Benefit Bafflement.

Got new letters today from the Department of Jobs (hahaha) and Family Services today. I thought it would be about cutting food benefits, since that has been big in the news lately.
I  was wrong. We get a ten dollar increase.
How did that happen?

Rex also got a letter from the same place. He gets other/different benefits because of his disabilty, so he occasionally gets his very own letters. He's the only one in the family with any type of medical coverage.
His letter says that they denied his Qualified Medical Beneficiary application. The reason given is that his income exceeds the program eligibility standards.

Now, the QMB has been covering the cost of his Medicare payments, and his drug program. (Medicare parts B and D). The cost for the Part B was in excess of $100 a month. We don't know about Part D, because he never had that before we had to go for help after I lost my job.

So, I go online to see if I'm correct about the QMB being that program, and find that yes, I am right. It is that program. Okay, so that means $100 less per month.
That must be why we get $10 more in food benefits!

But I read on, on the website/page that explains all this and the page clearly states that  the income level for him to qualify is @ $200 more than he gets.
So -- what the hell is going on?

It's after business hours today, so there's no finding out anything.

But it makes no sense to me.
Did someone have a bad day?
Did someone make a mistake?


Oh, and about my other problem I had with Medicare Part B -- I got a letter Saturday that explained they would only pay once a month for the drugs, no matter what the prescribed dosage, etc. Now they tell us, after we'd figured it out and resolved the issue.

On the whole, it is what it is. We can live (survive) on less money. We can manage with no health coverage. We can pay his insurances because he does need/use/benefit from them regularly. Nothing financial is fatal, although the health care issues could be. Any help we are grateful for.

But I really think there should be more explanation than what was given.

Stay tuned for the next dramatic act in "If it's Not One Thing, It's Another," a/k/a My Life.

Smoother Sailing

Babies have gone home, heart-breakingly early, but for the best. Best for them, best for me, best for where we all are in this crazy life.

Supposed to be taking my ailing daughter to the hospital to apply for their financial assistance program so she can get her gall bladder out before it kills all of us. She hasn't wakened yet -- sleep is a  healer and a small cessation of pain.
Anybody wanna bet the first thing she says will be "Why didn't you get me up?"

I could, of course. Make her start hurting again, make her NOT have to take responsibility for her own needs, for her own health care.
I think not. She needs to learn independence, something that she has somehow failed to learn.
She also needs to make her own medical decisions, because that is the law of the land.

Did she not learn, or was she not taught? I've thought often about this and have no definitive answer. Not teaching would be my failure; not learning would be hers.
It doesn't matter, anyway. That's in the past, and we -- I -- must go on from here and keep trying to get those lessons across.

Not easy, with her daddy's nurturing helpful dispensing of the knowledge that "Your mom knows how to do that."
I learned by doing, as everyone must.

Dad has an appointment with his pulmonologist this week. We have questions about headaches and a tickle in his throat.
Anybody wanna bet I'll end up being the one who asks the doctor about these issues, because he won't speak up? (I'm going to try, if I must, just reminding Rex he wants to ask about these things.)

This issue annoys me because it makes me sound like a bossy managing dictator, and not in a good way.

Yes, I'm bossy. I'm the oldest of eight, and I know no one in that situation who isn't bossy. It's part of the job description of oldest child ( of a multitude.)

Yes, I'm managing. Someone has to take care of things.

A dictator? Possibly at times. Waffling on decisions has to stop somewhere; decisions need to be made.

But I only look like one of those militant fat-ass Battleship Broad!

That said, I have had some sleep and feel capable. I hope that I can remain so, even when the sailing once again gets rough. As it will.
As I well know it will.

I'll be ready.
I hope.

At least, for a while, I'll be rested.

Lower the numbers; raise the profits

This is the latest strategy of the health industry. Everybody is sick and needs us -- and our products. Whenever the numbers start to decrease, we'll go back into our laboratories and jiggle some statistics around and we can PROVE that a lower number for the same high-number illness is just as bad for you. Therefore, the lower number indicator means you have the higher number illness and you MUST have our medicine to survive.

I've seen this happen with hypertension. It happens every few years. People, I am sorry to tell you this, but no one has normal blood pressure anymore. It is either low or high, according to the professional experts. The parameter for normal has become so narrow as to be nonexistent.

It's been happening about every five years with diabetes. Numbers that were low-normal just a few years ago are now borderline high. Diabetes can now be diagnosed by one high reading in a doctor's office, instead of making a patient undergo that intolerable glucose tolerance test, or instead of tracking the blood sugar levels over an extended period of time.

I read a study yesterday that says that  "over 60% of people are obese"

Now, I'm not a scientist, nor have I studied health. Another thing I am not is a math genius. But I vaguely remember things about averages and norms and suchlike. When something is in the 60% range, that, mathematically, means it's pretty much the average, the norm.

Just because someone educated drew a line on a paper and said everyone above this line is sick doesn't mean they are. 

There are still doctors who go by the older numbers if their patients aren't in distress. They are few and far between and often work in isolated, rural areas. They don't go along to get along with the insurance companies. They ask "Why?"
When they ask "Why?" they become estranged and ostracized.

They generally don't want to practice that kind of medicine anyway, so they go to where they are over-needed and where they are listened to.


What really bothers me about medicine by the numbers is that it leaves out the element of change. Evolution, or mutation, or whatever you want to call it. Humans began as five-foot tall bipeds who could live thirty years.

Science and scientists have had no problem with embracing our growth and evolution from that standard.
Imagine if some nearsighted observer in the Whatever-ithic era said that anyone over 5'2" was an aberration, and had an illness and needed to be treated for it. Maybe had the afflicted eating weeds known to stunt the growth. Would we still be five foot and old at thirty?

No, we would not. Change and growth are not aberrations. At first as those numbers begin to trickle in, they are an anomaly, and yes, worthy of study. Worthy of tracking. Maybe even worthy of treatment, until it reaches the point where there are more 'anomalies' than there are 'normals'.

Once that point is reached, it is the duty of responsible scientists, researchers, and statisticians to take another look at a new definition of normal, a new average. Not to hit the panic button and start name-calling those they are trying to help.

We're not getting sicker -- we're getting different. We're changing, evolving, mutating.

We are growing.

What drugs to test?

There's been so much garbage floating around (and some information) about drug testing for welfare benefits.  I've been trying to avoid the topic, but the shouters are getting louder all the time. I'd like to get my two cents worth in while someone may still be listening.

First of all, drug testing is not cost effective at this time. Each test will cost more than benefits collected per individual. The counter to this argument is that if testing becomes more common, price will drop. The law of supply and demand and all that. Generally if everybody wants it, it goes to the highest bidder, not the lowest, but then again, if you can sell at a high price to a few or a low price to many, you probably end up with the same amount of other people's money in your pocket.
In this case, it would be (again) government money and it will go into the pockets of the pharmaceutical and other Health Care Bandits already-rich-people's pockets. Be wary of anyone suggesting this argument. It's likely the money will, one way or another go into their pockets.
And then they'll want more.

Next, the "I have to take a drug test to get a job, so you shgould have to take one, too" argument. First heard in the back yard when I was about three, later heard many times in the playground. Haven't you people learned anything yet?
Life ain't fair.
Deal with it.

Also, who says you have to take a job where you need a drug test? If you don't want to take the test, find another job. I've been working for nearly forty years and never had to take a drug test. If I had to, it wouldn't be a problem for me. But if I choose to take it to get the job, that will be on me, not on the rest of the world.
Not on you.
None of your business.


Third, I would like all these Hallelujah Hollerers to ponder what they are calling drugs. Are they going to shout about legal vs, illegal drugs?

These days doesn't that depend largely on where you live? Can a state that has legal medical marijuana, for example, then deny someone benefits because according to federal law marijuana is an illegal substance?

What then about their own laws?
What if a person is taking something for a chronic condition that somehow skews the drug test results?
Should they have to do without because 'the test says so'?

And let's talk about the legal drugs. Here, I can speak from personal experience. My siblings and I went just a little hungry more than once because money was spent on cigarettes. A two pack a day habit could pay for a lot of spaghetti. Heck, it could even buy a few days worth of Baloney, although even that has become increasingly expensive.
Cigarettes kill. They kill the imbiber: slowly, painfully, over many years and many hospital stays and treatments and procedures that raise health care costs for us all.
It kills or creates illness with secondhand smoke. Not to be allowed, and now illegal in public places.

Alcohol kills. It kills the imbibers, slowly, painfully, over many years and many hospital stays and treatments and procedures that raise health care costs for us all.
It kills innocents. Beaten children, casualties of drunk driving, etc. Not to be supported.

Will you test and test and retest for alcohol in the system? Or nicotine? Will you deny children housing benefits because dad can't stay off the bottle? Will you deny them food because Mom needs a beer every hour?

I'm NOT saying that recipients are beer-guzzling, cigarette-smoking drug addicts.
I am an intelligent person and I know that it is only worst-case stories that make the newspapers, television, and politicians' tongues. For everyone that fits that stereotype there are (probably) a half dozen people -- families -- that are quietly going about their business, wondering if they should pay the water bill this month or maybe they had better refill a prescription or have some necessary but expensive medical test done. There are families that have had their food benefits reduced and they are reduced to having to buy canned vegetables now, with possible lead and sodium content, because the cost of fresh produce in groceries is too high and farmer's markets can't accept the food assistance.

What I am saying is drug testing is either too broad or too specific a weapon, and as with most weapons the ones most damaged will be the innocent.

I am saying that if we do away with financial free will -- well, once they start taking away money from one group, what is to stop them from making more and more and more laws to take it away from more and more and more individuals?

They have already started with taxes and have you ever seen this process reverse?