Category Menu

• Home
• Arts & Entertainment
• Education Issues
• Food & Drink
• Local Lore
• Miscellaneous
• Pol, Econ, & Religion
• Random Thoughts
• Comments Form
• Visitor Comments
• Writers Wanted
•   

top of page

POLITICS, ECONOMICS and RELIGION: This is where it gets difficult and where moderation is required. If your views are to the extreme in either direction please go elsewhere. If, otherwise, your opinions lay somewhere in the realm of moderation have a seat. Here's a little test, If you cannot say the words Obama and/or Bush without wanting to spit, you're too radical for here.

---

Medical Bills; I'll Bet You Have Experienced This!

For most of the past decade I’ve been sleeping with a CPAP machine to ward off the affects of sleep apnea. The machine was purchased from a supplier in Washington CH because of its proximity to where I reside. For several years obtaining replacement supplies was as simple as calling or dropping by their facility in WCH and getting what I needed. It was a good deal, quick service coupled with friendly faces that recognized yours and remembered what system you were using and what supplies you required.  

Later, that company was purchased by a larger company and a decision was made to stock all sleep apnea equipment at a central warehouse on the KY-TN border. Suddenly, I was being forced to communicate via telephone with people I didn’t know and who didn’t know me. It took several mistakes until I finally began receiving the correct replacement materials. CPAP equipment isn’t one size fits all and if you don’t have exactly what you need there isn’t much room for compromise.  

At first “sleep central” would call me every couple of months and ask what I was in need of. Then they unilaterally decided to periodically send me whatever my insurance company would cover, regardless of whether I needed it or not. So, about every three months I get a care package containing mostly things that don’t need being replaced. I have a drawer in my bedroom brimming over with unneeded nasal pillows, Velcro strips, filters, tubes, humidifier cartridges, etc.  

I’ve tried calling the company but only get synthesized voices telling me that all agents are busy and that my business is very important to them. Then, after listening to their message for several minutes I’m told I’m being transferred to an agent which turns out to be yet another non-human voice telling me to leave a message along with my phone number and someone will be in touch. I’m still waiting for that return call.  

Today, I get a bill for the last batch and my insurance company has refused to pay a large portion of it because the supplier is “out of network.” It is the same supplier but they are apparently now billing under the name of the parent company and that name is not on the “we like you” list.  

As I’m writing this I have been awake five hours and on the phone a significant portion of that time with various talking computers of the apnea supplier and my health insurance company and still haven’t spoken to that exact person who can resubmit the bill under the correct company name and get the insurance company to pay what is their responsibility.  

Like many of you, I don’t like this part of the world I now find myself living in. I want a place on Main Street called “Joe’s CPAP Supply and Hot Plate Shop” and having a motto that reads, “Meeting your exact breathing needs since God created oxygen.” I want to have had at least one of Joe’s children in class and to still remember how much I liked Joe’s granddad when I was a kid. And, I want Joe to recognize me when I walk through his door and know exactly what it is that I’ll be asking for.  

I also want to be able to charge to my insurance company only those items that I truly do require. I don’t want a bag of twelve nasal pillows when two would do just fine. And I don’t want my insurance company, my wife’s employer or my wife’s share of the premium paying for things that aren’t absolutely needed. 

One of the questions I had for our insurer was, “Can I purchase these supplies from a local pharmacy?” I figured I could get one of our local pharmacies to keep in stock a few of the items I typically need and it would be a win-win for everyone. Well, unlike the Wright brothers my little home-made airplane didn’t get off the ground. Both locally owned pharmacies are not in the network for providing such supplies. Thus, if I purchased outside the network, a different deductible would apply and my cost would be significantly higher. Instead I was told that they (the insurance company) prefer that I do business with a certain nation-wide company they have a contract with.  

Immediately the bias kicked in and I perceived this statement as meaning, “We do business with this big corporation, which we possibly own shares in, because they cut us a discount which reduces our cost and increases our bottom-line. No, we don’t pass along these savings to those who pay the premiums; we’re only interested in maximizing our profits.”  

This is the replacement nasal pillow my CPAP requires and they rarely wear out. They do require frequent cleaning and I usually pack a spare set incase something goes wrong while I'm away from home. Do these things look like they should cost $39.00? And, should my insurance company be paying for a couple dozen pair each year? I don't think so but it doesn't seem to bother the company.

There are several things here that anger me. First is the question, in how many ways is all of this contributing to the ever spiraling cost of health care in America/st1:place>? And secondly, by what percentage would the unemployment rate be reduced if we actually got to talk to real people rather than synthesized computer voices. Big is not always better, nor is technology always our friend.  

Is it just me? 

PS: As a postscript consider this. I did a little research regarding the price my insurance company was being billed and what these identical items could be purchased for online. Check this chart out and then try to convince me that insurance companies are being run efficiently and aren’t contributing to the rapid increase in the cost of medical care in America:& 

Item	Billed Cost	Online Cost
Paper air filter	6 pk. $40.33	6 pk. 13.95
Nasal pillows	1 pair $39.00	1 pair $19.95
6’ air hose	$49.22	$9.95

 

Larry Chapman/strong>, February 24, 2010: Submit Comments

Top of Page

Teenagers and Retires; What's in Their Futures?

Years ago I was reading a book on social history and discovered that the concept of teenage hood didn’t exist until sometime following World War One. Most people till then just acknowledged two kinds of people; children and adults.

The definition of adult was simply being big enough and strong enough to take on the chores and responsibility of those older than you. Boys became men when they could earn a living in the nation’s fields and factories. Girls became women when they reached puberty and were able to conceive.

That there should be a third phase of life didn’t come into existence until it was decided child labor laws were too lax and compulsory education was more important to the nation than leaving sixth grade for the assembly line. So, laws were passed, attitudes altered, schools built, and children entered into a new realm of existence, the teenage years.

Society created a new class of which little was expected other than going to school, worrying about acne, conforming to the demands of their peers, being overwrought with angst, and hopefully being someday able to achieve more in life then their parents had.

At the other end of the yard stick I recently read that the concept of retirement didn’t exist until the industrial revolution took hold in America. When most people were engaged in farming, small business or some skilled trade there was little need to consider not working. Even the oldest could be relied on to contribute something to the family’s well being. An old shoemaker may not be able to drive a nail but his head was full of enough knowledge to train an apprentice to keep him in business and able to support himself.

However, when people left the farm and went to the factory the new laws of mass production came into play. Mass producing goods required that quotas be both established and met. Older workers often found it difficult to maintain the pace of the assembly line and became an impediment to production. Thus, something had to be done with them.

That something, if the worker were lucky, was to “pension” them out. To retire them from working to live the remainder of their lives on a small “old age pension” check. It was kind of a win-win for the employer, they got rid of slower employees and because the typical retiree didn’t live too long after retirement, it didn’t cost that much. It also gave them the appearance of being socially responsible.

 Large numbers of older workers were just simply “let go” with little to no regard given to how they would make ends meet. It wasn’t until the advent of Social Security in the 1930s that working class Americans attained any degree of financial security when it was their time to be let go.

Over the past century our economy has been strong enough to permit the expansion of both the teenage and retiree classes. Mandatory education has been expanded to include the twelfth grade and ample opportunity exists for the teen years to flow into the twenties as more young people opt for a college education.

The concept of retirement has become universal in America and over the decades the age of retirement has generally come down. In the last thirty years increased numbers of Americans have retired early, cashed in their real estate, bought into retirement communities and, living off their 401k accounts, are enjoying very active lifestyles into very advances ages.

Today the question is can this be sustained? With the explosion of the housing bubble, the implosion of the economy, the outsourcing of jobs, the high degree of personal debt, the serious questions regarding the sustainability of Social Security and Medicare, where will today’s working age adults find themselves as the society and economy continues to evolve?

Larry Chapman, February 12, 2010, Submit a Comment

Top of Page

One More Plea for Health Care Rationality

For nearly a year now the debate over health care reform in America has raged. I can't recall another issue in my life that has resulted in so much emotional response coupled with so much vitriol. The president has been called everything from a Nazi to the reaper of death for America's elderly.

It seems that no degree of studied information seems to make any difference to those who have bought into the "don't touch my Medicare" arguments of the right.

However, I'm going to give it one more attempt. I just came across this chart from the latest edition of National Geographic Magazine dealing with the life expectancy of nations who have universal government health care systems vs. two of those who don't.

Please study the statistics and note that the US annually spends over $7,000 per capita and the life expectancy is 78. On the other hand, Mexico, who also does not have a universal public health care system, only spends a little over $800. Yet, the life expectancy in Mexico is only about three years less than America's.

You may also note that New Zealand, with its universal health care system only spends $2,500 per capita but ranks at the top in life expectancy, almost 83.

So, I'm left asking the same questions I've been asking during this "great debate." How is the American fee based system defensible? How can any American citizen who relies on insurance for health care argue that our system is the best? And, please bare in mind, we are not talking about the quality of care or degree of medical technology. We are talking about the cost of care and who can and cannot afford to obtain it.  

We may have the best doctors, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, etc. in the world but if you have large numbers of your citizens unable to obtain it, your life expectancy numbers head South!

Larry Chapman, February 8, 2010, Submit a Comment

Top of Page

Hershey Bars, Toilet Paper and Inflation

Years ago a teaching colleague, Travis Turvey, brought a box of frozen Hershey chocolate bars to school to use as a teaching tool in his consumer education class. What he wanted to demonstrate was how the purchasing power of our money changes with time and circumstance.  Turvey, for whatever reason, had purchased this box of candy a decade earlier and kept it in his freezer. Compared to the size of a contemporary Hershey bar these were huge. Not only were the newer bars much smaller, they also cost more.   It was a great presentation and one I could personally relate to. When I was a kid a Hershey bar cost a nickel and was large enough that eating two at the same time was certain to give you a stomach ache.   Of course, as we all know, Hershey bars cost more than a nickel today. In a typical convenience store you’d be lucky to find one for much less than a dollar and it would only contain enough chocolate delight to merely tickle your desire for another one.   As we have aged we all have experienced the ever increasing cost of what we consume and the ever decreasing quantity of what we receive in exchange for our dollar. If you’ve ever looked at the grocery ads in a thirty-year old newspaper these facts have slapped you in the face and caused one of those, “man, those were the days” moments.   Certainly manufacturers and food processors are aware of these realities and are just as aware that we too know and that we don’t like seeing it take place. So, they go to great lengths to hide or soften the blow, hoping we won’t notice.   Have you looked at a one-pound can of coffee in recent years? Well, “a pound is a pound the world around” no longer holds true. Today a pound of coffee is fourteen ounces. I recently noticed that a one-pound cup of margarine now contains fifteen ounces and if these trends continue it may one day be necessary to change the name of the Hostess Twinkie to the Hostess Shrinkie.   What brought this whole subject to mind was the recent realization that our toilet paper rolls no longer fit the spindle of our bathroom dispenser…they are too narrow. We haven’t changed brands and the price hasn’t come down. But, the damned roll has gotten skinny.   Those good folks at Quilted Northern Tissue have very subtly gotten into my wallet again. I say again because I’m sure that when they, several years ago, started labeling their product as a “double roll” we really received twice the cleansing power. Somewhere in the “newspeak” we got shafted.   If you’re not familiar with the term newspeak it is very apropos for this article. In George Orwell’s novel 1984 the government (Big Brother) spoke to the people in a jargon that was meant to convince them that big was small and black was white.   The most fitting example, to me, is the government’s statement regarding changes in the upcoming ration of chocolate. Working in Big Brother’s propaganda ministry it was the main character’s job to explain that the coming chocolate ration was going to be increased from 30% to 25%. Me thinks Big Brother just bit us on the behind! 

And now, for those of you who aren’t squeamish, here’s a little TP factorial information I came across on the Internet:   A random survey of 100 plus people yielded the following…The average tear is 5.90 sheets of TP. 44% wipe from front to back from behind their backs. 60% look at the paper after they wipe. 42% folds, 33% crumple, 8% do both fold and crumple, 6% wrap it around their hands. 50% say that they have wiped with leaves. 8% have wiped with their hands. 2% have wiped with money! 

Larry Chapman, December 21, 2009, Submit a Comment

Top of Page

  

A Brief, Yet Still Confusing, History of America's Political Parties

Originally published in January, 2006 in the Times-Gazette newspaper

Rory Ryan recently wrote that someone had told him he (Ryan) was the nearest to being a fascist he’d ever known. Personally, I would never say such a thing about Rory but I have, at times, thought his political views got real close to the right edge of what I’m sure he still believes to be a flat earth.  

When reading Ryan’s weekly columns I employ the “Ryan rule”. Assuming his typical column is a thousand words in length, I will read the first one hundred words. If, during that, he doesn’t step over the edge, I will finish the column whether I agree or not.  

Now, don’t get me wrong, most of the time I enjoy his columns and even sometimes agree with him. He, like the old Hog Farmer, ain’t always wrong!  

I recently received an email from a reader thanking me for my column on conservative-liberal points of view (December, 2004) and stating that it should be required reading in our schools. While I thank that person for the compliment I have to say that it is required reading. Those same ideas are found inside every mostly unopened American Government textbook that ever languished in a mold-infested high school senior’s locker. Apparently, too many students opt for an “F” on that test.  

This brings me back to one of Rory Ryan ’s recent columns. In the December 2, 2005 column Ryan spent a little time discoursing on the common background of the two major political parties and how each has it share of zealots. While I’ve already ranted enough in the past on extremists I would like to offer some additional information to what Rory said about party history.  

First of all, political parties weren’t supposed to happen. They are not mentioned in either the Articles of Confederation or the US Constitution. George Washington so disliked and feared the inception of political parties in America that he devoted up to two-thirds of his farewell address discussing domestic policies and the rise of political parties.  

Ironically, it was the debate over ratification of the Constitution that instigated the birth of parties. The question was, “What kind of a nation will America become and who will wield power?” Those who supported the Constitution, the Federalist, believed in a strong national government with centralized political authority. Those opposed, the Anti-Federalists, supported a weaker national government with political authority more in the hands of state and local government. Out of this initial division evolved today’s two-party system.  

What has happened in the two-hundred plus years since is that party names have changed, some basic ideas have flip-flopped, and the whole thing has gotten a little more than confusing. 

 

Today’s Democrats trace their founding back to Jefferson . However, Jefferson was a member of what, back then, was commonly referred to as the Republican Party. Jefferson and his crowd believed in a weak central government, state’s rights and faith in the common man (democracy).

  

The Federalist Party, led by Alexander Hamilton, believed in a strong centralized national government and political power vested in the hands of a ruling class (aristocracy). What we know as today’s Republican Party didn’t exist yet.

 

Jumping forward to the 1820s, several things had begun to change. First, the Federalist, as a party, disappeared and secondly, political thought evolved and realigned. Under Jackson the party of Jefferson became the Democrats and retained their belief of a limited federal government with increased inclusion of the common man. Jackson became famous for opening the doors of the White House to anyone to just walk on in.  

Today’s Republican Party evolved from a melding of the old Whig and Free-Soiler parties and believing that the government should permit free settlement of western lands and that slavery should be abolished. ByLincoln ’s time the Republicans had come to believe in federal supremacy over state’s rights while southern Democrats strongly preached state’s rights and nullification.  

Now, if you’re not totally confused yet, take no comfort, everything is about to flip. By the late 1800s the Republicans had become the darlings of the well-heeled, but they also worked to win Constitutional rights for former slaves and voting rights for women. If they had kept it up they might have even gone so far as to fight for gay rights and got an Equal Rights Amendment passed way back when!  

The Dems, in the meanwhile, were busy fightin’ for the rights of the common man, speakin’ out for state’s rights, and getting federal troops out of the South so white folks could do as they pleased!   

  

If the Ryan Rule didn’t kick in several thousand words ago you may have noticed that the two parties don’t, in several ways, fit the typical descriptions we are familiar with today. The Dems sound more like Pubs and the Pubs more like Dems. That’s because both parties have done some more flip-flopping since the late 1800s.  

Throughout the first seventy years of the twentieth century the Democrats continued to become more pro labor, pro farmer, pro working class and anti big business. It also flopped, beginning with F.D.R., and became the party of big government and strong centralized power. Since the 1930s it has become the party of social change and inclusion, as it reached out to blacks, immigrants, and the poor.  

The Republicans have remained the party of big business but they have abandoned the cause of social change in favor of preserving the status quo. Additionally, they lost the black vote after enlisting the Dixiecrats and embracing the white southern voter. They again flopped by adopting the old Democratic position of state’s rights and weaker central government.  

To many, the parties today are once again experiencing change. The Republicans are working hard to be more inclusive as they attempt reaching out to minority voters. Given the massive deficits of the Reagan and current Bush administrations they may also be evolving into the party of fiscal irresponsibility, a moniker the Democrats were long been branded with.  

By now I’m getting as tired of writing this column as you must be of reading it. So, permit me to abruptly finish by saying that I hope you have concluded that the important issues have remained pretty constant throughout our history and in vying for our votes the positions of the two major political parties is always shifting. What is considered liberal today may be seen as conservative tomorrow. Given that, my greatest fear is that I’ll live long enough that someday a reader will tell me that I’m the nearest thing to a fascist they’ve ever known.

 

FOLLOWUP:  After rereading this column I had a couple thoughts.

 

First, the Republican Party is imploding and appears to be suffering from a moderate and inclusive leadership vacuum. As to air filling a vacuum, the far right is grabbing control of what remains and taking the party further away from social reform and inclusiveness. The very loud and vocal mouthpieces of what remains of the GOP (recent polls indicate only 20% of registered voters claim membership in the party) have entrenched themselves behind the mantra of, "you're either with us or against us." How the continued evolution of political parties in America will unfold is very much cloudy at best.

 

Secondly, I may have lived too long. Given the political rhetoric and insanity of the summer of 2009, according to Glen Beck and others, I as a Democrat, can now consider myself a fascist. Somehow it is now possible to be, at the same time and in the same brain, a liberal, a communist, a socialist, a fascist and a Nazi.

 

All this has happened in the three short years since I originally wrote this column. The question now is, how long must I wait before I can be all the above plus also be labeled a conservative Republican?  

 

Larry Chapman, October 27, 2009, Submit a Comment

 

Top of Page