24 March Thoughts: health insurance companies, morons, etc.

Workout notes 1 mile walk in hiking boots; the heel-toe motion plus the boots irritated my heel. It sure “feels” like a heel bruise or a fat pad problem; going up on my toes doesn’t hurt. I might swim this afternoon instead and try a short run (3 miles) on the soft treadmill after weights tomorrow.

It doesn’t hurt so bad I couldn’t take NSAIDS but I don’t want to take the risk.

Chicago from outer space:

(hat tip: Jerry Coyne)

Health insurance notes Here is one way single payer would be superior. This winter my daughter hurt her back. Now the health insurance company (Humana) is hassling me; they want to know if someone else can be held liable. That is the problem with this for profit BS: these companies will do everything possible to avoid pay-outs, so medical problems become “getting well plus fighting with the insurance companies”. I look forward to the days were health insurance companies (private) are out of business.

Morons Some jerk thought it would be hilarious to go into a supermarket, grab gallon bottles of juice/milk, throw them in the air and pretend to have slipped…and record bystandar reaction. It is a BIG JOKE, they said.

Well, law enforcement isn’t amused. They are being charged with destruction of property and disorderly conduct.

My former church
There was a time when I attended a Unitarian-Universalist Church. Eventually, I grew to see it as basically a bastion for non-traditional woo and gave it up. Well, right now, within that church, there is a small but noisy group that wants to promote the mainstreaming of “polyamory”:

The joke about Unitarians is that they’re where you go when you don’t know where to go. Theirs is the religion of last resort for the intermarried, the ambivalent, the folks who want a faith community without too many rules. It is perhaps no surprise that the Unitarian Universalist Association is one of the fastest-growing denominations in the country, ballooning 15 percent over the past decade, when other established churches were shrinking. Politically progressive to its core, it draws from the pool of people who might otherwise be “nones” – unaffiliated with any church at all.

But within the ranks of the UUA over the past few years, there has been some quiet unrest concerning a small but activist group that vociferously supports polyamory. That is to say “the practice of loving and relating intimately to more than one other person at a time,” according to a mission statement by Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness (UUPA). The UUPA “encourages spiritual wholeness regarding polyamory,” including the right of polyamorous people to have their unions blessed by a minister.

UUA headquarters says it has no official position on polyamory. “Official positions are established at general assembly and never has this issue been brought to general assembly,” a spokeswoman says.

But as the issue of same-sex marriage heads to the Supreme Court, many committed Unitarians think the denomination should have a position, which is that polyamory activists should just sit down and be quiet. For one thing, poly activists are seen as undermining the fight for same-sex marriage. The UUA has officially supported same-sex marriage, the spokeswoman says, “since 1979, with tons of resolutions from the general assembly.”

This is interesting. Personally, it terms of the law: what consenting adults do with each other is not anyone’s business. However when it comes to legal standing (divorce, marriage, child support, parental rights), this has the potential to be a complete nightmare…all for the sake of a tiny minority of people. And, of course, there is the idea of “picking one’s battles”.

There are good public health reasons to support same sex marriage (studies show that heterosexual marriage is correlated with increased physical and emotional health and longevity) and if there is causation, why deny these health benefits to homosexual people? But I haven’t seen similar data on multiple/plural married groups. Hence, I don’t know whether the state has a compelling interest in getting involved in this.

I recommend surfing to the article and reading the comments; I am grateful this is no longer my headache.

This Charles Blow opinion piece is interesting. He talks about some of the Republican infighting and goes on to say:

But all this name-calling, as fun as it is to watch, is just a sideshow. The main show is the underlying agitation.

The Republican Party is experiencing an existential crisis, born of its own misguided incongruity with modern American culture and its insistence on choosing intransigence in a dynamic age of fundamental change. Instead of turning away from obsolescence, it is charging headlong into it, becoming more strident and pushing away more voters whom it could otherwise win.

Andrew Kohut, the founding director of the Pew Research Center, pointed out in The Washington Post on Friday that the party’s ratings “now stand at a 20-year low,” and that is in part because “the outsize influence of hard-line elements in the party base is doing to the G.O.P. what supporters of Gene McCarthy and George McGovern did to the Democratic Party in the late 1960s and early 1970s — radicalizing its image and standing in the way of its revitalization.”

And too many of those hard-liners have a near-allergic reaction to the truth.

The one thing I’d point out: due to the locality of politics, kooks can be very popular within a Congressional district. John Shimkus might be an idiot, but he is popular with his constituents. Hence, the GOP will continue to do fine in the House.

One other thing:

(hat tip: Bruinkid at Daily Kos)

Same thing with Obamacare. As an idea, it’s unpopular. But ask voters about the elements in it, they’re all very popular. It’s like saying, “I hate pizza! I love tomato sauce and melted cheese on dough, but pizza? I hate that shit.”

Here is what *I think* is going on. People might like, say, the elimination of the “pre existing condition” as a reason to deny coverage, or the practice of “rescision”, which is to withdraw coverage when someone gets very sick because they went back and found a mistake on the insurance application.

So the elimination of the “preexisting condition” is popular, but things like “health insurance mandate” or “raising premiums on everyone” so that these CAN be eliminated…well, these parts, which makes the removal of the exclusion possible, aren’t so popular.

More Republicans
It is amusing: when a liberal buys something nice; well, that makes conservatives angry. I suppose that they get mad when someone who is rich cares about the poor.

Stop waging CLASS WARFARE on wealthy liberals I say! 😉

Paul Krugman has some fun with this.


March 24, 2013 - Posted by | injury, politics, politics/social, religion, republicans, running, technology | , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: