I suppose in the grand realm of things, ie, endless war in Iraq (sorry Dubya, but hostilities are not over), hurricanes Katrina and Wilma, devastating earthquake in Pakistan, and a myriad of other diasters, this does not seem like a huge issue. But on the local front, it is.

A short time ago, a reader posted a comment on one of my entries about pharmacists refusing to write prescriptions for birth control. She asked me to take a look at her blog, where she told a really sad tale about an experiment in denial. In the first part of her story, Denied
she relates the unrelatable–she witnessed the owner of a drugstore refuse to sell condoms to a 16 year old girl.

Why, she asked.

Because she’s too young to be having sex, the man answered.

Now that’s the cretin idea of preventing sex among teenagers. If I don’t sell her the condoms, the fool thinks, they are going to sit down and rethink their decision to fornicate and decide that God will forsake them if they do. So they’ll shake hands and go home to their separate houses and strap on their chastity belts.

In real life, the teens will still screw, but they will put themselves at risk for STDs and an unwanted pregnancy. But who said cretins ever think about the real world?

“You have your mom come in and tell me you can have them and then I’ll sell them to you.”

He was nice about it but firm. I grinned thinking the girl had tried the age old line, “My mom asked me to buy her some cigarettes.” It’s a neighborhood store, so this guy isn’t buying it and has probably seen her before. I laughed again to myself. Good try kid.

The girl stands there for a second looking surprised. I’m thinking, how surprised could you be kid, trying to by smokes at your age. I just knew she was going to mouth off, but for the second time that day I was wrong. She politely and simply said, “OK” and then left the store.

So I walk up, lay my oj and honeybun on the counter and ask him. “What was she tryin to buy?”

He replied, “Condoms. Can you believe that, she’s only 16.”

The smile slid from my face and I must have looked as shocked and pissed as I felt because he started in with the excuses before I could open my mouth.

“Why the hell didn’t you sell them to her?!” I asked him in raised voice, but trying to stay calm.

He had been so certain I would agree with him, he was still smiling for a second but that didn’t last long. He must be married bcause he looked exactly the way my man looks when he knows he’s piqued my wrath. Looking back, I see that we could have been any couple arguing about their teenage daughter. Except for the fact that we were strangers.

There is no minimum age for people to buy condoms. This story would make sense if I thought it took place in 1930, but today? In 2006? What next, I wonder. We already have pharmacists who think they are some God-like creature and can decide what type of birth control a woman should be using. They think that their title of community pharmacist means that they have the right to dispense drugs that they feel morally good about. But now it goes a step further–a store owner sorting through the goods that are being purchased, the goods that do not require you to be a minimum age.

Puke, puke. Are fat people now going to have their cookies taken away at the check-out stand, or girls being told that they’re “too young” to be buying that mascara? Are teens not going to be permitted to buy tampons because that’s for “married ladies,” meaning that only married ladies should be sticking anything up their vagina?

I know that the man meant well. He knows this girl, he knows her family and probably thought he was doing the right thing. I’m sure he thought he was discouraging her from having sex but he may have just been encouraging her to have unprotected sex. Had she wound up with a child, was he going to help her take of it? If she wound up with an STD or even HIV was he going to foot the bill? What if he hadn’t known her? What if “she” had been a “he”. Would a boy have still gotten the moral judgement of “he’s too young” or would it be the age old double standard of “boys will be boys”?

Legally, can a store owner pick and choose what items to sell someone? I know store owners, even managers have the right to refuse service, but he actually sold her the other things she picked out. Does he have the right to choose which legal purchases she gets to make on the basis of his morality and her age?

I’m obviously overweight. What if the store owner thinks that being overweight is a morality issue. He feels it would be morally wrong to sell me a honey bun, but he’s happy to sell me orange juice because he feels it’s a better choice. Or depending on how well he knows me, maybe he sould require me to have a relative call with my calorie count for the day before selling me anything but water? Where dol we draw the line that keeps his nose out of my personal choices or anyone’s, especially someone trying to prevent the life-changing events of pregnancy and/or disease.

The blogger brings out a lot of good issues. She wrote a follow-up to this story about a week later, where she actually returned and confronted the owner. I’ll try to find the link to it tomorrow. But any way, this story is so disturbing because it’s sitting at the edge of a very distasteful trend.

I was so mesmerized by the sight of the sun, that I nearly forgot to post the second part of Jon Armstrong’s saga. But even though it was freezing outside, I had to get some UV on my skin, lest my vitamin D stores completely shrivel and wither away.

Two days after his first post, Jon delivered an update on the subject of health insurance.

Today we were notified by a different, out-of-state provider that they wouldn’t cover us. They cited the same things the local company did; my already treated “condition”, Heather’s post-partum depression and Leta’s plagiocephaly (her head is normal shaped now). Plagiocephaly is something that is red flagged until a child reaches the age of thirteen. Part of me feels that we are living in a combination Brave New World slash Gattaca world where we shouldn’t have conceived without consulting a geneticist first.

Thanks to everybody who commented and made recommendations. Our monthly premium will be nearly four figures on the state plan. This is with a $1,000 deductible with an out of pocket maximum of $3,000. I think we’ll probably end up doing the next scale up, which reduces the fees by almost a third and will be the $2,500 deductible and the $$6,000 out of pocket maximum. The good thing about the state plan is that it’s month-to-month, so if other options open up, we can bail.

If you want the scary big picture, look at the charts (PowerPoint, but Keynote will open them) on this page (source: US National Center for Health Statistics). According to the charts, in 2003, $1.3 TRILLION dollars was spent on personal healthcare in the United States. That is 15% of GDP. Where does the money go? The biggest slices go to hospitals, physicians and “other”. I’d love to know what that other is. Prescription drugs and nursing homes get the rest.

That is a very good question; where does the money? It certainly didn’t line my pockets when I was working as a nurse. And considering that the hospital charges every last tissue, needle, and aspirin to the patient…you have to wonder about their never-ending cries of “financial woes.”

In the schizoid world of Seattle weather, the sun is now shining and there is a patch of blue sky. Like really blue. This is compared to ten minute ago when it was gray and pouring. In fact, the sun is now in my eyes and spilling across my computer. Although, I’m sure that as soon as I pull on my shoes and grab my jacket, it will disappear and the rain will return. Seattle likes to torture residents that way.

Tease, tease. You think you see the sun, but it’s really a hologram.

I was in North Carolina during the first part of December, and it was raining when I returned home on the evening of the 13th. It has literally not stopped since, save for one or two days that can be declared “A Day Without Any Measureable Rainfall Between Midnight to Midnight.” Some scientists have said that this is the beginning of a 20 year cycle of wet wetter and even wetter weather. Soggy galore. I wonder if the suicide rate has jumped this year?

Not a very nice word, especially when it’s a letter from an insurance company telling you, “Sorry, but we’re not going to insure your sorry ass. Our calculations show that you are too much of a risk and that you might….gasp and double gasp….actually try to use your health insurance.”

There was an interesting post on Blurbomat.com, about a month ago, about insurance denial. This is the blog of Jon Armstrong, the husband of Heather Armstrong, who pens the notorious Dooce.com blog. I read Dooce occasionally, because Heather does have a sense of humor after my own heart, but I couldn’t read it every day because of her obsession with bodily functions–namely the stuff which comes out of your anus periodically. Or not, as the case may be with her, a sufferer of lifelong chronic constipation.

Not to get off the subject, that is how I happened on her husband’s blog, which to tell you the truth, I like better. Probably because he limits the discussion of majestic farting, laxatives and the bowel habits of his toddler to a minumum. But Jon actually posted two entries about how his family has been denied health insurance, a problem since he quit his full job and is now searching for independent coverage.

This is a relatively healthy young couple with a young daughter, and while they have had some minor medical problems, they have been more or less resolved. Heather does suffer from clinical depression, and is on medication, but that is certainly not the same as having diabetes, or heart disease, or being in kidney failure. Not that one should be denied for having those problems, but I am astounded at how insurers are holding these things against them.

This is from his post of 2/10/2005

We’ve been refused health insurance from the monopoly health care provider in our state. All three of us were refused. Irony 1: This same company who covered my successful cornea transplant in 1998 used this against me and declined coverage. Irony 2: Heather’s post-partum depression being successfully treated was used against her and she was denied. Irony 3: Leta’s two MRIs, which proved she was healthy have been used against her. Denied.

So he had a cornea transplant 8 years ago, which was successful, and has no more problem with his eyes. His daughter had two MRIs to rule out a possible problem, and the MRIs showed she was HEALTHY. And Heather’s post partum depression is over, and she is being successfully treated with medication, and in fact, has been able to cut down on her treatment. But the insurers consider them high risk, and not worthy of coverage. Amazing.

The “free market” for health insurance is subsidized by tax dollars and is geared to delivering coverage to those who don’t need it most. Insurance companies apparently only insure the healthy. Or those who work for companies with more than 3 employees (and who offer a group plan for employees). They spend great amounts of money and energy weeding out the sick and needy. It’s sheer insanity. I can hear the conservatives cracking their knuckles to comment now. Save it. As a small business person recently self-employed, all the Hannity in the world isn’t going to fix this problem. It’s going to take creativity, genius and sacrifice from every side.

We qualified for a state “high-risk” plan (Irony 4: it’s managed by the same monopoly company that denied us coverage), but the premiums are about three car payments a month. Two if it’s a really nice car. And that is with an enormous deductible. Enormous.

Of course, I doubt that Bush has taken any notice of this in his great plan to cure the health care woes of the U.S. According to Bush, this family should just open a medical savings account, and hope that they can save up enough money should they ever need to spend time in the ICU–well, I suppose they could sell their house and live on the street if need be–or maybe sell all of their belongings, and move into their car, and then qualify for Medicaid.

I don’t think Bush has a clue as to the cost of hospital care or even prescriptions. That he thinks that people can just save for it. Some premature babies rack up bills of over a million dollars within about month or two. It is becoming increasingly common. How do you save for that? An accident victim who spends two weeks in ICU, and maybe another week in the hospital, and then needs rehab with have a bill in the high six figures. How do you save for that? Do tell George! And please tell the Armstrongs what they should do, to get coverage that they can afford.

Ohmigod…it’s suddenly started to rain. Now we can add “wet” to cold and raw. But what a surprise, to see precipitation falling from the heavens. I guess for a moment the world might have been thinking what a sissy Seattle was–having a full day without rain.

Just the thought of Bush sticking his grubby fingers into the healthcare mess is scarey enough, but to think of him actually meddling in it? If we think things are bad now, just wait until Georgie Pie gets through with it. And you know that if it’s something that he supports, then it has to be detrimental to the public at large, and good for huge corporations.

There was an interesting article in the Christian Science Monitor about it, and what I liked in particular, was that it went over the issues and gave the pros and cons. Not just a mishmash of sound -bytes.

NEW YORK – President Bush is moving to put healthcare at the top of America’s political agenda. In his State of the Union speech next Tuesday, he is expected to propose a series of initiatives that are designed to rein in the spiraling cost of healthcare and increase the number of Americans with insurance. To do this, he is hoping to encourage a market-oriented, consumer-driven system. Key components of his plan include the expansion of health savings accounts, additional tax breaks for individuals who buy insurance on their own, and provisions that would improve public access to information on healthcare pricing.

Supporters contend the proposals are crucial to making American more of an “ownership” society, allowing individuals to have more control over their healthcare choices. Critics warn they’ll shift more risk onto individuals and undermine the nation’s already strained health-insurance system.

I love the “market-oriented consumer driven part.” Sounds great. It still doesn’t address the spiraling costs of healthcare insurance, or the lack of reimbursement, or the fact that many people who can afford to buy insurance can’t find anyone to cover them because of a pre-existing condition. And the condition may be very benign, or completely cured and not likely to recur.

But then, I don’t expect Bush to ever conceive of the fact that there are poor people in this country, people who can’t get and/or afford health insurance, middle class people who can’t pay for both insurance premiums and their house mortgage, or those who just slip through the system. And health savings accounts are meaningless for those who are making minimum wage or near to it, yet they are too “rich” to qualify for Medicaid. Bush also probably hasn’t a clue, or cares, that a huge proportion of bankruptcies are due to medical bills. Then again, he probably can’t figure out why these people went bankrupt. Why didn’t they just call on Daddy to bail them out? That’s what he always does.

I know that I’m not mandated to post every day, but I like to and feel bad when I don’t. But such is life, as my other work, the kind that sends me a check, takes priority.

And I was in such a baaaad mooood yesterday. Had a pounding headache that just didn’t want to quit. Plus, for a change of pace, it was raining. Imagine that, rain in Seattle. We haven’t seen much of that lately. It is really grating on my nerves, especially yesterday’s rain, when it was cold and windy to boot. I went out to Larry’s Market to get a few things, thinking that the rain had stopped, but it was actually still drizzling. By the time I was walking home, the temp felt like it had dropped 20 degrees and a nice steady downpour.

I know the sun is still there because I saw it on Monday (I think it was Monday). Right now it is….gasp…not raining, but the ground is wet and it looks like it’ll start in again at any minute.

How I wish I was in sunny southern California. Funny, when I lived in LA, I got tired of the sun and used to wish for a change in climate. How dumb could I have been.

Pirates are becoming more of a problem in certain parts of the world, but that’s not what I’m writing on. Sorry, nothing about Johnny Depp and Peg-Leg either.

No, this blog notation is meant to highlight an incredibly clever, hysterically funny (although, the reality of it does affect the humor factor) and extremely well done video about….drum roll…health insurance.

The video is a parody, but it gets the point across better than any dry and dull monologue, or even the impassioned Martin Luther King-esque speeches of universal health care advocates. This video features the Austin Lounge Lizards as they Join Patient Advocates in Viral Internet Campaign to Urge Americans to Sink the “Pirates of the Health Care-ibbean”

Click here to view the podcast. Even if you don’t give a flying f**k about health care (aren’t I cool in censoring my speech???), the video is worth viewing.

And now, one of those press releases about the health care insurance industry. Worth reading, just in case you happened to get a 300% increase in your rates today. All because you drove your mom to the ER, and a spying dweeb jotted down your license plate number. Having any contact at all with healthcare now counts as a bonafide reason to raise rates.

Pop-culture Campaign for Universal Health Care Targets IPOD Users & “MTV Generation”

As the nation’s largest health insurers prepare to release what are expected to be near-record profit reports, the Austin Lounge Lizards have teamed up with the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) to urge Americans to “sink the health insurance pirates.”

The campaign for universal health care was launched today with a viral Internet-based animated music video – Pirates of the Health Care-ibbean – featuring a new song by the Austin Lounge Lizards, “Go Ahead & Die,” and animated by Powerhouse Animation. The music video is available at http://www.Cal-Medicare.org

“HMOs and health insurers have plundered health care and held patients ransom for far too long,” said Jerry Flanagan of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. “The IPOD generation will be at the forefront of this cultural revolution for universal health care.”

As part of a “Pod-Power” health care series seeking to build support for universal health care reform, FTCR released the Pirates of the Health Care-ibbean as a video podcast. To subscribe to FTCR podcasts go to: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/podcasting/

A September 2005 Public Policy Institute of California poll found that 59% percent of Californians would trade the current system for “a universal health insurance program, in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers.” A 2003 ABC News/Washington Post poll found similar support across the nation (62% for universal health insurance, 32% for the current system).

Skyrocketing health insurance costs threaten health and the economy:

* In 2005, medical bills were responsible for half of all bankruptcies. Of the approximately one million Americans who file for bankruptcy each year as a result of illness, most have college degrees, work full-time, and own their homes. Three-quarters already have insurance.

* According to a recent U.C. Berkeley study, by 2010, employers will provide health insurance for only half of California’s working adults.

HMOs, PPOs, and other health insurers waste billions of dollars each year that could be used to provide care and keep expenses down. Insurers spend 20% of our premiums on overhead including profit and administration compared to public programs like Medicare that spend just 2%.

FTCR said a good example of health insurance excess and indifference is the privatized Medicare prescription drug program which, at the behest of powerful insurer campaign contributors, was turned over to private companies. FTCR said that the program should be brought back in-line with other public health programs by allowing Medicare to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies for prescription drug discounts. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ drug bulk purchasing program receives discounts comparable to Canada – 60 to 70% and more.

“HMOs and insurers pumping up their coffers at the detriment to seniors is a blight on the Medicare prescription drug benefit and is the last straw of their looting and pillaging of health care,” said Flanagan.

Last week, UnitedHealth, the nation’s second largest health insurer, announced an 18% profit increase in the 4th quarter of 2005. Tomorrow, WellPoint, which recently merged with Anthem to become the nation’s largest insurer, will release its profit report to be followed over the next several weeks by Aetna, Humana and Cigna. Altogether, these five insurers provide health insurance for half of the 173 million Americans with private health insurance.

Key elements of a new “California Medicare” program include provisions that all Californians would be insured and that universal coverage would be paid for by eliminating health insurance companies. The California Medicare program would take advantage of bulk purchasing and protect the ERs, hospitals, doctors, nurses, and clinics that provide care.

A recent Lewin Group study found that Californians could save $8 billion each year by switching to a universal access system that eliminates health insurers, takes advantage of bulk purchases, focuses on preventive care and pays doctors and hospitals directly.

This approach emphasizes patient choice, and puts patients and care providers in control, not insurance companies. Coverage will be more complete than private insurance plans, encourage prevention, and include prescription drugs, dental care, and mental health care. For more information visit: http://www.Cal-Medicare.org

Interesting concept, and quick a switch from the usual “beat ‘em and kill ‘em” type video games.

Kids saving the starving? Well at least on video they’re trying to do just that.

The United Nations World Food Programme has developed a video game that has, surprisingly, become the second most frequently downloaded game on the internet (the U.S. Army’s recruiting tool holds the #1 position). The game, entitled “Food Force,” is designed to teach kids how to use food to rebuild community. Players of the video game air drop emergency food to people ravaged by drought and civil war; coordinate shipping and prices for rice, beans and oil on the world market; and design a nutritionally balanced food package for the hungry.

Read the whole story.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has denied it is exaggerating the risk of a human influenza pandemic, while China reports a 10th person has been diagnosed with the potentially fatal bird flu virus.

This quote is from the Sidney Morning Herald. Now read the paradox in that sentence. The WHO denies stoking hysteria, while China–a nation of 1.2 billion people–reports its 10th case. Ten. And if the bird flu was highly contagious, believe me, that number would be 10,000. Or 100,000. The people there are packed tighter than sardines. When I was in Shanghai, I had to leave the Number 1 department store due to claustrophobia. I’d never been surrounded by so many people in my life, or in such a crowded place. And I grew up in NEW YORK CITY, which isn’t exactly known for its bucolic pasture lands and empty streets.

The United Nations agency has predicted between two and 7.4 million people could die if a pandemic sweeps the world.

Predicted, based on what? SARS, remember that? Supposed to be the next Spanish flu. Turned out to be much adieu about almost nothing. Again, it broke out in China and proved to be only mildly contagious, considering no measures were taken for weeks. And several million people die each year from the “ordinary” flu around the world, so how will the bird flu be any different? Right now it has a higher mortality rate than normal, but that will probably change once it mutates to a form that is transmissable between humans.

The Spanish flu carried a mortality rate of about 6%. The reason that so many people died was because so many were infected. Hardest hit, and no surprise here, were people living in poverty, in developing nations, in areas without proper sanitation, and who were crammed together in close quarters. In the U.S., the mortality rate was lower. In Europe, it was high, but again, primarily due to WW I and soldiers sandwiched like sardines in the trenches, and the rest of the population suffering from the deprivations of war.

Even at 6%, it is a higher rate than normal flu, but still, nothing near Ebola or other hemorrhagic fevers. Staph aureus bacteremia causes a higher fatality rate, as do traffic accidents, diarrhea in children in developing nations, and AIDS where treatment is not readily available.

Anyway, the whole bird flu thing annoys me, as if you couldn’t tell. There is reason to be concerned, and to watch this thing closely, but the hysteria is ridiculous. And unnecessary.

If any of you have been following the news about Medicare’s Plan D, that brave new experiment in prescription drugs, you’ll know that it can be summarized in one word: MESS. Or: CHAOS.

It’s new, there will be kinks, but come on, some of the things going on are beyond ridiculous. They’ve had about two years to prepare for this–it’s not like the plan was announced in November, with January 1 as the implementation day.

But I really don’t want to blog about the Medicare mess. I do enough of that in my writing career. I just thought it was notable to mention a historic day, considering the rather chaotic situation going on with the Plan D roll-out.

Today, or should I say, three days ago, was a notable day in the history of healthcare. President Lyndon Johnson presented the first Medicare card to former President Harry S Truman on January 20, 1966. And look at the scene 40 years later.

President Truman ceremoniously received his card at the Truman Library in Independence, Mo., and the second Medicre card to be issued was presented to Harry’s wife, Bess. The Medicare bill was signed into effect in 1965, at the Truman Library, strangely enough. During his presidency, Truman had tried to get a national health insurance program passed by an unreceptive Congress–now does that sound familiar?

A great op-ed in the NY Times today about a smoking ban in Spain. I guess many of the people there still have vivid memories of Franco, and bristle at anything or anyone who tries to muscle in on their democracy and freedom to make their own decisions.

As I’ve said before, I find many of the smoking ban intrusive, especially in bars where people come to engage in such “healthful” behavior. I find them intrusive in not permitting owners to decide whether or not an establishment should be smoke-free, or smoker friendly. Certainly there can be guidelines, as Spain was forced to concede to, but I think prohibiting smoking in the work place, when one has a private office, really goes too far. Or not allowing people to smoke in the outdoor area of a cafe.

FOR far too many years, almost 40, the people of Spain were treated like minors by Franco’s dictatorship. But it seems that some people among us still yearn for that era. The new antismoking law in Spain, which went into effect with the new year and bans smoking in workplaces and restricts it in many bars and restaurants, is a case in point: it is a clear example of the state trying to regulate citizens’ private lives and customs. As such, it is a measure that is far more befitting of Franco than a democracy.

I suppose this does have more meaning for a nation where democracy is a new and precious commodity. The author and others like him see this move as symbolic of a government trying to take control of very private affairs.

Now, I should say immediately that I am a smoker, like nearly a third of my fellow Spaniards, and I’ve never tried to quit. I know smoking isn’t good for my health, but neither is walking in the polluted streets of Madrid or Barcelona, nor is living in a world where the United States refuses to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol.

Yes, he is absolutely correct. Of course, smoking simply adds another layer to these health and environmental problems, but why not concentrate efforts on cleaning up the air, or controlling greenhouse gases? Answer: Too complicated, too time consuming. It’s easier to pick at cigarette smoking. That is the new cause celebre. The new antidote for all that is wrong.

Indeed, to escape the taint of hypocrisy, Spain would have to match its new antismoking measures with an array of others fighting everything else in the world that is at all harmful. Nowhere have I ever heard, for example, that cars are obliged to carry, just above the driver’s-side door, a warning, like those on cigarette boxes, that “Driving a car may cause death, grisly amputations, quadriplegia and involuntary manslaughter.”

Can you imagine putting that on cars? But yet, he is right. Cars are extremely dangerous. Driving is a major health hazard, worse than smoking. Aside from the fact that automobiles are also major polluters.

Anyway, a very interesting view of the smoking law. It came out today in the New York Times.

Hospital association says nursing shortage is serious

I kid you not. This is the title of a short article appearing on WISTV.comfrom Columbia, South Carolina.

Greenville-AP) January 14, 2006 - The head of the state’s hospital association says South Carolina is in the middle of a serious shortage of nurses and other health workers.

Is this dork journalism or what? I mean, reading these articles about the great nursing shortage of the new millennium is about as weary as reading the oversensationalized stories of the bird flu. We know, for example, that there is bird flu in Asia. We know that it transfers to people who play with infected chickens and suck their blood. Yes, it spread to Turkey, a primarily rural nation where people keep chickens, ducks and geese in their backyard. So out of a nation of 60-70 million, 21 people came down with bird flu. All from rural areas who had chickens running through their house.

In Turkey, they had a grand total of four deaths. Now, here’s a typical article that you see in the news, which tries to sensationalize the death rate, rather than put in in perspective. I pulled this sentence from Ireland on-line: The virus has jumped from poultry to people, killing at least 79 people in east Asia and Turkey since 2003. Wow, 79 people in two years. More children die of diarrhea every day. It is estimated that there are between 300 and 500 million new cases of malaria each year, resulting in over one million deaths annually. But do we hear much news about malaria?

Anyway, I was using the bird flu reporting–most of which is really bad–as an example of the twisting facts and presenting them in a distorted fashion. This little article about the nursing shortage in South Carolina supercedes anything that I’ve seen on the bird flu. From that first paragraph, it implies that the hospital association has just noticed that they have an insufficient number of nurses. They noticed that on Jan 14, 2006!!! Kudos to them!

Now, read on. There is more hot news coming.

Thornton Kirby said Friday that the problems will only get worse as the state’s population ages.

Kirby is president of the South Carolina Hospital Association. He told a meeting of reporters and editors from The Greenville News that quality won’t improve until the numbers get better. He said without an adequate supply of nurses, hospitals will have to change how they deliver care.

Well golly gee, Tom, we’ve known that since the days of Florence Nightingale. Lack of qualified healthcare workers===lack of good care. That issue has been studied, re-studied, and analyzed to death. So what do you plan to do about it? Are you going to raise nursing salaries, which tend to be somewhat pitiful in the South? Are you going to ban mandatory overtime, stop demanding that nurses work overtime for straight pay, start to treat them with respect, give them decent and safe assignments, fire incompetent and dangerous managers, hire sufficient security in the hospitals, hire sufficient ancilliary staff and train them, and give nurse more power as their schedules? Oh, I almost forgot–benefits and pensions?

Of course, I am dreaming to think that a hospital association would ever come up with that type of solution. No, they’re focused on the assembly line solution. Manufacture nurses as quickly as possible, and glue them in place once they’re on the job.

The trade group believes that while hospitals in South Carolina provide significant financial support to state institutions for health-care education, additional funding for state universities and technical colleges with programs in nursing and allied health professions is needed.

Additional funding for nursing education….sigh sigh sigh. The beat goes on…

I was just reading a post on a nursing board, about how often patients threaten nurses that they’re going to sue them. Well first, I have to say, to any of you out there who wants to sue a nurse, you’re barking up the wrong tree. Nurse are not frothing out millions. They generally don’t have a Mercedes that you’re going to get your greedy paws on, or a Swiss bank account.

I’m not denying that there are some really dreadful nurses out there who should not only be sued, but should be put permanently out to pasture. Even sent to prison. Same with doctors and other healthcare workers. Same with hospital administrators, who may be at the bottom of the poor working conditions which caused the incident in the first place. But most times, the problem is not negligence, malice, or anything caused by the nurse. People scream “I’M GONNA SUE YOU!!” because things aren’t turning out as they like, or grandma is 99 years old in heart failure, liver failure and kidney failure, and the physician decided that she’s a poor candidate for a transplant.

Some patients and families like to be manipulative, like children. Maybe they do feel a loss of control, being in the hospital and all, but still. I love when someone says, “I’m gonna have your job.”

Uh, please take it. Please, pretty please with sugar on top. The father of a baby, born premature and with some other problems, said that to me when I refused to summon the neonatologist out of a high risk delivery. The kid was stable, the dad’s question was dumb, and it could wait.

I told him to be my guest, and take my job. And go change into scrubs and wash up at the sink. He was an asshole all around, but rather astounded at my reaction. As though it was going to frighten me. I wanted to tell him that he didn’t have the balls to do it, but refrained in the name of public decency. And then I just ignored him, and didn’t hear another word about the pending takeover of my job.

Sometimes patients and families threaten a lawsuit “unless you do as I tell you, I’m gonna sue.” Sweatheart, kiss my ass, and do what you think is best. And no, you are not in charge.

A lot nurses do get intimidated, but really, the best thing to do with people like that is either to 1) ignore them 2) tell them to do what they think is best, or tell them something to the effect of “you do whatever it is you feel you need to do. However, that’s not my concern.” And then continue your work. 3) If they really get agitated and threatening, call the doctor or supervisor and turf the problem. 4) Stick an IV in them and pump them full of morphine. Works like a charm every time.

OB is one of the real hotbeds of lawsuits, because a lot of parents think that they are somehow guaranteed a perfect baby. They’ve been to Lamaze, they’re studied LaLeche league texts, they’ve written out their birth plan, but suddenly, nothing goes right. Mom’s blood pressure soars, the fetus crashes, etc. Of course, it is the fault of the health care team that a C-section was warrented. It is the fault of the OB that the baby came premature. It is the nurse’s fault that the baby is in respiratory distress. It’s everyone’s fault that the baby got stuck coming out—never mind that mom refused to have a section because it would interfere with “bonding.”

I am not talking about acts of negligence, or when a birth mishap can be attributed to the doctor/staff. I’m talking about things beyond anyone’s control, or when the family even contributed to it—like refusing a c-section even though the danger was made clear to them. Yes, they’re angry and upset, but don’t take it out on us. We’re doing everything possible to save your kid’s life, so back off. Go tell your aunt Tilly about your lawsuit, not me.

That post just made me angry, because it did bring up some bad memories. We had this one set of parents–older dad, 19 year old mom, who was completely under his thumb. She gave birth to premature twins via C-section, and he told everyone he was a lawyer. Like that was supposed to keep us on our toes. Anyway, they came to visit their twins in the NICU one day, about a week later. The dad told the mom to “show her.” Meaning me.

Show me what?

Mom lifted her blouse, and showed me her bandage, covering the incision site from her section. It was soaked in blood and pus. And stunk to high hell. I told her to get down to the ER, right now! Dad started to say something, but I abruptly cut him off at the past. “Why didn’t you do somethiing?” I snarled at him. “Why didn’t you take her to the doctor immediately?”

He said something really dumb, and then started in about suing the OB. You know, because he did such a lousy job slicing mommy open. Then they went to the ER finally, after I threatened to call security and have them take the woman there. Dad, it seemed, was not all that anxious to take her there.

Turns out that instead of resting after giving birth, mom was cleaning, cooking, shopping, scrubbing the floor…need I go on? Her incision opened, became infected, and she was re-admitted to the hospital. The husband, as we found out, was not a lawyer but instead, had some sort of dorky middle management job, and had once tried to get into law school. And the next day, when he came into the unit on the pretense of visiting his twins, and started talking about suing the OB, I told him that I was calling social service, because there was an obvious problem in their family dynamics. What kind of jackass puts his young wife to work, cleaning the toilet bowl, 2 days after her c-section?

He was absolutely astonished, and I did call social services. And they did come and see him. And we all told him that if he dared to sue the OB, who was actually a really good doctor, we’d stand behind the doc and defend him tooth and nail. And make sure that the court knew what a horse’s ass this father was, and how his treatment of his wife bordered on abuse.

He never sued. And in fact, when he came to see his twins, he kept his head down and barely a word broke through his rancid lips. It was a relief when they went home.

Not what you think. This is the cover-up of another kind, and of a different president. It is a great addition to the annals of health and medical history, even though I am a day late. I did mean to post this yesterday, but our server is down, and email was a mess–don’t ask. Even now, thinks are still not back to normal.

What does Grover Cleveland have in common with George Bush? Both have White House secrets, albeit Bush’s a little bit more serious. And both men have dealt with the problem of popular vote vs. electoral vote. In Bush’s case, he lost the popular vote in 2000, won the electoral vote, and amidst a highly contested election, somehow became president.

Cleveland, on the other hand, lost his bid for re-election in 1888, even though he won the popular vote. But Benjamin Harrison won the electoral vote, so he became president. So even back then, it was obvious that the electoral college needed the boot. However, not to go into that…

Good old Grover made a comeback, though, and was elected president in 1892, the only president to serve two nonconsecutive terms. He is also the only president to be married in the White House, and the only one (to my knowledge) who publically admitted fathering a child out of wedlock during the campaign, and still managed to be elected. And this in 1892. To think, that 100 years later, Clinton was going to be impeached for getting a blow job from a consenting adult.

But what is fascinating is how Cleveland managed to keep his health problems a secret. Granted, there was no Internet, television, faxes, or any other high speed news delivery systems we take for granted. Still, the United States was in the middle of a financial crisis, and the president and staff wanted to prevent an investment crisis at all cost.

On June 13, 1893, Cleveland noticed a “rough place” on the roof of his mouth, which was ultimately diagnosed as cancer. In one of the most celebrated incidents in the history of Presidential medicine, and there have been a few, Cleveland pulled a risky coup in order to keep his political opponents ignorant of his condition. He was transported to New York, placed in a yacht that was anchored near Bellevue Hospital, and operated on while on the boat. The surgery necessitated the removal of much of his jaw, and he was fitted with a prosthetic jaw. It must have been a damn good one, because the public hadn’t a clue about this until a decade after his death in 1907.

I am astonished that such a complicated procedure was successfully performed in 1893, and a prosthesis made that looked so natural. The surgeon who performed the surgery was William Williams Keen, who was born on January 19, 1837. Even more astounding is that the operation was performed entirely within the president’s mouth to conceal any scars.

Since we’re on the subject, another great presidential medical cover-up was Woodrow Wilson’s stroke, which left him incapacitated. His condition was kept secret and his wife took over his responsibilities. Franklin Roosevelt also kept the fact that he couldn’t walk well hidden. While it was well known that he had contracted polio, it was believed that he could walk with the aid of crutches–when in fact, he was paralyzed from the waist down.

I forgot to mention another tidbit which makes the Glamour article all the more stupid and vapid. One of the blogs they featured was Dooce.com, written by Heather Armstrong. They somehow neglected to mention (imagine that!) that Heather was fired for her blog a few years ago, while she was working as a web designer in Los Angeles, and wrote about her work and colleagues. In fact, the term “dooced” now means to get fired for blogging. Did Glamour mention this tidbit? Of course not.

They also neglected to mention that Heather now makes her living from blogging. That’s right, she’s got a lot of readers and has a lot of ads. Duh, Glamour.

They also “forgot” to mention that another blogger, Wendy McClure, managed to get a book published from creating her blog. Now how can an article about these bloggers neglect to mention information like this? Either the writer is a complete dork, the editors are dorkier or a combination of the two. Or maybe they just wanted to slant the story so that it seemed that blogging is a silly worthless activity, fit for only the mentally void and deprived. Like Glamour magazine, maybe?

The January issue of Glamour magazine ran an article entitled “Women Who Blog,” which sort of indicates that this is some new and strange activity that is now involving the female race. First, they are several years behind the times. Blogging, as a popular web activity, has been around for about a decade. Ten years ago might have been a good time to focus an article on that strange species, women who blog, because there weren’t very many at the time.

Second, the sub-header read: Are They Self-Absorbed Exhibitionists? Groovy Free Spirits? Or Just Plain Bored? Meet Them And Decide For Yourself. Well, I shouldn’t be surprised because that’s the reality of the bulk of women’s magazines. Silly, superficial stories that are usually collections of sound-bytes and anecdotes, and in this case, forced sensationalism.

The article featured 5 bloggers, but I guess failed to mention that there are probably a million blogs currently on the Internet. And duh, many of them written by women. To condense bloggers into some little niche is ludicrous, even for Glamour. One has to wonder if the author of the story has ever visited the Internet.

Basically, the article made it sound like all bloggers are silly idiots, lonely sex-deprived women who crave attention and script their musings on the Internet because they are bored out of their skull. Many blogs are dumb and boring, but more so than ever, blogs have taken on a theme. They go beyond the I don’t have a date tonight and this morning I washed my hair. They often focus on specific topics, such as music, books, writing, health, crafts, parenting, etc. A number of blogs also promote books, businesses, organizations, that the blogger is involved in. Many are as good as any magazine you’d pick up, and certainly a lot more interesting and better written than Glamour magazine–which reads like it is written for girls with a minimum IQ.

So what was the point of the article? Beats me. It reads as though blogging is a new discovery, a phenomenon that they have just uncovered, and gasp!!! Women are doing it. What a surprise. They act like they’ve just done some serious investigative journalism, and now they’re revealing their findings to the public. Wow, who’s their Deep Throat?

How they chose their representative blogs is another story. It seems that they avoided all of the intelligent, thoughtful and informative blogs (which highlight female intelligence and ingenuity) and focused on ones that well, don’t say too much. Which isn’t too say that the blogs they highlighted are bad, but it seems that they purposely omitted blogs that go beyond self-absorption and focus on specific things. Like my blog, for instance. While some posts aren’t pulitzer prize material, I do try to focus on healthcare, and I do think that I bring up and write about issues that will make people think about them. It’s not just inane rambling, even if it may seem that way.

Women of the Year

However, I have to point out that Glamour magazine has always been a leader in promoting the stupid. Here is a case in point, which absolutely infuriated me. One year, Glamour awarde Marcia Clark, the prosecuter in the OJ Simpson trial, “woman of the year.” Why? Because she presided over the “trial of the century.” I wrote them a letter and asked them why they picked Marcia Clark. I hardly thought that prosecuting a murder trial put her above and beyond other women who had actually done something of great use to humanity. To say nothing of the fact that Clark perjured herself continuously, was caught lying on a number of occasions, and then berated and belittled the jury (basically calling them a band of morons) for not reaching the verdict she wanted. Sounds like a great chick to me. Oh, not to forget, Marcia’s little domestic tiff.

Since she was spending most of her time with the trial, and none with her children, her ex-husband wanted to take over custody–until the trial was over. Not a chance, spewed Marcia. Better have the kids alone or with a babysitter than with their dad. What a bitch. And then, Clark tried to get more alimony from her husband, because she was spending money on buying clothes and having her hair done–you know, because she was now a television star. She made three times the salary of her ex-husband, but wanted him to finance her wardrobe. What a terrific choice for woman of the year, don’t you think?

Glamour sent me one of their perfunctory replies, thanking me for writing. And of course, didn’t publish my letter. So I can’t say I’m surprised to see such a useless article about blogging in such a silly magazine. Still, you can hope. That maybe the editorial staf might have decided it might be more fun to publish an intelligent article for a change.

Another smoking haven bites the dust. Now, let it be known, I am a non-smoker and also have mild asthma. I don’t like the smell of cigarette smoke. My moronic father used to smoke in the car when he was driving, and I used to get so carsick, but do you think the asshole would put out his Kent? Not a chance. Everywhere he went, he had a lit cigarette, and even used to smoke in our windowless non-ventilated bathroom. Anyway, my father’s lack of mental functional is another story, but the point being, I do not have fond memories of cigarettes and smoking.

But while I can understand smoking bans in public areas, in airplanes, and in areas where employees are packed into one room, ie, cubicle farms, I don’t think that the government has any right to ban smoking in private businesses. For instance, if a person has a private office, why can’t they smoke in there? And why can’t restaurant and bar owners decide for themselves whether or not they want to ban smoking?

I know, it’s to protect the employees. Well, a person does have a choice whether or not to choose a smoke friendly or smoke free environment to work in. The very nature of a bar indicates that it is a place where people come to indulge in a very unhealthy habit–drinking alcohol. If we really want to protect the health of employees, then we should ban bars–and that would help prevent people from being killed and injured by drunk drivers.

They put a new law in place in Seattle. So now, the streets are full of smokers, standing outside and blocking the sidewalk. Loud noisy drunks blowing cigarette smoke. Cool. We get to sniff smoke en masse, and people passing by have to weave their way through a forest of smoke and loud tipsy folks. I have read of people in NY complaining of the street noise now, beneath their window, as smokers come out of bars to puff away. They usually come out in twos and groups, so now residents living above the bars get to listen to annoying conversation until the wee hours of the morning. And smell the smoke wafting up.

Personally, I prefer eating and drinking in a smoke-free environment. But philosophically/politically, the decision of smoking on the premises should be left up to restaurant/bar owner, not the government.

And here’s an interesting health related tidbit. Usually smokers are fairly spread out in restaurants, and the smell from a lone cigarette doesn’t bother me. But walking in and out past a herd of them makes me cough. Sometimes there may be five or more people out front smoking, and all of that smoke, together in one spot, is really irritating to my lungs. So much for improving health.

So what happens when McDonald’s refuses to take the hint, that the town, the people, and the entire community don’t want their rancid food and golden arches? They build anyway, and hope to convince the community of the benefits of greasy food, poor labor conditions, and environmental degradation. That’s the McDonald’s way.

But apparently, McD’s is heading out of an Italian town with its triple Macs between its legs, actually admitting defeat. The people don’t want you. Could have saved yourself time, money and effort by listening in the first place.

I view this as a remarkable victory. Now if people would do the same for WalMart, the world would be such a better place.

ITALIAN SLOW FOOD COMMUNITY DRIVES RONALD MCDONALD OUT OF TOWN

The Southern Italian town of Altamura, Apulia is “breaking the chains” by supporting local businesses. Five years ago, McDonald’s revealed plans to open a fast food restaurant in the town. Area citizens, supported by Italy’s Slow Food movement, campaigned against the development by establishing their own group “Friends of Cardoncello” (named after an Italian mushroom). Despite community opposition, McDonald’s built a fast food store in town, but struggled over the next few years, as townspeople’s shunned the “golden arches” and supported local baker Luigi Digesù and other community restaurants. Last month, McDonald’s closed its doors and left town.”There was no marketing strategy, no advertising promotion, no discounts,” Il Giornale, an area resident commented. “It was just that people decided the baker’s products were better. David has beaten Goliath.”

Read the whole story

Make sure you’re website is as cool as it can be, because you’re not going to get a second chance at it. Well, at least according to this scientific study.

A study by researchers in Canada has shown that the snap decisions Internet users make about the quality of a web page, in just a twentieth of a second, have a lasting impact on their opinions.

The study, reported by news@nature.com today, shows that the brain can make flash judgements in just 50 milliseconds. The discovery has come as a surprise to experts in the field, says Gitte Lindgaard of Carleton University in Ottawa, whose team predicted that little could be taken in by a viewer in less than 500 milliseconds. The research is published in the journal Behaviour and Information Technology.

Those first impressions are then solidified by psychological effects, say the researchers. People enjoy being right, so continuing to use a website that gave a good first impression helps to ‘prove’ to themselves that they made a good initial decision.