents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label just my two cents. Show all posts
Monday, July 15, 2013
Thursday, June 20, 2013
A Call for Common Sense and an Ability to See Shades of Gray
I am adamantly opposed to people sexually abusing children. The idea of some creepy 45 year old having sex with my 10 or 14 year old kid just gives me the willies.
That said, there are varying degrees of sexual "abuse," different types of abusers, and some people convicted of sexual offenses who, in my opinion, should not have been convicted at all.
For example, a 45 year old woman who engages in sexual conduct with a 10 year old child obviously deserves a big punishment. By contrast, a 20 year old woman who on one occasion kisses and fondles a 15 year old teen who is sexually promiscuous, appears to be older, told her he was 18, and was "coming on to her," deserves less punishment, if any at all. In many states, both types of "offenders" would be punished.
As another example, if teens have sex with their teen boyfriends / girlfriends, it seems to me that neither one should be convicted of a sexual offense. But in many states they can be, and are, convicted.
Granted we may not like the idea of our teens having sex, but in some cultures, teens routinely marry and become parents -- it's not exactly unnatural, and absent some evidence of coercion by one or the other, it seems really unfair to convict one and deem the other a "victim" (and based on what, exactly? A year or two age difference between them? Whichever one's parents called the cops first?) when it is most likely that they both were happy to engage in the act!
And in other circumstances, the alleged "abuser" may be the victim of other abuse, such as when a child who is sexually abused by his parent then sexually abuses a younger sibling. Perhaps treatment instead of incarceration might be a better idea.
The collateral consequences of a conviction follow a person for life, in many cases. People are required to register on those "sex offender lists" for the rest of their lives.
Registering causes all sorts of nightmares for the registrants. They can't live within certain distances of schools, day care centers, and other places where kids congregate, which severely limits their options for where to live. In many states, they are not even allowed to walk within a certain distance of these places, which severely limits their movements, affecting everything from how they get to work or the grocery store -- is there even a public bus stop they are allowed to wait at? Is there a route to that bus stop from their home that doesn't take them past the school? Can they even take a job at that place if it is too close to a school? -- to whether they can even attend church (do kids attend? Probably can't go, then).
Many landlords won't even rent to known sex offenders, again severely limiting their ability to find a place to live.
Many employers can't or won't hire known sex offenders, severely limiting their ability to find a job.
Moreover, the registries are public, which means anyone who wants to target a sex offender list registrant can easily find their photo and address online. Registrants are often subjected to harassment, thefts, vandalism, assaults, or worse - up to and including murder.
All of this might -- I said MIGHT, not would -- be acceptable if this were their only punishment. But it's not. This all occurs *after* the offender has been released from prison. In other words, they have supposedly served their time, and should be allowed to get on with their lives, but they can't.
All of this also might -- I said might, not would -- be acceptable if the list were reserved only for the worst offenders -- those who had actual sexual intercourse with young children, those who forcibly raped their victims, or who were substantially older than their victims and should have known better, or some other way of determining the relative "evil" of their crime.
But is this lifetime of punishment really merited for a 20 year old who touches a 16 year old's breast, after she told him she was 18? Or what about the 13 year old who is sexually abused by his mother or father and acts out by sexually abusing his 11 year old sister? Should he really be subjected to a lifetime of punishment? Or should we maybe, just maybe, try some sort of counseling and give him a second chance?
And should someone who is now 70 and has been married to his wife for 30 years and hasn't so much as looked askance at a teenager still be suffering the consequences of a conviction for having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend when he was 20? Isn't there some point at which we say, enough's enough, he's so totally not likely to reoffend, let's let him off the list?
In most states, though, once you're on the list, there is no way off the list. And that seems fundamentally awful to me, especially for those whose offenses might be considered relatively "minor." (Again, for the truly heinous offenses, I have no problem with the equivalent of a lifetime of punishment, and for really minor "non-offense" offenses, I think they shouldn't have to register at all... but for the offenses in between, it seems to me that a lifetime on the sex offender registry is often out of proportion to the crime alleged and to the likelihood of recidivism, and that there ought to be a way off the list.) Shades of gray, people.
Even worse, the lists are so overcrowded that they don't even help. They are supposed to allow people to be aware of the sex offenders in their neighborhood, town, or city, so that they can make sure their kids avoid them.
As a parent, I have looked at these lists. One problem with them is that the very limited description of the offense of conviction does not allow you to even determine whether the person was a 20 year old convicted of having sex with his 17 year old, very willing girlfriend (and thus probably not actually dangerous) or a 45 year old creep who forcibly raped a 12 year old. Another problem is that the sheer number of registrants makes it impossible to actually protect your kids from them. It would be impossible to memorize all of their names, photos, and addresses and would be ridiculous (and likely would cause more psychological harm than it would prevent) to try to make your kids memorize them all and avoid them... Especially when so many of the registrants are, in fact, extremely unlikely to reoffend and/or were convicted of offenses that should not, in my opinion, have been labeled criminal acts. If the lists were shorter, they MIGHT be more useful.
Here is an article that says it better than I could, because it comes from a first-hand perspective, rather than my more theoretical view as a lawyer.
Check it out. Then let me know what you think.
That said, there are varying degrees of sexual "abuse," different types of abusers, and some people convicted of sexual offenses who, in my opinion, should not have been convicted at all.
For example, a 45 year old woman who engages in sexual conduct with a 10 year old child obviously deserves a big punishment. By contrast, a 20 year old woman who on one occasion kisses and fondles a 15 year old teen who is sexually promiscuous, appears to be older, told her he was 18, and was "coming on to her," deserves less punishment, if any at all. In many states, both types of "offenders" would be punished.
As another example, if teens have sex with their teen boyfriends / girlfriends, it seems to me that neither one should be convicted of a sexual offense. But in many states they can be, and are, convicted.
Granted we may not like the idea of our teens having sex, but in some cultures, teens routinely marry and become parents -- it's not exactly unnatural, and absent some evidence of coercion by one or the other, it seems really unfair to convict one and deem the other a "victim" (and based on what, exactly? A year or two age difference between them? Whichever one's parents called the cops first?) when it is most likely that they both were happy to engage in the act!
And in other circumstances, the alleged "abuser" may be the victim of other abuse, such as when a child who is sexually abused by his parent then sexually abuses a younger sibling. Perhaps treatment instead of incarceration might be a better idea.
The collateral consequences of a conviction follow a person for life, in many cases. People are required to register on those "sex offender lists" for the rest of their lives.
Registering causes all sorts of nightmares for the registrants. They can't live within certain distances of schools, day care centers, and other places where kids congregate, which severely limits their options for where to live. In many states, they are not even allowed to walk within a certain distance of these places, which severely limits their movements, affecting everything from how they get to work or the grocery store -- is there even a public bus stop they are allowed to wait at? Is there a route to that bus stop from their home that doesn't take them past the school? Can they even take a job at that place if it is too close to a school? -- to whether they can even attend church (do kids attend? Probably can't go, then).
Many landlords won't even rent to known sex offenders, again severely limiting their ability to find a place to live.
Many employers can't or won't hire known sex offenders, severely limiting their ability to find a job.
Moreover, the registries are public, which means anyone who wants to target a sex offender list registrant can easily find their photo and address online. Registrants are often subjected to harassment, thefts, vandalism, assaults, or worse - up to and including murder.
All of this might -- I said MIGHT, not would -- be acceptable if this were their only punishment. But it's not. This all occurs *after* the offender has been released from prison. In other words, they have supposedly served their time, and should be allowed to get on with their lives, but they can't.
All of this also might -- I said might, not would -- be acceptable if the list were reserved only for the worst offenders -- those who had actual sexual intercourse with young children, those who forcibly raped their victims, or who were substantially older than their victims and should have known better, or some other way of determining the relative "evil" of their crime.
But is this lifetime of punishment really merited for a 20 year old who touches a 16 year old's breast, after she told him she was 18? Or what about the 13 year old who is sexually abused by his mother or father and acts out by sexually abusing his 11 year old sister? Should he really be subjected to a lifetime of punishment? Or should we maybe, just maybe, try some sort of counseling and give him a second chance?
And should someone who is now 70 and has been married to his wife for 30 years and hasn't so much as looked askance at a teenager still be suffering the consequences of a conviction for having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend when he was 20? Isn't there some point at which we say, enough's enough, he's so totally not likely to reoffend, let's let him off the list?
In most states, though, once you're on the list, there is no way off the list. And that seems fundamentally awful to me, especially for those whose offenses might be considered relatively "minor." (Again, for the truly heinous offenses, I have no problem with the equivalent of a lifetime of punishment, and for really minor "non-offense" offenses, I think they shouldn't have to register at all... but for the offenses in between, it seems to me that a lifetime on the sex offender registry is often out of proportion to the crime alleged and to the likelihood of recidivism, and that there ought to be a way off the list.) Shades of gray, people.
Even worse, the lists are so overcrowded that they don't even help. They are supposed to allow people to be aware of the sex offenders in their neighborhood, town, or city, so that they can make sure their kids avoid them.
As a parent, I have looked at these lists. One problem with them is that the very limited description of the offense of conviction does not allow you to even determine whether the person was a 20 year old convicted of having sex with his 17 year old, very willing girlfriend (and thus probably not actually dangerous) or a 45 year old creep who forcibly raped a 12 year old. Another problem is that the sheer number of registrants makes it impossible to actually protect your kids from them. It would be impossible to memorize all of their names, photos, and addresses and would be ridiculous (and likely would cause more psychological harm than it would prevent) to try to make your kids memorize them all and avoid them... Especially when so many of the registrants are, in fact, extremely unlikely to reoffend and/or were convicted of offenses that should not, in my opinion, have been labeled criminal acts. If the lists were shorter, they MIGHT be more useful.
Here is an article that says it better than I could, because it comes from a first-hand perspective, rather than my more theoretical view as a lawyer.
Check it out. Then let me know what you think.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Some Things I Just Don't Understand
I'm sure no one could have missed the latest headlines about Charlie Sheen's drinking problems, alleged abusive behavior, rehab issues, and off-the-wall remarks and rants about his co-stars in Two and a Half Men, the studio & network execs, writers, producers, etc., in which he calls many of them losers and complains about them trying to control his life, and so forth.
In response to Charlie's off-screen antics, the network cancelled the remainder of the season of Two and a Half Men. (No huge loss for mankind, really. The show has some funny lines, but it has no redeeming social value whatsoever and it's a typical, predictable sit-com. Of course, like Nip/Tuck, something about that total lack of social value is part of its charm for me!)
Sheen has been acting like a jerk, probably drinking too much, and now, he's literally ranting. He sounds nuts when you listen to him. But he has a point.
Have any of you actually watched Two and a Half Men?
For those who have missed it, it's about a 40-something extremely wealthy guy named Charlie who lives in Malibu and doesn't have to work much for his money and therefore spends most of his time drinking, partying, and seducing a different woman each night, and sometimes more than one a day. His divorced, down-on-his luck younger brother (Alan) moved in with him, and Alan's son lives with them part-time, too, as part of the custody arrangements. Charlie is pretty decent to the kid, if not exactly a great role model.
The star of the show is Charlie Sheen (his stage name - birth name is Carlos Estevez), a 40-something extremely wealthy guy who lives in California and doesn't have to work much for his money and therefore spends most of his time drinking, partying, and sleeping with women. He has kids, and he's pretty decent to them, although he's not exactly a great role model. Sound familiar?*
In other words, Charlie Sheen basically plays himself in the show.
How is it that the show's producers and network executives are offended when their star acts like the show's character off-stage? I mean, if the show were about a kindly priest, I could understand how Charlie's off-screen antics might offend some viewers.
But, hello? Is anyone who watches the show actually offended by Charlie's alcoholism or drunken rants? I doubt it.... so leave the guy alone. Let him be a drunken idiot if he wants to be. I mean, I don't condone the behavior, and if I were his ex-wives, I'd be seeking sole custody of the kids, but hey, I'm not his ex-wife and I never have to interact with him and so I really don't care if he acts like a jerk off stage!
And as long as he's doing his job (and most accounts said he was), why should his bosses care if he acts like a jerk in his off hours? Heck, they've scripted the jerk for his work hours. Maybe they should just follow him around during his off hours with a camera and save some production costs!
Another thing I found ironic is everyone's gushing about how "talented" Charlie Sheen is, as evidenced by the show's popularity. I'm not saying Charlie isn't talented (even if I thought it, I wouldn't say it, because I'd hate to get sued by a multi-millionaire), but I will say I don't see how his performance on the show Two and a Half Men proves he's talented. He's basically playing himself, isn't he? How does that demonstrate acting talent?
Just my two cents. What do you think?
_____
* Footnote 1: I don't think Sheen has a divorced, down-on-his-luck younger brother or nephew living with him, though. Last I heard Emilio Estevez, Charlie's older brother, was doing just fine, as was his other brother Ramon. And the on-screen Charlie has no kids of his own (at least none that he knows of or recognizes as his). So the analogy is not exact. But still, the character on the show is basically a slightly more articulate and cleaned-up-for-tv version of the real life immature party-boy.
In response to Charlie's off-screen antics, the network cancelled the remainder of the season of Two and a Half Men. (No huge loss for mankind, really. The show has some funny lines, but it has no redeeming social value whatsoever and it's a typical, predictable sit-com. Of course, like Nip/Tuck, something about that total lack of social value is part of its charm for me!)
Sheen has been acting like a jerk, probably drinking too much, and now, he's literally ranting. He sounds nuts when you listen to him. But he has a point.
Have any of you actually watched Two and a Half Men?
For those who have missed it, it's about a 40-something extremely wealthy guy named Charlie who lives in Malibu and doesn't have to work much for his money and therefore spends most of his time drinking, partying, and seducing a different woman each night, and sometimes more than one a day. His divorced, down-on-his luck younger brother (Alan) moved in with him, and Alan's son lives with them part-time, too, as part of the custody arrangements. Charlie is pretty decent to the kid, if not exactly a great role model.
The star of the show is Charlie Sheen (his stage name - birth name is Carlos Estevez), a 40-something extremely wealthy guy who lives in California and doesn't have to work much for his money and therefore spends most of his time drinking, partying, and sleeping with women. He has kids, and he's pretty decent to them, although he's not exactly a great role model. Sound familiar?*
In other words, Charlie Sheen basically plays himself in the show.
How is it that the show's producers and network executives are offended when their star acts like the show's character off-stage? I mean, if the show were about a kindly priest, I could understand how Charlie's off-screen antics might offend some viewers.
But, hello? Is anyone who watches the show actually offended by Charlie's alcoholism or drunken rants? I doubt it.... so leave the guy alone. Let him be a drunken idiot if he wants to be. I mean, I don't condone the behavior, and if I were his ex-wives, I'd be seeking sole custody of the kids, but hey, I'm not his ex-wife and I never have to interact with him and so I really don't care if he acts like a jerk off stage!
And as long as he's doing his job (and most accounts said he was), why should his bosses care if he acts like a jerk in his off hours? Heck, they've scripted the jerk for his work hours. Maybe they should just follow him around during his off hours with a camera and save some production costs!
Another thing I found ironic is everyone's gushing about how "talented" Charlie Sheen is, as evidenced by the show's popularity. I'm not saying Charlie isn't talented (even if I thought it, I wouldn't say it, because I'd hate to get sued by a multi-millionaire), but I will say I don't see how his performance on the show Two and a Half Men proves he's talented. He's basically playing himself, isn't he? How does that demonstrate acting talent?
Just my two cents. What do you think?
_____
* Footnote 1: I don't think Sheen has a divorced, down-on-his-luck younger brother or nephew living with him, though. Last I heard Emilio Estevez, Charlie's older brother, was doing just fine, as was his other brother Ramon. And the on-screen Charlie has no kids of his own (at least none that he knows of or recognizes as his). So the analogy is not exact. But still, the character on the show is basically a slightly more articulate and cleaned-up-for-tv version of the real life immature party-boy.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
I Will Never Buy a Toyota Highlander
Hate is too mild a word for how I feel about those Toyota Highlander commercials with the kid who looks down his nose at other people's cars and feels sorry for the kids who have to ride in them.
Honestly, what a snob!! What an entitled, judgmental little yuppie brat!
Who the hell lets their kid dictate what kind of vehicle they drive anyway? And then puts up with snide comments from the back seat?
Shouldn't they be explaining to that little brat that it is simply wrong to judge other people based on the car they drive? That some people might not be able to afford - or simply might not choose to waste money and gasoline for - a giant new SUV with all the bells and whistles so that their (apparently only) child can ride in the lap of luxury? That kids should just be thankful they're riding instead of walking, and that they shouldn't criticize adults' decisions regarding what kind of car they drive??
Oh, wait, I forgot. The parents are probably judgmental snobs, too.
Ugh. If that's how your kids turn out when you buy a Highlander, I'll be sure I *never* buy one.
What commercials do you hate, and why?
* * *
For those of you who haven't seen it, click here to see spoof of one of the commercials. (I can't bear to link to the actual commercial.)
Honestly, what a snob!! What an entitled, judgmental little yuppie brat!
Who the hell lets their kid dictate what kind of vehicle they drive anyway? And then puts up with snide comments from the back seat?
Shouldn't they be explaining to that little brat that it is simply wrong to judge other people based on the car they drive? That some people might not be able to afford - or simply might not choose to waste money and gasoline for - a giant new SUV with all the bells and whistles so that their (apparently only) child can ride in the lap of luxury? That kids should just be thankful they're riding instead of walking, and that they shouldn't criticize adults' decisions regarding what kind of car they drive??
Oh, wait, I forgot. The parents are probably judgmental snobs, too.
Ugh. If that's how your kids turn out when you buy a Highlander, I'll be sure I *never* buy one.
What commercials do you hate, and why?
* * *
For those of you who haven't seen it, click here to see spoof of one of the commercials. (I can't bear to link to the actual commercial.)
Monday, January 3, 2011
Fireworks
The Arizona legislature, in its never-ending quest to out-do its predecessor legislatures in sheer stupidity (see here for just one example of said stupidity), legalized the sale of fireworks in Arizona this past year.
Now don't get me wrong; I *love* fireworks. When I was a kid in Florida, we used to burn sparklers and fire off roman candles every Fourth of July and New Year's. It was fun!
But the town where I grew up in Florida gets an average of 50 inches of rain per year -- over 6 inches in June, and over 6 inches in July -- while the town where I live in Arizona gets an average of just over 8 inches per year, with June typically getting almost no rain at all (average, 0.09 inches) and July getting less than one inch, typically toward the end of July when the "monsoon" season starts.
Similarly, my hometown in Florida gets over 3 inches of rain in December and again in January; Phoenix averages just under an inch for each of those months -- and that's the "rainy season."
In short, Arizona is a tinderbox; Florida, not so much. It's one thing to have the professionals setting off fireworks for anyone who wants to come watch. They generally take lots of safety precautions and have plans for how to handle any fire or explosions that might start. But it scares me to think of thousands of people across the state setting off fireworks in their dry desert back yards with no understanding of appropriate safety precautions or what to do if a fire accidentally starts... the potential for disaster is pretty high.
Why our legislature wants to see our State go up in flames is beyond me.
And then there are compliance problems. You see, the legislature made it legal for stores to *sell* fireworks all across the State. However, individual cities and towns can regulate whether it is legal to set off fireworks within their borders. Most cities and towns have banned them. The U.S. Forest Service likewise (reasonably) banned fireworks in the national forests in Arizona.
However, this has caused some confusion, as many retailers sold fireworks to residents who were not legally allowed to use them anywhere in or near the city where they purchased them. And there are criminal misdemeanor penalties (including the potential for jail time, and fairly substantial fines) for violations.
Maybe this won't be too much of a problem for purchasers. Apparently the ban on using fireworks in Tempe wasn't enforced very strictly; we heard lots of them throughout our neighborhood for many hours on New Year's Eve.
Maybe my fears about fires are similarly unfounded. No one in our neighborhood seems to have set his house on fire. Then again, in my neighborhood (an older neighborhood), most homes have green lawns and water-loving trees, and most homeowners actually maintain their water-logged landscapes, so there are not a lot of dried out weeds, lawns, and shrubs; and many of the homes are constructed of cinderblocks or bricks, rather than wood framing. By contrast, other neighborhoods feature somewhat drier desert landscaping or, worse, improperly maintained and dried-out traditional landscaping, with lots of fuel for fires. Still other neighborhoods are situated next to the national forests, with their dry underbrush and lots of fuel for fires.
So, bottom line, it's not a complete tinderbox in my neighborhood, unlike much of the State. I don't feel personally threatened.
But still. It makes no sense to sell fireworks to amateurs when we live in one of the driest and most fire-prone states in the nation. We've lived for years with a fireworks ban for individuals. Why the change? Who thought this was a good idea?
Shouldn't we have a "common sense" requirement for people who want to run for public office?
Now don't get me wrong; I *love* fireworks. When I was a kid in Florida, we used to burn sparklers and fire off roman candles every Fourth of July and New Year's. It was fun!
But the town where I grew up in Florida gets an average of 50 inches of rain per year -- over 6 inches in June, and over 6 inches in July -- while the town where I live in Arizona gets an average of just over 8 inches per year, with June typically getting almost no rain at all (average, 0.09 inches) and July getting less than one inch, typically toward the end of July when the "monsoon" season starts.
Similarly, my hometown in Florida gets over 3 inches of rain in December and again in January; Phoenix averages just under an inch for each of those months -- and that's the "rainy season."
In short, Arizona is a tinderbox; Florida, not so much. It's one thing to have the professionals setting off fireworks for anyone who wants to come watch. They generally take lots of safety precautions and have plans for how to handle any fire or explosions that might start. But it scares me to think of thousands of people across the state setting off fireworks in their dry desert back yards with no understanding of appropriate safety precautions or what to do if a fire accidentally starts... the potential for disaster is pretty high.
Why our legislature wants to see our State go up in flames is beyond me.
And then there are compliance problems. You see, the legislature made it legal for stores to *sell* fireworks all across the State. However, individual cities and towns can regulate whether it is legal to set off fireworks within their borders. Most cities and towns have banned them. The U.S. Forest Service likewise (reasonably) banned fireworks in the national forests in Arizona.
However, this has caused some confusion, as many retailers sold fireworks to residents who were not legally allowed to use them anywhere in or near the city where they purchased them. And there are criminal misdemeanor penalties (including the potential for jail time, and fairly substantial fines) for violations.
Maybe this won't be too much of a problem for purchasers. Apparently the ban on using fireworks in Tempe wasn't enforced very strictly; we heard lots of them throughout our neighborhood for many hours on New Year's Eve.
Maybe my fears about fires are similarly unfounded. No one in our neighborhood seems to have set his house on fire. Then again, in my neighborhood (an older neighborhood), most homes have green lawns and water-loving trees, and most homeowners actually maintain their water-logged landscapes, so there are not a lot of dried out weeds, lawns, and shrubs; and many of the homes are constructed of cinderblocks or bricks, rather than wood framing. By contrast, other neighborhoods feature somewhat drier desert landscaping or, worse, improperly maintained and dried-out traditional landscaping, with lots of fuel for fires. Still other neighborhoods are situated next to the national forests, with their dry underbrush and lots of fuel for fires.
So, bottom line, it's not a complete tinderbox in my neighborhood, unlike much of the State. I don't feel personally threatened.
But still. It makes no sense to sell fireworks to amateurs when we live in one of the driest and most fire-prone states in the nation. We've lived for years with a fireworks ban for individuals. Why the change? Who thought this was a good idea?
Shouldn't we have a "common sense" requirement for people who want to run for public office?
Friday, January 8, 2010
Depression
I've been rather depressed lately. Well, I was reasonably happy, if a bit busy, for a couple of weeks right around Christmas, but I've spent the better part of the past month feeling very down. Maybe you can tell from the content of my posts. Hating everyone (lawyers, motorcycle cops), ranting about trivial annoyances (parking lot jerks, annoying attorneys), and basically ignoring my blog in between.
It's easy to say, hey just suck it up, get over it, adjust your attitude, be happy.... But as Kim Ayres over at Ramblings of the Bearded One pointed out in a couple of recent blog posts (here and here) it's not that easy.
Part of the problem, for me anyway, is that when you are depressed, you literally can't do anything. Some days, it's nearly impossible even to get out of bed in the morning. So, many of the "self-help" things that you could theoretically do to help yourself feel better - things that might help people who are feeling sad, but not truly depressed - simply can't happen. People will say, "take this supplement," or "get some exercise" or "eat better foods," or "go to the doctor," or "get a prescription for Prozac" and it will help you feel happier. They might be right, I really don't know. I know only that the effort required to get to the store and buy the recommended supplement, or to go out and exercise, or to buy and prepare the recommended foods, or to make and keep a doctor appointment, is beyond what I can imagine accomplishing most days.
I have, so far, managed to hold it together enough to get my kids to school on time (and with lunches made), supervise their homework, take them to their activities, and even to plan and do fun things with them. I've managed to meet my work deadlines (mostly - except for those papers I still have to grade, which were due this week but will not be done until Monday). I've managed to keep the kitchen clean so we can all eat without contracting some dread disease from spoiled food. I've managed to keep up with the laundry enough that the kids and I can get dressed each morning, if we're so inclined (some days, I'm not).
But it's as if those things take every ounce of energy, and then when the kids and husband are gone and the deadlines have been met, there is no energy for anything else. I find myself lying in bed staring at the ceiling, sometimes crying.
My house is a wreck and I'm just not motivated to do anything about it. And I haven't managed to put together the client billing, or do the filing, or install the new printer I got, or any number of other tasks that require energy but don't have a "do it now or else" type of deadline.
And so I lie in bed and feel sorry for myself. And then I berate myself for being lazy. And then I drag myself to the kitchen for another cup of coffee, hoping that will give me some energy. And it doesn't and then I hate myself even more and I feel exhausted and I go back to bed.
And I get really scared. I don't want to be one of those people who truly slips into a huge depression and truly can't get out of bed for days at a time, who completely abdicates her responsibility to her family, work, and friends.
I don't mean to be a whiner. I don't even know what I hope to accomplish by posting this. But when I read Kim's post, it struck a chord. He talked about how people just don't understand. They offer sympathy and suggestions in a misguided attempt to help you "adjust your attitude" and "feel better," but it just doesn't work because it's not about your attitude or your desire to be happy; it's a physical inability to "feel better."
I haven't wanted to admit to anyone how depressed I am. It seems like a moral failing, or like mere laziness (thus, the self-hate, and being annoyed with myself...), but it's not that at all.
I am lazy sometimes. I know when I am lazy: I wilfully choose not to do something that needs to be done because I just plain don't want to. And then later I work frantically hard and get everything done anyway, cursing myself all along for being too lazy to get it done ahead of time. Most of the time I am not lazy. I do, and accomplish, a lot of things in my life.
But this is different. It is a physical and mental inability to do anything. I will lie in bed and truly want to get up and do some research that needs to be done, or sweep and mop the house, or call my grandmother, or write a blog post, or shop for new shoes, or any of a thousand other things that both need to be done and sound like something I would, normally, want to do. I will lie there and think about how wonderful it would be if I could just get out of bed and do these things I want to do. But somehow I just can't. It's not, "I should but I don't want to." It's "I want to, but I just can't drag myself out of this swamp of inertia and fog of sadness; I have to cry some more, first."
I hate this. I want it to stop.
I'm finally feeling a little better this week. Maybe now I'll at least have enough energy to try some of those helpful remedies people are always suggesting. And now that the fog and swamp have receded enough that I can move more freely, maybe, just maybe, some of those ideas will actually help me feel better.
Thanks for listening.
If you know anyone who seems depressed, please do try to have more understanding (not "pity," not "sympathy," just understanding) for them. It's not a conscious choice to be withdrawn and unresponsive or irresponsible. If they could "snap out of it," they would. No one wants to feel, or be, this way.
I'm not sure what you should do with this new understanding. It doesn't lead to any advice for how to help the person. But it might at least help some people be more willing to admit they have a depression problem if there were more understanding and less judging going on in the world.
It's easy to say, hey just suck it up, get over it, adjust your attitude, be happy.... But as Kim Ayres over at Ramblings of the Bearded One pointed out in a couple of recent blog posts (here and here) it's not that easy.
Part of the problem, for me anyway, is that when you are depressed, you literally can't do anything. Some days, it's nearly impossible even to get out of bed in the morning. So, many of the "self-help" things that you could theoretically do to help yourself feel better - things that might help people who are feeling sad, but not truly depressed - simply can't happen. People will say, "take this supplement," or "get some exercise" or "eat better foods," or "go to the doctor," or "get a prescription for Prozac" and it will help you feel happier. They might be right, I really don't know. I know only that the effort required to get to the store and buy the recommended supplement, or to go out and exercise, or to buy and prepare the recommended foods, or to make and keep a doctor appointment, is beyond what I can imagine accomplishing most days.
I have, so far, managed to hold it together enough to get my kids to school on time (and with lunches made), supervise their homework, take them to their activities, and even to plan and do fun things with them. I've managed to meet my work deadlines (mostly - except for those papers I still have to grade, which were due this week but will not be done until Monday). I've managed to keep the kitchen clean so we can all eat without contracting some dread disease from spoiled food. I've managed to keep up with the laundry enough that the kids and I can get dressed each morning, if we're so inclined (some days, I'm not).
But it's as if those things take every ounce of energy, and then when the kids and husband are gone and the deadlines have been met, there is no energy for anything else. I find myself lying in bed staring at the ceiling, sometimes crying.
My house is a wreck and I'm just not motivated to do anything about it. And I haven't managed to put together the client billing, or do the filing, or install the new printer I got, or any number of other tasks that require energy but don't have a "do it now or else" type of deadline.
And so I lie in bed and feel sorry for myself. And then I berate myself for being lazy. And then I drag myself to the kitchen for another cup of coffee, hoping that will give me some energy. And it doesn't and then I hate myself even more and I feel exhausted and I go back to bed.
And I get really scared. I don't want to be one of those people who truly slips into a huge depression and truly can't get out of bed for days at a time, who completely abdicates her responsibility to her family, work, and friends.
I don't mean to be a whiner. I don't even know what I hope to accomplish by posting this. But when I read Kim's post, it struck a chord. He talked about how people just don't understand. They offer sympathy and suggestions in a misguided attempt to help you "adjust your attitude" and "feel better," but it just doesn't work because it's not about your attitude or your desire to be happy; it's a physical inability to "feel better."
I haven't wanted to admit to anyone how depressed I am. It seems like a moral failing, or like mere laziness (thus, the self-hate, and being annoyed with myself...), but it's not that at all.
I am lazy sometimes. I know when I am lazy: I wilfully choose not to do something that needs to be done because I just plain don't want to. And then later I work frantically hard and get everything done anyway, cursing myself all along for being too lazy to get it done ahead of time. Most of the time I am not lazy. I do, and accomplish, a lot of things in my life.
But this is different. It is a physical and mental inability to do anything. I will lie in bed and truly want to get up and do some research that needs to be done, or sweep and mop the house, or call my grandmother, or write a blog post, or shop for new shoes, or any of a thousand other things that both need to be done and sound like something I would, normally, want to do. I will lie there and think about how wonderful it would be if I could just get out of bed and do these things I want to do. But somehow I just can't. It's not, "I should but I don't want to." It's "I want to, but I just can't drag myself out of this swamp of inertia and fog of sadness; I have to cry some more, first."
I hate this. I want it to stop.
I'm finally feeling a little better this week. Maybe now I'll at least have enough energy to try some of those helpful remedies people are always suggesting. And now that the fog and swamp have receded enough that I can move more freely, maybe, just maybe, some of those ideas will actually help me feel better.
Thanks for listening.
If you know anyone who seems depressed, please do try to have more understanding (not "pity," not "sympathy," just understanding) for them. It's not a conscious choice to be withdrawn and unresponsive or irresponsible. If they could "snap out of it," they would. No one wants to feel, or be, this way.
I'm not sure what you should do with this new understanding. It doesn't lead to any advice for how to help the person. But it might at least help some people be more willing to admit they have a depression problem if there were more understanding and less judging going on in the world.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
The Loser
I was browsing photos over at Mr. C's Photography and saw this photo (click here).
It made me laugh, because I was driving around town recently and saw a car with a personalized license plate that said "Loser." No, really! My reaction was "What? Who would pay extra to put *that* on their license plate?!?"
Turns out the person who owns the "Loser" car works with my husband (! - what are the odds?!) and pronounces the name "Lojher" ... or should that be "Lozhier" ...
... how *do* you spell that soft "j" or "g" / rough "z" or "s" sound in the middle of a word? Like in vision?
... Lozier didn't seem to capture it -- seems like that z would be pronounced as in "zoo" and you'd say it "Low-zeer" or perhaps even with a french-style accent, like "Low-zee-aay," and that isn't it. We're looking for the "ur" sound at the end. Maybe "Lowzhur"? That seems like too many consonants in a row...
...bear with me here...
Ok I looked it up, and phonetically spelling it requires some weird greek symbol. I give up. I guess that's why she hasn't bothered to try to change the spelling of her last name...
Still, I'm thinking that if I were her, I wouldn't put it on my license plate!!
It made me laugh, because I was driving around town recently and saw a car with a personalized license plate that said "Loser." No, really! My reaction was "What? Who would pay extra to put *that* on their license plate?!?"
Turns out the person who owns the "Loser" car works with my husband (! - what are the odds?!) and pronounces the name "Lojher" ... or should that be "Lozhier" ...
... how *do* you spell that soft "j" or "g" / rough "z" or "s" sound in the middle of a word? Like in vision?
... Lozier didn't seem to capture it -- seems like that z would be pronounced as in "zoo" and you'd say it "Low-zeer" or perhaps even with a french-style accent, like "Low-zee-aay," and that isn't it. We're looking for the "ur" sound at the end. Maybe "Lowzhur"? That seems like too many consonants in a row...
...bear with me here...
Ok I looked it up, and phonetically spelling it requires some weird greek symbol. I give up. I guess that's why she hasn't bothered to try to change the spelling of her last name...
Still, I'm thinking that if I were her, I wouldn't put it on my license plate!!
Thursday, August 27, 2009
The Universal Health Care Debate
There are a lot of folks who disagree with the current proposal for health care reform. Many think we don't need reform at all. Others simply dislike the terms of the current proposal - or perhaps they dislike the terms that the extreme right-wing media has convinced them are in the proposal, even though they are not (there is no “death panel” for example). I am not here to argue the details of the plan. Those can and will be tinkered with over the years and certainly there is room for debate about how we should provide health care for our citizens. But in my view, we should not be debating whether to provide some form of basic health care for all of our citizens. We should just find a way to do it.
Here are some things to think about before you pooh-pooh the idea of universal access to basic health care:
Do you know how much it costs to buy private insurance? Or does your employer provide it for you? If your employer provides it for you, you may pay a portion of the premium, anywhere from $1 to $500 per month, say (and you likely complain every time your contribution to the plan is raised). According to the National Coalition on Health Care, the average employer-sponsored plan premium for a family of 4 costs $13,000 per year. And employers generally get a discounted group rate!
So if you are complaining about paying $400 per month for your health care plan this year instead of the $300 per month you paid last year, just stop it. Instead, thank your employer for paying the lion's share of the premium for you, and be thankful you don't have to pay the entire $13,000 per year yourself. Also thank your employer for providing your insurance. Many employers do not, particularly for part time and lower-paid employees.
Now imagine yourself in the position of someone whose employer does not provide insurance. Suppose you are working a job that pays minimum wage. Or even $12 per hour. That would be $24,000 per year if you work full time. This amount likely is high enough that you are not eligible for any federal or state income-based health coverage. If you need to provide health insurance for your entire family, and assuming you could get a policy with the same coverage at the same rate your employer pays (on average, $13,000 per year), that would be more than half your income for the year - and likely about two-thirds of your take-home pay!! Could you afford to pay 2/3 of your take home pay for insurance? I thought not.
Suppose you are one of the few very lucky minimum wage (or thereabouts) or part-time laborers whose employer does provide some sort of health insurance plan.
What if you wanted to change jobs? What if you got laid off? Imagine that you have applied for several different positions but the new job offers you are able to obtain do not come with health insurance, either because the company is small and thus exempt from the requirement to provide it, or because the position is part-time, so the company is exempt from the requirement to provide it. Thus, to take the new job, you will have to absorb the cost of insurance yourself. Will the new job give you a raise of more than $10,000? Those of you earning upwards of $100,000 or more per year will find a raise of $10k (approximately 10% of your current salary) to be within the realm of possibility. But if you are earning $10 per hour ($20,000 per year), the chances of finding a new job that comes with a 50% pay raise are between slim and none. And the reality is that most lower paying and/or part-time jobs do not come with health care. So if you are merely unhappy with your new job, it's hard to financially justify changing jobs, and if you’ve been laid off, you will probably have to take one of the new jobs and simply go without insurance.
OK, you say to yourself, but if you are buying your own insurance, you don't need the fancy plan your employer provides. You would be willing to settle for true insurance against disaster instead of the fancy, full-coverage-for-every-mosquito-bite HMO (health maintenance organization) or PPO plan your employer provides. You might see ads from Blue Cross for policies for $50 per month that will cover catastrophic health problems and you might think, "Great! I can afford that!" But that would be for an individual, with no pre-existing health issues. The family premium would be substantially higher - often $400 to $1000 per month. That’s a large chunk of change for a person earning minimum wage or thereabouts.
Now suppose you or a family member have a pre-existing health condition. Perhaps you had cancer, or your spouse has diabetes, or your child suffers from food allergies, asthma, or a skin condition. Any private policy you obtain likely will charge a substantially higher premium than it would for "healthy" policy holders, and will preclude coverage for the pre-existing condition for at least a year. If you were previously covered under your employer's health plan and are seeking a new policy due to a job loss or change to a new job, the federal Health Insurance Portability Protection Act likely will apply, and will prevent the new insurer from excluding coverage for the pre-existing condition. But it won't stop the new insurer from charging huge premiums for coverage. You will be quoted a premium price that is far more than the $13,000 per year your employer was paying for your coverage.
Even assuming you can find coverage for your healthy family at a rate you can afford while working at your minimum wage job, private insurers often raise premiums yearly, even for their healthy policy holders. What happens is that insurers bundle policy holders into “groups.” Then, as the members of the particular group of policy holders start using the coverage, it costs the companies more to run the program. Companies are not allowed to drop policy holders (unless they fail to pay the premium), but nothing stops them from raising the premium costs substantially. So they raise their rates. Then the healthy policy holders seek out and find a new insurer that will charge them less. The less healthy ones cannot find a less expensive policy, so they stick with the initial policy. But now there are fewer remaining policy dollars to cover the remaining health problems among the remaining, somewhat-less-healthy policy holders. So the insurer raises the rates again. And more of the relatively healthy members seek and find other coverage, dropping the current policy. And then the insurer raises the rates again...
.... which means that if you get a private policy that costs you $200 per month for your family this year, and then you or any member of your family develops any sort of health problem, in 10 years you will likely be paying substantially higher premiums (perhaps $1000 per month or more), and may be unable to find new insurance at any price due to the pre-existing health issue.
Now suppose you don't have health insurance, and you are working at your minimum-wage job, which is the only employment you can find in this economy despite your college degree. And suppose your child develops a sore throat, cough, and a fever. You know you cannot afford a “quick trip to the doctor” to make sure it isn’t strep throat. So you give her an over-the-counter medicine and hope she gets well soon. Probably she does. But suppose that cough just won't quit. Do you pay the $200 or more to take your child to the doctor? If so, how will you pay the rent (or the mortgage, if you were able to obtain one) this month on your $1000 per month take-home pay?
Suppose you take your child to the doctor anyway, figuring you will find the money somehow or beg the landlord for leniency, and that cough turns out to be asthma or bronchitis or something worse, like lung cancer. How will you afford the bills to treat these expensive conditions? If you cannot afford the $500 to $1000 per month for private insurance, I can pretty much guarantee you cannot afford the medical bills to treat cancer or diabetes or even somewhat less deadly but still debilitating conditions like asthma.
And now how will you ever obtain affordable insurance for your child? You won’t. She now has a "pre-existing condition"!!
* * *
The current system provides fantastic health care for the wealthy and those covered under their employer's group insurance plans, and no care at all for the vast majority of the working poor (those on welfare generally are covered by state medical plans). It strikes me as hugely unfair that the wealthy, who can afford fantastic health insurance at a discounted rate through their high-paying jobs, will often have expensive elective procedures covered by their insurance, such as fertility treatments, vasectomies, and reconstructive surgery after an accident, while the less wealthy, whose employers do not provide insurance and whose salaries are so low they cannot afford expensive private insurance, cannot even obtain necessary medical treatments for non-emergency, yet serious, conditions such as cancer, bronchitis, asthma, or even the flu.
I agree we should not take away the option of purchasing private insurance that covers a huge range of elective and necessary medical procedures, for those who can afford it and wish to pay for it. I also think we should keep in place the option to pay privately any doctor who is willing to treat you for whatever medical treatment you and your doctor deem necessary. In a country that allows and even values income disparity because it is an incentive to work harder, better, more intelligently so as to raise your income, there will always be some disparity in the quality and amount of health care available to folks with more, or less, income. Some folks will be able to afford vasectomies (and vasectomy reversals, too!) and try every experimental and cutting-edge cancer treatment known to mankind, along with the more traditional treatments. Others will have to settle for using condoms and being provided with only the tried and true, proven-to-work, more widely available, and thus less expensive cancer treatments.
But I ask you this: Shouldn’t access to basic and decent health care - the proven-effective cancer treatments, for example - be a right for every citizen in this wealthy country of ours, rather than a privilege for only the lucky (or wealthy)? Just as it is critical to our national security and national well-being to provide a free basic education for our citizens so that they can become productive members of society, isn’t it just as critical to ensure that our citizens are reasonably healthy so they can be good students and become productive members of our society?
There is room for debate about what things should be covered and how the coverage should be provided. Reasonable (perhaps income-based, on a sliding scale?) co-payments should be charged for services to discourage truly unnecessary doctor visits and to help defray costs.
But is it really fair to tell a sick child, “sorry honey, I can’t take you to the doctor because I chose to buy food and shelter instead of medical insurance this month”?
Is it fair that a working class man cannot afford treatment for his prostate cancer because his employer does not provide health insurance, while a wealthy stockbroker can have a vasectomy paid for by his employer-sponsored health plan?
(Note: I’m not saying the vasectomy shouldn’t be covered if the private insurer wants to cover it. I’m sure the vasectomy is less expensive for the insurer than paying for any pregnancy and childbirth that might result if the man didn’t have the vasectomy. I’m just saying that the cancer treatments should be covered somehow, too!).
We need to find a way to make decent health care available to every citizen in this country. It’s just the right thing to do.
Here are some things to think about before you pooh-pooh the idea of universal access to basic health care:
Do you know how much it costs to buy private insurance? Or does your employer provide it for you? If your employer provides it for you, you may pay a portion of the premium, anywhere from $1 to $500 per month, say (and you likely complain every time your contribution to the plan is raised). According to the National Coalition on Health Care, the average employer-sponsored plan premium for a family of 4 costs $13,000 per year. And employers generally get a discounted group rate!
So if you are complaining about paying $400 per month for your health care plan this year instead of the $300 per month you paid last year, just stop it. Instead, thank your employer for paying the lion's share of the premium for you, and be thankful you don't have to pay the entire $13,000 per year yourself. Also thank your employer for providing your insurance. Many employers do not, particularly for part time and lower-paid employees.
Now imagine yourself in the position of someone whose employer does not provide insurance. Suppose you are working a job that pays minimum wage. Or even $12 per hour. That would be $24,000 per year if you work full time. This amount likely is high enough that you are not eligible for any federal or state income-based health coverage. If you need to provide health insurance for your entire family, and assuming you could get a policy with the same coverage at the same rate your employer pays (on average, $13,000 per year), that would be more than half your income for the year - and likely about two-thirds of your take-home pay!! Could you afford to pay 2/3 of your take home pay for insurance? I thought not.
Suppose you are one of the few very lucky minimum wage (or thereabouts) or part-time laborers whose employer does provide some sort of health insurance plan.
What if you wanted to change jobs? What if you got laid off? Imagine that you have applied for several different positions but the new job offers you are able to obtain do not come with health insurance, either because the company is small and thus exempt from the requirement to provide it, or because the position is part-time, so the company is exempt from the requirement to provide it. Thus, to take the new job, you will have to absorb the cost of insurance yourself. Will the new job give you a raise of more than $10,000? Those of you earning upwards of $100,000 or more per year will find a raise of $10k (approximately 10% of your current salary) to be within the realm of possibility. But if you are earning $10 per hour ($20,000 per year), the chances of finding a new job that comes with a 50% pay raise are between slim and none. And the reality is that most lower paying and/or part-time jobs do not come with health care. So if you are merely unhappy with your new job, it's hard to financially justify changing jobs, and if you’ve been laid off, you will probably have to take one of the new jobs and simply go without insurance.
OK, you say to yourself, but if you are buying your own insurance, you don't need the fancy plan your employer provides. You would be willing to settle for true insurance against disaster instead of the fancy, full-coverage-for-every-mosquito-bite HMO (health maintenance organization) or PPO plan your employer provides. You might see ads from Blue Cross for policies for $50 per month that will cover catastrophic health problems and you might think, "Great! I can afford that!" But that would be for an individual, with no pre-existing health issues. The family premium would be substantially higher - often $400 to $1000 per month. That’s a large chunk of change for a person earning minimum wage or thereabouts.
Now suppose you or a family member have a pre-existing health condition. Perhaps you had cancer, or your spouse has diabetes, or your child suffers from food allergies, asthma, or a skin condition. Any private policy you obtain likely will charge a substantially higher premium than it would for "healthy" policy holders, and will preclude coverage for the pre-existing condition for at least a year. If you were previously covered under your employer's health plan and are seeking a new policy due to a job loss or change to a new job, the federal Health Insurance Portability Protection Act likely will apply, and will prevent the new insurer from excluding coverage for the pre-existing condition. But it won't stop the new insurer from charging huge premiums for coverage. You will be quoted a premium price that is far more than the $13,000 per year your employer was paying for your coverage.
Even assuming you can find coverage for your healthy family at a rate you can afford while working at your minimum wage job, private insurers often raise premiums yearly, even for their healthy policy holders. What happens is that insurers bundle policy holders into “groups.” Then, as the members of the particular group of policy holders start using the coverage, it costs the companies more to run the program. Companies are not allowed to drop policy holders (unless they fail to pay the premium), but nothing stops them from raising the premium costs substantially. So they raise their rates. Then the healthy policy holders seek out and find a new insurer that will charge them less. The less healthy ones cannot find a less expensive policy, so they stick with the initial policy. But now there are fewer remaining policy dollars to cover the remaining health problems among the remaining, somewhat-less-healthy policy holders. So the insurer raises the rates again. And more of the relatively healthy members seek and find other coverage, dropping the current policy. And then the insurer raises the rates again...
.... which means that if you get a private policy that costs you $200 per month for your family this year, and then you or any member of your family develops any sort of health problem, in 10 years you will likely be paying substantially higher premiums (perhaps $1000 per month or more), and may be unable to find new insurance at any price due to the pre-existing health issue.
Now suppose you don't have health insurance, and you are working at your minimum-wage job, which is the only employment you can find in this economy despite your college degree. And suppose your child develops a sore throat, cough, and a fever. You know you cannot afford a “quick trip to the doctor” to make sure it isn’t strep throat. So you give her an over-the-counter medicine and hope she gets well soon. Probably she does. But suppose that cough just won't quit. Do you pay the $200 or more to take your child to the doctor? If so, how will you pay the rent (or the mortgage, if you were able to obtain one) this month on your $1000 per month take-home pay?
Suppose you take your child to the doctor anyway, figuring you will find the money somehow or beg the landlord for leniency, and that cough turns out to be asthma or bronchitis or something worse, like lung cancer. How will you afford the bills to treat these expensive conditions? If you cannot afford the $500 to $1000 per month for private insurance, I can pretty much guarantee you cannot afford the medical bills to treat cancer or diabetes or even somewhat less deadly but still debilitating conditions like asthma.
And now how will you ever obtain affordable insurance for your child? You won’t. She now has a "pre-existing condition"!!
* * *
The current system provides fantastic health care for the wealthy and those covered under their employer's group insurance plans, and no care at all for the vast majority of the working poor (those on welfare generally are covered by state medical plans). It strikes me as hugely unfair that the wealthy, who can afford fantastic health insurance at a discounted rate through their high-paying jobs, will often have expensive elective procedures covered by their insurance, such as fertility treatments, vasectomies, and reconstructive surgery after an accident, while the less wealthy, whose employers do not provide insurance and whose salaries are so low they cannot afford expensive private insurance, cannot even obtain necessary medical treatments for non-emergency, yet serious, conditions such as cancer, bronchitis, asthma, or even the flu.
I agree we should not take away the option of purchasing private insurance that covers a huge range of elective and necessary medical procedures, for those who can afford it and wish to pay for it. I also think we should keep in place the option to pay privately any doctor who is willing to treat you for whatever medical treatment you and your doctor deem necessary. In a country that allows and even values income disparity because it is an incentive to work harder, better, more intelligently so as to raise your income, there will always be some disparity in the quality and amount of health care available to folks with more, or less, income. Some folks will be able to afford vasectomies (and vasectomy reversals, too!) and try every experimental and cutting-edge cancer treatment known to mankind, along with the more traditional treatments. Others will have to settle for using condoms and being provided with only the tried and true, proven-to-work, more widely available, and thus less expensive cancer treatments.
But I ask you this: Shouldn’t access to basic and decent health care - the proven-effective cancer treatments, for example - be a right for every citizen in this wealthy country of ours, rather than a privilege for only the lucky (or wealthy)? Just as it is critical to our national security and national well-being to provide a free basic education for our citizens so that they can become productive members of society, isn’t it just as critical to ensure that our citizens are reasonably healthy so they can be good students and become productive members of our society?
There is room for debate about what things should be covered and how the coverage should be provided. Reasonable (perhaps income-based, on a sliding scale?) co-payments should be charged for services to discourage truly unnecessary doctor visits and to help defray costs.
But is it really fair to tell a sick child, “sorry honey, I can’t take you to the doctor because I chose to buy food and shelter instead of medical insurance this month”?
Is it fair that a working class man cannot afford treatment for his prostate cancer because his employer does not provide health insurance, while a wealthy stockbroker can have a vasectomy paid for by his employer-sponsored health plan?
(Note: I’m not saying the vasectomy shouldn’t be covered if the private insurer wants to cover it. I’m sure the vasectomy is less expensive for the insurer than paying for any pregnancy and childbirth that might result if the man didn’t have the vasectomy. I’m just saying that the cancer treatments should be covered somehow, too!).
We need to find a way to make decent health care available to every citizen in this country. It’s just the right thing to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
