Where to Be Rich in LA

House hunting brings out the demographer/sociologist in me. I haven't lived here long enough to have a total handle on what are the "good" and "bad" areas, but I'm starting to get some ideas.

(I apologize in advance for all the feathers I'm about to ruffle.)

Areas that are good tend to have:

• Rich people
• White people
• Maybe Asian people
• "Good" schools as defined by a score of 8+ on Great Schools
• Well-funded public services
• Crime that is not overt

Areas that are bad tend to have:

• Poor people
• Brown people
• Black people
• Asian people who aren't integrated into mainstream American culture
• "Bad" schools (scores 1-3)
• Poorly funded public services
• Visible crime, graffiti, gangs
• Noise and/or pollution

You know what I see as the main differences on these lists? Socioeconomic status and race. So if I ask myself, "Where should we live?" what I'm really wondering is, what kind of white people are we? Statistically speaking, our income puts us in the third quartile for Pasadena (between 50-75% of median). I feel awkward calling myself rich, but I think it might be true.

Then I see these lists like "Best Places to Raise a Family Around LA" which should be titled "Where Rich People Live." I mean seriously, #1 on the list is Manhattan Beach, where the average sales price of a three bedroom home is $1.8 million. So I guess my family is richer than we are poor, but we're not rich rich.

The point I'm trying to make here is that one can't just choose to be rich. In many cases, the deck is stacked against you from the start. And we can't keep using socioeconomic status as a proxy variable for everything in life. Which leads me to the following scatter plot:



(If that's not displaying properly on your device, or you'd like to see the supporting data, click here.)

What are we seeing in this chart? 
A correlation between a school's rating on Great Schools and the percentage of its student body that is low income, which means qualifying for free or reduced-price lunch. (As an aside, that is really poor around here because there's no adjustment made to the calculations to factor in cost of living in your particular area within the lower 48 states.)

What are we not seeing?
A large portion of the not-low-income families in Pasadena that are not represented on this chart, because their children aren't enrolled in these schools.

Pasadena Unified School District has kind of a mixed reputation around here. In the 1970s, the district was ordered to bus students to end de-facto segregation, a bit of history I haven't found anyone too eager to talk about. As of 2016, only 55% of students living in PUSD boundaries attended public schools. The rest are in charter, private, home school, or transfer out of the district. At the same time, there are several schools with new magnet programs focused on STEM, Arts, and IB, and they also offer dual language options. I'm familiar with a group called Pasadena Education Network that seems to be doing good work towards promoting integrated schools. So overall, I'm observing some positive trajectory.

Where should I try to buy a house, then? (I mean, assuming we stay in Pasadena. We also have been looking around Glendale and Eagle Rock, which is a whole other ball of wax.) To complicate matters, PUSD offers open enrollment, meaning that if you don't want your student to attend your neighborhood school, you can go through a lottery system to obtain a seat for your child at a different school. So it doesn't even really matter, school-wise, where we buy because we can put the kids in a different school. We just have to give them a ride.

But you see that? How privileged am I that the need to provide transportation daily to/from a school a few miles away wouldn't even give me pause? We are a two parent family with only one of us working outside the home right now. We have the resources to pay for a vehicle, gas, and insurance. I'm not trying to work two minimum wage jobs just to keep food on the table here. And I have the mental bandwidth to think about all these things two years before my kids will even start kindergarten.

What a world we live in.

If you want to learn more about these topics, here are some resources I recommend:

• How America's Public Schools Keep Kids in Poverty (TED talk by Kandice Sumner)
• Follow Integrated Schools on Facebook
• "The Problem with Great Schools" inspired me to write this post

The Election

I've kept quiet about the election results on my blog because I was still processing everything. It was, to put it mildly, a different election than we're used to. So I took some time to ponder, reflect, and read what others were saying. I don't like to stir up controversy; I'm very aware that my readership spans the political spectrum. I write about my opinions today in part to help myself remember later on what I was thinking about in November 2016.

I'm no political scientist. One of the most challenging courses I took in grad school was in the PolSci department. But let me just offer a few observations.

I am scratching my head over the primary nominating process of the major parties that allowed Clinton and Trump to emerge as the nominees. They both had such strong unfavorable ratings. I haven't been voting all that long, but I can't recall another election where both candidates were so...hated.

On the Democratic side, I really think they underestimated the intense, seething disgust that people outside their inner circle felt for Hillary Clinton. I think it was hard for her to win over undecided voters because almost everyone already had a gut-level opinion about her.

For the Republicans, at first I thought Trump was just running as a joke, or to boost his reality TV ratings or something. In a really crowded Republican field, he was able to differentiate himself early on by saying outrageous things. I wonder if people who voted for him in the primary really liked him, or if they just thought it was funny to vote for him. Maybe they wanted to see how far the rabbit hole would go. But I'm still surprised he got the nomination because he's really not much of a Republican.

In hindsight, if you ask me, the Democrats should have nominated Bernie Sanders. I can't tell you how that would have actually happened with the DNC thwarting his campaign behind the scenes, but what the election results show is that people wanted a change, not a 3rd term of Obama. I bet that voters who chose Trump for economic reasons would've been open to considering Sanders as well. Sanders wasn't as well-known before the election, so he would've had a lot lower negative rating to start with. It might have been a more substantive campaign if Sanders were the nominee. Plus, let's be honest, I liked a lot of his policy proposals!

I'm not sure who the Republicans should've nominated. It seems like a lot of Republicans disavowed Trump during the campaign, but now that he won, maybe they are happy to be in control of both chambers of Congress + the White House. I had imagined they would nominate Jeb Bush or someone kind of boring/safe like that. I guess the Republicans knew that the Democrats would nominate Clinton, so they needed to pick someone who could beat her. Oh yeah, Kasich, I forgot about him. He seemed pretty normal. Too bad he was up against bombast and Twitter-speak.

I seriously have a hard time comprehending how the religious right embraced Trump. I was a teenager during the Bill Clinton sex scandal. I recall quite clearly evangelical leaders turning apoplectic at his behavior with Monica Lewinsky. They tossed about terms like "family values," "think of the children," "role model," "disgrace," etc. But now, 20 years later, some of those same people said, oh yeah, I'm totally supporting a thrice-married casino owner who brags about his sexual conquests...what in the heck? Are we living in the Twilight Zone now where wrong is right and up is down and orange is the new black?

As to why Trump beat Clinton, that's already been analyzed to death. I have nothing new to add. I'm disappointed in my country and the collective forces that allowed someone as unqualified as Donald Trump to ascend to the highest office in the land. But I'm not giving in to hand-wringing. Two days after the election, I drove over to the nonprofit where I teach English to refugees and immigrants. We all sat around a table together and practiced pronouncing words with "TH" sounds, like Thursday and thank you. We worked on numbers. We learned "there is one book/there are three pencils." And we did so in an environment of mutual respect and care for each other.

In my own small way, I continue to subvert the dominant paradigm.

Health At Every Size

I'm going to tackle an American phenomenon that irks me. (It probably happens in other countries, too.) Today's topic: commenting on people's weight. Specifically, assuming skinny = good, fat = bad.

Why am I thinking about this now? Because lately, I've been fielding unsolicited feedback about my own weight. (In case you don't know me IRL, I'm on the slim side.) Just the other day, I was taking the boys for a walk when someone I've never met in the neighborhood looked up from her flowerbeds to comment, "You're so skinny! How can you have twins?" I just said, "ha ha" and kept walking.

What did she know about my situation? Maybe I'm the nanny, not the mom. Maybe I adopted. Maybe my twins were born via a surrogate because I couldn't carry a pregnancy. Maybe I developed an eating disorder, triggered by post-partum hormone changes. Maybe I'm fighting a disease that causes weight loss. (None of those things are true, btw!)

The truth is that yes, about a year after giving birth to twins, I was back to my pre-pregnancy weight. (Though not my pre-pregnancy shape...) I don't say this to pat myself on the back or to make anyone else feel bad about their size. Mostly, I think my weight is genetic. I come from skinny stock. In elementary school, I was usually the class "shrimp." Then you add in the reality of chasing around two active kids + not always having time/remembering to eat, and I guess the baby weight just disappeared. Also, remember that I delivered at 30 weeks, so I didn't gain as much as I could have if I'd gone full term.

What if I lived in a parallel universe where I was a lot bigger before, during, and after pregnancy? What kind of comments would I field then? People might see me walking with a stroller and say, "Trying to lose that baby weight, huh?" Or maybe worse...

My point is, I just don't understand why some people feel the need to point out to me that I am slim. I suppose they are trying to compliment me, but actually, it makes me kind of uncomfortable. It's not like an accomplishment I feel I should be proud of. I'm just trying to survive over here, keeping myself and my two little people fed. (Oh yeah, and my husband...good thing he likes frozen burritos.) My genetic predisposition towards slenderness is not under my control.

So, guess what, if someone else has a genetic predisposition to be on the larger side, that's not something they can control, either! I am no dietitian and can't begin to understand, let alone explain, the complex interplay among genetics, diet, and activity level that impacts a person's weight. But what I do know is that in the U.S., people who are overweight experience bias and discrimination. Some people are saying that size discrimination is becoming the new socially acceptable discrimination, as overt racism falls out of favor. (Note that I am not saying that and really don't want to wade into the murky waters of ranking/comparing the badness of various forms of discrimination...)

How then shall we live? Well, in my case, I do not talk about people's weight, whether it has increased or decreased. If they bring it up, fine, but I don't introduce the subject. I want to advocate for people being healthy at every size. HAES promotes, among other things,

• Finding the joy in moving one’s body and being physically active;
• Eating in a flexible and attuned manner that values pleasure and honors internal cues of hunger, satiety, and appetite, while respecting the social conditions that frame eating options.

I can support that! I find joy in going for walks in the park with my kids. I am learning to eat more intuitively, listening to my body's cues. I'm finding it's especially important that I eat enough protein and that I eat before I'm famished. Both of those help me have more energy and patience, which I need in abundance in this season of life.

So, readers, get out there and be kind to those you encounter today across the full spectrum of humanity. As the song I learned in elementary school goes, "Friends come in all shapes and sizes!"

p.s. If you're one of the people who has commented about my skinniness, please know that I really don't hold it against you and am not trying to pick on you by writing this post! You're just living out what your culture has taught you. All I'm trying to do is point out where that culture may have gotten us off track and encourage a bit of thoughtful reflection.

They Are Not Double Trouble!

I'm sorry I sort of complained about normal, well-intentioned people who make remarks to me about twins at the grocery store and other public places. You know what? If a nice person smiles and asks if the boys are twins, or tells me a brief twin anecdote, I'm going to happily go along with the pleasant interaction.

However, even if you look like a kindly grandma, I draw the line at following us around the Dollar Tree practically shrieking about how this is the best day of your life because you got to see my kids, then when you notice I'm buying a Father's Day balloon telling me a story about some twins you knew where one twin died from eating a balloon that popped... Yes, that literally happened...

And one more thing, strangers: stop calling my boys "Double Trouble." It's annoying! This phrase is almost always uttered with a chuckle by men over the age of 50. But when they say it, the twins aren't causing any trouble. They are sitting calmly in their stroller, watching the world go by. Why can't you just say something banal like, "Oh, twins!"

I didn't know I had this defensive mama bear streak in me. I thought I'd be one of those moms who is like, "Ha ha, my kids are so entertaining and I don't care if you say sarcastic things about them." But then these strangers jokingly call them trouble, and I'm all like, "Oh no you didn't! They are precious gifts from God and don't you imply otherwise!!"

Jury Duty, Part II

As promised, here is the conclusion to my tale of jury duty. I selected this week to serve at the advice of a friend who said to pick a week with a federal holiday on Monday, since there are usually fewer trials. Good advice!

Here's what happened.

Last week, I had yet to receive a reminder notice in the mail (as had been promised). I emailed the jury commission and then miraculously, my notice appeared on Friday. It included reminders about the dress code, prohibited items, and where jurors can park at a discount. 

I arrived punctually on Tuesday morning to find the jury assembly room once again teeming with my fellow citizens. The jury commissioner went over a lot of the same information from back in December. Then she called roll. Most people were present. Then we sat around and waited.

A judge showed up to give us a rah-rah pep talk about the importance of serving jury duty. He rambled on and on. I figured I should be respectful and pay attention b/c if he saw me reading a book, he'd probably find some way to get me assigned to a sequestered jury case. But then he started in about Memorial Day and how anyone who tries to get out of jury duty is disrespecting those who lost their lives in service to our country. Oh my, that was a bit over the top, and I couldn't help rolling my eyes. Look, Mr. Judge, our armed forces defend our freedom. When you compel/manipulate/force people to do things, that isn't really freedom now, is it? Of course, I hope most people will fulfill their civic duty to serve on a jury, and we have laws in place about that sort of thing, but if taking a week off work to be on a jury presents a legitimate financial hardship, I don't think we should be guilt-tripping people about it.

The judge finally let us get back to doing nothing. Well actually, first we had to listen to the commissioner answer the same questions over and over because, seriously, some people can't pay attention. She also told us that the thermostat in the room was set at a temperature where most people should be comfortable, but if someone was unbearably hot/cold to let her know, and it would go up for a vote with a maximum of one thermostat-adjustment vote per day. Ha! I am betting that policy came up because of some unruly past jurors...

For some reason, they play music in the waiting room. Maybe it was supposed to pacify us. Some of my neighboring jurors felt compelled to sing along. Others were playing games or watching videos on their phones with the sound on. Grrr - audio pollution! I tried to zone them out while reading my book.

Once in awhile, the commissioner would come in and call a group of people to go serve on a jury pool. On about the fifth round, my name was called. I was excited! I had been chosen! I've always wanted to be on a jury since watching "12 Angry Men" in school. Someone has to be the voice of rationality in the room!

The person reading our names off told us to wait in the hallway, but (inefficiently) he did not tell us to stay in the same order that we'd been called. A deputy came out and asked if anyone needed to use the bathroom or move their car. After lots more waiting, she lined us up in our original order and assigned us a juror number. I was #7. There were about 35 in our group. We then walked in our line over to a neighboring courthouse. She also kept offering us bathroom breaks. I felt like I was on a preschool field trip.

At the courthouse, we had to go through a security screening where the guard was befuddled by a juror with a pacemaker who did not want to go through the metal detector or be swiped with a wand. I thought I was going to have to intervene to prevent catastrophe, but they worked it out amongst themselves. Then we slowly made our way up to our assigned courtroom.

In the interim, one of the jurors disappeared. She allegedly had to go move her car because she was parked at a meter, despite multiple announcements not to do that and several earlier opportunities to move her car. We waited and waited in the hallway. IDK if we were only waiting for her, or also for some court proceedings. It was super boring, and it was already 11:30am so I was getting hungry because I usually eat lunch pretty early.

Fiiiiinally, we went into the courtroom - all 35 of us (minus the missing juror). Since I was #7, I got to sit in the jury box. I felt so legit! The judge told us about how important the jury system is, good for you for being here, blah blah blah. Then we had to take roll again. The judge told us a little about the case. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to talk about it or not, so I'll just say it was a civil case/lawsuit. By then it was almost 12:30pm and we got a lunch break. She told us that after lunch, they'd start in on jury selection.

I found a nearby Cuban restaurant that was super delicious. I could hardly pick what to order because everything sounded so good! I decided that if the trial went on for a few days, maybe I'd come back again to try some of the other items. It felt weird to be out and about in the city, by myself, like a normal working person. And I was wearing work clothes instead of spit-up stained yoga pants. Strange!

After lunch, we all got in our numerical line again (including the missing juror, who had reappeared) and filed into the courtroom. I noticed that the plaintiff was no longer present. The lawyers asked to approach the bench. They had a hushed conversation with the judge. Then the judge said some more things to us about how wonderful jury trials are and if we ever have to go to trial, we better hope it's in the USA. She then swore us in as jurors only to tell us that the matter had been resolved and the case was being dismissed. Our jury service was complete; we were free to go. Well, that was anticlimactic! 

In Shelby Co., you only have to serve once every 10 years. I doubt I'll still be living here in another decade, so I guess this was my one day of jury duty. It turned out to be more interesting than I expected but not as dramatic as a legal thriller TV show or movie.

I know last time I posted about jury duty, I was ranting about how little is provided for jurors. I mean, you have to pay for your own transportation/parking, lunch, and child care. You get paid $11 per day. But then I was thinking about it some more and realized that I don't necessarily want to pay higher taxes so that all jurors can have free parking and free child care. It cost me less than $20 for parking two days (December and May) + one lunch. DF had the day off and stayed home with the boys, so no cost for child care. That is really not so bad. If the county offered reimbursements, I'm sure people would take advantage of that system. 

Good luck to anyone else serving jury duty soon. Your country appreciates it, I hear :)

I Want a Parliament

Babies are demanding lots of attention today so I don't have lots of time to research this topic and see what others have said. Instead, I'll just chime in with my 2 cents.

I think the U.S. should switch to a parliamentary system of government.

Yes, this would be a major change. But you know what? Our current system is so dysfunctional that we need to something radical to get things moving again.

If we had a parliament, we wouldn't be stuck in this two-party world, where every issue gets reduced to a binary equation of "pro" or "con," nuance is thrown out the window, and gridlock gets worse every year. I mean, even if you tend to side with one party more than the other right now, I bet you can think of a few issues where you don't really toe the party line. And our congressional districts are so gerrymandered that it just leads to further polarization.

It would be better if we could have lots of different political parties with representatives chosen by the percentage of votes that their party received. Voters could choose the party that best matched their values or represented their interests in that election. Then when it's time to undertake the hard task of governing, the politicians of the various parties would have to work together to reach consensus to get things done. Shocking idea!

I realize that this is probably never going to happen. I have lots of ideas that are unlikely to come to fruition. But I'll keep dreaming :)

Jury Duty (part I)

Last week, I received a summons to report for jury duty on December 3. It had been mailed about a week earlier to my old address, but lucky for me, our mail forwarding is still in effect. The notice gave very few details about what to expect - it just told me to report to a certain address at 9AM. It also included a list of disqualifying factors for jury selection (such as being a convicted felon).

I decided to visit the website listed to find out more information. Unhelpfully, it only directed me to the Shelby County homepage, rather than the specific page for the jury commission. Go ahead, click on that last link there and see how...helpful...the webpage is. You'll notice a section entitled "Frequently Asked Questions" with no following text. Apparently no one has any questions about being on a jury!

The main question I had was: Can I please defer my service until my infant twins are a bit older? I decided to call the number listed. Well, it seems they only have one phone line or something because I literally called 20 times and got a busy signal before I finally got through. The lady who answered told me that on 12/3, I was simply coming to select a week to serve in the future, and it wouldn't take more than 1.5 hours that day. They also told me if I wanted to select a week perhaps in April or later, that would be no problem. They seemed unsympathetic to my situation as the primary caregiver of two babies.

Luckily, my husband had a couple vacation days he still needed to use up before the end of the year and was able to take the day off to stay home with the kids. So this morning, I drove downtown as instructed. (Sidebar: I don't think I've been downtown in almost a year!) I thought maybe there'd be a garage with free parking for jurors, but no such luck. I had to pay $10 to park in a lot across the street. Upon entering the juror room, I was shocked to see like 400 people there! And I found out there were 4 sessions today (9AM/11AM/1PM/3PM) so that means approximately 1200 people had to deal with this interruption in their regularly scheduled life today.

Promptly at 9AM, the meeting began, and I was done by 10AM. The Commissioner was professional and courteous in explaining the process, and I'm sure she's doing the best she can, but seriously Shelby Co., YOUR JURY SELECTION PROCESS IS EXTREMELY OUTDATED AND INEFFICIENT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY!

We were told that they're in the process of developing an online juror system. Oh lucky me, I got selected for the analog version. After the Commissioner told us about the required court dress code (no shorts, no tank tops) and a judge came by to give us a juror oath, we were allowed to pick our week of service. They offered 5 weeks (Jan 4-Feb 1). When they read off the week you wanted, you stood up, got in a line, and handed in your summons in exchange for a card with your assigned dates. After they took volunteers for those 5 weeks, the rest of us got in line to request an alternate week at a later date. I'm assuming they also were accepting documentation from people who weren't able to serve at all, but I left once I got my date.

Want to know how this could be better?
1) Online system. Obviously, they already know this and are working on it, but seriously it's almost 2016 and they don't have it yet???
2) Don't let people pick their week. It is such a huge waste of time to make everyone show up for an hour just to pick a later week of service. The Commissioner was touting the "pick your week" system as a good thing for Shelby Co., like they are offering great customer service. But it makes the process unnecessarily complicated. Just assign people a week, and if they have a conflict, let them object/reschedule.
3) Add some FAQs to the website
4) Offer childcare
5) Give free parking or parking validation, and bus passes for people who don't drive
6) Increase the jury commission's budget to make 1, 4 & 5 possible. (HA HA that's never going to happen in Shelby Co. where the only things the gov't wants to fund are police and fire departments)

For comparison's sake, here is what happened nearly a decade ago when I was summoned for jury duty in Washington DC.
-A few weeks in advance, I received a notice in the mail.
-The notice included detailed instructions for what to do.
-I was assigned 3 days to call in the night before, enter my code, and find out if I needed to report the following morning.
-As instructed, I called each night. I wasn't needed, so I never had to go anywhere or miss work/school for an unnecessary scheduling meeting!

I'll post Part II of this series after I serve my week, but that won't be until June so don't sit around obsessively refreshing your screen :)

Health Care Reform: A Manifesto

Surprisingly, when I solicited topic suggestions from the audience, none of you suggested "health care reform"! But good news, you get to read my manifesto anyway :)

I try to stay away from potentially divisive/flame-war-type topics on this blog because I'm really not into stirring up controversy. I'm also aware that my readers span the political spectrum, and I don't want to alienate anyone. But I have a bee in my bonnet, so to speak, about medical care in this country. Why have a blog if not to spout my own opinions?

(I've been working on this post for several days. Don't think I wrote it all this morning in a post-turkey burst of energy!)

It's time for our annual health insurance enrollment. DF's employer offers many different options (too many, in my opinion), and it's always a challenge to make a choice. We want to get the best value for our money; we also want to have access to good quality care. I'm used to wading through the miasma of co-pays vs. deductibles, co-insurance, in vs. out of network... This year we've got the added wrinkle of having established relationships with several doctors and specialists for the boys' numerous post-NICU checkups. So we have to take all these factors into consideration, and the resulting swirl of data is giving me a headache.

Have you ever stopped to think about how crazy our health insurance system really is in this country? I mean, why do we have employer-provided insurance at all? (Short answer: it was a post-Depression payroll tax dodge scheme that stuck. For a longer answer, read these articles.) Why isn't medical care something that we, as a society, collectively provide for everyone?

Think about public education. We have decided, as a nation, that it's in our best interests to have educated children that turn into productive adults. They will become the workers who are needed to keep fueling our economy, after all. So, we all pay taxes to support public schools. In most states, I think education funding comes from property taxes. (Except for homeless people, we are all paying property taxes, either directly as homeowners, or indirectly as renters when we pay the landlord.) Then all kids get to go to school for free. It doesn't matter if you have 0 kids, 2 kids, or 10 kids - your property taxes don't change. It also doesn't matter if all 10 of your kids require special education services, or if you opt out of the public system for private or home school.

Now, think about health care. Isn't it our best interests, as a nation, to have healthy people? Shouldn't we all, collectively, share in the funding burden for medical care? Healthy people can work more, thereby contributing to the economy. And that's in addition to the rationale of health care as a rather basic human need.

But how is our system organized right now? People who can afford insurance buy it, or have it provided by their employer. If they're really poor, the government picks up the tab (but not semi-poor). Or if they're old, the government also picks up the tab. Isn't this sort of non-sensical? People need medical care regardless of their employment status, income level, or age. Can't we all agree on that at least?

My boys and I were very heavy users of the health care system this year. We have insurance through Aetna. We'd been customers of the company for about 2 years before the babies were born. Through my various medical complications and the boys' 6-week stay in the NICU, we quickly cost the company more than we're paying in premiums, and we also hit our out of pocket maximum for the year. That means that all the other Aetna customers are footing the bill (via their premium payments) for our medical expenses. While I'm grateful to have insurance so we don't wind up bankrupt because of medical bills, I don't think it's fair that only other Aetna customers are covering our costs. Again, back to my harping on "society," it is in the collective national interest that my children grow up healthy to become contributing citizens, and that I am also healthy enough to take care of them. So it would be more equitable for everyone to bear the cost of our health care through the tax system instead of just a select group of customers who also purchase insurance through Aetna.

Incidentally, I also think that the medical billing system is totally insane and out of control. I got an Explanation of Benefits for one part of the NICU stay that said the hospital had billed something like $100K, and Aetna's negotiated rate was in the neighborhood of $25K. Seriously?? I feel like the hospital just sets their price artificially high so they can give insurance companies a discount and everyone thinks they're getting a deal. Why can't we just pay medical providers the actual cost for their services without all the gimmicks? Also, why are medical bills so impossible to decipher?

I was disappointed in the final version of Obamacare that Congress passed. In my opinion, it didn't do enough to really reform the system. Why did certain members of Congress insist on dropping the public option? I was excited about that! Now all we have is a lame system of subsidies that basically transfers money from tax payers to health insurance companies, where CEOs are paid millions of dollars a year. Is this really the most effective use of our national resources?

No! To solve these problems, we need a single payer health care system, funded by taxes. Let's eliminate all private insurance. That would really save a lot of money! Think of it like this: right now, there is a giant bag of money that represents all medical spending in this country, including health insurance premiums. If we got rid of insurance companies and had the government pay for all medical care, we would stop wasting money on so much administration/overhead and lining CEOs' pockets. (Ok, yes, I'm talking about cutting jobs, but that is what happens when times change.)

Ideally I'd prefer something like England's National Health System. They believe that good health care should be available to all, regardless of wealth. Yes! That's what I'm saying! Under the Salmonista plan, the medical industry would be nationalized; all medical personnel would become government employees and medical facilities also would be government-run. But I have a feeling that will never fly in this country as it smacks too much of socialism. I could probably settle for the Bernie Sanders' plan, aka Medicare for All. It's like the Canadian system, but better. Plus we have several other countries to look at as models of a single-payer system. We can learn from their mistakes. Maybe the Swedish system is more our style - it's slightly less centralized.

Now, people are probably going to complain about this plan because it raises taxes. But guess what, you're going to have more money because you don't have to buy health insurance anymore, or save money to cover unexpected medical bills. Also your employer won't have to provide you insurance, so maybe you'll get a raise! So I think it would be a wash for middle class people who already have insurance, probably. (See, this is why I'd be a bad politician. You can't really sell people on new policies with the slogan, "It's a wash, probably!") And it would really help people on the lower end of the income spectrum who currently can't afford health care or who are drowning in medical debt.

In conclusion, we need to get with the program of the rest of the developed world and provide health care for all Americans through a national tax.

Thank you for reading my morning diatribe :)

(Disclosure time: if you've seen the movie The Blind Side, remember that scene where the tutor admits her political leanings? Yeah...um, full disclosure, I'm a Democrat. But I'm actually further to the left than that, usually. I voted for the Green Party candidate for TN governor in the last election because I was disillusioned with the major parties. I hope all you Southerners will still be my friend!)

File under: NaBloPoMo Day 27