Well, the federal government has done it again. This year for benefits enrollment, I'm basically left with only one choice. Oh, don't get me wrong, my employer is offering two options for health coverage, but there is really only one option that is viable for us.
The two options, in a nutshell: First, what is called a high deductible plan with an attached health savings account. It sounds really good. The premium is half the cost of the other plan, but the deductible is much higher. The good part of this plan is the health savings account. You contribute to the account with tax free dollars just like a flexible spending plan, only if you don't use it all at the end of the year, you can roll it over into next year. You use the money in the account to cover medical expenses until you meet your deductible. The other plan has a very low deductible, $1,200 compared to $6,000 in the other plan. But there is no savings plan and the premiums are twice as much.
Which plan to take was a no brainer. I'd go with the high deductible plan with the savings account. Then I would deposit the difference between premiums into the savings account to pay for all those out of pocket costs. But then the light bulb went off. It wouldn't work for us. See, if you're covering a domestic partner on your health plan, the premiums for them are after tax. The health savings plan is before tax. The IRS doesn't let you use the money in the health savings plan for medical expenses incurred by your partner. So, if something were to happen to my partner, we wouldn't be able to use the money we had been putting aside. So now, I have only one choice - the high premium, low deductible plan.
When will the law of the land finally catch up with the new landscape that is the American family? Will I ever go into health enrollment and not have to consider the tax consequences of every decision I make? Will there be a time when I can look at my options without asking, "Does this apply to me"? I should be able to cover my family the same way that everyone else does. Where are you, President Obama? Where are the promises you made? I'm tired - and I'm not the only one.
Monday, November 01, 2010
Thursday, September 23, 2010
A Tale of Two Senators
On Tuesday, the Senate voted not to bring the defense reauthorization bill to the floor for debate. In doing so, they also voted not to bring to the floor the amendment to the bill which would have ended DADT. The vote was almost completely along party lines with the two Democrats from Arkansas crossing to vote with the Republicans.
After the vote, two senators aired the reasons for his votes. Al Franken addressed the Senate to tell a story about the reaction to DADT jokes he told during a USO tour. During the story, his voice cracks with emotion. John McCain, on the other hand, during an interview, launched into a rant about how the policy is written. This tale of two senators shows how differently politicians approach the issues. Franken is thinking about the soldiers, respecting the people who serve our country. McCain was more concerned about policy and procedure. In fact, his mantra became, "it is not the policy, it is not the policy, it is not the policy."
After the vote, two senators aired the reasons for his votes. Al Franken addressed the Senate to tell a story about the reaction to DADT jokes he told during a USO tour. During the story, his voice cracks with emotion. John McCain, on the other hand, during an interview, launched into a rant about how the policy is written. This tale of two senators shows how differently politicians approach the issues. Franken is thinking about the soldiers, respecting the people who serve our country. McCain was more concerned about policy and procedure. In fact, his mantra became, "it is not the policy, it is not the policy, it is not the policy."
Sunday, July 04, 2010
Library of Congress YouTube Channel
The Library of Congress has uploaded hundreds of historical videos of New York City to their YouTube channel. This one is of Buffalo Bill's Wild West Parade down Fifth Avenue. It was taken in 1902. Kind of fun to watch these old videos!
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Waiting on the World to Change
I've often wondered why the current generation seems so complacent when faced with social issues. Why is there no marching in the streets? Why do we not hear more outrage over injustices in today's world? In the 60's so many young people were emboldened and were not afraid to voice their displeasure with the status quo and with the direction that our government was taking the country. College students were vocally opposed the Viet Nam war and they fought against the injustice of segregation. The music of the time even carried the message of outrage and the push for change. Songs like Bob Dylan's Blowing in the Wind, John Lennon's Give Peace a Chance, the Youngblood's Get Together, or Buffalo Springfield's For What It's Worth all mirrored the times and helped to focus the angst of the country in a direction of change.
Today's college student seems more interested in how he will make his fortune after college and he doesn't see the injustice of the world around him. Indeed, young people often have limited knowledge of the world around them. And when they do see injustice, many think there is nothing they can do to make a change. What is different in today's culture when compared to that of the 60's? Perhaps rather than being a mirror of the times, the music of the 60's was actually a conduit for change. People heard the music and took it to heart. They actually listened to the words and believed that they could effect change. And they did. Today, instead of protest songs to push us to change, we have songs that tell us to sit back and wait. . . . wait for the world to change.
Today's college student seems more interested in how he will make his fortune after college and he doesn't see the injustice of the world around him. Indeed, young people often have limited knowledge of the world around them. And when they do see injustice, many think there is nothing they can do to make a change. What is different in today's culture when compared to that of the 60's? Perhaps rather than being a mirror of the times, the music of the 60's was actually a conduit for change. People heard the music and took it to heart. They actually listened to the words and believed that they could effect change. And they did. Today, instead of protest songs to push us to change, we have songs that tell us to sit back and wait. . . . wait for the world to change.
Waiting On The World To Change
lyrics by John Mayer
Me and all my friends
We're all misunderstood
They say we stand for nothing and
Theres' no way we ever could
Now we see everything that's going wrong
With the world and those who lead it
We just feel like we don't have the means
To rise above and beat it
So we keep waiting
Waiting on the world to change
We keep on waiting
Waiting on the world to change
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Health Insurance Reform, Not Health Care Reform
There are lots of things in the Health Insurance Reform bill that Republicans and Democrats disagree on. Many Americans are dismayed just by the size of the bill itself. The enormity of the bill almost ensures that many have no idea what is really in it. Because the Democrats began this journey into fixing a broken Health Insurance system, they have a responsibility to let the American public know what is in the bill. One of the ironies of this bill is that while lots of people are against the bill as a whole, if they are asked questions about individual aspects of the bill, they are for them. That's an issue of education - of not knowing what is in the bill itself.
Most think that excluding a person from health insurance coverage due to a pre-existing condition is wrong. The current bill would correct that and prevent health insurance companies from discriminating because of pre-existing conditions. Health insurance portability is another hot button. Why can't I buy health insurance from a company in Nevada if what they offer fits my need better than the insurance offered in my own state? That's another issue that would be corrected. These are just two examples of items that on their own merit, most Americans can agree on, but when lumped into a huge all-encompassing bill, there is less agreement.
I do have to say, though, that as a liberal I am troubled by the general lack of support for a public option. I know that conservatives generally oppose any expansion of government, but if the insurance premiums deducted from paychecks start going to a government run public health care system instead of to a corporate, profit-driven insurance company, why should the average American care? The change would make it possible for every person in the country to have access to medical care. I find this possibility exciting. It's important to me that people be able to see a doctor when they need to and have access to preventative medical care which would help lower medical costs for the poor. This is much more important to me that the continuation of our current system that serves mostly to grow the coffers of public health insurance companies.
From my viewpoint, changing our current health insurance system would have no effect on the health care system. It would change who has access to health care, but not on the quality of health care itself. Our leaders need to find a way to get this message out so that the average person can understand. If an informed electorate is still opposed to the changes, then so be it. But I can't accept uninformed dissent.
Most think that excluding a person from health insurance coverage due to a pre-existing condition is wrong. The current bill would correct that and prevent health insurance companies from discriminating because of pre-existing conditions. Health insurance portability is another hot button. Why can't I buy health insurance from a company in Nevada if what they offer fits my need better than the insurance offered in my own state? That's another issue that would be corrected. These are just two examples of items that on their own merit, most Americans can agree on, but when lumped into a huge all-encompassing bill, there is less agreement.
I do have to say, though, that as a liberal I am troubled by the general lack of support for a public option. I know that conservatives generally oppose any expansion of government, but if the insurance premiums deducted from paychecks start going to a government run public health care system instead of to a corporate, profit-driven insurance company, why should the average American care? The change would make it possible for every person in the country to have access to medical care. I find this possibility exciting. It's important to me that people be able to see a doctor when they need to and have access to preventative medical care which would help lower medical costs for the poor. This is much more important to me that the continuation of our current system that serves mostly to grow the coffers of public health insurance companies.
From my viewpoint, changing our current health insurance system would have no effect on the health care system. It would change who has access to health care, but not on the quality of health care itself. Our leaders need to find a way to get this message out so that the average person can understand. If an informed electorate is still opposed to the changes, then so be it. But I can't accept uninformed dissent.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Plastic Recycling - The Beginnings
Thirty years ago, recycling of any kind was just getting off its feet in the United States. At the time, if you mentioned recycling to most people, they thought of newspapers. But to a woman in Sauk county Wisconsin, a trip to Japan got her to thinking of recycling plastics. Molly Zantow started her crusade with a simple question to a milk producer. Molly asked what happens to flawed milk jugs when they come down the line. She discovered that they were thrown back to be melted down and recycled through the system. From this question she proceeded to founding her own recycling business.
Molly even helped develop a way of easily determining what kind of plastic a container was made of. The triangle with a number inside was her idea. When you're trying to decide whether or not a container can be recycled, look for that triangle. If the number inside is 1 or 2, you can recycle it. Otherwise, the plastic isn't recyclable.
You can hear her own words on this video at madison.com.
Molly even helped develop a way of easily determining what kind of plastic a container was made of. The triangle with a number inside was her idea. When you're trying to decide whether or not a container can be recycled, look for that triangle. If the number inside is 1 or 2, you can recycle it. Otherwise, the plastic isn't recyclable.
You can hear her own words on this video at madison.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)