Saturday, April 30, 2005
Just because.
This is pretty dead-on:
|
Your Birthdate: November 5 |
|
With a birthday on the 5th of the month you are inclined to work well with people and enjoy them. You are talented and versatile, very good at presenting ideas. You may have a tendency to get itchy feet at times and need change and travel. You tend to be very progressive, imaginative and adaptable. Your mind is quick, clever and analytical. A restlessness in your nature may make you a bit impatient and easily bored with routine. You may have a tendency to shirk responsibility |
Via fellow Scorpio Caltechgirl.
A lot to say and no will to say it.
I’m in one of those moods today where everything I read depresses me. Must be the rain.
On the bright side, this probably means I’ll get a bit of housework done, so it’s not entirely a bad thing…
Sleeping Through The Night
It was great while it lasted!
Your Daily Sadie
Friday, April 29, 2005
The time, it flies like a birdie.
You know what?
Sadie is seven months old today.
Wow.
Bonus Sadie: Wired Edition
This is why I need to move things around in the computer room…
Retirement Welfare
Apparently, I wasn’t the only one who was struggling to figure out what exactly Mr. Bush was proposing for Social Security last night. Sounded to me like was proposing a shift back to the thing being a welfare program, while at the same time trying to promise that it was all the retirement savings that lower income people would need. Seems like a tall order to me. I don’t know that I’m thrilled with the idea of making up the shortfall the way he wants to, either. This would be a lot easier to puzzle out with an actual, you know, proposal, rather than just a set of broad principles. But something’s telling me it isn’t going to sit as well with me as I had hoped.
Carnival of the Recipes Is Up
Caltechgirl has this week’s Carnival of the Recipes to make your culinary life more adventurous.
Your Daily Sadie
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Press Conference
James has a good summary of the Presidential press conference this evening, which I managed to catch a large part of. Unfortunately, the network folks cut in over the end of the thing, entirely wiping out the last question about means testing (only part of it on the FOX affiliate I had flipped to at that point). I’m not sure I liked it as well as James did, but I’m not quite done feeling snarky about the President yet, which influenced my opinion, I’m sure.
UPDATE: Here’s a transcript.
A Goofy Quiz, Yet Different
| Greatsword You preferred a weapon with 54% power over speed and 40% range over melee. |
| You use a Greatsword. Do the words Zweihander or Flamberge
|
 |
My test tracked 2 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:
|
| Link: The What’s Your Signature Weapon Test written by inurashii on Ok Cupid |
Via James Rummel
Fertility Funding (UPDATED)
Susanna has an interesting post about one of the big problems with going over entirely to a government paid healthcare scheme: how do you allocate your available resources? And what do you do when fights break out about what should and shouldn’t be covered?
Thre’s a side issue here that’s interesting to me personally, as we see it play out even in existing insurance markets in the US, and that’s the coverage of fertility treatments. Susanna says, “Reproduction isn’t a right,” and I see where she’s coming from (and none of the following is directed at her...it just so happens I’d been musing about this a while ago and her post made me think of it again.). It seems to me, though, that if unlimited maternity care is available, then unlimited fertility treatment should also be available. And since you’ll never have an insurance company say, sorry, you’re only covered for 3 kids, why in the world should you only be covered for 3 IVFs?
Where do you draw the lines?
You see, I got to thinking about all of this after having Sadie. My pregnancy, while not particularly difficult (aside from the last 24 hours or so), was very, very high-tech. I got knocked up on my own, but from that point on I was very, very expensive. For the last seven weeks of it, I was seen four or five times every week. That would be 2 NSTs (minimum, had to go to the hospital a time or two for additional monitoring), an ultrasound, a midwife or OB appointment (they’d rotate), and every other week I’d see my PCP. Over the course of the pregnancy I had 3 appointments with a perinatologist for a level 2 ultrasound to verify appropriate growth and get his thoughts on management. I delivered at 39 weeks due to low fluid discovered at one of the weekly ultrasounds. 24 hours into the induction the baby stopped tolerating the contractions, and I had a C Section for fetal distress. Spent a total of 6 days and five nights in the hospital, and had multiple follow-up appointments the first week after I got out.
And that was nothing compared to what some people go through.
All of that cost me, out of pocket, less than a thousand dollars. And should I get pregnant again, the insurance company will pay for it again. Nobody says to me that it’s too expensive for me to be pregnant, so I’m not covered for additional pregnancies. And as far as I’m concerned, they damned well shouldn’t (you’d faint at what we pay, they’ll make it up before too long).
The thing is, if I hadn’t had all of that high-tech assistance, my chances of having a live baby at the end of my pregnancy would probably be pretty damned close to zero. And I can’t help but wonder what the difference is between me and someone who has trouble getting pregnant in the first place (I know there’s a huge experiential difference, but I’m talking people-thinking-it-shouldn’t-be-covered-wise). Neither of us would likely have a baby without all of this marvelous medical science. So where, again, do we want to draw the line? I can get knocked up by myself but have risky pregnancies so I’m covered, but a woman who might have perfectly reasonable pregnancies, you won’t help her get pregnant in the first place? I’m entitled to have a child, courtesy of my insurance company, and she isn’t? Simply because my daughter was conceived (presumably) in a fallopian tube?
Seems like a strange place to draw the line, to me.
If my insurance company woke up tomorrow and decided I wasn’t covered for maternity anymore because I couldn’t have a baby without a doctor’s assistance, I’d be furious. Heck, I could probably drum up a pretty good public outrage over it. What in the hell is the difference between that and the insurance refusing to pay for fertility treatment? Or if they told me I could have three children, no more, because it was too expensive...why would that provoke outrage, while a limit of 3 chances to have a child seems perfectly reasonable to people?
Weird line.
I have a medical condition that makes it difficult to have a baby. Those who struggle with infertility have a medical condition that makes it difficult to have a baby. Why would I be covered fully and they wouldn’t be?
Weird line.
Which is why I’ve grown opposed to drawing lines. I’ve come to believe very firmly that if maternity coverage is mandatory, infertility coverage ought to be, too. I don’t know how well I’ve explained myself, but I just don’t see what’s so essential about the pregnancy starting without intervention that makes one worthy of payment and the other not.
All of this points up, really, why government-paid health care--or even the heavily government-regulated health care we have--is problematic. On the other hand, I don’t think there’s any chance in the world of a free-market solution to any of this, because we as a people aren’t going to tolerate that. So we’re stuck with these decisions, and they’re a lot bigger and more problematic than just what reproductive technologies we’ll fund or allow or compell insurance companies to fund.
If reproduction is a lifestyle choice, then the logical thing to do would be to stop covering pregnancy at all. (Heck, if kids are just a lifestyle choice, why cover them?) If we’re not going to do that, then covering infertility is the logically consistent (and, IMHO, the compassionate and appropriate) thing to do.
So sayeth the Deb.
UPDATE:
James R. Rummel has some excellent points about just how big a pickle we’ll get into if we head down the socialized medicine path. I don’t know that I was entirely clear about the fact that I don’t think that socialized medicine is viable. I don’t think that it is. I was more musing on the sorts of decisions that would need to be made, and reflecting on how difficult it is to draw lines past which treatment can’t go. I do believe it is illogical to fully cover pregnancy but not infertility, but I certainly have no illusions that any state-run system could be competent at handling either one. In any case, he’s got a good, link-rich post that is certainly worth taking a look at if you have an interest in this topic.
Well, Hello Dolly
Velociman ponders the benefits of cesareans and formula, and whether that makes him especially soulless.
I don’t know about cesareans and velociclones, but it makes Deb and Sadie, you know, alive. Modern medicine: It’s a Good Thing.
Sucked In
Deb started reading the first book in The Christ Clone Trilogy, found it good if sometimes oddly paced (always paced about the same, no matter what the level of action). She left it in the reading room, where I started picking it up and reading bits of it. She already had it bookmarked, so I’d just remember the page or chapter number start I had reached.
Suddenly I am done, while she’s still halfway through it, havinghad to listen to me “wow” at her. I read at least half the book in the course of a day or so, and wound up removing it from the reading room.
It’s a grippingly entertaining disaster/end times/political thriller that obviously draws on religious themes, but you don’t have to be religious to like it. Nor will you necessarily dislike it if you are religious. It’s sad that the author felt he had to put a “hello people, this is fiction!” disclaimer at the front of the book, and worse, footnote in a few places referring the reader back to it in case they might be thinking of taking offense at his twist on things. Heck, I take more offense at the heavy role and power of the UN in the book, and the obvious high regard in which it is held, but it’s a part of the story. Fiction.
I’m only a third of the way through the trilogy, and already I highly recommend it. I figure it’ll get loaned out to my father and/or sister when we’re done, as they will both enjoy it.
No reading today, though. Too busy.
Your Daily Sadie
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
AI4
WTF?
Reciprocity rocks.
If you link to us and we don’t link to you, would you be so kind as to leave a comment or e-mail one of us and let us know? We’d love to link you back.
This is why he is He Who Needs No Linkage.
I think Glenn is absolutely right about the President’s poll numbers, and the whys and effects thereof. I wonder if the bullet Mr. Bush shot himself in the foot with had a serial number...
This shouldn’t be surprising, considering his background, but somehow it is.
Nathan points to an article about President Bush’s energy plan, which sounds downright sensible to me. Had to look twice and make sure I wasn’t reading a spoof. Heh. Seriously, though, lack of refining capacity is a major problem, and taking care of that while redeveloping old military properties is a stroke of genius. Of course, I’m a big believer in nuclear power, too, so that bit certainly doesn’t hurt my enthusiasm.
We’re from the government, and we’re here to burden you.
Speaking of not asking the right questions, I have to think that the all-too-common, “Well, why not x?” is always the wrong one when making public policy.
McGehee’s got a good example (not to mention a good point about taxation).
Eat your lunch, comrade.
Interesting column on the bits of labor law related to lunchtimes in California along with some information on proposed rule changes. After many years of retail work in that great state, all I can say is that flexibility is good. As a matter of fact, it isn’t mentioned in the thing my own most frequent experience with the goofy lunchtime laws is that shifts just get shorter. In many settings it’s too much of a pain in the butt (or too expensive to have covering employees) to lunch everybody out in time, so they just make the shifts short enough so that you don’t have to take one. Kills your income pretty effectively. The tactic for waitstaff of having them come in early for their break is pretty popular too, as I understand it.
In any case, if you can’t kick the state out of the deal, then any flexibility they’re willing to give back to employers and hence employees will be a good thing. Speaking of which, the 40 hour week overtime rule instead of the 8 hour day was so damned nice…
Night Waking Sadie
3/4 growth spurt, 1/4 teething
That’s what I’ve decided the night waking is all about. She wakes up starving, but I suspect she might make it through anyway if the teeth weren’t also bothering her. Poor kid. And you know, I might be tired, but she’s definitely growing...I swear we’re going through one of those times when every day you look at her and swear she grew overnight. We brought out the tape measure yesterday and verified that she really has suddenly sprouted up like half an inch in the last month. And she’s still a skinny sort of baby. She eats and eats and eats and stays long and lean. Be nice if she kept that trait after babyhood. Given that she’s never liked to sit still (heck, I felt her at 16 weeks, which is pretty early for a first pregnancy) I figure she’s got a shot at it. And I have a shot at becoming that most dreaded of creatures, the soccer mom. LOL! I’ve already got the minivan…
Your Daily Sadie
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
BMI redux
Here’s another article about the findings of that now-infamous CDC analysis that said, shockingly enough, that being fat won’t kill you. Excerpt:
Lower deaths (lives saved) associated with being “overweight” (BMI 25-30) = 86,094
Yes, you’re reading that right. Being overweight is actually associated with reduced mortality rates. Being well nourished is healthful. In fact, looking at the data on nonsmokers, ages 29-59, those who are “overweight” or “obese” (BMI 30-35) have 66 to 77% of the mortality risk of government-approved “normal” bodies (BMI 18.5-25). For an average 5’4” woman, that means weighing 145 to 205 pounds is the least risky; for someone 5’11”, the lowest risks are at 172 to 247 pounds.
And yes, I am harping on this. While I tend to agree with Little Miss Attila that it certainly doesn’t hurt your odds to take a walk now and again, it is so freaking nice to have someone confirm the entirely obvious fact that one doesn’t have to be a marathon runner to live to a reasonably old age. I don’t plan to stop enjoying it for a while yet.
BFL Roundup, redux.
Justene has posted the ninth and final installment in the BFL roundup. Go take a look.
The risk of living forever is 0%.
Zombyboy has a link to a column by Paul Campos that’s worth a read. I know a lot of folks don’t find him terribly credible, but he’s definitely got a point about the curious redefinition of risk factors as diseases. Of course, that doesn’t mean I’m going to throw away my blood pressure pills, but it does mean that pretty much everyone over the age of thirty is now defined in some fashion or another as sick. This is, as Campos suggests, definitely making things a bit weird, culturally speaking.
ZB also asks an interesting question. I think it’s likely, myself, but you might want to go have a look and offer an opinion.
Grand Rounds Is Up
The latest Grand Rounds is up, a collection of medical post links hosted this week by DrTony.
The Gongol Plan
Brian Gongol has shared his Carnival of the Capitalists hosting template, with detailed instructions and advice, for other hosts that might wish to use the same design in the future. It also has potential to be used in similar carnivals.
The response to his edition was completely positive, so you could do worse than to use or adapt his scheme, or learn from its good points.
I’ll add a link to this at the Carnival of the Capitalists page later. This post is both to publicize it to a general audience, and to remind me to add it there.
Your Daily Sadie
Monday, April 25, 2005
Because we all know that the only people drug dealers are intimidated by are pharmacists.
All Wal-Mart stores will move many nonprescription cold and allergy medications behind pharmacy counters by June because they include an ingredient used to make the illegal stimulant methamphetamine, the company said Monday.
I still don’t get what the hell good this is supposed to do.
