So the continuing saga of my insurance battle unfolds.
Today I received a statement of charges from my doctor's office (which I called in and left 2 voicemails before reaching a person on my third call but that's another story). The doctors office says that my remaining portion, after insurance, is $500 and change. This, to remind anyone who actually read my previous post, is for a total of 6 visits, one of which was for labs only. I am doing my due diligence and go over this bill with a fine toothed comb and determine that my insurance is, in fact, screwing me over.
Of the $500 it says I owe, I believe my actual balance due is somewhere closer to $100 for various labs and missed copays. How can this be? Well the statement I received shows what insurance codes each charge was billed under. One particular code, we will call it code X, appears under three different visits as the primary charge of "office/outpatient". Under the first visit billed under this code my insurance paid $0. The 2nd visit under code X my insurance paid the balance in full. Then, under the third code X, my insurance once again decided to pay $0.
Anyone else see the problem here? My insurance is really not going to like it when I call them on it tomorrow but that's what they get for rocketing themselves up to a solid level 6 on my FT Scale, and they're damn lucky that I'm feeling generous today.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Friday, February 10, 2012
Redneck Rights
An interesting piece of news has been brought to my attention by a friend that I wish to share. The full article from a local media outlet can be found here.
The article, for those who do not wish to read it, is concerning a pending court case where the plaintiff is a former school bus driver who was fired for displaying a confederate flag with the word "Redneck" emblazoned on it. The sequence of events begins with the superintendent of the school district spotting the flag hanging slack from the bus driver's CB antenna on his personal truck which was parked on school property. The superintendent contacted the bus company to inform them that "the flag violated district policy." And the bus company then fired the bus driver who is suing to get his job back based on a first amendment rights violation. The flag is still flying from his radio antenna.
This article poses a myriad of problems and questions. The most important issue I see is a question of private rights vs. public interest. The school district, as an agent of the government, is a public enterprise which is held to extremely high standards to protect individual rights. The bus company, on the other hand, is a private contractor and is held to much lower standards in general. However, as a government contractor the same rigorous standards of a public enterprise apply.
Now, if the bus driver was displaying the flag on the bus (his employer's property), and refused to take it down, I would understand and agree with him being fired. But that was not the case.
In this case, the public enterprise has overstepped its bounds. The offensive material was displayed on private property (the truck) and should have been beyond the authority of the school district. The bus company as a private enterprise should absolutely be allowed to make that judgement call but, by accepting public funding, they bind themselves to the same high standards as the government and cannot interfere with an individual's private expression of speech.
Can the confederate flag be considered offensive? Yes. But, as I have pointed out before, that does not give government the right to silence the individual.
The article, for those who do not wish to read it, is concerning a pending court case where the plaintiff is a former school bus driver who was fired for displaying a confederate flag with the word "Redneck" emblazoned on it. The sequence of events begins with the superintendent of the school district spotting the flag hanging slack from the bus driver's CB antenna on his personal truck which was parked on school property. The superintendent contacted the bus company to inform them that "the flag violated district policy." And the bus company then fired the bus driver who is suing to get his job back based on a first amendment rights violation. The flag is still flying from his radio antenna.
This article poses a myriad of problems and questions. The most important issue I see is a question of private rights vs. public interest. The school district, as an agent of the government, is a public enterprise which is held to extremely high standards to protect individual rights. The bus company, on the other hand, is a private contractor and is held to much lower standards in general. However, as a government contractor the same rigorous standards of a public enterprise apply.
Now, if the bus driver was displaying the flag on the bus (his employer's property), and refused to take it down, I would understand and agree with him being fired. But that was not the case.
In this case, the public enterprise has overstepped its bounds. The offensive material was displayed on private property (the truck) and should have been beyond the authority of the school district. The bus company as a private enterprise should absolutely be allowed to make that judgement call but, by accepting public funding, they bind themselves to the same high standards as the government and cannot interfere with an individual's private expression of speech.
Can the confederate flag be considered offensive? Yes. But, as I have pointed out before, that does not give government the right to silence the individual.
The Civil Rights Movement Marches On
Here is a great article I just read in the Seattle times.
It is nice to see another state passing legislation to properly define and ensure the rights of it's citizens. What I find especially heartening in this article is that they include the issue of gay rights in the Civil Right's movement. It is interesting to consider that women's suffrage was considered part of the Women's Rights Movement. And legislation for the LGBT community is commonly referred to as Gay Rights. But the movement that that gave minorities the right to vote among many other things is named the Civil Rights Movement and not the Minority Rights Movement or something similar.
In reality all of these are part of a/the Civil Rights Movement though the movement that holds the name is/was much larger and all encompassing than the rest. The name is really neither here nor there, just interesting to note.
It is nice to see another state passing legislation to properly define and ensure the rights of it's citizens. What I find especially heartening in this article is that they include the issue of gay rights in the Civil Right's movement. It is interesting to consider that women's suffrage was considered part of the Women's Rights Movement. And legislation for the LGBT community is commonly referred to as Gay Rights. But the movement that that gave minorities the right to vote among many other things is named the Civil Rights Movement and not the Minority Rights Movement or something similar.
In reality all of these are part of a/the Civil Rights Movement though the movement that holds the name is/was much larger and all encompassing than the rest. The name is really neither here nor there, just interesting to note.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Nu-cu-lar Age
At last the US is coming out of its nuclear dark age (or nu-cu-lar as former President Bush would say). With the approval and encouragement of President Obama ground has been broken on 2 different nuclear power plants that will have a total of 4 reactors when finished. If completed, these will be the first new nuclear facilities in the US since the 1970s. Considering we started this show it's about damn time we rejoined the race.
For a little history, the first nuclear energy was generated in 1951 in Idaho. However, commercial use of nuclear energy was not until 1954, and Russia was the first this time. At this point in time there are 435 power plants world wide with an additional 63 under construction. The US alone has 104 plants currently in operation.
I understand the opposition to nuclear power. Events like Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukashima make us all cringe, but they are far from the norm. In fact, world wide, from 1952-2009 there have only been approximately 100 nuclear accidents. That's less than 2 a year on average and less than 1 incident for every 4 plants currently in operation. 57 of these accidents have occurred since Chernobyl and 56 of the total 100 have occurred in the US where we are still running plants from the 1970s and earlier despite better, safer designs. Death tolls are hard to calculate, mainly from the effects of Chernobyl that have caused at least 4,000 instances of cancer over the years, but direct deaths from nuclear accidents are surprisingly low. In fact, the direct death toll from Chernobyl (56 people) is more than half of the total of direct deaths from all other nuclear accidents.
Nuclear waste is another concern that should be considered. Currently, France is the best model for reduction and disposal of waste. In France, more than 75% of all electricity is produced from nuclear power and of this approximately 17% comes from recycled waste. Believe it or not, there are processes that can be used on nuclear waste to remove remaining plutonium or uranium to be reused in power plants later. This greatly reduces the amount of waste in need of disposal, though it does not entirely eliminate the problem. What waste remains is disposed of in deep geological sites and are retrievable (meaning they're not just throwing a bunch of radioactive shit on the floor of a cave somewhere).
On the more positive side, we should realize that the primary waste from power plants is nothing more than good old H2O. All the "smoke" billowing from the towers is primarily water vapor and nothing to be afraid of. Considering the harmful waste from coal and petroleum burning, waste that is nearly impossible to contain, nuclear power starts looking pretty good. The cheap cost of this energy is another major plus, though the construction costs mitigate this somewhat. Considering the US's current energy sources it starts looking even better:
Petroleum and coal burning have the greatest effect on the environment and constitute more than 60% of the US energy consumption. Natural gas is better, but still produces significant CO2 emissions. Renewable resources such as air, wind, and water are ideal but as you can see we have a long ways to go on their implementation and, considering the current volume of US energy consumption, these are not feasible as our sole energy source.
It's time we face facts. Nuclear energy is a smart power source that we need to take advantage of.
For a little history, the first nuclear energy was generated in 1951 in Idaho. However, commercial use of nuclear energy was not until 1954, and Russia was the first this time. At this point in time there are 435 power plants world wide with an additional 63 under construction. The US alone has 104 plants currently in operation.
I understand the opposition to nuclear power. Events like Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukashima make us all cringe, but they are far from the norm. In fact, world wide, from 1952-2009 there have only been approximately 100 nuclear accidents. That's less than 2 a year on average and less than 1 incident for every 4 plants currently in operation. 57 of these accidents have occurred since Chernobyl and 56 of the total 100 have occurred in the US where we are still running plants from the 1970s and earlier despite better, safer designs. Death tolls are hard to calculate, mainly from the effects of Chernobyl that have caused at least 4,000 instances of cancer over the years, but direct deaths from nuclear accidents are surprisingly low. In fact, the direct death toll from Chernobyl (56 people) is more than half of the total of direct deaths from all other nuclear accidents.
Nuclear waste is another concern that should be considered. Currently, France is the best model for reduction and disposal of waste. In France, more than 75% of all electricity is produced from nuclear power and of this approximately 17% comes from recycled waste. Believe it or not, there are processes that can be used on nuclear waste to remove remaining plutonium or uranium to be reused in power plants later. This greatly reduces the amount of waste in need of disposal, though it does not entirely eliminate the problem. What waste remains is disposed of in deep geological sites and are retrievable (meaning they're not just throwing a bunch of radioactive shit on the floor of a cave somewhere).
On the more positive side, we should realize that the primary waste from power plants is nothing more than good old H2O. All the "smoke" billowing from the towers is primarily water vapor and nothing to be afraid of. Considering the harmful waste from coal and petroleum burning, waste that is nearly impossible to contain, nuclear power starts looking pretty good. The cheap cost of this energy is another major plus, though the construction costs mitigate this somewhat. Considering the US's current energy sources it starts looking even better:
Petroleum and coal burning have the greatest effect on the environment and constitute more than 60% of the US energy consumption. Natural gas is better, but still produces significant CO2 emissions. Renewable resources such as air, wind, and water are ideal but as you can see we have a long ways to go on their implementation and, considering the current volume of US energy consumption, these are not feasible as our sole energy source.
It's time we face facts. Nuclear energy is a smart power source that we need to take advantage of.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Hate Speech- a Consequence of Free Speech
So FF is at it again, less than 24 hours after his last posting. This time his initial posting was:
"If you can be detained and subjected to threats on your life upon release for stating your opinion, you are not living in a democracy."
He followed it up by the secondary comment of:
"Important exception: hate speech isn't free speech"
The first of these statements is mostly true. Whether you are stating "I like rap" or "I'm an atheist" or "I'm an anarchist" these are your opinions and you have the right to state them without fear of persecution. I don't think this ideal is guaranteed by living in a democracy (all governments are flawed), but I believe it is generally better practiced within democratic systems.
The second statement is completely illogical. By "important exception" could FF really be implying that it is acceptable to detain and threaten a person for hate speech? The presence of hate speech is a consequence of free speech and often times the only way to protect free speech is to defend some of the most vile words. Now, I make a very sharp distinction between hate speech and acts of hatred. You can say whatever you'd like as long as it does not interfere with my natural rights as defined by Locke to life, liberty and property.
Just because I don't like what you say doesn't mean I have the right to imprison you. When we allow the censorship of so called "hate speech" we get into the huge gray area of defining what hate speech is. Can the Catholic church say that someone who speaks out in favor of legalized abortion is exhibiting hate speech against the life of the unborn fetus and the beliefs of millions of Catholics? Can an atheist then claim a Christian is exhibiting hate speech by saying all atheists are going to hell? Where do you draw the line? And, more importantly, where will the government draw the line and will you wind up on the wrong side of it?
I understand that the vile filth that is published by people and groups such as the KKK is something we wish we could silence. But we must all realize that in the not so distant past Galileo was imprisoned for saying the earth revolved around the sun and the church deemed him a heretic for it. In many countries still today people are imprisoned for speaking out against their government or religion. In these cases the speech is judged as "dangerous" though it puts no one at risk of physical harm except themselves. The problem with government and authority is their tendency to strive for as much power as possible. If we allow for the censorship of "hate speech" we are opening the door to the censorship of anything the government finds distasteful or "dangerous".
As the old adage says, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me."
"If you can be detained and subjected to threats on your life upon release for stating your opinion, you are not living in a democracy."
He followed it up by the secondary comment of:
"Important exception: hate speech isn't free speech"
The first of these statements is mostly true. Whether you are stating "I like rap" or "I'm an atheist" or "I'm an anarchist" these are your opinions and you have the right to state them without fear of persecution. I don't think this ideal is guaranteed by living in a democracy (all governments are flawed), but I believe it is generally better practiced within democratic systems.
The second statement is completely illogical. By "important exception" could FF really be implying that it is acceptable to detain and threaten a person for hate speech? The presence of hate speech is a consequence of free speech and often times the only way to protect free speech is to defend some of the most vile words. Now, I make a very sharp distinction between hate speech and acts of hatred. You can say whatever you'd like as long as it does not interfere with my natural rights as defined by Locke to life, liberty and property.
Just because I don't like what you say doesn't mean I have the right to imprison you. When we allow the censorship of so called "hate speech" we get into the huge gray area of defining what hate speech is. Can the Catholic church say that someone who speaks out in favor of legalized abortion is exhibiting hate speech against the life of the unborn fetus and the beliefs of millions of Catholics? Can an atheist then claim a Christian is exhibiting hate speech by saying all atheists are going to hell? Where do you draw the line? And, more importantly, where will the government draw the line and will you wind up on the wrong side of it?
I understand that the vile filth that is published by people and groups such as the KKK is something we wish we could silence. But we must all realize that in the not so distant past Galileo was imprisoned for saying the earth revolved around the sun and the church deemed him a heretic for it. In many countries still today people are imprisoned for speaking out against their government or religion. In these cases the speech is judged as "dangerous" though it puts no one at risk of physical harm except themselves. The problem with government and authority is their tendency to strive for as much power as possible. If we allow for the censorship of "hate speech" we are opening the door to the censorship of anything the government finds distasteful or "dangerous".
As the old adage says, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)