Medical Insurance is not really "optional"

I don't know why I bothered, but I read the user comments on a blog post the other night. The conversation turned toward healthcare, then medical insurance. One poster said she was paying $650 per month for her and her husband, as they are small business owners and have to provide their own coveage. She hinted that the coverage isn't spectacular, and did say that she was traveling 70 miles to see a dentist who is covered by her plan.
The "fiscal conservatives" chimed in with genius comments such as:
"That's not healthcare rationing! You have healthcare!"
"You don't need insurance! It's a scam! Just save your monthly premiums and pay out of pocket"

Those are the two that reall stuck with me. First, how is this NOT healthcare rationing? There are clearly other dentists available. Only certain dentists will take her insurance, and I'll bet that those who are on plan, but won't see her, won't see her becasue the plan doesn't pay very well and they may already be caring for others on the same plan. This is textbook healthcare rationing.

Second, health insurance is not optional, and the folks who claim it is have never had, or known, anyone with even a minor, chronic medical condition. I believe the surgery related costs for my wife's knee replacement surgery was near $60,000- and that doesn't count the dozens of doctor visits before she got the OK for surgery, nor the horribly-failed orthoscopic knee surgery that put her on the path for a total knee replacement, nor the after care, nor the prescription meds before and after the surgery... So let's just look at that.
My company tells me that their out of pocket for my health plan is about $530 per month, and I believe my wife's is the same (I know it would cost us $550 per month if I were to be covered on her plan, and even then the benefits are reduced). So let's say we take the higher number from above -- $650 -- and put that in savings every month. How long would we have to save to pay for that knee?
$60,000/$650 per month = 93 months (rounding up). 93 months is 7 years 8 months. And that's just for the ONE procedure. So anyone who thinks having medical insurance is optional is some kind of PollyAnna.

Now if they were arguing for a return to a pay-for-service model, with no insurance intervention, and providers charging fees in a competitive marketplace-- then we're talking about a different game. I was talking to a doctor in a clinic that I worked in, and she said she knew a doctor in Colorado a couple decades ago who worked near a ski resort on a cash-only basis. He charged like $30 for a visit, and you were basically seeing him becasue you twisted your knee in a mogul field and needed a Rx for pain meds. He kept no records, had low overhead and a non-recurring patient base. In that scenario it works. But I can't see that working if a poor or low-middle class family has a couple of kids. $30 per visit for two kids is going to add up fast, so now we need to discuss a sliding scale....

I love pat answers from chuckleheads in blog comments.

Ryan Dunn Dead... BFD

Well #200 here at the ol' Contrarian needed some "wow" factor, and think this is it. Ryan Dunn, the fuzzy guy from the 'Jackass' franchise, died in a car crash on Sunday night-- just a few hours after Tweeting pics of him and some friends drinking. And I'm left wondering WHY THE HELL SO MANY PEOPLE ARE UPSET ABOUT THIS?!?!!?!
Caveat: I'm clearly not so insensitive to include his friends and family in this rant. Surely losing someone who's close to you is traumatic, regardless of how they lived or died.
But to the rest of you on the interwebtubes who only knew this guy from TV and on film- knock it the shit off. The guy's lasting impact on society is getting paid ridiculous amounts of money for being drunk on camera, then dying when he was likely drunk and driving. What are you people mourning? I mean shit, 60% of you people should be glad there's a job opening for a blackout drunk. And really, I can't muster much more incredulity than I've already posted. This guy wasn't even a blip on my radar when I was watching the movies he was paid boatloads of money to stand around for. . .

EDIT: June 22- AP just confirmed that Dunn's blood alcohol was twice the Pennsylvania limit for a DUI. And he may have been going as fast as 140MPH... AND--- AND! The article states there was a passenger who also died. This is the first I've heard of this, whcih makes me even mroe sick about this story. The headlines SHOULD read something like "Ryan Dunn of Jackass fame, kills passenger in car during drunk driving wreck" rather than all of the eulogizing that's been going on for him.  RIP Zachary Hartwell, your family and friends have my condolences.

EDIT: June 23-  article/discussion at Slate's "Brow Beat" blog:  http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/browbeat/archive/2011/06/22/defending-roger-ebert.aspx

Anti-Gay Starbucks

So it's all over the interwebs today (less so yesterday) that a *$ location in NYC fired an employee in front of a customer. That's about the only fact that I'm safe agreeing with as far as this story goes. Was it becasue the dude is gay? The lesbian blogger who wrote the letter, and whose partner posted it to her blog, is fair certain that's the reason. Have we heard from the employee? Nope. What about the manager and staff of that location? Nope. What about another customer? Nope, and I would find it hard to believe that a Starbucks is only going to have one customer. So what we're left with is one person's open letter to Starbucks Corporate-- one person who didn't indicate that she was there for the start of the altercation, and didn't bother to ask the former employee what had happened after they both left the store (she followed him out)-- she assumes it was becasue he's gay becasue of the "anti-gay slurs" that the three crones at this location used after they ganged up on him.

Of course news oultets are leading with headlines such as "Starbucks Accused of Anti-Gay Behavior" (Seattle P-I 6/15/11 online)... which really magnifies the problem way out of proportion. The manager at the NYC location is a manager of one location. IF, I repeat IF this incident occured in the manner described, then it's one store that's at issue and the manager is an asshole, if for no other reason than dealing with this on the floor instead of in an office (but "Jeffrey" should be pretty damned glad his manager was thoughtless in every conceivable way or we wouldn't be talking about this). It's not like Howard Schultz inlcuded a chapter in his book entitled "The Gay Problem- and How to Deal with it." I first heard about this from Starbucks' FaceBook feed, so they're not shrinking from the negative publicity.

I guess all I'm saying is, this is a great example of the media getting a hold of a story and really making as much out of it as they possibly can. And it also shows the power of blogging, while the other side of the same coin is the utter lack of context and perspective.