3461 So, um, don't use it

Friday, February 10, 2012

Dilbert’s coworker - "Someday I want to get married because studies show
that married people are happier."
Dilbert's response - "A smarter interpretation
is that no one wants to marry an unhappy person."
-- "Dilbert", 2/10/12 --

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The above - so true. Nobody wants to marry an unhappy person (except that guy who married the blogger with the headaches, never did understand that, she's ALWAYS unhappy). Nobody even wants to be around someone who is unhappy all the time. It's a drag and it's draining. People who manage to be happy with their lot are just --- happier. Married or not.

-------------------------------------

The Catholic Church is all het up because they don't want to pay for employee's insurance coverage that includes coverage for contraception.

Some people are all het up because they say forcing the Catholic Church to pay for contraception coverage is a violation of the first amendment, which provides for the free exercise of religion.

Huh? I don't understand. Just because insurance covers it doesn't FORCE you to use it. My insurance covers prostate exams, but I assure you I'll never use it. So Catholics who refuse birth control will not be forced to use it. They still have free exercise of their religion.

Many employees of the church, and dependents of employees, are not even Catholic. Why should they be forced to practice Catholicism? If anyone's first amendment rights are being abridged, it's theirs. And it's no secret that most Catholics DO use birth control anyway.

I don't understand.

And all those priests and bishops going on TV telling folks that Obama won't get the Catholic vote if he allows any of their employees easy access to birth control even if the church isn't paying for it! should remember that they will lose their tax exemptions if they tell their congregations how to vote. Isn't there also something about "separation" in the tax laws? They are not allowed to influence elections. (Which brings up another topic - how come so many religious groups do get away with both electioneering AND tax exemptions? I thought that was illegal.)

Way to piss me off.
.

1252 Hospitals

Thursday, May 17, 2007

[Later edit: See http://www.empirecenter.org/2006/11/berger_commissi.cfm for more info on why the urge to merge.]

The previous post is unnumbered because it's not "me" (me! me! me! what this blog's about!) and I figured I'd delete it before the end of the month, when I copy the month's posts to posterity.

I found Irwin's piece interesting, because, yeah, most of us civilians don't really understand why Kingston Hospital and Benedictine (and Northern Dutchess across the river) insist they have to combine to survive.

(Keep in mind that I know only the tiniest bit about this subject, at the highest level. I represent the average Joe-on-the-street. Joe and I are confused.)

The problem with them combining is that Benedictine is Catholic, and Kingston and Northern Dutchess are not. This is a critical distinction when it comes to women's health choices and end-of-life decisions, among other issues. Benedictine won't back down. If the three combine, even if a separate women's health clinic is set up as proposed, decisions on many levels will be taken from the individual, and given over to the Catholic Church. All three hospitals will be Catholic.

Ten or so years ago, the three hospitals claimed they were on the verge of bankruptcy, and they only way to save them was combining. The public outcry was so loud it didn't happen.

Kingston is a very small city, and quite frankly, two large hospitals only a few blocks apart does seem excessive. I think most people figured Benedictine would go under, and then Northern Dutchess and Kingston could combine and remain secular. We civilians waited to see what would happen.

Over the past ten years, all three hospitals built and bought. Northern Dutchess has doubled in size, and has formed some kind of "financial-and-services-only" agreement with a Poughkeepsie hospital, which takes them out of the Kingston/Benedictine equation. Kingston built a huge parking garage, and expanded. Benedictine is very proud of their new cancer center(s) and other new buildings. All three have upgraded to cutting-edge major equipment and services.

They've been looking pretty prosperous for businesses on the verge of bankruptcy.

We civilians don't understand.

So now this state report comes out, recommending that either Kingston gives up to Benedictine, or gets closed (Kingston Hospital being the public hospital, and therefore the one most easily threatened by the state).

Why can't they combine with the "financial-and-services" sharing type of deal Northern Dutchess struck? Why does Benedictine insist on dictating philosophy? How can they be in so much trouble when they've been spending so much money lately?

We civilians just don't understand.

Irwin's editorial adds considerations, but doesn't clear up the confusion.

------------------------------------

Mensa dinner tonight.
.