tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4011268550866682474.comments2022-02-15T12:22:43.095-08:00LifeKard 7Dann J Flesherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09053065535354773000noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4011268550866682474.post-45146993258952345022022-02-15T12:17:56.945-08:002022-02-15T12:17:56.945-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Luna Corbdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00248755241861752232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4011268550866682474.post-34215849610623699622017-07-14T18:11:56.078-07:002017-07-14T18:11:56.078-07:00I would like to challenge the SOURCE of the state...I would like to challenge the SOURCE of the statement that 50,000 deaths were PREVENTED by the ACA... unless they also have information that somehow a similar number of deaths were CAUSED by side-effect of changes Wrought by ACA.<br /><br />50,000 deaths is about 2% of the annual death rate in the US. That would have the impact of decreasing the total death rate (which has actually begun to increase). Any such "Miracle advance in Medical care" would be first page news in every media outlet. It is the equivalent of wiping out all of the suicides in the US, or stopping 88% of all Influenza and Pneumonia deaths. I would even tout it highly. <br /><br />Now, there may have actually been ~50,000 (newly insured) people who lived because another ~50,000 were deprived of (their old) medical care. Otherwise the statistic makes no sense at all. However, the ages of these "saved lives" would be an interesting set of data to examine ... Dann J Flesherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09053065535354773000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4011268550866682474.post-1726057082570912452017-07-14T17:41:21.751-07:002017-07-14T17:41:21.751-07:00Wait, does ACA actually address the Provider/Patie...Wait, does ACA actually address the Provider/Patient ratio? What was it and how much better is it today, 8 years later? As an ACA reader and advocate you should be able to answer my burning questions. Do you have references to those parts of the ACA bill that provide these answers? Why have I never heard the P/P ratio mentioned by the media? They reveled in reporting other bottom line statements like 'your health costs are going to go down $2,500 per year'? <br /><br />Is the AMA (or the hundreds of other medical Associations) on board with the needed increases in Doctors, or Chiropractors, or Homeopaths, or Acupuncturists? Is the FDA on board for fast-tracking practices that have been proven in Europe and elsewhere, without running redundant US clinical trials? Is Medicare/Medicaid set up to pay for these 'new' or "old' but useful as much cheaper procedures??? <br /><br />I have heard of none of this happening or even under discussion for the last seven years. There has been no positive effect on my health care options as a result and my cost has gone only up year by year. I feel like someone is blindsiding me while I can easily 'feel' their hand in my pocket. Who is that person???<br /><br />How is the issue of adding millions of Patients offset by added medical resources by the ACA? (other than the increased premium rates... i.e., other than more insurance 'money'?)Dann J Flesherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09053065535354773000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4011268550866682474.post-88404476428684492012017-07-06T13:08:59.298-07:002017-07-06T13:08:59.298-07:00Good question to ask ourselves on a daily basis......Good question to ask ourselves on a daily basis.... Jodihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03918409785572333769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4011268550866682474.post-17354351890361832742017-07-01T18:05:38.150-07:002017-07-01T18:05:38.150-07:00I wish the real world really worked this way, that...I wish the real world really worked this way, that any of those four options were actual.<br /><br />Maybe that was more true decades ago, but in my 14 years of corporate work experience, plus being a writer and running a few of my own businesses, plus wider observations and listening to the stories of other people, plus looking at the statistics related to upward mobility (it's trending rather downward these days), this isn't true of capitalism in 2017. It's rather more rigged nowadays.<br /><br />Plus it's not really a choice between socialism and capitalism. That's a false dichotomy. One can criticize the flaws in a thing that you'd rather like to save. Sort of like when I take my writing to a critique group. They don't redline my stories because they want them destroyed. ;) If we can't fix the flaws, then we can't save the whole system. Luna Corbdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00248755241861752232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4011268550866682474.post-89151629681259739002017-07-01T17:54:36.264-07:002017-07-01T17:54:36.264-07:00Here are my thoughts on perfection.
Is a perfect ...Here are my thoughts on perfection.<br /><br />Is a perfect triangle the same as a perfect human?<br /><br />No. One might define a perfect triangle using math, that straight three lines between three points, with total angles adding up to 360 degrees. A human in this configuration would be hilarious, but not perfect.<br /><br />So how do we define a perfect human?<br /><br />And is a perfected Dann anything like a perfected Luna?<br /><br />I conclude that, no, a perfected Dann is no more like a perfected Luna than a perfected triangle is. And while mathematicians can largely agree on what makes a perfect triangle, we can't really agree on what makes a perfect human. The concept is too complex. While you probably would say that God knows what makes a perfect Dann and Luna, I'd say that only I can know what will make me perfect, and only you can know what makes you perfect.<br /><br />I also like that the word Christ used for "perfect" in "Be ye therefore" τέλειος, was a term with strong agricultural roots, meaning "ripe" or "whole." The nuance there is important, and in this, when I'm feeling at my most emotionally and spiritually centered, I feel that I /am/ perfect, in that moment.<br /><br />That is, I don't have to follow every rule, or develop every talent.. I don't have to "do" to "be" perfect.. I don't even have to be happy to reach this state. I have to merely be mindful and aware, ok with myself, grounded in the moment, and "Whole."<br /><br />I've also realized that I'm not meant to be in that state 100% of the time. To everything, there is a season, and in this, too. The agriculture nuance in Christ's words imply to me that for a thing to be "ripe," there must be a time when it is a seedling, then when it is getting rained on, then when it is green. Only then can it be ripe.<br /><br />This concept perhaps is reinforced by three verses prior, where he talks about sun and rain falling on everyone alike. The rest of this verse's context has to do with love, and I cannot get into that state of "perfection" (wholeness, acceptance, and awareness) without some measure of love, at least for myself, if not a fuller feeling of connectedness to all beings. I don't think it's possible to feel whole while also feeling that others are beneath me.Luna Corbdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00248755241861752232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4011268550866682474.post-6274472380298210992017-07-01T17:27:54.923-07:002017-07-01T17:27:54.923-07:00Cool. I wrote about this a few years ago. https://...Cool. I wrote about this a few years ago. https://cognitiveresurgence.wordpress.com/2009/08/12/on-being-wrong/<br /><br />In reading this blog, it's striking to me how, once you scrape away all the "fluff" on top, underneath you and I aren't as different as we seem. Our conclusions are vastly different, but once we start comparing our base values, there are a wealth of similarities.<br /><br />This discomfort you describe is called "cognitive dissonance," a topic I've studied fairly in-depth, and written about it as well. There's a whole field of psychology dedicated to studying how humans react to cognitive dissonance. The experiments are really fascinating. And observing myself after learning about this topic is equally fascinating.<br /><br />Question: You say "If your image of life today is the same as it was yesterday," but, from my outside perspective, you seem to have changed very little over the years. In what ways has your image of life changed?Luna Corbdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00248755241861752232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4011268550866682474.post-69724104535526910212017-07-01T17:17:53.482-07:002017-07-01T17:17:53.482-07:00Actually, Obamacare directly addressed healthcare ...Actually, Obamacare directly addressed healthcare itself. Remember, I read a draft of the House bill, so I can confirm. That's one of the reasons it was so long.. it addressed many issues that healthcare professionals & experts had been complaining about for some time.<br /><br />For instance, one provision addressed issues of secondary illnesses in hospitals, that is, easily-preventable deaths that occurred due to things like infections and mixing up patient meds. The ACA outlines a procedure (see below) for identifying these preventable deaths and creating policies for all hospitals to follow. An article I linked on FB last year talked about 50,000 deaths prevented by the ACA, and you replied thinking it was talking about *all* the deaths prevented by the ACA, and I never got around to pointing out that the article was specifying this exact category of deaths: That is, procedures to prevent Patient A from accidentally getting Patient B's meds, or poor surgical procedures, etc. In 8 years, the ACA has directly prevented 50,000 deaths by directly improving healthcare in this way, NOT including additional lives saved by increasing access and other provisions, which has saved even more than 50,000 lives. Mine included.<br /><br />The ACA also has provisions for creating new medical infrastructure, like educating & retaining doctors & nurses, etc. I forget the specifics, especially since I like my own idea better, so I only remember my idea. But I felt it was a good start, and it definitely included it, as you suggest it ought.<br /><br />It also created a plan to streamline & standardize medical records. If you've noticed more of doctors using computers, this is why. This not only reduces costs, but helps provide better healthcare, in that your records can be more easily shared between your providers, to achieve a more holistic approach to care, fewer mix-ups on drug interactions, medical history, etc. <br /><br />All of the above could be improved, and even supporters of the ACA felt it was just a "good start" but not the final deal. I fully support a rational look at improvements to the ACA, but first you need to start with what's actually in there, not what you might imagine is in there. :)<br /><br />Also as you suggest, the ACA did address communication & cooperation between the medical lobbies.. like doctors, pharma, insurance, hospitals, etc. Moreover, medical organizations, like the AMA, did in fact weigh in on the bill, and the bill also gave them voice in the many hearings which both the House and Senate conducted. (NOTE: These hearings are NOT being conducted re: Trumpcare.) Lawmakers knew they weren't experts, so rather than address the details directly, Congress set up committees which were required by law to have representatives from various backgrounds to represent multiple interests. (See above.) Congress said, "Here's examples of things that need fixing (which we learned about from experts who testified in our hearings), so you figure out the specifics since you know what you're doing. This committee will be staffed by x doctors, y insurance reps, n hospital administrators, p Average Citizens, and will be run by the following parameters." <br /><br />This thing you say you want is actually in the ACA.<br /><br />Lastly, access to healthcare *is* healthcare. If you can't get access, then all the medical tech and doctors in the world won't save you.<br /><br />Anyway, keep in mind that I actually read a draft of the ACA. So feel free to ask me what's in there. :) My memory might be hazy, but I can always go refresh my memory from my blog summaries of it. Moreover, the ACA is a public law, on the internet, and can be read by anyone. I'm not the only one who read it and made a summary. I'm sure someone has made a summary of the current law with references to each passage so you can look up the actual wording. You don't have to be a lawyer to do that. It's not much different from reading the scriptures. ;)Luna Corbdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00248755241861752232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4011268550866682474.post-33334642832782277052017-07-01T16:30:41.667-07:002017-07-01T16:30:41.667-07:00I like this. I think it represents the LDS view of...I like this. I think it represents the LDS view of the Atonement really well while adding nuanced insight. Both versions are good.. the first has the feel of a "quote," pithy and easily consumed, and fits well into a Twitter-type medium and mindset. The second is more suited to a thoughtful, poetic, ponderous medium. Like a publication.Luna Corbdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00248755241861752232noreply@blogger.com