For 20 years I anticipated that the nature of reading, and newspapers, would change. My argument was that the laws of economics would not tolerate printing ink and postage if a cheaper method of transmitting information was available.
I was wrong, sort of. Then, not now. The day may actually be close at hand. Literally.
Two weeks ago I finally got tired of waiting for AT&T to bring the iPhone to Central Oregon and I bought an Android smart phone. One of it's features is a browser. Doesn't cost me any more to use than my old plan.
The screen is bright and sharp. And interestingly, it is about the width of a column of type in a newspaper. I can read The Nugget Newspaper of Sisters Oregon, or the New York Times. I can make the type larger or smaller. It is convenient to read at the coffee shop, or the doctor's office, in my car waiting for my daughters after school.
This may be it, the end of newsPAPERS as we know them. I may have been early, but others have written about the convenience of the small screen (read it here).
That does not mean it is the end of "news." Yes, newspapers are falling on hard times with competition from Google and Craig's list. Yes, the financial model of news organizations will have to change.
But as the efficiency of electronic transmission of information hammers traditional papers, there is still money to be made from content. There will be a transition, but at some point, good writers and good editors will prevail, as much because of the glut of information as despite it. We will turn to sources we can trust over time.
Readers will find quality because it has value.
Even as we assimilate it from our phones.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
The "death panel" lies
For the real history of how the more corrupt right wing of the Republican Party tried to hijack the health care debate, read this account by Oregon Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Read it here).
I have disagreed with the Congressman in the past, but in this account, he dissects the process of how the right wing warped and twisted part of the debate. He was there. He is the authority.
From this viewpoint, one of Blumenauer's most significant charges is aimed at the U.S. news media. They have abdicated their responsibility. Fair presentation of the news is not measured by weighing ink, counting words, and presenting "each side."
Responsible media (not entertainment networks like "Fox") have an obligation to establish context and present the "truth." Yes, some ideas are more true than others. By failing to work harder, think deeper, and take risk, those news organizations which treat all ideas equally are aiding and abetting the liars.
The first amendment exists because truth matters.
I have disagreed with the Congressman in the past, but in this account, he dissects the process of how the right wing warped and twisted part of the debate. He was there. He is the authority.
From this viewpoint, one of Blumenauer's most significant charges is aimed at the U.S. news media. They have abdicated their responsibility. Fair presentation of the news is not measured by weighing ink, counting words, and presenting "each side."
Responsible media (not entertainment networks like "Fox") have an obligation to establish context and present the "truth." Yes, some ideas are more true than others. By failing to work harder, think deeper, and take risk, those news organizations which treat all ideas equally are aiding and abetting the liars.
The first amendment exists because truth matters.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Fox vs. America
It's about time someone -- anyone -- had the guts to say what needs to be said about Fox "news." (read it here).
Fox has long been a propaganda arm of the right wing fringe. Good entertainment, but no one should mistake it for news, let alone fair and objective.
Mainstream television analysts should have pointed this out, but they lost their balls years ago, and have become entertainment outlets as well. "Saucer boy" was at most a local news event, maybe something that deserved 60 seconds. But wow, were those shots of the saucer flying over Colorado great to capture eyeballs.
Turns out it was a publicity stunt. It worked, too, showing that the nation's media has become so craven that it can be manipulated by a simple wannabe actor looking for a "reality show."
But back to Fox: Aside from Jon Stewart, who is giving Fox the incredulity and scorn it has earned? Even the print media has mostly (read it here) failed to point out the obvious:
Fox is not much more than a smear machine.
And now, like every bully, Fox "news" has become a whiner.
"Surprisingly, the White House continues to declare war on a news organization instead of focusing on the critical issues that Americans are concerned about like jobs, health care and two wars," Fox News Senior Vice President Michael Clemente said in a statement.
How absurd. Declare "war?" Please, Mr. Clemente, don't flatter yourself. It doesn't take that much effort to point out that Fox is a propaganda organ. Plenty of time left in the day to improve the plight of mankind.
See the innuendo in Clemente's statement? That is a Fox technique. Because it is easy, because it can trick simple minds. Make a statement by asking a question. Never miss an opportunity to show disrespect for the other guy.
Like the venal utterance from Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) who thought it "interesting" that swine flu epidemics broke out during Democratic administrations. Like nearly everything out of the weaselly mouth of dim-witted Sarah Palin.
The Fox mission is to scream instead of question, to ask loaded questions, to play games with language and not engage in thoughtful discourse.
Fox is the channel of fear mongers and is used for hate speak. It is more Archie Bunker than Walter Cronkite. Mistaking Fox for news ruins the dialogue in this country over important issues. The Obama administration is right to give it the attention it deserves.
Fox has long been a propaganda arm of the right wing fringe. Good entertainment, but no one should mistake it for news, let alone fair and objective.
Mainstream television analysts should have pointed this out, but they lost their balls years ago, and have become entertainment outlets as well. "Saucer boy" was at most a local news event, maybe something that deserved 60 seconds. But wow, were those shots of the saucer flying over Colorado great to capture eyeballs.
Turns out it was a publicity stunt. It worked, too, showing that the nation's media has become so craven that it can be manipulated by a simple wannabe actor looking for a "reality show."
But back to Fox: Aside from Jon Stewart, who is giving Fox the incredulity and scorn it has earned? Even the print media has mostly (read it here) failed to point out the obvious:
Fox is not much more than a smear machine.
And now, like every bully, Fox "news" has become a whiner.
"Surprisingly, the White House continues to declare war on a news organization instead of focusing on the critical issues that Americans are concerned about like jobs, health care and two wars," Fox News Senior Vice President Michael Clemente said in a statement.
How absurd. Declare "war?" Please, Mr. Clemente, don't flatter yourself. It doesn't take that much effort to point out that Fox is a propaganda organ. Plenty of time left in the day to improve the plight of mankind.
See the innuendo in Clemente's statement? That is a Fox technique. Because it is easy, because it can trick simple minds. Make a statement by asking a question. Never miss an opportunity to show disrespect for the other guy.
Like the venal utterance from Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) who thought it "interesting" that swine flu epidemics broke out during Democratic administrations. Like nearly everything out of the weaselly mouth of dim-witted Sarah Palin.
The Fox mission is to scream instead of question, to ask loaded questions, to play games with language and not engage in thoughtful discourse.
Fox is the channel of fear mongers and is used for hate speak. It is more Archie Bunker than Walter Cronkite. Mistaking Fox for news ruins the dialogue in this country over important issues. The Obama administration is right to give it the attention it deserves.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Net neutrality and Republican pandering
It appears that Republican knee-jerk support of giant corporations over the rights of ordinary people remains intact.
In an article from BBC News (read it here), it was noted that six Republican senators have introduced legislation to punish the Federal Communications Commission for keeping oligopolies from choking off access to the Internet.
Oh, they dress it up. They say there is no apparent problem.
Yeah, there is no apparent problem when the door is open and the horses are still in the barn. There is no apparent problem because the handful of companies which own mobile access to the Internet haven't yet figured out how to turn their oligopoly into a powerful force.
It is as if three or four companies owned all the interstate highways in America. They get to decide who gets on, how fast everyone should go, and perhaps they charge their friends less than they charge the average driver. Which enriches their friends, who kick back money to the highway owner, who then buys himself a politician, who resists any attempt to make sure everyone can drive on the roads.
Folks, regulation is not by itself a bad thing. Monopolistic oil companies had to be broken up. AT&T had to be broken up. Once you could only buy a telephone from AT&T. A good argument can be made that much of the innovation we saw in communication was due to the competition caused by the break up of AT&T.
Don't equate corporate pandering by the Republican Party with being pro business. Regulation can assist business when it fosters competition by preventing a concentration of power in the hands of a few.
Greed and power will always exist, and one role of government is to make sure that consumers and businesses get a level playing field.
In an article from BBC News (read it here), it was noted that six Republican senators have introduced legislation to punish the Federal Communications Commission for keeping oligopolies from choking off access to the Internet.
Oh, they dress it up. They say there is no apparent problem.
Yeah, there is no apparent problem when the door is open and the horses are still in the barn. There is no apparent problem because the handful of companies which own mobile access to the Internet haven't yet figured out how to turn their oligopoly into a powerful force.
It is as if three or four companies owned all the interstate highways in America. They get to decide who gets on, how fast everyone should go, and perhaps they charge their friends less than they charge the average driver. Which enriches their friends, who kick back money to the highway owner, who then buys himself a politician, who resists any attempt to make sure everyone can drive on the roads.
Folks, regulation is not by itself a bad thing. Monopolistic oil companies had to be broken up. AT&T had to be broken up. Once you could only buy a telephone from AT&T. A good argument can be made that much of the innovation we saw in communication was due to the competition caused by the break up of AT&T.
Don't equate corporate pandering by the Republican Party with being pro business. Regulation can assist business when it fosters competition by preventing a concentration of power in the hands of a few.
Greed and power will always exist, and one role of government is to make sure that consumers and businesses get a level playing field.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Christians with no faith
It was hard to figure out why the far right mob was engorging themselves on the fiction of "death panels" dispensing medical care. It took a while, then there was the flash: Despite calling themselves Christian, they have no faith.
Well, not exactly right. They are actually "totemic" Christians. They have faith in their totems. "The Bible" is one of their totems. "Free markets" are another. "Family" is another.
When there needs to be a rational dialogue, they reach into their bag of superstitions and wave around a totem, as if to ward off the evil spirits of "socialism" or "homosexuality" or "lack of values."
Their shamans, Rush, Palin, O'Reilly, and the others, actually know this is a game. They just want to win, and capture the fame, power and money that comes from selling fear, like their forebears, Jimmy Swagggert, Jim Baker, and the others. These use the totems to communicate in code, to prod their flock into panic, to create the frenzy we see building around us.
But others with more character are faced with the knowledge that the issues we face will not bow to superstitions. That the shoddy system of health care we have eats 16% of our budget and will not run from a totem. That it needs to be fixed by rational effort.
Bank reform, credit card reform, education reform, political reform will not be solved with magical potions. These are issues that need to be looked at squarely, and hard decisions need to be made. Imbalances corrected. Power may shift.
Oh yes, the left has its totems as well. In many ways they mirror that of the right, and usually start with a hatred of other people's money. The difference is that the left doesn't hide behind Christianity, though interestingly, probably has more claim to it.
But why are those on the right so eager to believe the false prophets? Is it they don't really believe that their Reward is Coming? Is that why they are so focused on the lies and politics of the material world?
Or it may be that there is need, now, to stretch our idea of community to include others not like us. They want to exclude more than embrace, and hypocrisy always hides behind anger and fear.
It doesn't matter. There is work to be done. We need to get to it.
Well, not exactly right. They are actually "totemic" Christians. They have faith in their totems. "The Bible" is one of their totems. "Free markets" are another. "Family" is another.
When there needs to be a rational dialogue, they reach into their bag of superstitions and wave around a totem, as if to ward off the evil spirits of "socialism" or "homosexuality" or "lack of values."
Their shamans, Rush, Palin, O'Reilly, and the others, actually know this is a game. They just want to win, and capture the fame, power and money that comes from selling fear, like their forebears, Jimmy Swagggert, Jim Baker, and the others. These use the totems to communicate in code, to prod their flock into panic, to create the frenzy we see building around us.
But others with more character are faced with the knowledge that the issues we face will not bow to superstitions. That the shoddy system of health care we have eats 16% of our budget and will not run from a totem. That it needs to be fixed by rational effort.
Bank reform, credit card reform, education reform, political reform will not be solved with magical potions. These are issues that need to be looked at squarely, and hard decisions need to be made. Imbalances corrected. Power may shift.
Oh yes, the left has its totems as well. In many ways they mirror that of the right, and usually start with a hatred of other people's money. The difference is that the left doesn't hide behind Christianity, though interestingly, probably has more claim to it.
But why are those on the right so eager to believe the false prophets? Is it they don't really believe that their Reward is Coming? Is that why they are so focused on the lies and politics of the material world?
Or it may be that there is need, now, to stretch our idea of community to include others not like us. They want to exclude more than embrace, and hypocrisy always hides behind anger and fear.
It doesn't matter. There is work to be done. We need to get to it.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
It's about power, stupid
The truly strange thing about the war over the "public option" is that it is probably the most market oriented facet of the whole health care reform package. The wrong guys support it, the wrong guys are opposed.
Normally, the left would simply resort to regulation: "Though shalt not charge more than..." and screw up the economics of health care more than they are screwed up.
"At a minimum, there should be very strict regulation of all insurers, on and off the exchange, to promote competition and fair prices and substantial subsidies to help low-income people buy insurance..." editorializes the New York Times, again illustrating how the left doesn't "get" economics. To promote competition you don't regulate insurers, you guard the markets, reduce "barriers to entry," etc.
There are many market forces in place that drive up the cost of health care "as a system." Doctor owned diagnostic centers, for example; lack of competition in any one geographical market; insurance oligopolies; no standardized charting.
The antidote is to introduce forces that can systemically drive down prices, and that is best achieved through competition. That competition is best enhanced with public options, consumer choice, consumer consequences, all of which are lacking in the current environment.
And maybe for that reason alone, the brains of the Republican right are so opposed. The public option might actually work, because it really is a market-based tool. A tool they should favor.
On the other hand, if they can kill the public option and force the left into its comfortable role of law-based decision making, they will be able to point out that the left does want to deny choice, favors government over the individual. It is a long term strategy to get back into power.
The administration needs to grab this process. It can not be left to the right, nor the blue dogs, nor the far left. This administration is in a unique position to take all the good ideas and rework the health care landscape, with or without "compromise." Their plan could be the compromise.
There are many good ideas out there. Public option. Co-operatives. Tort reform. Transportability. Elimination of rules that limit plans to "in-state." Standardized, transferable electronic records. Perhaps they all need to be given a chance.
It is time to get to work.
Normally, the left would simply resort to regulation: "Though shalt not charge more than..." and screw up the economics of health care more than they are screwed up.
"At a minimum, there should be very strict regulation of all insurers, on and off the exchange, to promote competition and fair prices and substantial subsidies to help low-income people buy insurance..." editorializes the New York Times, again illustrating how the left doesn't "get" economics. To promote competition you don't regulate insurers, you guard the markets, reduce "barriers to entry," etc.
There are many market forces in place that drive up the cost of health care "as a system." Doctor owned diagnostic centers, for example; lack of competition in any one geographical market; insurance oligopolies; no standardized charting.
The antidote is to introduce forces that can systemically drive down prices, and that is best achieved through competition. That competition is best enhanced with public options, consumer choice, consumer consequences, all of which are lacking in the current environment.
And maybe for that reason alone, the brains of the Republican right are so opposed. The public option might actually work, because it really is a market-based tool. A tool they should favor.
On the other hand, if they can kill the public option and force the left into its comfortable role of law-based decision making, they will be able to point out that the left does want to deny choice, favors government over the individual. It is a long term strategy to get back into power.
The administration needs to grab this process. It can not be left to the right, nor the blue dogs, nor the far left. This administration is in a unique position to take all the good ideas and rework the health care landscape, with or without "compromise." Their plan could be the compromise.
There are many good ideas out there. Public option. Co-operatives. Tort reform. Transportability. Elimination of rules that limit plans to "in-state." Standardized, transferable electronic records. Perhaps they all need to be given a chance.
It is time to get to work.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Sunday, August 16, 2009
The public option
On Friday, Sarah Palin joined Republicans nationwide in opposition to public libraries.
Funded by major publishing companies, book store chains and a large seller of books over the Internet, the right wing has declared libraries to be "socialist, communist, and not the American Way."
Libraries, they say, threaten the ability of Americans to buy books, and could lead to government control over what is read, by whom and where.
"If government buys books, government will decide what books to buy. It is clear that this is a threat to democracy," said (former) prescription drug addict Rick Limberger on his radio show.
Will O'Kelly, on his television program and between ads for exotic Swedish sponges, said that people who go to libraries may be affiliated with Al Queda, he didn't know that and wasn't saying that, but librarians should be investigated, and those who publicly deny the fact should be required to prove it isn't true.
Shamus Hennesy said that it is clear that library books are a vehicle for disease, and only pristine, white pages with virginal paper unsullied by unknown hands of other possible color were good enough for his daughters. He compared libraries to crack houses and the sharing of library books to the sharing of needles.
"Tea Baggers," the unfortunately named movement of people afraid of an educated populace, have protested at town hall meetings nationwide. Funded by the book sellers, mobilized by radio entertainers, they shout into microphones provided by the government that people being able to read books purchased by government represents an infringement on their rights.
But it is the darling brunette of the far right who has captured the essence of the debate. Not that her looks matter. If she was a moose with dewlaps and dimples, she would still command attention for the power of her ideas.
"We don't want to pay taxes so other people can read," said Palin, who also said that she would definitely take up arms against public education when she might run for president in 2012, though she said she isn't saying that, nor what she was saying, but said that too with her famous coy smile.
"Government is bad. Taxes are bad. Tax supported 'public' schools are bad. 'Public' libraries are bad. Anything with the word 'public' is bad, because it has most of the same letters as pubic, and will give our young people ideas and lead them down a path of moral decay," Palin said with a wink that instantly drew millions of conservative men down that very same path.
"If I can't afford to pay for my child's education, I should not have an educated child," she added, pointing again with pride to her own family. "Besides, I don't read that much."
Others have not been so direct.
"Libraries threaten the profits of national book store chains. Without profits, they will fail, throwing thousands of sales clerks out of work at a time when the economy can ill afford additional unemployment," said Pewt Heinrichs, former Republican strategist.
Those in favor of libraries have remained for the most part silent. "We just think people should have access to books, even if they can't afford to buy them," said one quietly, asking to remain anonymous, afraid his neighbors would show up to burn down his home.
Funded by major publishing companies, book store chains and a large seller of books over the Internet, the right wing has declared libraries to be "socialist, communist, and not the American Way."
Libraries, they say, threaten the ability of Americans to buy books, and could lead to government control over what is read, by whom and where.
"If government buys books, government will decide what books to buy. It is clear that this is a threat to democracy," said (former) prescription drug addict Rick Limberger on his radio show.
Will O'Kelly, on his television program and between ads for exotic Swedish sponges, said that people who go to libraries may be affiliated with Al Queda, he didn't know that and wasn't saying that, but librarians should be investigated, and those who publicly deny the fact should be required to prove it isn't true.
Shamus Hennesy said that it is clear that library books are a vehicle for disease, and only pristine, white pages with virginal paper unsullied by unknown hands of other possible color were good enough for his daughters. He compared libraries to crack houses and the sharing of library books to the sharing of needles.
"Tea Baggers," the unfortunately named movement of people afraid of an educated populace, have protested at town hall meetings nationwide. Funded by the book sellers, mobilized by radio entertainers, they shout into microphones provided by the government that people being able to read books purchased by government represents an infringement on their rights.
But it is the darling brunette of the far right who has captured the essence of the debate. Not that her looks matter. If she was a moose with dewlaps and dimples, she would still command attention for the power of her ideas.
"We don't want to pay taxes so other people can read," said Palin, who also said that she would definitely take up arms against public education when she might run for president in 2012, though she said she isn't saying that, nor what she was saying, but said that too with her famous coy smile.
"Government is bad. Taxes are bad. Tax supported 'public' schools are bad. 'Public' libraries are bad. Anything with the word 'public' is bad, because it has most of the same letters as pubic, and will give our young people ideas and lead them down a path of moral decay," Palin said with a wink that instantly drew millions of conservative men down that very same path.
"If I can't afford to pay for my child's education, I should not have an educated child," she added, pointing again with pride to her own family. "Besides, I don't read that much."
Others have not been so direct.
"Libraries threaten the profits of national book store chains. Without profits, they will fail, throwing thousands of sales clerks out of work at a time when the economy can ill afford additional unemployment," said Pewt Heinrichs, former Republican strategist.
Those in favor of libraries have remained for the most part silent. "We just think people should have access to books, even if they can't afford to buy them," said one quietly, asking to remain anonymous, afraid his neighbors would show up to burn down his home.
Insurance companies need competition
There have been several health care commentaries from the right with important ideas for the debate on health care. John Mackey of Whole Foods has been unfairly beat up for his ideas (read it here). There have been others.
But they often contain one important flaw. They seem to assume that if something goes wrong, it is the fault of the patient. He or she eats too much or smokes too much or drinks too much.
But not all health events are a matter of choice. Everything that happens to us is not the result of bad habits.
I appear to be healthy, I exercise, I am not overweight. I don't smoke and haven't had a drink in decades. I don't do soft drinks.
But I was refused health insurance because I have high cholesterol. Not heart disease, mind you, but high cholesterol, a condition that could cause heart disease. About the time I decided to address this issue with drugs, unsuccessful with diet, I had to change doctors because of a dispute between the insurance company and my doctor's company over how much money insurance would pay for my visits.
My new doctor ordered a battery of tests. Tests that insurance companies don't like to pay for, because they don't really affect treatment. If you have high cholesterol, the treatment is to take statins, it doesn't really matter why you have high cholesterol. They claim the doctors order the test to make more money.
But my doc wanted to know, because it might dictate how to attack my high cholesterol. It turns out I have a genetically-caused situation. I don't know how to describe it, other than remembering that I had something like three markers for the genetic issue, and if I had the fourth marker, chances are I would already be dead, or face dementia because of plaques in the brain, or worse.
The point is that I have a genetic condition, not modifiable by diet, that could affect my health. And for that reason, I was denied health insurance by private companies. I had to scramble to find a "public option" that would take me.
I am not alone. Many have conditions that allow the insurance industry to decide, after being paid many tens of thousands of dollars, as I paid them, that a patient isn't worth the risk. Heart disease. Broken bones. Family history of cancer. Diabetes. Go away.
The game is rigged in their favor. I know this as a citizen, and having watched them from a chair on the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners. The market mechanism does not work very well when talking about health care, nor insurance.
Our system is broken. We can get great care in America, and I know that, too. I have had exemplary doctors, and I am a demanding patient. But the "system of health care" is broken. There is too much paper work. Doctors face unnecessary lawsuits. Insurance codes are designed to deny payment and coverage, not make it better.
It's time for a change.
But they often contain one important flaw. They seem to assume that if something goes wrong, it is the fault of the patient. He or she eats too much or smokes too much or drinks too much.
But not all health events are a matter of choice. Everything that happens to us is not the result of bad habits.
I appear to be healthy, I exercise, I am not overweight. I don't smoke and haven't had a drink in decades. I don't do soft drinks.
But I was refused health insurance because I have high cholesterol. Not heart disease, mind you, but high cholesterol, a condition that could cause heart disease. About the time I decided to address this issue with drugs, unsuccessful with diet, I had to change doctors because of a dispute between the insurance company and my doctor's company over how much money insurance would pay for my visits.
My new doctor ordered a battery of tests. Tests that insurance companies don't like to pay for, because they don't really affect treatment. If you have high cholesterol, the treatment is to take statins, it doesn't really matter why you have high cholesterol. They claim the doctors order the test to make more money.
But my doc wanted to know, because it might dictate how to attack my high cholesterol. It turns out I have a genetically-caused situation. I don't know how to describe it, other than remembering that I had something like three markers for the genetic issue, and if I had the fourth marker, chances are I would already be dead, or face dementia because of plaques in the brain, or worse.
The point is that I have a genetic condition, not modifiable by diet, that could affect my health. And for that reason, I was denied health insurance by private companies. I had to scramble to find a "public option" that would take me.
I am not alone. Many have conditions that allow the insurance industry to decide, after being paid many tens of thousands of dollars, as I paid them, that a patient isn't worth the risk. Heart disease. Broken bones. Family history of cancer. Diabetes. Go away.
The game is rigged in their favor. I know this as a citizen, and having watched them from a chair on the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners. The market mechanism does not work very well when talking about health care, nor insurance.
Our system is broken. We can get great care in America, and I know that, too. I have had exemplary doctors, and I am a demanding patient. But the "system of health care" is broken. There is too much paper work. Doctors face unnecessary lawsuits. Insurance codes are designed to deny payment and coverage, not make it better.
It's time for a change.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
I want "public option" for health insurance
When I changed employment a couple of years ago, I turned a company over to some very deserving people. We had just a couple employees when we started, about 10 when I left 25 years later. But one of the hallmarks of this small business over those years was that we provided health insurance.
I never wanted to face a situation where one of "my" people got sick and could not afford a doctor.
Leaving the company meant leaving the company health plan. Which also meant, in Oregon, that private insurance was perfectly free to deny me coverage if they didn't want me. And that is what PacificSource said.
Since I had high cholesterol, they didn't want me.
Which meant that I could not get "private insurance." I enrolled instead in the Oregon Medical Insurance Plan, the plan of last resort for people denied coverage for health or financial reasons.
Fortunately I can afford the $500 per month I pay to get the medical care I need. That's before I go to the doctor, by the way. Last year I doubled my cost, and paid more than $12,000, because I had a kidney stone difficult to diagnose.
Now, what is the difference between OMIP, the Veterans Administration, Medicare and Medicaid, and the so-called and much hated "public option" that the Republicans are frothing at the mouth about?
Not that much. Except that it might be able to offer some lower costs, because it would insure more people, not just the sick and older and poorer.
It might actually be an "insurance," which by spreading risk among a general population instead of cherry picking the healthy people to insure, could provide lower cost care to many more people.
I did not like being told that since I might get sick in the future, that I was uninsurable. I don't think it is right. But you know, I am glad Oregon had a "public option" for people the insurance companies don't want to take a risk on.
But I don't want my neighbors or their children to have to either suffer without a doctor's care, I don't want them to have to decide whether to buy milk or pay rent or go to the doctor. This is a natiional issue and it is time for a national solution. We are wasting billions of dollars under the lack of system we have now, under the illusion of free choice and "market" economics. That is just a canard.
This is a great country and we have a great many very smart people. We also have a Republican Party that is trying to scare people on behalf of drug companies and insurance companies that make billions of dollars at the public trough, all the while they gouge the people at the margins.
We need health care reform. We need it now.
I never wanted to face a situation where one of "my" people got sick and could not afford a doctor.
Leaving the company meant leaving the company health plan. Which also meant, in Oregon, that private insurance was perfectly free to deny me coverage if they didn't want me. And that is what PacificSource said.
Since I had high cholesterol, they didn't want me.
Which meant that I could not get "private insurance." I enrolled instead in the Oregon Medical Insurance Plan, the plan of last resort for people denied coverage for health or financial reasons.
Fortunately I can afford the $500 per month I pay to get the medical care I need. That's before I go to the doctor, by the way. Last year I doubled my cost, and paid more than $12,000, because I had a kidney stone difficult to diagnose.
Now, what is the difference between OMIP, the Veterans Administration, Medicare and Medicaid, and the so-called and much hated "public option" that the Republicans are frothing at the mouth about?
Not that much. Except that it might be able to offer some lower costs, because it would insure more people, not just the sick and older and poorer.
It might actually be an "insurance," which by spreading risk among a general population instead of cherry picking the healthy people to insure, could provide lower cost care to many more people.
I did not like being told that since I might get sick in the future, that I was uninsurable. I don't think it is right. But you know, I am glad Oregon had a "public option" for people the insurance companies don't want to take a risk on.
But I don't want my neighbors or their children to have to either suffer without a doctor's care, I don't want them to have to decide whether to buy milk or pay rent or go to the doctor. This is a natiional issue and it is time for a national solution. We are wasting billions of dollars under the lack of system we have now, under the illusion of free choice and "market" economics. That is just a canard.
This is a great country and we have a great many very smart people. We also have a Republican Party that is trying to scare people on behalf of drug companies and insurance companies that make billions of dollars at the public trough, all the while they gouge the people at the margins.
We need health care reform. We need it now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)