Saturday afternoon was a beautiful day. They had the big wave tournament at Maverick's, it finally didnt rain on a weekend day and the NFL playoffs were magnificent. We had our weekly football game in the park and I was excited to finally get out on a field that wasnt covered with water. 5 minutes after I change and stretch, we start throwing the ball around to loosen up. One of the guys throws a pass to me a little high and I go up with one hand. I land in a small divot and roll my ankle. I lay on the ground trying to loosen it up and I finally get to the point where I can walk on it. I feel good enough to play so I do. 20 more minutes in, I dive for a loose fumble and hit my shoulder square on the ground. I could barely move my arm past 45 degrees but I still played. I played quarterback and probably threw another 20-25 passes. When I got home and the adrenalin wore off I could barely move my arm period. It feels like a bruised shoulder or bruised collarbone, but I dont know. I would like to go to the hospital and find out, but I got laid off last month and I dont have any health insurance anymore. Sure I could go to general, but I've been to general before. I was there once on my own for something I barely remember and once for my cousin and his broken foot. He had broken, I think, the #2 metatarsal and all of the middle phlanges. He sat there in agonizing pain for over three hours before he got pain killers. He then sat for 30 more hours before he could get into surgery to repair his broken and dislocated foot.
In the United States, roughly 85% of the population has health insurance. Only about 70% have access to health insurance that they pay for, either on their own or through their employer. For the 30% that dont have personal insurance, and some that do, they have government subsidies for low income, elderly or child status. There are almost 15% who have no insurance and for them, they dont get regular checkups, dont have access to regular medications and they have to put up with sub par service, because they dont have insurance. Now, dont get me wrong, I believe the doctors and nurses at most general hospitals put in as much if not more time than doctors and nurses at professional hospitals; they have to. Many of them are studying for their PHD or interning, or building up experience. But I think the problem is that they are working too hard. San Francisco General has 302 beds while Kaiser(Kaiser Permanente Medical Center) in San Francisco has 247. The WHOLE Kaiser Medical Center. Kaiser also has a larger staff and much more profits.
The entire cost of health care in the US is over $2Trillian, with the government paying for over 60% of that. Much of that money is tied up in administrative fees to process public health care claims, or other government subsidized programs. A large chunk also comes from the overpayment for medication. Medication which costs Canda $100M costs the US $150M. The amount of inpatient treatment for the average American, regardless of insurance status, is the highest in the world. This whole system is built on overpaying. When you look at the profits made by Kaiser, Blue Shield and the other big players in health care, it becomes quite clear why the US is so far behind.
Even though the government spends so much on healthcare, as does the citizens of the US, nobody with any power seems to want to change anything. Although, with profits this large, why would they? As I mentioned before, the government pays for a large portion of health care in the country. Much of that money goes to the big health care providers (HCPs) and then goes right back to the government in the form of lobbying payments and private programs. Why would any of the large HCPs want to give up on their profits? The responsibility really falls back on the tax payers to educate themselves to cause change in Washington. With the amount of our tax money that goes to fund health care in the US, we can use that money for other purposes.
Canada spends 10% of their GDP on health care. They have a socialized system and have, in some aspects, since 1946. In 1999 Canada has a national "socialized" health care system. While some in the US are only guaranteed ambulatory care, and even then, they have to pay for it, the Government in Canada subsidizes much, if not all of the costs incurred by patients visiting GPs or specialists. Given that the US has a much larger GDP, 15% of theirs is significantly more than Canada's $160B. The one great thing that the US has going for it is the innovative techniques and cutting edge medicine. Applying the same amount of money that currently goes to the administrative fees surrounding US Healthcare and the minor subsidized programs , the medical professionals would be taken care of financially and we would be able to fund the innovation and maintain the high standard of healthcare that we already possess.
Better yet, lets take a European approach and provide a baseline level of care to everyone and then allow private firms to coexist. The small group of Americans who demand an extraordinary level of healthcare can still get it, but people with no insurance can walk into any medical office and be taken care of. Something, anything, needs to be done to straighten out this situation that we are in.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Sunday, January 6, 2008
The state of American Literature (Not the good kind)
The tides are turning in contemporary American literature and Im not sure its necessarily a good tide thats washing in. I mean, while "The Average American Male" and "Apathy" are entertaining to read, Im not getting too much emotion or maturity out of the Average American Novel, but is it really all bad?
"The Average American Male" is a novel detailing the day to day thoughts and movements of an average American male. The discriptions are accurate to a T. Everything Chad Kultgen says, thinks or does, is exactly what myself, or any of my friends would say, think or do. He so captures the pure raw, sexuality of men, although he captures it in a 10th grade sort of way. He describes everything in a rich, accurate and sex-starved sort of way. He struggles with the social confines set upon him by his parents, his friends,his girlfriend and society as a whole. He meets this struggle with a hedonistic, apathetic and fatalistic point of view. Whatever happens happens, but he is going to bang this chick on his way out.
"Apathy" begins much the same way as "The Average American Male", with the main character set firmly in a state of self-inflicted debauchery. The main character, Shane, wakes up in a pile of salt. He stole salt shakers, put them in his pocket and passed out drunk in his bed. He happens into a farcical situation with a deaf dentist's assistant and other absurd characters, but he perpetuates his (I dont want to call it self-loathing) negative sitaution by not changing anything. Much like Chad's character, he simply shrugs his shoulders and moves on. He changes nothing, merely accepting his sitaution as set about by fate.
The bad thing about this style of literature is that many young Americans are already lazy and apathetic. They dont need books telling them how to do it. They already have magazines confusing lazyness and apathy with a grander, more philosophical discipline. "What me worry?" was a mantra for a generation. "Can't someone else do it?" was a catch phrase for a fictional TV town. Im afraid "Eh, fuck it" will be this generation's.
Between Augusten Burroughs and others creating "non-fiction" based around sensational modern situations and other young authors putting out this brand of fatalist lit, I would be afraid of where these books are leading us. However, when you look at what else is out there, you see why these books need to exist. Without this modern, hedonsitic subgenre, you are left with modern classics like Michal Ondonche and Jhumpa Lahiri or you get Sue Grafton or Tom Clancy. Basically, there are three kinds of fiction: Brilliant, basic or relative. People read Sue Grafton because its basic and easy to read. People read Ian McEwen because he paints beautiful landscapes, and wonderful characters, and draws the reader into the world so vividly, you cant help but be dynamically transported wherever he takes you. People read and will continue to read books like "Running with scissors", "Apathy" and "The Average American Male" because its basic, and relative. But you knwo what, I dont care as long as people get back into books. Consequences be damned if it gets more average American people out from in front of the TV. Ian McEwen saw his book fly to the top of the NYT BestSeller list when Atonement began receiving accolades as a motion picture. People find the book, because its all of a sudden relative. I say it doesnt matter, as long as it gets people into liturature.
Lets have a run on the post modern sensationalist fiction, as long as it gets people interested in books again.
"The Average American Male" is a novel detailing the day to day thoughts and movements of an average American male. The discriptions are accurate to a T. Everything Chad Kultgen says, thinks or does, is exactly what myself, or any of my friends would say, think or do. He so captures the pure raw, sexuality of men, although he captures it in a 10th grade sort of way. He describes everything in a rich, accurate and sex-starved sort of way. He struggles with the social confines set upon him by his parents, his friends,his girlfriend and society as a whole. He meets this struggle with a hedonistic, apathetic and fatalistic point of view. Whatever happens happens, but he is going to bang this chick on his way out.
"Apathy" begins much the same way as "The Average American Male", with the main character set firmly in a state of self-inflicted debauchery. The main character, Shane, wakes up in a pile of salt. He stole salt shakers, put them in his pocket and passed out drunk in his bed. He happens into a farcical situation with a deaf dentist's assistant and other absurd characters, but he perpetuates his (I dont want to call it self-loathing) negative sitaution by not changing anything. Much like Chad's character, he simply shrugs his shoulders and moves on. He changes nothing, merely accepting his sitaution as set about by fate.
The bad thing about this style of literature is that many young Americans are already lazy and apathetic. They dont need books telling them how to do it. They already have magazines confusing lazyness and apathy with a grander, more philosophical discipline. "What me worry?" was a mantra for a generation. "Can't someone else do it?" was a catch phrase for a fictional TV town. Im afraid "Eh, fuck it" will be this generation's.
Between Augusten Burroughs and others creating "non-fiction" based around sensational modern situations and other young authors putting out this brand of fatalist lit, I would be afraid of where these books are leading us. However, when you look at what else is out there, you see why these books need to exist. Without this modern, hedonsitic subgenre, you are left with modern classics like Michal Ondonche and Jhumpa Lahiri or you get Sue Grafton or Tom Clancy. Basically, there are three kinds of fiction: Brilliant, basic or relative. People read Sue Grafton because its basic and easy to read. People read Ian McEwen because he paints beautiful landscapes, and wonderful characters, and draws the reader into the world so vividly, you cant help but be dynamically transported wherever he takes you. People read and will continue to read books like "Running with scissors", "Apathy" and "The Average American Male" because its basic, and relative. But you knwo what, I dont care as long as people get back into books. Consequences be damned if it gets more average American people out from in front of the TV. Ian McEwen saw his book fly to the top of the NYT BestSeller list when Atonement began receiving accolades as a motion picture. People find the book, because its all of a sudden relative. I say it doesnt matter, as long as it gets people into liturature.
Lets have a run on the post modern sensationalist fiction, as long as it gets people interested in books again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)