Ents Being Hasty

Because I cannot square allowing for or promoting the perpetual acceptance of killing the unborn as a viable option, whether for grave or shallow reasons, (and with 50 million killed, some were grave, and some were shallow to be sure) I cannot vote for this president, ever. I must be at odds.  His party may offer kind good words, but they also offer it on the backs of millions of innocent lives.  Not thousands, not hundreds of thousands, millions.   

This does not mean I go rah rah GOP, GOP is the place for me, because the Republicans have time after time given lip service to being pro life, rather than affirmatively address it, just as surely as they pay lip service to a balanced budget, to living under the rules that Congress passes, and lower taxes. The only conviction I believe is that every single one of them wants to get reelected.  Now that, I do believe. 

 I don't know about you, but our government seems to every day find new things that it cannot live without and thus demand that we pay more and do without ourselves.   I do not approve of torture or drone strikes or never ending aggression towards those we can decide upon a whim to put on a watch list or declare part of the war on terror.   So I don't trust our government or the bureaucracies that weather every election.  I don't trust that the policies advanced and financed so thoroughly shall evaporate over night if a different president takes office. 

I worry that unless this mandate is dismantled utterly, the tentacles of Planned Parenthood will continue to exist to poison this land and whoever is leading it. 

This will all try to continue to stand under the guise of women's health, because apparently, we can't solve any problems or help anyone if we don't provide free birth control and unlimited abortion first and foremost and always.

It's not true. 

So every election is a bit of a problem for me,  Whose's side are you on? 

Side? I am on nobody's side, because Nobody is on my side.

Perhaps the President thought by signing into law a 2000 page monstrosity that included funding of abortion and by making it mandatory to provide contraception via insurance, making every Catholic culpable in the act of providing abortion and birth control and sterilization, it could erode our souls.

It very well could.

If we failed to respond, if we stayed asleep, everyone by their own actions unless they opted to go to jail by refusing to pay taxes, would become pro-choice.   Even if we prayed by the clinics and offered to adopt, even if we did fasting and rosaries, by remaining loyal citizens and doing right by Caesar, we would be culpable of enabling evil.  How could we be pro-life when we paid and voted into office those who promoted and funded the perpetuation of this evil forever.  Eventually, we'd despair and quit and whimper away. 

But there were some that resisted.  And even the sleepy trees united when they saw what destruction would come from this policy.  (It takes a lot to wake up an Ent...even more to move the President of a major Catholic University).

I may be shire folk, but I'm feeling rather Entish about all this. And seeing the 43 intuitions/organizations and Universities file a lawsuit to me is rather like the Ents going to War. 

So today I'm proud of the University of Notre Dame again.  I'm hoping Saint Mary's College finds her voice to speak too and Boston College and all the other places that came into being because they were Catholic, not because they were universities, but because they were Catholic.

As a hobbit in this battle, I'm stocking up on rocks. 

Shill Shell Game

The President is out shilling for his healthcare plan because after sixteen months of discussing it and multiple speeches and town meetings and countless articles, he needs to get people wee-weed up about passing this bill.

What he either does not understand or willingly ignores, is that most people would be amicable to the careful crafting of healthcare reform and even the full funding of Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP; but this bill is so messy and intrusive and full of pork and backyard deals that cheering it for its original moral pure intent (if not now, when? What should I tell these people?) can only be the foaming at the mouth true believer or the cynical manipulator of the masses. (Actually, he'll have to tell them, the services won't be available until 2018 but that's a mere trifling detail).

The deals are endless and myriad and complex. President Obama says Insurance companies are evil because they work for a profit, and that government is good, even though it works for the accumulation of power. However, the President undermines his argument by giving those evil companies 330 billion dollar subsidy. Is he buying their complicit silence as he thumps them with one hand and lines their pockets with the other? It SEEMS like that would be the case. The brother of Representative Mathewson, an undecided, is nominated to the Court of Appeals; 10th circuit but there's no quid pro quo. Every undecided or No that the government thinks it can shave has suddenly won the Ben Nelson Mary Landrieu lottery if they just keep it under the table.

If this healthcare bill is so morally pure, such muddy messy total bribes shouldn't be necessary. If all of America is writing letters beseeching the leader of the free land with ceaseless weeping, rended garments and howls of pain, shouldn't this bill be a shoe-in? But the idiosyncratic tales of individuals who need actual help are being co-opted for political cover. Every letter the President holds up is in complete favor of his program. All these parallel stories are only unsubstantiated and coincidental. They prove we need reform and these people need help; they do not prove we need THIS bill.

When Planned Parenthood and Emily's list and tons of 100% NARAL approved politicians are the chief architects and cheerleaders of a program, one can't just believe that there aren't shenanigans about funding abortion taking place. When you can look at page 118 and 119 of the Senate Bill that the President is shilling, it's obvious. Abortions shall be funded by the Federal plan for those circumstances as determined by the Health and Human Services Secretary. You have to wonder why they even bother to lie so stupidly; but they want THIS bill and we're the mark they have to get to agree to buy into the game.

The part of the population that agrees with the current proposed policies by the Senate, House and Executive branch should not be puzzled that those who do not agree, suffer from a "deficit of trust," that could only be bridged by the willing suspension of disbelief. You can't triple the deficit and add a new massive entitlement program and claim that by adding taxes and cutting waste, you'll have a deficit neutral bill. Unless you pre-pad the deficit such that when you don't spend as astronomically in one area as you planned (say cutting the Moon project of NASA for example), the money you originally estimated to spend in that area is shell game switched to pay for healthcare then technically it is deficit neutral. The Queen of Hearts was palmed before the shuffle even began.

It's being done right now with the stimulus funds and the TARP money. It may be clever. It may be accurate. It's still a total sham and a lie, with money being pre-allocated for one need, held until the crisis abates and then funneled to the program of the politician's choice. It's just been preplanned as part of the con.

We've been the front money for the game. We will not win in this three card Monty. Our best bet is to walk away. It's the only way we won't lose anymore.

The Congressional Health Care Plan

Congress has one of the best insurance programs in place in the world...for itself. Part of the reason they haven't voted to create this gold plated benefit for the rest of the nation, is there are a few procedures which are only necessary if one wishes to be a member of the House or Senate.

Here are a few of the special operations available to your elected Representatives via their health care program.

Selective Memory Enhancement:The Selective Memory Enhancement (SME) is required for all members of Congress by both parties. A single microchip is inserted in the brain with a perpetual bio feedback loop. To ensure fairness, the mantra is the same regardless of party: "All things done by my opponent are morally bad, intentionally evil and stupid. All things done by me or my party even if they were the same things, exponentially worse or just plain sick, are pure good and even beneficial for the whole world!"

Preventative Quarantines: While Flu shots and H1N1 vaccinations are in short supply, Fox News Inoculations are still available! See the White House for more details.

Spine Removal: mandatory for any Republicans wanting to be cloaked in the political cover of "Moderate" and obligatory if one wants to be considered one of the "good" Catholics in the legislative body by the mainstream media or appear on CNN or MSNBC.

Common Sense Bypass: Like the microchip, the CSB remains a necessary procedure for all incoming Freshman to either body of the legislative branch if one is to digest any of the pending legislation, rules of engagement or sit on the ethics committee. Also useful for television appearances.

A reversal of this procedure, the C.B.S. is still available upon request but only after one leaves Congress and is considered an "Out of Network" procedure. Deductibles apply.

Supplemental Gall Bladder and Kidney: These days this surgery is required for Democrats so they can lecture the American people on fiscal frugality and for processing the additional Kool-ade provided by the Executive branch. Used to be mandatory for Republicans. Because it takes a lot of gaul to spend 1.6 Trillion dollars in 9 months, and believing it's deficit neutral takes an awful lot of Kool-ade. (The microchip has its limits but R&D is working on that).

Over corrective Bias Contacts: Any member of Congress can chose the degree to which they wish to enhance their spectral analysis of reality by selecting from the:

1)Olberman special: Bush and all Republicans are worse than anything
2)the Rush Limbaugh Perspective: Obama is a Socialist and all Dems are liars.

They can also chose the color, Rose Colored or Seeing Red.

Shame-Wow!: Daily oral medication to remove all sense of any embarrassment at anything for any reason except when cloaked in righteous indignation is recommended along with a daily vitamin. The pill ensures that for 24 hours, one can say anything anywhere about anyone without feeling the slightest chagrin unless the party decides you should. It is particularly effective if washed down with alcohol (which masks the effects).

Note: In an effort to show some sense of fiscal restraint, the insurance policy has changed! Congressional Personal Space Bubbles designed to shield you from the meanies and opponents and general public shall no longer be provided gratis, see your health provider to apply.

No one is Forcing You to Change

I know the President has said on many occasions that "If we like our current insurance policy, the government will not make us abandon it." He's said this in various ways and I believe he is sincere when he says this.

I also think about the fact that he has never run a business.

Most businesses are in the business of making money and most families are about turning out healthy happy capable adults. For the sake of this discussion, let's think of businesses as being like families, wanting to churn out happy customers and have a profit margin and succeed without being strung out by too many obligations or too many activities or too much overhead.

A business has operating costs. So does a family. A business will add to operating costs only if it is necessary to improve the business. It's called investment. Families add burdens of classes or an extra car to make the business of running a family easier, trading money for time or convenience or enrichment that will pay off both now in enjoyment and possibly later with a life skill.

There are some families who opt to put their children in Catholic schools and thus make an investment. They do not get to opt out of property taxes which pay for public schools. They do not re-coop on their investment of tax money fiscally, but believe the pay out of the extra cash for tuition,is worth it. After all, it's their kids.

Very very few businesses are going to say, "I want to pay taxes to finance the public option on top of paying for my own plan. While I was happy with the plan before there was a public option, now I must decide. Do I want to pay taxes for one health care policy I don't use in addition to offering one which I pay out of pocket pre-tax?" Very few businesses will want to pay double tuition as it were, taxes and private school even if they liked their plans before. Businesses, being about making money, will opt for the public option and only pay the tax once. With an additional tax if the plans they offered were premium, the businesses will say "No thank you." They're not going to say, "After all, it's my employees."

While no one is forcing them NOT to pay more, most of them will when given the option of not paying, will out of merely a sense of good business, opt for the public option.

While we may have liked our prior plans better, there will be no take it or leave it in this scenario. Businesses, being businesses, will opt for the public option that helps the bottom line, and so there will be no take it or leave it option, just "Take it."

My Letter Back to the White House

From: "David Axelrod, The White House"
To: sherryantonettiwrites@yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 12:38:19 PM
Subject: It's time for a reality check

Dear Friend,

Anyone that's watched the news in the past few days knows that health insurance reform is a hot topic — and that rumors and scare tactics have only increased as more people engage with the issue. Given a lot of the outrageous claims floating around, it’s time to make sure everyone knows the facts about the security and stability you get with health insurance reform.

That’s why we’ve launched a new online resource — WhiteHouse.gov/RealityCheck — to help you separate fact from fiction and share the truth about health insurance reform. Here's a few of the reality check videos you can find on the site:

CEA Chair Christina Romer details how health insurance reform will impact small businesses.
Domestic Policy Council Director Melody Barnes tackles a nasty rumor about euthanasia and clearly describes how reform helps families.
Matt Flavin, the White House's Director of Veterans and Wounded Warrior Policy, clears the air about Veteran's benefits.
Kavita Patel, M.D., a doctor serving in the White House's Office of Public Engagement, explains that health care rationing is happening right now and how reform gives control back to patients and doctors.
Bob Kocher, M.D., a doctor serving on the National Economic Council, debunks the myth that health insurance reform will be financed by cutting Medicare benefits.
There's more information and a number of online tools you can use to spread the truth among your family, friends and other social networks. Take a look:



We knew going into this effort that accomplishing comprehensive health insurance reform wasn't going to be easy. Achieving real change never is. The entrenched interests that benefit from the status quo always use their influence in Washington to try and keep things just as they are.

But don't be misled. We know the status quo is unsustainable. If we do nothing, millions more Americans will be denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions, or see their coverage suddenly dropped if they become seriously ill. Out-of-pocket expenses will continue to soar, and more and more families and businesses will be forced to deal with health insurance costs they can’t afford.

That's the reality.

Americans deserve better. You deserve a health care system that works as well for you as it does for the status quo; one you can depend on — that won't deny you coverage when you need it most or charge you crippling out-of-pocket co-pays. Health insurance reform means guaranteeing the health care security and stability you deserve.

President Barack Obama promised he'd bring change to Washington and fix our broken, unsustainable health insurance system. You can help deliver that change. Visit WhiteHouse.gov/RealityCheck, get the facts and spread the truth. The stakes are just too high to do nothing.

Thank you,
David

David Axelrod
Senior Advisor to the President


This email was sent to sherryantonettiwrites@yahoo.com
Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy
Please do not reply to this email. Contact the White House

The White House • 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW • Washington, DC 20500 • 202-456-1111

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Dear Mr. Axelrod,

I read with interest, your many articles and videos to address the unfounded concerns about pending health care legislation, but it did not address the founded concerns about the pending health care bill.

Here are the following things I find have not been adequately addressed by any of the speeches or statements offered by the President, the White House or the legislators in their town hall meetings, press releases and op-ed pieces:

1) the claim that all costs will be budget neutral over the next ten years. Only in government does this sort of financial wizardry actually make sense or seem possible. The cost of health care for the private sector keeps going up because of spiraling demand for health services. As the surplus of baby boomers tap into Medicare, Medicaid, social security and this new government largess, a much bigger strain on the system will take place than currently projected.

If we can't afford to fund Medicaid and Medicare and SCHIP fully, then why do we think we can afford to take on 14, 43 or 50 million uninsured?

2) Hypocrisy: If it was bad for Bush to increase the deficit, and bad for Reagan, and bad for the Republicans under Clinton, then it is bad now. The R or the D makes no difference. We can't demand more from the government on a monumental scale and not expect a corresponding increase in spending, deficit or otherwise. Even the Congressional Budget Office says your numbers don't add up.


2) The funding of possibly assisted suicide. Now I heard the lady talk about how the end of life counseling is only about living wills and end of life care and that doctors will be reimbursed by the government for having these helpful talks.

But the content of those talks is of significance, and it matters that our government will pay doctors to talk about living wills and end of life care because it is the government subsidizing end of life planning through a third party.

It makes people nervous, not because they fear change --a broad based and frankly unworthy charge, but because the content of those discussions which we as tax payers will be financing is not discussed or expressly spelled out.

I understand that this is not mandatory and that you worry the Republicans are demonizing one aspect of health care to doom all of it. But you should understand that those of us who have taken the time to read at least some of the bill and who try to stay informed understand that if you reimburse someone for recommending something, they do it more often.

The drug companies do this with doctors, and thus we have a nation that takes antacids, Viagra, and pills for every ailment from restless leg syndrome to insomnia and all the sufferings in between. If the government pays for the talks, the talks will happen. It stands to reason, and thus people are concerned where these talks will lead eventually.

Talking about how to manage one's affairs at the end of life is a matter that is personal and usually involves family and lawyers, rather than the government and doctors. So having a third party, Uncle Sam, in on the conversation makes us wary.

Where are the checks and balances to ensure that one's personal convictions and not the doctor's or the government in power which will change from time to time, remain superior? We need a written guarantee that "communitarianism" medical care as advocated by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the President's top health advisors, will not be eventually deny care of a pre-existing condition, chronic condition or advanced age to mitigate expenses. There have been plenty of written pieces by key advisors that indicate when someone has a serious permanent pervasive or debilitating condition, the Doctors that currently enjoy key positions of power and influence with the President, counsel against additional medical care as a rule.

The premise that health care reform at present will not include the government making those decisions apriori for patients does not preclude the government from eventually opting to adopt a cost effective measure of doling out medical treatment. There needs to be an explicit guarantee within the confines of the legislation that all end of life care shall be determined by the parties in question and not by the government or proxy by the government refusing to pay. (Especially, when some of the people advising on this health care bill have written as friends of the court in cases involving assisted suicide, and have connections to the formerly called Hemlock society). (See Jill Stanek's website for details if you wish).

3) Moral issues like abortion.

For some people, this moral issue is the crux of their problems with the universal health care. These are people who care about the poor, who donate to charity, who pray and make meals for families in need, but who also hold themselves to a standard they believe is from God. To require people to violate their religious beliefs to satisfy a health care program that wishes to offer all things to all people is to (as a government), demand that people deny their beliefs in order to comply with the will of the state. This is a troubling precedent as I'm sure you can understand.

People do not like being told they must fund something they find morally wrong. People do not like feeling like they have no choice. Cut out the stuff that is not medically necessary --like abortion. Make sure these issues which are not medically required for continued existence, are expressly NOT funded to eliminate debate on the issue. There will then be more public support.

The idea was to provide medical care for people in need, to ensure everyone had access to critical medical care and systemic medical treatment for health issues. If you would insist abortion is only a choice, then it is optional and as such it is not a medical necessity but a preference. We do not need to pay for someone's preference, especially when some of us consider the choice itself an evil act.

3) Private vs. Public care. Overwriting and underwriting are the two great sins that the government excels in committing. If there is an increase in cost for providing private care as versus public, most businesses won't offer private except to lure high power people into their business. If there is not a guarantee that the government plan shall not undercut the private by such an extent as to penalize businesses that offer private, (as is currently in the bill, with 8% increase penalty tax that businesses must pay if they do not offer public options), private insurance shall only be the privilege of the very rich or the members of Congress.

Underwriting: Currently, the underfunded insurance assistance programs offered by the government --the aforementioned Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP and also COBRA, fail in their stated objectives for lack of funding. Doctors won't take Medicare and Medicaid because it traditionally underpays by as much as 70% in some cases. If public becomes the only option and underpays what doctors need to meet the bottom line of having an office and a staff and the materials to treat patients, they will leave the profession, leaving a glut of patients in a lurch and in need. The lines for available doctors will get longer, and the care of less quality owing to a lack of capacity to address the sheer volume of demand.

Put in an agreement that public will not undercut the private offerings thus making private a thing only for the rich, or consequently rendering private insurance, a thing of the past.

4) Security: You've said we can keep the health care we have if we like it, but there is no guarantee that with the presence of a public option, the cost of the private care won't skyrocket. If it does, all who can't afford private, must accept the public and that will mean 1) losing one's coverage, 2) losing one's doctor 3) a change in care. Government guarantees are not exactly gold standard in this day and age. So it comes down to trust, which must be earned by careful stewardship and thoughtful responses and crafted legislation.

5) Conviction: It's hard to believe you care this much about health care when you did not help draft the bill, have not offered your own version, and don't seem worried that this might break what is not broken in the system and not fix what you declare must be resolved. Simply put, we do not trust your guidance when you've exercised so little of it in the creation of this bill, and seem only willing to exert your influence to bully the American people into accepting whatever Congress deems to send you. Again, trust is the vital component that is missing. For those that believe in you, they see no wrong. For those that did not, your administration has done little to alleviate their concerns or gain their confidence.

6) Redress of problems. If care is not rationed but not unlimited, there must be a point when the government, like the insurance company, says "No." Rationing as you have argued already occurs in private care when people are denied coverage, dropped from coverage or refused payments for doctor services rendered.

There are checks and balances in the private sector for when the answer is "no." One can sue; one can complain to the government about the tactics of a specific company, one can go to the press and to charities to get additional information, aid and possibly a solution.

Redress of when someone is told "No" by the government needs to be carefully explained to the public or they will fear an Orwellian type system unsympathetic to the plight of the helpless, commercially unviable and elderly. The health bill already states that we cannot sue.

With all due respect to the President, as hard as it is to fight insurance companies, it's harder to fight city hall.

7) Prior experience, prior writings, prior words: The types of literature put out by many of your key officials that are providing counsel and advice do not help alleviate fears about a government program that will eventually become Logan's Run, Soylent Green, or some type of Houyhnhnms society.

When Peter Singer in the New York Times talks of how a teenager has more added value and thus is worth more to the state than the elderly, I find such thinking morally and ethically disturbing, as well as implicitly scary. Dr. David Blumenthal, another advisor recommends "slowing medical innovation to control health spending." Blumentahl thought it was debatable whether timely care that Americans get is worth the cost.

Delays in treatment that clog up the ER are part of what prompted this health care crisis in the first place, when people must wait hours for basic care at a place designated for emergencies.

I do not feel comforted by the counsel of the President's top health advisors. These are not the scare tactics of the right or the Republicans, these are the words of your own advisors, who presumably believe what they say and intend to enact policy that reflects those beliefs.

And then there are the President's past words, when he offered a morphine drip instead of a pacemaker for a vibrant elderly grandmother as a cost cutting alternative. These past words have memory in the public sector and as such are not going to be ignored just because they contradict the image you wish to present now.

7) Finally, people resent being demonized for having dared to discuss their concerns in town halls and with legislators. Granted not all of the discourse has been cordial, but frankly, those in power have seemed woefully indifferent to the concerns of those who did not vote for them.

In a representative government which I submit, this still is, these voices still matter as much as the Democrats did when they did not hold the House, Senate or White House. They should not be trivialized as stupid, vulgar or uninformed. They should not be considered traitorous for sending out emails or discussing articles and talk shows. To brand people as such because they disagree is to stoke the fire and make people much more distrustful of anything that is subsequently said.

I hope you can address some of these issues instead of answering only straw man arguments that further indicate an unwillingness to bend even the slightest to the public concerns that hold merit. I do agree, the stakes are too high to sit and do nothing. I look forward to your response.

Sherry Antonetti

Health Dare Reform

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2009/08/04/dying/index.html

First Joe Biden says it is patriotic to pay taxes. Now, apparently, it is patriotic to die early, or at least before one encumbers the general public by needing medical care beyond a red or blue pill.

The piece if you don't care to sully your computer with reading Salon, discusses how as Americans, we don't accept death, we fight it. Gosh, I never knew this was strictly a U.S.A. type sentiment, but let's just let that slide.

Anne Moore's piece explains that we could as a country, save millions if we would just allow death to occur like we did in the good old days. She fondly remembers all the fun wakes she attended and how healthy they were. In the good old days, those who loved the person or felt obligated, gathered to toast the person's life and reflect on his or her meaning in their lives. This still happens regardless of whether one used tubes and an ICU prior to passing or not, but it happened after death.

Now, we should gather, throw a huge blow out and kiss the relatives at the door of the hospital good bye forever. It sounds so soothing, so reasonable, to go into a cocoon room where everyone could hang out and take pictures and then die.
It would be selfless to die and more sensible, no pain, no mess, just hold a big party to kiss your loved ones good-bye and then off to that good night. The problem is, that's not what happened in her romantic childhood, nor is that what she's advocating here. She romantically attaches what people did after those they loved died, to what people should now do in the present pre-mortum.

I bet the government could encourage such behavior by waving the death taxes that normally come on one's estate upon demise when such heroic selfless action is done with full proper documentation and witnesses.

This is the same psuedo compassion that encourages abortion to be considered merely an unpleasant episode, rather than a grave evil act.

People don't know even when they receive a bad diagnosis about their health when they will die, and as such, all that they do up until that moment, amounts to part of who they are. Their sufferings and difficulties also reveal how well we love as a society.

We have the freedom to face death or not at this moment in our country as we will, with the tenacity and courage to hold on or with the equal quiet grace of endurance unto death. What we should not be in the business of doing as a nation or individuals, is asking people to "hurry it up" out of fear of suffering, nor should we be in the business of telling people who wish to go on, that such actions would be selfish because of cost.

If I were a boomer staring down the beginnings of old age, I'd feel very queasy about this mind set becoming the expected norm. Because I love people who have come before me, I find this way of thinking disturbing. There have been countless nations before this one that used the need to decrease the surplus population as an excuse to kill millions. The problems of a society of how to deal with elderly, the young, the handicapped and the poor have all been "solved" by death in the past. This is just the latest modern version of justification for killing.

So to those who offer this snake oil in the name of all that is good for the country, offering the simplicity of a red or blue pill rather than extended medical care, here are the red and blue pills. If you think it is so good for the country to die before medical care is needed, you go first.

Hitting a Nerve

If I ever suffer from writer's block, I just have to call my insurance.

My middle son has a deep cavity in a permanent tooth. It requires a root canal. The problem is, he's nine.

We've been to the family dentist, the pediatric dentist, the endodontist,and the orthodontist. I've called dental clinics and oral surgeons. None of the pediatric dentists want to touch a permanent tooth. None of the dentists for adults want to do surgery on a kid. Those that do root canal aren't on the provider's list.

Finally, in frustration, I called my insurance "help" line.

"I've seen four different specialists and called fifteen more." I explained.

"My computer shows there are sixty three in the twenty-five mile radius of your home."

"Yes, but I've called a quarter of them and had no takers. What do I do if I get through all 63?"

"We can expand the radius to 75 miles."

"You mean I have to call all 63? I was sort of joking..."

"If you want a provider in network, I'm sure you'll find one before you get through them all."

"Wait. You have the list right? And presumably, I'm not the first human being to call you to ask for a specialist who will do a root canal on a permanent tooth on a minor with sedation, not laughing gas."

"Yes."

"Then can you check your records and give me some names of those people?"

"No."

"Why not?"

"I'd have to have the social securirty numbers of those people."

"No. No. All you'ld have to do is call whoever cuts the checks for the benefits and have them do a search of payments to oral surgeons for root canals and then check to see if they were done for minors. I can't believe it's this inaccessible."

"Well, I don't have access."
"Who does?"
"Look, just start calling...."

"No. I want to know when we hit critical mass. I want to know at what point can we say I fought the good fight and just find someone?"

"You can do that, but it will be out of network."

The circle conversation had started again so I hung up and started dialing.

"We do root canals, but your insurance doesn't pay for the anestesia."

"But it's a root canal surgery. You have to have anestesia."

"Yes."

"I'm wondering at this point which is more painful, a root canal with out medication or trying to set this damn thing up."

"You could call your insurance and ask."

I may start self medicating soon.

Sticking it to me

On Monday, I received the results of my 1 hour glucose test. Actually, they phoned on Thursday July 3rd I had made a specific request not to be notified on my birthday if the results were unfavorable such that I could eat my cake in peace, so I waited to call back until after the 4th of July weekend.

My insurance offered me the opportunity for a three hour glucola test, meaning for the sheer joy of it, I could agree to fast for 12 hours, hire a babysitter, drink the glucola pop and drive to the lab to have my blood drawn, then sit for three hours and have it drawn again to be told emphatically, I did have gestational diabetes and then drive home to pay out thirty dollars for the privilege of being able to starve alone for three hours in between blood tests. I opted out of that privilege. Just hand over the glucometer I told the lab nurse.

Not so fast.

My insurance, in its infinite wisdom was not grateful for my sparing them the additional cost of a secondary test. They wanted me to call the training nurse’s office about getting the needed equipment. The Nurse office said to call the insurance to ensure that I was covered and could get a glucometer. Then I should call back.

“But the test said I need one. Why wouldn’t I qualify?”

“You have to call.”

The insurance said I had a choice of two companies with free glucometers to hand out. I just needed to call. I called the first company. The line was busy. So I called the second. They checked to agree that yes my insurance covered the glucometer and I’d have it in two days but I needed to call my doctor’s. My doctor would have to call the pharmacy and order the strips for the glucometer.

The pharmacy refused to take the order until they verified that the insurance company would cover the glucometer strips and that the company had sent a machine to me. I’d have to have them call the pharmacy after I received the glucometer. Then I’d have to call the nurse that started this mess because the insurance required that I receive training from the nurse before using the machine. I called. The nurse said they could schedule a visit but it would take a few weeks and asked if I could wait on hold for a scheduling consultant.

Pointing out that I knew how to use a glucometer, had experienced gestational diabetes on more than one occasion and knew the basics did not discourage them from 1) refusing to allow the doctor to call the pharmacy for strips until I got trained or 2) persuade them to up the training schedule from some time after never, to soon. The scheduling consultant was out at lunch. They’d call me back later in the day to schedule a training day sometime in the next three weeks. My baby is due in 11 weeks. Twenty one days seemed a bit long.

So I went to my obgyn’s. She’s known me for years. I told her about the mess. It would make a good article she told me as she handed over sample test strips to hold me over. I wasn’t sure anyone wanted independent verification of reality being that difficult, but agreed to stick myself four times a day. The nurse called and my training would occur in 17 days. In the meantime, I was to watch my sugar.

So I settled into sticking myself four times a day, but this was a new glucometer and so I actually needed some training. I thought there was something amiss because the readings were supernaturally low. Over the phone with my doctor's office, the nurse and I figured out I needed to recalibrate each time I started a new small canister of strips, so three days of sticks at least were invalid. Joy.

My doctor also then advised me it was time to get a Rhogram shot and to come in and get the prescription. No biggie. I’ve been getting them ever since my first child sensitized me. It’s my own fault for not having a positive outlook, bloodwise speaking. Picking up the paper from the doctor, the prescription required I be tested to see if I needed Rhogram.

“Why do I need to be tested? We know I need a shot. I’m B negative and I’ve had the shot with all prior pregnancies…”

“The insurance requires…”

So next week, I get to go to the lab. Have my blood drawn. Sit (You cannot leave for the two hours the test takes to get the results, otherwise the results are deemed invalid), and then get a shot in the rump. I’m bringing all eight kids. We’ll find out how true the two hour wait is…and whether the nurse really wants to have me in the waiting room that long. I’ll let the kids bring snacks. It will be a pain for sure, but probably worth an article or too.

The things I suffer for my children and my art.

For more fun than fooling with insurance, blood sugar and shots that aren't alcoholic in nature, try www.humor-blogs.com! May my sugars run low and my ranking with humor blogs, drop more than if I took a double shot of insulin...wait...that doesn't sound quite right....okay, I'm shooting for the top 50! Go rank me already.
Humor-Blogs.com