I Figured Out How to Save Healthcare -- The Ralph Klein Way!

In case you didn't read the title of this post, I figured out how to save healthcare -- the Ralph Klein way! That ol' wacky (former now I guess) premier of Alberta introduced two-tier healthcare a few years back because he realized that his dad would have to wait a ridiculous amount of time for hip surgery. Funny how you realize there's a problem when things become personal!

Anyway, now there are semi-private clinics etc. But I don't think that's the answer. See, Klein had the answer staring him right in the wallet: money. The root of all the healthcare woes. Not enough money to pay enough people to operate enough equipment and suddenly you end up with a six year waiting list for kidney transplants. Klein figures if you have enough money, there should be avenues available to you to just pay and jump the line. And I actually think that's a great idea. But it has to be done this way: Every person that you jump in front of, you have to pay for their operation. Or at least a sizeable percentage. This way the rich bastard gets his hip first, the poor bastards don't need to shell out more money, and the healthcare system gets an injection of more funds. EVERYBODY WINS!

Except probably the rich people. For some reason they don't mind spending money, unless it's on a stranger in need of healthcare assistance.

The Missing Pics from the Last Post

Insurance Companies, and the Bile They Leave in my Mouth

For those of you who don’t know, a little background: last August, my girlfriend and I went on a trip to England to attend a wedding, in which Carla was the maid of honour. Carla has cystic fibrosis, but this has never been a problem in regards to travel. She’s been on many trips, and her doctor has never been concerned. This time, however, the combination of extended travel, lack of sleep, smog, exercise, and allergies ended up putting her in the hospital. She spent almost a month in intensive care unit at Papworth Everard, near Cambridge. The staff there are to be commended.

We, of course, had travel insurance through Thomas Cook (not the restaurant, but the travel agency). Thomas Cook travel insurance is handled by Pottruff & Smith. At first, they assured us everything would be fine. Then after two weeks, they phoned the hospital to inform us that our claim was being denied on the basis that Carla had made a doctor’s visit 90 days prior to the trip. Therefore, she could not be considered stable, regardless of the fact that it was a routine visit that involved standard procedures for CF patients. Then they gave me a person to contact if I wanted to appeal. That fellow ended up being on vacation. To make matters worse, they sent the appeal letter to our address in Saskatoon. Basically, we were left there to rot.

We figured everything out on our own, blah blah blah, ended up having to get a lawyer involved to represent us. Last week we received excellent news: the insurance company was now accepting our claim. Oh, did I mention that they decided to accept the claim three days after our lawyer sent them a letter stating that he was sick of their stalling and was going to file a motion in court if they didn’t respond to him immediately?

As I said, this is excellent news. But forgive me if I don’t feel entirely grateful at the moment. I believe that the insurance industry has an ethical issue that needs to be dealt with. I understand that an insurance company is a business and that profit is the bottom line. But they must remember that they have customers who depend on their services. Instead of nitpicking every detail when a claim is filed, they should be considering their ethical obligation to the customer. The customer trusts that if something goes wrong, the insurance company will be there to help. I mean, it took a year for our happy ending to be resolved, and we didn’t even have to go to court; yet the insurance company still had to pay all those people to make sure that our claim was deniable. What a waste. Stressing everyone out for no reason (us and them included).

I wonder: did they have a change of heart a year later? Did they suddenly decide, ‘well, let’s be nice and help this lady out’? No. It was a calculated assessment spurred on by the threat of legal action that did the trick. I also imagine that they worried about a possible PR nightmare, considering they have insurance plans that cater specifically to CF patients.

I hope they don’t think they did us a favour. Cuz if that’s the case, they can go fuck themselves.

Pics: Carla and I at a 400 year old pub; the village of Papworth; and an English bunny, to end this post with a smile!

Scientology: What is it good for?

This post has been in the works for a while. As usual, my mantra is "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer." For that reason I decided to do some research into Scientology, the religion that’s all the rage in celebrity circles and the hilarious target of shows like South Park. I admit to being suspicious of Scientology from the outset, but hopefully what I have to say here remains academic and doesn’t condescend into an insulting rant. Most of this information has been obtained either from Janet Reitman’s article "Inside Scientology" (Rolling Stone 995) or Scientology: Theology & Practice of a Contemporary Religion, published by the Church of Scientology in 1988 (yes I know, two sources do not make me an expert, but I think I’ve gotten to learn a bit about both sides of the issue).

Scientology was created by science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard. Many of his ideas were formulated in his New Age psychiatry book Dianetics. The religion is claimed to be scientifically-based, in that each person learns to know what is true through personal observation. Each person must also reach their own conclusions. Scientologists believe that the source of major frustration and sorrow in our lives is the corruption of the thetan, which is basically the soul. The thetan must be returned to a naive state (called Total Freedom) in order to be at peace. Followers must undergo auditing sessions with a electropsychometer that help find the corruptions. Each auditing sessions brings you closer to Total Freedom and increases your status within the church. Followers also must refrain from deviant behaviour (homosexuality and masturbation are considered ‘deviant behaviour’ by the church). Membership in the church is quite exclusive, and people who leave the church must cease all contact with any church members, including their families. For a more complete and surprisingly detailed summary of Scientology, see the Wikipedia entry.

I have some critical remarks about the Church’s own publication. First, at least half this book is spent trying to justify their existence as a bona fide religion. There are 9 appendices that deal specifically with that issue, including 6 essays by experts on religion. I suppose this makes sense in light of the long-standing stubbornness of authorities to accept their claim, but part of me wonders "does thou protest too much"? Second, Scientology claims that it has no dogma, and that followers are not "expected to take anything on faith or on the basis of arbitrary authority" (C of S 1988:xii). Yet all their works are written by one man, and no one else is allowed to write anything more. No other interpretations other than the original scripture are accepted. Children attend special Scientology schools instead of regular schools, in which they read Hubbard’s work and supposedly come to their own conclusions about it -- conclusions that coincidently fit the standard party line. My third criticism is in regards to auditing: followers are shown the way through auditing sessions with ministers, in which the follower locates and addresses personal traumas. The minister "cannot offer any advice" about how to locate or confront traumas (C of S 1988:34). Could it really be possible that people advance without any assistance from the minister? Also, once you’ve reached the advanced levels, members use "a special auditing procedure which the individual conducts alone; the person acts as his own auditor, alternately posing precise questions and then seeking their answers" (C of S 1988:37). Doesn’t self-auditing leave the door open to less-than-honest persons advancing through the ranks? Fourth, Scientology is the only religion in the world that withholds dogma from its followers. In an age of extremely high literacy, most religions have their complete dogmas in texts available to everyone. But as shown in their own "Bridge to Total Freedom" chart (C of S 1988:56), the end result of each auditor’s class is freely known -- until you’ve reached CLEAR, that is. CLEAR means you have confronted all your traumas and are ready for additional training. Above that, up to OT XV (Tom Cruise is OT VII), the phrase "As given in the materials of OT #" is simply repeated. What are these materials? The legend of Xenu, so eloquently lambasted on South Park, is part of these secret materials. For those who care OT XV is the highest you can go, but no one is there yet. The highest people now are at OT VII. Tom Cruise is one of them.

One of my biggest problems with the church’s dogma is their flippant use of ‘scientific investigation.’ The Church claims that founder L. Ron Hubbard’s career as a science fiction writer was only a means of continuing his Scientology research, and that he conducted research "concerning cellular memory retention and memory transmission to later generations, concluding that some unknown factor was capable of recording and transmitting the memory of a single event from one cellular generation to the next" (C of S 1988:90). They have supposedly proven scientifically the existence of theta, which is the life force of the universe. Theta has "no mass, no wavelength, no location in space or in time" (C of S 1988:18). What were these experiments, and how did he come to these conclusions? The religion claims to be based on science, but like any good scientist, I’m skeptical of someone who refuses to show their work. How else can it be duplicated and verified? If their work has been proven scientifically, then shouldn’t other scientists be able to copy and prove their results? If that happened, it would completely legitimize their religion. However, secrecy continues to be policy.

Another major criticism of mine is the issue of money. The Church of Scientology is very rich. They have just completed construction of a $50 million complex in Clearwater, Florida, that is the headquarters of the religion. The charge for 12.5 hour blocks of auditing time range from $750 for introductory sessions and $9000 for advanced sessions. The road to Total Freedom may take hundreds of thousands of dollars. Some people have been known to mortgage their homes and liquify their investments in order to continue sessions. There is clearly a lot of money being passed around. Church leaders say that there’s no other way for it to be done. Time and equipment is expensive. They don’t have 2000 years of wealth to rely on (a nice jab at Christianity). They hide behind the fact that other religions are doing it, so why single them out? The act of tithing is pointed out as an example. One leader, Rinder (in Rolling Stone) said, "do you want to know the real answer? If we could offer everything for free, we would do it."

But the simple fact is, they could offer everything for free, if they wanted to. In 1955, the church began setting up Celebrity Centres, where famous people could receive free sessions and information. The idea was to create advertising by having famous persons involved in the church. It worked extremely well. The Celebrity Centres are still in use today, and the world’s most famous Scientologist is Tom Cruise. Celebrities do not pay for their auditing sessions. Tom Cruise may have given some money to Scientology, but I doubt it was used to help needy families get auditing sessions. Now, if I were a Scientologist and I was more interested in helping people than acquiring vast fortunes, I would consider the idea of having celebrities pay. Why not the tithe system that they so graciously pointed out? If every follower had to put 10% of their income into the Church, the person making 10 grand a year would not have to choose between auditing sessions and food. And the tithe coming from celebrities would more than make up the cash flow missing from the poor followers. Doesn’t that sound like peace and harmony?

Unfortunately, I don’t think the leaders of Scientology work that way. I get the feeling that the higher up the ladder you go, the more you feel you are entitled to your riches because you are CLEARED and others are not. It is humorous to actually see a parallel with Christianity here: Some Christians believe that they are rich (or in the White House) because that’s how God wants it. Therefore, rich people are obviously the most pious and the most capable leaders in society. I can hear all of you groaning at that one.

I can understand how the basic tenets of Scientology can be appealing. Everyone wants to be able to follow certain processes that allow your soul to cleansed. Nobody likes dirt on their conscience. And I completely agree with some of the positions that Scientology takes, like how children are over-medicated for the smallest things, and that perscription drugs are not the answer to many of our social woes. I think a lot of people agree with that. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the Church of Scientology takes advantage of those beliefs in the attempt to make a profit.

This is just a short essay on a subject that I could probably write a book about. There are plenty of other things I could comment on, but I just wanted to get out my biggest thoughts on the subject. I hope Tom Cruise doesn’t sue me.

Find a Scientology Church in Canada, if you want. I swear last year I found a centre here in Saskatoon on their official website, but it isn't there anymore. Too bad.

The Thailand Coup

We people over here don’t know a thing or two about anything that’s happening in the world. Proof is the recent coup in Thailand -- who the hell in Canada would have seen that coming? Updog just spent two months living there, came back last month, and never saw any indication of something like this occuring. I found this great blog, the Bangkok Pundit, in which the author details the events as they unfold. Even before that, the posts involve government mismanagement, military force, etc. So not just rainbows and fuzzy kittens. Keep up-to-date via CBC news.

Note: the internet has become a wonderful tool for keeping track of world events from the ground up, rather than the top-down political press dispatches we are used to reading. How are people not in power seeing the situation, and how is it affecting everyday life? I think much more perspective is maintained when you read about events this way.

Inspired by a true piece of crap

What is with the recent influx of movies coming out of Hollywood that are "inspired by a true story"? This includes Dreamer, Eight Below, Glory Road, North Country, Invincible, and the brand spanking new Flyboys. What ever happened to "based on a true story"? Was that not exciting enough? I've come to the conclusion that either the studios are taking more artistic (I use that sparingly) licence with the stories than before, or the studios are having less success ripping off someone's story without paying for it. The second reason may not be that far-fetched. There are plenty of classic movies that were largely inspired by real life events or characters (Citizen Kane comes to mind). Maybe now people are forcing studios to shell out money if a character comes even close to mirroring them. Just a thought.

Also, while surfing this subject on the net, I came across this review for Flyboys. I only mention it because it includes the following paragraph:

“Based on a true story.” “Inspired by a true story.” Do you know why this is prominently displayed? If you hate it, you are un-American. These movies are (unless about serial killers and politicians) always heroic tales of quite ordinary people. You have got to be heartless not to cheer these working-stuffs on.

I thought the disclaimer was funny: don't make fun of these movies, because they are about noble and couragous people -- unless it's about serial killers and politicians, of course.

Aside: some of you may have seen the movie Simon Birch and loved it. I am not one of them. The movie is "inspired" by the book A Prayer for Owen Meany. It's "based" on the first hundred pages of the book, and then takes a dive into Hollywood B-list writer hell. I found the book amazing, and the movie trying too hard to tug at my heartstrings.

Make Poverty History

Is this even possible? It won't ever be if no one tries. Saturday, September 16th, at the University of Saskatchewan, is a 'Make Poverty History' Workshop. It's free, and there's plenty to learn. I'm going, and maybe one day it'll come in handy. Find out more here.

Everything's Gone Green

I love Douglas Coupland. The author of Generation X, Life After God, and Hey Nostradamus will soon see the debut of his first film. And it’s not an adaptation of any of his novels, but a screenplay he wrote from scratch. Here’s an interesting article about it, where Coupland bemoans the film and literature industries, claiming that too many movies are just "elevators" for plot. Will his film Everything’s Gone Green be any better? I’m willing to think so. Just knowing how he writes, I suspect the movie will capture the ‘Garden State’ audience. I also own most of his books, if you want to borrow any (every post ends up the same!).

Dissident Opinion is Evil...or Good? Maybe?

The American Council of Trustees and Alumni is a Washington-based organization run by the likes of Lynne Cheney (the vice-prez's wife) and Joe Lieberman. According to their own website, the ACTA is a "tax-exempt, nonprofit, educational organization committed to academic freedom, excellence and accountability at America's colleges and universities." Sounds good, hey?

In October 2001, the ACTA published a report entitled Defending Civilization: How Our Universities are Failing America and What Can Be Done About It, written by the president of the ACTA. The report accused over 40 American academics of anti-American behaviour. And holy hell, are some of these people anti-American! Like the Dean of Princeton saying “There is a terrible and understandable desire to find and punish whoever was responsible for this. But as we think about it, it’s very important for Americans to think about our own history, what we did in World War II to Japanese citizens by interning them.” Or the speaker at Harvard who said, “[We should] build bridges and relationships, not simply bombs and walls.” Or the sign that reads "Hate breeds hate." All these are quotes taken from the report on what constitutes anti-American behaviour. This report is quite the crock of shit, but is symbolic of what's going on in the States right now.

This is also hilarious: on the website's list of publications the report Defending Civilization is there, along with a report entitled Intellectual Diversity, in which the ACTA "outlines steps universities can take to encourage a mix of ideas on campus and to respond to the growing public concern about the lack of intellectual diversity." Does anyone else see the irony? Also, of the 14 reports listed, 8 have PDF links that can be read immediately. Defending Civilization is not one of them. Instead, you must request a copy by email. I think they're keeping tabs on the people who are reading it. Fortunately, I googled the sucker and found the actual report. Plus, take a look at the report How Many Ward Churchills? which "concludes that throughout Americam higher education, professors are using their classrooms to push political agendas in the name of teaching students to think critically."

Read Paul Street's zinging criticism of Defending Civilization, including comments about the actual problems with American universities.

If It Ain't a Law, Then It Ain't a Crime

George Bush has just admitted that the CIA has been running covert prisons around the world that have detained and "questioned" terrorist suspects. Since no one knows where these prisons are, it is suffice to say that these people are being held against their universal rights and are being violated. Bush adamantly denies such abuses publicly, but the sly back-door action is telling a different story: the American government is quietly trying to draft legislation that circumvents the Geneva Convention and the War Crimes Act.

What the hell? That CIA World Factbook is useless. There's nothing about secret prisons anywhere on that website. As Homer would say, "I don't even know why we have a world factbook!" My favourite line from this Associate Press post is "Administration officials said they were concerned the ruling left U.S. personnel vulnerable to be prosecuted under the War Crimes Act because the language under the Geneva Conventions was so vague." I love the disregard for responsibility: they would be guilty of war crimes because the law is vague, not because they are actually doing anything wrong. And to make sure they don't get charged? Change the laws, of course!

Instead of solving the problem, they push it aside. I'm fairly certain that Saddam is on trial for the same type of thing. I'm not sure why, but this reminds me of how the United Nations dealt with rising saline levels in drinking water around the world. Instead of finding ways to curb the saline, they decide to just raise the levels that are acceptable. Hey folks in rural Russia! You're drinking water is now safe! Yesterday it was deadly poison, but with a swift eraser rub things are back on track! Enjoy! (I can't find a link to this anywhere, if someone finds one can you post it in the comments, I saw it on CBC awhile back, either take my word for it or do your own damn research! Actually, please do your own damn research. If more people looked stuff up instead of relying on Fox News to pass info on, the world would be a better place)