Thursday, March 29, 2012

So much interest...but no OED entry

How many blogs are there are "epicaricacy?" Here's another. It seems more popular than the word "the!"

Sunday, March 25, 2012

And now about healthcare

Well, I've opened some of my favorite controversies, so now what about healthcare? The Chicago Tribune printed the most inane, and insulting really, statement today. They of course don't support the Affordable Care Act (they are very conservative), which I refuse to call "Obamacare" (I find that word juvenile and unsophisticated). They said, "The healthy are subsidizing the sick" with this bill. Give me a break. What is all insurance about? Isn't that the point, be it health care, auto, home, etc.? I have never made a claim on our home insurance (more than 20 years), and yet home insurance, folks, is required if you have a mortgage. Yes, required. I guess that means that I have subsidized my neighbor whose house burned down. How sophomoric to think that way.

So what's the beef about requiring healthcare insurance anyway? This, people, is all political. As a nurse, I have seen the youngest and healthiest suddenly taken devastatingly sick. So, for those 25 year olds who have a perforated appendix, which goes to septicemia, and they need to be in the ICU on a ventilator, etc., etc., etc....what happens? Who pays for that when those patients decide they are too healthy for insurance? I saw a case just like that once. A college student didn't buy health insurance, even though her parents had given her money for it. Therefore, she had hundreds of thousands of dollars of bills that no one could pay. Well, either the taxpayers pay for that or those who are insured pay for it. Certainly we wouldn't let her die, right? That's the problem. Devastation can happen to anyone at any time. Are people too dense or too protected to realize this? Young families can suddenly find themselves with a child with leukemia who needs hospitalization, chemotherapy, and a bone marrow transplant. What if they didn't buy health insurance. Should that child die? Does the Tribune not know how much this happens and how expensive it is? Clearly no.

Do you really think the cost will be less if we don't require insurance? If so, you haven't thought about the details or the variety of circumstances. We'd all be paying for those who don't buy insurance....or let them die.

Further, do you really think the government doesn't require people to buy anything? Do you have a license to practice law? Nursing? Medicine? CPA? Etc.? That's the government. Do you have a car with no insurance? In Illinois you could go to jail.

The whole argument is just ridiculous and I sincerely hope the Supreme Court won't, again, let us down. The Chicago Tribune has already let me down with their emotional reaction, instead of looking at the facts.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Epicaricacy post

It has been a long time since I've heard from my Google Alerts related to epicaricacy. It's not much, but here is a post about it on a forum.

On another front, I have a comment about all the hullabaloo about birth control being paid for by religious organizations. Here is my take. First of all, I have worked for two major catholic universities; DePaul and Loyola. The latter is a big medical center as well. Both of them provided birth control for their employees through their health insurance. Therefore, I suspect that many Catholic organizations already do this, and this discussion is a political one, for the likes of people like Rush. By the way, I heard he lost more than 100 advertisers. Good for them!

Secondly, let's say that I, as Jewish woman, work for a Catholic university that does not provide birth control through their health insurance. Would that be their choice? I suppose. However, only if they don't take any tax money from the federal government. Were they wholly for-profit institutions, I'd support that. But...Catholic hospitals and universities get a lot of federal funding in one way or another. First, they have large buildings on a lot of land where they don't pay property tax. Can you imagine the bill for Loyola's lakeshore campus that has a lot of land/buildings right on the lake? Secondly, surely Loyola takes federal funding for their students. The medical center takes money from the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid. Lots of money! So, if they want their choice not to pay for birth control pills, then they don't have the right to take taxpayer's money. You cannot have it both ways.

Thirdly, why has no one brought up the whole Viagra situation? Did you know that most of these so-called "religious" organizations do pay for Viagra type products, but want to avoid paying for birth control. Does anyone besides me see the irony in this?

I have never heard any of these arguments. Why not?