Just a quick note on this event, as it is horrible and I hate promoting or giving credit to such cowardly acts.
However, when I decided to take a quick look at Joseph Stark's web blog to see what was going through his mind and get my own take on his blog posting, god forbid I should think for myself instead of take what the media dishes out, I found that his site had been taken down. At first I thought maybe there was just a heavy usage issue and it was erroring out due to the traffic, but OH NO, it was taken down by the web hosting company. The hosting company, T35.com, decided that his site was not good to have up anymore. I can somewhat understand as you don't want to give glory to some phsycopath on a trip to la la land, however, I thought the reasoning was ridiculous and if your going to take it down then I would not give an explination. Further, I find this somehwat of a censorship of the company. So are you telling me that ANY site that talks about the "sensitive nature" of the events will have thier site shut down?
T35.com's posting on www.embededart.com/index.html:
"This website has been taken offline due to the sensitive nature of the events that transpired in Texas this morning."
I also realize this is a free hosting site so it's not like the guy was around anymore nor is it like they owe him or his decendants any kind of service contract due to the free service agreement. However, I thought they could have left it up for the day....I mean..talk about free site traffic to possibly use your services! Something good should come out of it.
Unless of course....It WAS Big Brother calling to tell them to shut it down. Hmmm....something to be sad of if that is true; which it likely is. I am not paranoid by any means..it just would not surprise me if that was true and have to laugh at the "transparancy" of this event. So now "transparancy" has limitations, much like our supposed "freedom".
ok...That is all!
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Friday, October 16, 2009
Health Insurance company, Guardian Life, releases high cost patients
Ian Pearl, a 37 year old male from New York, suffers from muscular dystrophy. Although it is not mentioned by the Washington Times artcle what kind of muscular dystrophy Mr. Pearl suffers from, it is noted that he requires around the clock care as the muscles that help him breathe have failed him. In other words, he is unable to breathe without assistance. Ian currently lives in Florida to help with his breathing, however, his insurance policy is still through the New York company Guardian Life Insurance Co..
In the article it is revealed that emails were presented in a court hearing, regarding possible violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), from company Vice President Tim Birely in which he makes reference to getting rid of dogs on those plans which are costing the company too much to justify keeping around. Mr. Birely in these emails was specific to New York as policyholders who were referred to as "domicile and some historical [nonsense]" in thier needs.
Guardian spokesman Richard Jones said "We certainly don't think this particular case has anything to do with health care reform." However, it would seem this is what President Obama's plan seeks to eliminate; for profit insurance carriers.
My personal belief is that this is a business out to make a profit, as they state in the article, and even though they say they sympathize with Mr. Pearl's conditon, they truly have not investement in human life or the preservation of such. If you do not help them make a profit they will seek to eliminate you from their policy. In the article Ian's father revealed that they have been hounded by Private Investigators from Guardian for years, YEARS, in an attempt to find misinformation from the family to be able to drop them from their policy. They have applied to the Department of Health and Human Services for HIPPA violations by Guardian but have not heard anything back as of yet.
So if you still think for profit health insurance is the best thing for this country you are likely either a shareholder in the company making millions or a company executive of an insurance company as I just can't see how anyone can think making a buck is more concerning and better for public relations than saving a human life. If Guardian executives were smart they would grandfather Ian Pearl in and spin it that they value human life, but obviously they are not smart...like most of these big insurance companies who feel they are untouchable.
Jim
In the article it is revealed that emails were presented in a court hearing, regarding possible violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), from company Vice President Tim Birely in which he makes reference to getting rid of dogs on those plans which are costing the company too much to justify keeping around. Mr. Birely in these emails was specific to New York as policyholders who were referred to as "domicile and some historical [nonsense]" in thier needs.
Guardian spokesman Richard Jones said "We certainly don't think this particular case has anything to do with health care reform." However, it would seem this is what President Obama's plan seeks to eliminate; for profit insurance carriers.
My personal belief is that this is a business out to make a profit, as they state in the article, and even though they say they sympathize with Mr. Pearl's conditon, they truly have not investement in human life or the preservation of such. If you do not help them make a profit they will seek to eliminate you from their policy. In the article Ian's father revealed that they have been hounded by Private Investigators from Guardian for years, YEARS, in an attempt to find misinformation from the family to be able to drop them from their policy. They have applied to the Department of Health and Human Services for HIPPA violations by Guardian but have not heard anything back as of yet.
So if you still think for profit health insurance is the best thing for this country you are likely either a shareholder in the company making millions or a company executive of an insurance company as I just can't see how anyone can think making a buck is more concerning and better for public relations than saving a human life. If Guardian executives were smart they would grandfather Ian Pearl in and spin it that they value human life, but obviously they are not smart...like most of these big insurance companies who feel they are untouchable.
Jim
Monday, September 21, 2009
For fun, or for victory?
So yesterday I went to see my nephews play baseball. It was a bright sunny day, yet not too hot. There was a nice cool breeze in the air. The game was already in progress and as we setup chairs you could hear the regular parents yelling at or for their kids, as well as other kids on the team. As I listened it became evident to me that even though most of these involved parents advocate the "fun vs. victory" idiology for their children playing this American past time, most if not all of these same parents become victory chanters within minutes of game start.
It is an impressive and, although confusing or the children to be sure, quick turn of expectations for the children. "Don't hesitate to run", one parent chants at the runner on third who hesitated to steal home as it seemed, and did, the catcher had retrieved a bad throw from the pitcher. Why not say something supportive like "you got it next time, good eyes on the catcher"? Let the 4 coaches on the team actually do the coaching.
Don't misunderstand me. I am all for parents being involved, even other family members, in the game and "cheering" your team on. I think the line gets blurred when they start to think they have what it takes to coach the team. Why do they suddenly decide they are the coach and umpire when watching the event? Why can't they just support their team and the members of it? I mean, they are not even keeping tabs on who wins or loses in this summer/fall baseball league as they promote "fun & learning" versus compitition. The are not setting them up for the fall of defeat or how it feels to lose a game. They are simply allowing them to have "training" before they enter true competitive leagues. Much like the exhibition games of the NFL.
So how do I feel? I think it is a good idea to have these off season fun leagues, as long as the parents help the players keep in mind that winning or losing is NOT part of these particular games....it is about learning and practicing and growing in the game and their abilities. Help them at home, take them to the park to practice, be involved instead of a parent yelling from the sidelines at their children. If you know so much, and I hope most do this, take your kid out and practice, with friends if you are unable to be physically involved. Take them to the batting cage. Ask the coaches if they can help with more practice days or ideas; although most of these guys/gals have a day job and volunteer to help your kids. FOR FREE! So work with them, be helpful, be involved, and be supportive of your kid. Remember, your there for more than the tan on game day, your kids are looking for your approval and support.
- Jim
It is an impressive and, although confusing or the children to be sure, quick turn of expectations for the children. "Don't hesitate to run", one parent chants at the runner on third who hesitated to steal home as it seemed, and did, the catcher had retrieved a bad throw from the pitcher. Why not say something supportive like "you got it next time, good eyes on the catcher"? Let the 4 coaches on the team actually do the coaching.
Don't misunderstand me. I am all for parents being involved, even other family members, in the game and "cheering" your team on. I think the line gets blurred when they start to think they have what it takes to coach the team. Why do they suddenly decide they are the coach and umpire when watching the event? Why can't they just support their team and the members of it? I mean, they are not even keeping tabs on who wins or loses in this summer/fall baseball league as they promote "fun & learning" versus compitition. The are not setting them up for the fall of defeat or how it feels to lose a game. They are simply allowing them to have "training" before they enter true competitive leagues. Much like the exhibition games of the NFL.
So how do I feel? I think it is a good idea to have these off season fun leagues, as long as the parents help the players keep in mind that winning or losing is NOT part of these particular games....it is about learning and practicing and growing in the game and their abilities. Help them at home, take them to the park to practice, be involved instead of a parent yelling from the sidelines at their children. If you know so much, and I hope most do this, take your kid out and practice, with friends if you are unable to be physically involved. Take them to the batting cage. Ask the coaches if they can help with more practice days or ideas; although most of these guys/gals have a day job and volunteer to help your kids. FOR FREE! So work with them, be helpful, be involved, and be supportive of your kid. Remember, your there for more than the tan on game day, your kids are looking for your approval and support.
- Jim
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)