Although I have disagreed with him in the past on many topics (such as abortion), I like much of what blogger Matt Walsh has to say in his recent post entitled “I will not teach my kids about safe sex because there is no such thing.”
Walsh’s thesis is – as he puts it – that in teaching kids about safe sex, “…we have taken the honesty, love, passion, beauty, and creative power out of the act, and replaced it with something sterile, guarded, frivolous, and disinterested.”
For Walsh, “safe sex” teaches kids that they must protect themselves as much as possible from the potential harm and dangers that can arise as a result of sexual contact. He feels this misses the entire point of sex, and turns it from a beautiful expression of vulnerability and mutuality into a sterile act that is little more than shared masturbation, as well as providing a false guarantee that it is possible to have sex safely. Continue reading “Safe Sex?”
Note (6/23/14): As promised, I have kept tabs on this issue. The blog posting that appeared to be the source of much of the furor has been deleted, but KOIN (a television station in Portland) did air a news article citing the allegations, which were originally made in the magazine “BC Catholic.”
Snopes.com has posted an article summarizing their own investigation into the issue. In summary, officials reacted quickly to the allegations: the incinerator facility in Oregon will not accept further shipments of medical waste until they are assured that aborted fetuses were not part of the waste stream, as is being alleged (but which has not been proven to be the case).
At the moment, there is an article out on the internet that is going viral, entitled “Aborted babies are being incinerated to provide electricity in the United States“.
If true, this would be quite a problem, as I believe that the irreverent disposal of human remains (as is claimed here) is illegal in most of the US.
Further, I cannot find any facts to back up the assertion that this is (or was) being done. The story seems to originate with the above-mentioned blog posting. There are a lot of references that it and other sources cite; however, when you try to trace the links – all of them lead back to the blog I’ve linked-to above. I also noted that all of the online articles misspell “British Columbia” the Canadian province as “British Colombia” – Colombia is in South America. So, they are all almost certainly relying on a single source, and doing “copy and paste republishing” without verifying the facts – very poor journalism, let alone ethics!
Another thing that troubles me about this whole issue is the leaps in terminology that are being made – starting with “medical waste” then leaping to “fetal remains” and finally “aborted babies” – i.e., the words have become more incendiary; but I can find no facts to justify the changes in language.
Finally, the British Columbia Ministry of Health (which is the correct name, not “British Colombia Health Ministry”) has not responded to this claim at all (as of this posting), nor has any other government body within Canada, nor (as far as I can tell) any government body or hospital in the US.
So, whether this claim is true or not, there is nothing to back it up as of yet, and the many pro-life sites that are trumpeting this as a huge crime are employing language that is becoming more and more heated – even though there is nothing to substantiate anything that they are saying.
All I’m suggesting is that we learn the facts before we risk unjustly accusing someone, or make ourselves look silly by coming down so vehemently against a situation that more than likely bears no resemblance to the way it has been presented in the media (so far).
I will keep tabs on this issue, and will update this blog post as new information becomes available.
I may not be a conservative Republican, but I do respect and admire the opinions of thoughtful, balanced writers, no matter what their political stance. David Frum’s recent CNN column is a very well written and persuasive commentary on the damage the Republican party has done to itself in the healthcare battle, as well as some well reasoned suggestions as to where to go from here.
I agree with Mr. Frum on most of his points. Healthcare is an accomplished fact, and the Republican leadership needs to accept that and move on. Attempts to derail the legislation after it is signed into law may well have far-reaching negative consequences for the country as well as for the Republican party. As Frum says, a more productive and probably more favorably received (by the voters) strategy would be to pass laws to fix those portions of the new legislation that are the most troublesome from a Republican point of view. Blindly attacking the entire legislation is a strategy that is very high risk and which has already failed (probably at great cost to the Republican Party), and continuing to do so may well have additional major side effects.
I find it disingenious, for instance, that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is denouncing the new legislation as unconstitutional due to it’s requiring all citizens of the US to sign up for healthcare or face fines. He seems to have forgotten that he was governor when the system upon which the new Federal Law was based became law here in Massachusetts, legislation that he championed as a bipartisan victory, and for which he lauded the Late Senator Ed Kennedy’s assistance in making it possible. Does he think Democrats will forget this in the upcoming election cycle? Romney’s claim will be great ammunition for any Democrat running against a Republican who makes the constitutionality of the new law an issue.
I also wonder, in this rash of Republican State Attorney Generals filing lawsuits to get the law declared unconstitutional even before it has been signed by Obama, if anyone has considered the consequences of such a legal victory (should it ever happen)?
If the U.S. Supreme Court were to decide that Federal Government programs forcing citizens to get insurance are unconstitutional, then does this impact Social Security, which is another Federal Insurance program that all citizens are required to sign-up for?
If not, then it will be because the new legislation forces citizens to sign up for private insurance, not a government program. This will leave Republicans with the option of either taking responsibility for ditching healthcare reform entirely – not likely to win them many friends when millions of formerly uninsured Americans instantly lose their newly acquired protections; or else they will need to create a government sponsored insurance plan in its place – the very thing they spent lots of time and effort demonizing the current legislation for!
Finally, there is the issue of “battle fatigue”. You can’t keep on whipping up the rank and file of your party into a frenzy on every major issue, especially if you keep on coming back to them with nothing to show for it. Eventually they’ll get burned out and turn their back on you, or else they’ll go and look for someone else who is actually able to get things done. As Frum says, the “All or Nothing” approach the Republican leadership is currently using is a negative, short term, high risk approach. It is not a long term, strategic plan for positive change. It can be effective, but is a weapon that gets “blunt” very quickly.
Frum’s column is one I think Liberals and Conservatives, Democrats and Republicans should read. He raises issues and questions about the new legislation that all of our representatives in Washington should seriously consider, and not just dismiss out of hand, or sweep aside in favor of a broad attack upon the entire package.
Liberals take note: there is intelligence on the other side of the fence!
Copyright (c) 2010, Allen Vander Meulen III, all rights reserved. I’m happy to share my writings with you, as long as you are not seeking (or getting) financial benefit for doing so, and as long as proper credit for my authorship is given (via a credit that mentions my name or provides a link back to this site).
I have many years of experience in the IT side of the healthcare industry, having worked for ten years at a major medical center (the Mayo Clinic) renowned for its efficient and high quality healthcare system. I also worked nearly three years for a major nonprofit that provided healthcare (and other support) to those in need, worked for three years in support of the Veterans’ Health Administration, worked with the Red Cross and UNICEF while Director of IT at a company that provided services to nonprofits, and worked for a year or so as a contractor supporting a small company in the medical insurance industry.
I’ve also dealt with the challenges of attempting to provide healthcare for myself and my family as a self employed, underemployed and unemployed person. Finally, in my current status as a student working towards ordination, I am constantly meeting and working with those who are underserved, if they are served at all, by our current healthcare system.
In other words, I’ve seen many aspects of our current medical system, and its’ evolution over the last 20 years or so, from the “inside” – working closely with Physicians, Nurses, Technicians and other support personnel; as well as from the “outside” as a person looking for affordable and reasonably good quality healthcare services and insurance.
Let’s start with the obvious: the current system is evolving in an unsustainable direction, of providing high quality healthcare to fewer and fewer people, with costs rising at a rate that significantly exceeds inflation, meaning that we pay more and more each year while getting less and less for each dollar we spend. In other words, it’s broken, and it will get worse, much worse, in the foreseeable future.
That good quality healthcare at a reasonable cost can be achieved is a certainty: the Mayo Clinic does so by providing highly centralized, well integrated services to its patients, supported by sophisticated manual and automated systems that ensure that each and every physician seeing a patient has accurate and timely information when they need it, and that every patient is able to rapidly get all of the tests and procedures they need for a correct diagnosis, followed by a course of treatment that works hard to take into account all of the complexities presented by the patient’s medical history and condition. No wonder Mayo is rated as the best place to go for treatment of complex cases involving multiple disease processes.
What’s really astounding is that Mayo does all this for a cost much less than most other medical practices can achieve. This is due not only to the volume of patients Mayo sees, but also due to Mayo’s sustained (nearly century-long) effort to integrate and standardize medical care while ensuring a consistently high level of care and quality across every medical discipline in the practice.
There has been much talk of how the implementation of databases for patient medical records and the building of interfaces to allow such databases to talk to each other will be a “golden bullet” for high quality medical care. I’ll agree, as one who played a significant role in the building of such systems at Mayo, that such systems are needed. But, let’s not forget that Mayo built such systems itself primarily due to their need to share medical information and test results rapidly, if not simultaneously, among multiple healthcare professionals. Paper-based mechanisms to store and share such information, and ensure its consistency and quality, had already been in place at Mayo for decades. The business case for the expense of such automation was built on the need to speed access and to handle the ever increasing volume of such information. The quality of the data, and the quality of the care itself, was already there.
In other words, automation is a great tool in healthcare: one that can provide great benefits, but an infrastructure that can take advantage of such high quality information must be in place, too. That requires the creation of business processes to acquire, manage and utilize such information. It means rethinking how medical practices (hospitals, labs, doctors, insurers, and other healthcare professionals, services or organizations) are managed internally, how they interact with each other, how they are regulated, and how they are compensated for their efforts.
It is not a small task. It cannot be done piecemeal, and we cannot afford to avoid the challenge of doing so any longer: if you want to have a healthcare system that can meet your needs ten or twenty years from now, then we need to begin to make such changes now, as it will take years to implement such changes across thousands of medical institutions, hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of healthcare professionals, and within every government agency, hundreds of insurers, and thousands of companies that are involved in every aspect of healthcare.
The changes also impact our schools, which need to train not only new healthcare professionals, and retraining many of those already in the field, but also ensure the correct mix of skills are being taught – not just in terms of ensuring enough Primary Care physicians are there, but training thousands of new administrators skilled in managing to ensure high quality, or skilled in integrating systems and practices: not skilled just in generating maximum profits for their employers.
The system cannot fix itself. Only external pressure can redirect current trends into a more constructive direction. Any person with knowledge of business ethics will tell you that a company that ignores or avoids social responsiblity for its actions will always be able to provide services cheaper than those that do seek to be socially responsible: just as it’s always cheaper to dump raw sewage and chemical waste into a river than it is to clean it up.
In terms of healthcare, it is always cheaper and more profitable to squeeze those individuals out of the system who are likely to incur greater healthcare costs. This includes the elderly, those with chronic medical conditions, or anyone with an increased risk of becoming ill. We see this in the ever increasing list of “pre-existing medical conditions” that are not covered by insurers.
On the other hand, as insurance costs increase, it becomes more and more desirable for those of us who are healthy to simply avoid buying insurance. We put off doing so as long as possible, and only buy insurance when we get older, and/or think we’re likely to need it. This is a major problem because it means we are not paying into the system: we’re expecting the money to somehow magically be there when we need it ten or twenty years from now, even though we have not put anything into the “bank” for our own future medical care.
Who then is paying? We are: those who do have insurance have to foot the bill, either in terms of paying more for insurance (to cover for those who refuse to pay into the system, or who cannot afford insurance to begin with), and the escalation of costs at hospitals due to the need to pay for expensive emergency room care for those without insurance.
Every aspect of the healthcare industry is facing greater and greater challenges every day because of the current situation. Insurance companies have to cope with an unbalanced pool of “customers” for their services and have to cope with competitors who seek to increase profits by reducing costs through reduced insurance coverage in their policies, excluding more potentially costly clients, and finding new ways to avoid or delay payment for covered services. Hospitals have to deal with increasing malpractice and emergency room costs. Doctors are avoiding critical professions (such as obstetrics and pediatric care) due to the high costs of malpractice insurance.
We all feel the impact of overall inefficiencies of the system due to inadequate and management and sharing of healthcare information among (and even within) healthcare organizations and individuals. We all pay for payment practices that encourage volume over quality, and for insurance rates that discourage or prevent many from getting insurance at all (which simply raises costs for everyone else).
We have vicious circle after vicious circle – an ever escalating mess that can only get worse, and which will rapidly escalate with each passing year: like the compound interest on an overdue credit card bill.
Those who think they are safe from loss of benefits or “rationing” of healthcare in the future are kidding themselves. Within the lifetimes of most of those reading this, we are likely to see a situation where only the extremely wealthy will be able to afford decent quality healthcare — assuming the entire system doesn’t collapse well before then.
President Obama’s speech before the joint houses of Congress earlier this week certainly contained suggestions for healthcare reform that not everyone agrees with. (Even I, a [relatively] Liberal Democrat, don’t agree with all of his suggestions!)
Yet, he had a critical message that we must all take seriously: the overhyped and overheated posturing we’ve seen from both liberals and conservatives must stop. If the attempts that we’ve seen to derail reform through ridiculously overblown rhetoric succeed, then we will all lose. No matter how good your healthcare is at present, the course we are on as a nation will inevitably turn all of us into “losers” if changes are not made. A debate that is reasoned and constructive, one where moderation and respect are the order of the day for everyone at the table, is the only way that our healthcare system can be reformed.
As Obama has said, the status quo is not an option: if you don’t like the proposals on the table, then provide an alternative and back it up with facts. Those who work to destroy the opposition’s position in a game where political “points” are all that matter are being irresponsible and playing with fire: they are putting everyone at risk, including themselves. If they succeed in derailing healthcare reform, it will be a Pyrrhic victory: one where they will be called upon to pay the price for their irresponsible actions far sooner than they can imagine.
Copyright (c) 2009, Allen Vander Meulen III, all rights reserved. I’m happy to share my writings with you, as long as you are not seeking (or getting) financial benefit for doing so, and as long as proper credit for my authorship is given (via a credit that mentions my name or provides a link back to this site).