Month: January 2007

Only In America

Only in America would the idea that corporate sponsorship of healthcare services be seen as a bold, innovative approach to help make healthcare more affordable. If our system weren’t so screwed up in the first place, we wouldn’t need to discuss whether Google, Yahoo, or Ask.com would be a better sponsor of test results.

Why the discussion? This piece by David Lazarus in the SF Chronicle today:

On Monday, [Gov. Arnold] Schwarzenegger took the wraps off a plan that would require all state residents to have medical insurance.

“Everyone in California must have health insurance,” he said. “If you can’t afford it, the state will help you buy it, but you must be insured.”

Among other things, Schwarzenegger’s plan would require employers with at least 10 workers to provide insurance or pay 4 percent of their payroll into a state fund that would buy insurance for such people.

It would also prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage to anyone because of their age or a pre-existing condition, and would force insurers to spend at least 85 percent of premiums on patient care (as opposed to administrative costs).

One catch, however, is that the governor’s plan relies on an infusion of about $5.5 billion in additional federal money, which isn’t a sure thing. It also raises a possibility that contributions from employers to a state insurance fund would lag annual increases in health care costs, thus creating a shortfall for lawmakers to deal with.

That’s where corporate sponsorship would help.

Although, as the article points out, companies would have to position themselves carefully to make sure that their brand is nowhere near any part of the healthcare system that delivers bad news. So, expect lots of jockying for support for children’s immunizations or well-baby initiatives, but not so much for things like chemotherapy or surgery. Because after all, providing corporate sponsorship for inexpensive immunizations will help fill in budget shortfalls so much faster than offering financial support for expensive things like chemotherapy.

Yes, that was sarcasm. Sorry. Haven’t had my coffee yet and I’m feeling cranky.

Quick Update

Scott’s surgery was yesterday & went fine. He is home from the hospital and resting more or less comfortably. He’ll be home all week, and phone calls are welcome.

I suppose it would be ungrateful of me to complain much about the experience, since the staff at Kaiser were all very nice and helpful, but it seems to me that hospitals in general are sucky places for people to actually get better.

So much noise, light, activity — and the practice of sticking multiple patients in the same room means that even when you’re being left alone, someone is coming in to check on your neighbor. The first room Scott was put into was so small that there was barely room to squeeze a chair in next to the bed — the only reason I could was that Scott was in the corner next to a sink, so I was able to wiggle a chair into that small alcove. His neighbor on the other side of the curtain didn’t even have that much extra space. And the third guy in the room had a very noisy case of pneumonia; you could literally hear him snoring 30 feet down the hall. After a few hours of that, and some words with the head nurse, Scott was moved into a larger, quieter room, but even so he didn’t get much sleep.

I know there’s reasons why hospitals are set up that way — and aside from trying to cram too many people into a too-small room, I’m sure there are good reasons for just about all of it. But it does seem to me that the whole calculus is off somehow, and is designed more to make things eaiser on the hospital staff than on the patient. Shouldn’t allowing patients to experience restful, healing sleep be a part of the equation?

All complaining aside, I am grateful that he got good care and that he’s back home where he belongs, sleeping in our bed with Tommy cuddled up next to him.

But It’s Thomas Jefferson’s Koran!

By way of Paul the Spud, this bit of news is worth spreading around:

Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, found himself under attack last month when he announced he’d take his oath of office on the Koran — especially from Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode, who called it a threat to American values.

Yet the holy book at tomorrow’s ceremony has an unassailably all-American provenance. We’ve learned that the new congressman — in a savvy bit of political symbolism — will hold the personal copy once owned by Thomas Jefferson.

“He wanted to use a Koran that was special,” said Mark Dimunation, chief of the rare book and special collections division at the Library of Congress, who was contacted by the Minnesota Dem early in December. Dimunation, who grew up in Ellison’s 5th District, was happy to help.

Jefferson’s copy is an English translation by George Sale published in the 1750s; it survived the 1851 fire that destroyed most of Jefferson’s collection and has his customary initialing on the pages. This isn’t the first historic book used for swearing-in ceremonies — the Library has allowed VIPs to use rare Bibles for inaugurations and other special occasions.

Very nice touch, linking to Koran to the author of the Declaration of Independence. I like it.