My medical group has been letting me down lately. I had established a comfortable relationship with my primary care physician, and my understanding of how things work with my HMO was good and workable. She laughed at my jokes, she kept an eye on my general health, all that. If I needed something, I knew how to get through to her assistant in her office, I got my prescriptions renewed when I needed them.
Then a couple of things happened . She became semi retired, whatever that means in the medical world, a couple of years ago. She only came in two days a week, and appointments were weeks if not months out. I saw her PA, a lovely young lady named Jennifer . I could get in when I needed to, things got done. Another change is that you could no longer get through directly to an office. You had to go through a call center , leave a message , maybe hear back. Most of my prescriptions were written by my primary care doc. Renewals meant having to time the request to land on her desk during the two days she was in, or wait a week. Too many miscommunications with my pharmacy. I scheduled my annual physical with her PA Jennifer. Had it, got my orders for a mammogram and for blood tests and all that, some of the refills I needed, with instructions to have any called to her. Great, right?
Then, when I went to renew one that I had no more refills on , and the pharmacy called me to say that they had been informed that my PA was no longer with the group, and no doctor there would do any renewals unless they had seen me. Mind you, this is after going to this group for decades. So, I made an appt., which they called and changed because the Dr I was scheduled to see decided to go to a conference the week I was scheduled. They kindly squeezed me in at the end of a day. The day I was supposed to go they called to see if I wanted to come in early. Unfortunately I work for a living. When I got there, the assistant asked me about all my prescriptions, and history and all. Then the Dr came in and asked me all the same...after asking me why I was there. The real answer was , “ because you made me”. In any case, she reviewed my prescriptions, asked who and why they were prescribed, had to ask me if I had been seen recently and if I got all my blood work done, and how it turned out. Not encouraging. She explained that she tried to review some stuff before she saw me, but that she had four new patients today....in the end, pretty much got the renewals with refills I needed., though the ones that they did electronically, they sent to the wrong pharmacy, which threw the Dr for a loop as she had a meeting to get to , and I was her last appt. I got written ones for two, and the others will be righted tomorrow. I called the wrong pharmacy, myself and cancelled, which they appreciated. She wouldn’t refill one because she doesn’t trust compounding pharmacies, so we will try her substitute and see how it goes. She really thinks I should drop hormones and get on with my aging
So mission mostly accomplished, but I am not feeling like I found a home, so to speak. I will likely look around to see if I can find a new medical group. One of the things that also changed was my medical coverage is now PPO, vs HMO. That gives me more latitude on how to proceed.
We shall see. It would be nice to feel you can rely on your doctor to know you and work with you. Darn that Jennifer the friendly PA, who moved to SF.
Thursday, September 6, 2018
Tuesday, January 23, 2018
My latest letter to the editor.
Got published again today
It is award season, and I nominate Carl Cannon for “ best continuing attempted defense of Trump while looking for someone else to point a finger at.”
It is award season, and I nominate Carl Cannon for “ best continuing attempted defense of Trump while looking for someone else to point a finger at.”
Cannon is tireless in his ongoing campaign to defend with faint condemnation any despicable act or comment or tweet by our President . His formula to date has been to offhandedly mention the offense, then launch into an enumeration of sins, both real and imagined, of anyone in the opposition.
I present for your consideration his column on January 21st. In a week full of vital issues and true offenses in word and deed by our President , Cannon spent most of his column defending him by attacking Dick Durban’s credibility as the source of disclosing Trump despicable language about less fortunate countries. About halfway through the column he conceded that “Donald Trump has greater credibility issues than Durbin, not to mention his own trove of racially insensitive remarks, and even dumber historical references. So, the President is not easily defended.” Yet, Cannon, guided by the old adage that the best defense is a good offense, continues his “what- aboutism” defense by going after Durbin, Schumer, and anyone else he could dig up. Diversion tactics.
Cannon, in essence, buried the lead by asking , 3/4 of the way through the column, whether it is time to slow immigration. He admits that it is hard to imagine a less productive way to start the conversation than Trump’s “outhouse “ remarks, as Trump
“apparently did.” Apparently did. After spending the majority of his column questioning the credibility of those who accused Trump of this remark? Yet, having said this, he took those to task who criticized Trump’s utterly unacceptable language and attitude, by saying it only served to win elections, not effect policy change. So, it is the criticism of such language and bull-headed obstructionist tactics that is the issue, not a garbage-spewing self-obsessed head of state who, though famous for touting his deal- making, throws a monkey wrench in the works of any potential negotiation by his blustering outbursts? Good to know.
Elise Power
Garden Grove, CA
Sent from my iPad
Thursday, December 28, 2017
A lump of coal
My latest letter to the OC Register, in regard to the recently passed tax reform bill:
It would appear that Carl Cannon took Christmas Eve off from his column. I presume this because it appeared to have been ghost written by the current Administration. Like the Trump White House and most Republican leaders, it perpetuates the myth that the benefit of the new tax bill for middle class Americans will be proved by their 2018 paychecks. Seeing more take-home pay due to lower withholding does not prove anything except a lower withholding tax table. The true proof of the impact to a tax payer’s bottom line will come when they see how they are affected by all the changes to allowable deductions, for those who itemize ( which are many more than the public would be led to believe). Once all the newly removed or reduced deductions are applied, and compared to the increased standard deduction, the standard deduction may prove the better choice, although it may well be less than prior years’ itemized deductions. Thus, adjusted gross income may end up being higher than they were taxed on before, sharply reducing or eliminating any of the much touted benefit.
This will be proved out when 2018 taxes are filed in 2019, conveniently after the 2018 elections.
In addition, the reduced personal rates expire after yet another election, so all can expect their taxes to go up, no matter what the possible current benefit. The corporate reductions remain in perpetuity, which remains the gift that keeps on giving.
The lump of coal in the stocking of the American public will become even more evident, once legislators whose duplicity will not be found out until after the 2018 elections, begin to balance the newly deepened deficit on the back of those who likely need it most. The poor, the ill, the elderly.
Happy New Year, America.
Elise Power
Garden Grove, CA
714 534 3769
Sent from my iPad
It would appear that Carl Cannon took Christmas Eve off from his column. I presume this because it appeared to have been ghost written by the current Administration. Like the Trump White House and most Republican leaders, it perpetuates the myth that the benefit of the new tax bill for middle class Americans will be proved by their 2018 paychecks. Seeing more take-home pay due to lower withholding does not prove anything except a lower withholding tax table. The true proof of the impact to a tax payer’s bottom line will come when they see how they are affected by all the changes to allowable deductions, for those who itemize ( which are many more than the public would be led to believe). Once all the newly removed or reduced deductions are applied, and compared to the increased standard deduction, the standard deduction may prove the better choice, although it may well be less than prior years’ itemized deductions. Thus, adjusted gross income may end up being higher than they were taxed on before, sharply reducing or eliminating any of the much touted benefit.
This will be proved out when 2018 taxes are filed in 2019, conveniently after the 2018 elections.
In addition, the reduced personal rates expire after yet another election, so all can expect their taxes to go up, no matter what the possible current benefit. The corporate reductions remain in perpetuity, which remains the gift that keeps on giving.
The lump of coal in the stocking of the American public will become even more evident, once legislators whose duplicity will not be found out until after the 2018 elections, begin to balance the newly deepened deficit on the back of those who likely need it most. The poor, the ill, the elderly.
Happy New Year, America.
Elise Power
Garden Grove, CA
714 534 3769
Sent from my iPad
Friday, October 13, 2017
Harvey W and sexual predators.
So, Harvey Weinstein has been brought up short about his long history of sexual aggression with women that fell under his purview. The old “ casting couch” stories that have been pervasive for years have a face. As the legions of women speak out, he humbly asks forgiveness for being an old dinosaurs operating under the “ old rules” and being a man of the 60’s. And off he scurries to “rehab” to get better. Old rules? Rehab? For using his power to come at women sexually? It’s not an addiction, Cupcake. It is being a predator. (I was thrilled to hear Emma Thompson say it after I thought it)
Years and years of men saying “ you’ll never work in this town again” to get what they wanted from woman, or doing their best to blackball them if they didn’t get what they were after.
I am lucky that I have had no more than the inappropriate flirtation come my way from male superiors, and well back in my early career. But I do recall the skepticism I received when I once reported a phone call late at at night on an out of town training trip from a male supervisor.(This is at least 25 years ago, at a bank that I don’t think even exists anymore) He called me at 1:30am to ask me how I was enjoying the training, and what I thought of it. He didn’t propose anything, but he sounded drunk and who calls at 1:30 to ask your thoughts? I told him I needed to get to bed and we hung up. He called me later in the morning to profusely apologize for calling at such an inappropriate hour and that he hadn’t realized how late it was when he called and looked for my ressurance that I wasn’t upset. I later mentioned it to a female ops manager and our male manager at the time. They both looked at me with an arched eyebrow, and asked “ why would he do that, and why are you telling me this .” I told them I didn’t know what he wanted, and I was telling them because it made me uncomfortable and that I thought someone besides me should know. They dropped the matter like hot potato, and looked at me sidelong thereafter, as if I had hoped to gain some political capital from the story.
I left that bank for other career reasons soon thereafter, but that acting male manager nodded when I told him and said “ it’s for the best.” I couldn’t help but feel that he was happy to see the back of me. I later found out that the (married) male supervisor who had called me that night had been involved in a long term affair with another woman in the Bank , who had once worked directly under him. It came to light when he died suddenly of a heart attack , and she, upon hearing of it, collapsed in a sobbing hysterical heap, and had to be driven home. As I heard it told, it was an “ open” secret. Yet my story of a late night call was met with suspicion as to my motive.
I hope we get to a point where women do not have to fear rejection, ridicule or suspicion or accusations of hidden agenda when they tell their stories.
The accusers of Bills Cosby and O Reilly are labeled attention seekers and as looking for a big payday and for their 15 minutes of fame. This country elected a man who spoke of forcing his attentions on young woman due to his power, who continues to dismiss the recorded conversation as “locker room talk,” as if that makes it better. To boast of the power to do such a thing speaks of the character of a man.
Harvey used his power with impunity for decades, and has finally come to grief. We can only hope that the balance of power is tilting the other way.
Years and years of men saying “ you’ll never work in this town again” to get what they wanted from woman, or doing their best to blackball them if they didn’t get what they were after.
I am lucky that I have had no more than the inappropriate flirtation come my way from male superiors, and well back in my early career. But I do recall the skepticism I received when I once reported a phone call late at at night on an out of town training trip from a male supervisor.(This is at least 25 years ago, at a bank that I don’t think even exists anymore) He called me at 1:30am to ask me how I was enjoying the training, and what I thought of it. He didn’t propose anything, but he sounded drunk and who calls at 1:30 to ask your thoughts? I told him I needed to get to bed and we hung up. He called me later in the morning to profusely apologize for calling at such an inappropriate hour and that he hadn’t realized how late it was when he called and looked for my ressurance that I wasn’t upset. I later mentioned it to a female ops manager and our male manager at the time. They both looked at me with an arched eyebrow, and asked “ why would he do that, and why are you telling me this .” I told them I didn’t know what he wanted, and I was telling them because it made me uncomfortable and that I thought someone besides me should know. They dropped the matter like hot potato, and looked at me sidelong thereafter, as if I had hoped to gain some political capital from the story.
I left that bank for other career reasons soon thereafter, but that acting male manager nodded when I told him and said “ it’s for the best.” I couldn’t help but feel that he was happy to see the back of me. I later found out that the (married) male supervisor who had called me that night had been involved in a long term affair with another woman in the Bank , who had once worked directly under him. It came to light when he died suddenly of a heart attack , and she, upon hearing of it, collapsed in a sobbing hysterical heap, and had to be driven home. As I heard it told, it was an “ open” secret. Yet my story of a late night call was met with suspicion as to my motive.
I hope we get to a point where women do not have to fear rejection, ridicule or suspicion or accusations of hidden agenda when they tell their stories.
The accusers of Bills Cosby and O Reilly are labeled attention seekers and as looking for a big payday and for their 15 minutes of fame. This country elected a man who spoke of forcing his attentions on young woman due to his power, who continues to dismiss the recorded conversation as “locker room talk,” as if that makes it better. To boast of the power to do such a thing speaks of the character of a man.
Harvey used his power with impunity for decades, and has finally come to grief. We can only hope that the balance of power is tilting the other way.
Tuesday, September 26, 2017
I have no F's left to give, today.
I have run out of "fks" and the patience that goes with them today, for stupid thoughtless tone deaf people. This includes whiners on Facebook and the current occupant of the Oval Office.
Whiners on FB complaining about the woman judges on The Voice for being "trashy" (Miley Cyrus) and "too loud and full of herself" (Jennifer Hudson) . Yes, we must remind women folk to be demure and hush up and know their place, just like Adam and Blake do. (Which they don’t) Women are always too loud or too forceful or too something when they act too much " like a man"
Our precious president, who has taken his outrage to his panting followers in ego-stoking rallies and on Twitter, with regard to black players who kneel during the Anthem. He wants the "SOB's" fired for disrespecting the flag. Other have taken up the cry and suggest that these rich players who have never served have no right to comment on the freedoms fought for by veterans. Anybody else hear the irony in the face of the oversized infant who never served or earned his own seed money in his life? Let's just set aside the fact that many a veteran spoke up in favor of the players right to peacefully protest, as being part of the very rights they fought for.
If one more person says Love it or Leave it, I am going smack someone upside the head and suggest they observe other American's rights or find a place where they think they can dictate in what manner another can "properly"express their patriotism.
And, if I may be so bold, allow me to suggest to Mr Trump that he take all of the time he has spent on his infantile and inflammatory and divisive tweets and rallies and use it to figure out a way to send supplies to Puerto Rico, which he seems to have forgotten is part of the US. They are still waiting for our delivery of supplies and desperately needed water via FEMA, because "For Texas and Florida you can send trucks, and Puerto Rico is an island in the ocean, ... a really big ocean". Did I miss the part of the story in which everything that has been sent to Texas and Florida was all by truck? Do we not have planes that fly across water? Mark Cuban got a plane there. Other planes have landed there. Were we going to paddle the supplies across in a canoe?
I do not know the actual IQ of Donald Trump. But he regularly says spectacularly stupid things. Is he really that clueless? Tone deaf? Thoughtless? Or just doesn't give a good God damn?
You pick one. None is the lesser of evils.
Whiners on FB complaining about the woman judges on The Voice for being "trashy" (Miley Cyrus) and "too loud and full of herself" (Jennifer Hudson) . Yes, we must remind women folk to be demure and hush up and know their place, just like Adam and Blake do. (Which they don’t) Women are always too loud or too forceful or too something when they act too much " like a man"
Our precious president, who has taken his outrage to his panting followers in ego-stoking rallies and on Twitter, with regard to black players who kneel during the Anthem. He wants the "SOB's" fired for disrespecting the flag. Other have taken up the cry and suggest that these rich players who have never served have no right to comment on the freedoms fought for by veterans. Anybody else hear the irony in the face of the oversized infant who never served or earned his own seed money in his life? Let's just set aside the fact that many a veteran spoke up in favor of the players right to peacefully protest, as being part of the very rights they fought for.
If one more person says Love it or Leave it, I am going smack someone upside the head and suggest they observe other American's rights or find a place where they think they can dictate in what manner another can "properly"express their patriotism.
And, if I may be so bold, allow me to suggest to Mr Trump that he take all of the time he has spent on his infantile and inflammatory and divisive tweets and rallies and use it to figure out a way to send supplies to Puerto Rico, which he seems to have forgotten is part of the US. They are still waiting for our delivery of supplies and desperately needed water via FEMA, because "For Texas and Florida you can send trucks, and Puerto Rico is an island in the ocean, ... a really big ocean". Did I miss the part of the story in which everything that has been sent to Texas and Florida was all by truck? Do we not have planes that fly across water? Mark Cuban got a plane there. Other planes have landed there. Were we going to paddle the supplies across in a canoe?
I do not know the actual IQ of Donald Trump. But he regularly says spectacularly stupid things. Is he really that clueless? Tone deaf? Thoughtless? Or just doesn't give a good God damn?
You pick one. None is the lesser of evils.
Thursday, September 14, 2017
Letters to the editor and other thoughts
I realized that I had not posted in here, in a while, and opened her up and took a look.
I guess that I have been too busy " replying" to FB posts, or commenting on them, as well as writing my marginally infamous letters to the editor of the Orange County Register. Below is my latest effort, though I don't know if this one will be printed. It is after the terrible damage and death that Hurricanes Harvey and Irma has wrought upon Texas, Florida, and the Caribbean.
As I understood him, Summers was eager to dispel the economic myth that disasters were good for the economy. Fair enough.
Yet, he stood in favor of price gouging during such a disaster, as a fair and useful practice in a free market. Apparently his definition of a "free market" includes those who have lost everything risking being priced out of essentials like the gasoline needed to escape, or food and water to sustain life when all provisions they had are gone. A short version of this might be said to read, "If you can afford it, you can survive."
Or more succinctly, as Marie Antoinette was said to have replied when told the peasants had no bread, " then let them eat cake."
This second one is my answer to the Register editorial team asking if Trump was right to pardon the truly infamous , and without morals, Sheriff Joe Arpaio. (This one got published)
In a word , no. He was not.
He was within his legal rights, but skirted every convention, courtesy, practice and control ever put in place regarding pardons.
Pardon requests are usually submitted to the pardon office of the Dept of Justice which screens them and researches them, usually after a minimum waiting period of 5 yrs. Usually the convicted person has served time, and expressed remorse.
Trump issued his pardon prior to sentencing, thus all but negating the conviction unilaterally. He made clear in his speech in Arizona the day prior that he thought the sheriff was just doing his job, and that violation of the court order (forbidding him and his officers from racially profiling Latinos) was no issue to him. He made it clear he was taking care of his good friend Joe, whom he thought should have not been convicted. His disregard for the court order, ( and for the rights of the people being profiled as possible illegal immigrants) and issuing of the pardon even before sentencing, sent a message of arrogance and disrespect. And the former sheriff made it clear he had no remorse, and may even run for office again.
The blatant disregard for the rule of law was palpable on both their parts. It was not merely "somewhat unorthodox" timing, as you blandly put it.
Trump has made clear that he will do what he wants, when he wants, no matter the appearance or consequences. And also, apparently, no matter what the court has ruled. His supporters can only hope that the next person he sets free has not done something to compromise their own personal rights.
I guess that I have been too busy " replying" to FB posts, or commenting on them, as well as writing my marginally infamous letters to the editor of the Orange County Register. Below is my latest effort, though I don't know if this one will be printed. It is after the terrible damage and death that Hurricanes Harvey and Irma has wrought upon Texas, Florida, and the Caribbean.
As I understood him, Summers was eager to dispel the economic myth that disasters were good for the economy. Fair enough.
Yet, he stood in favor of price gouging during such a disaster, as a fair and useful practice in a free market. Apparently his definition of a "free market" includes those who have lost everything risking being priced out of essentials like the gasoline needed to escape, or food and water to sustain life when all provisions they had are gone. A short version of this might be said to read, "If you can afford it, you can survive."
Or more succinctly, as Marie Antoinette was said to have replied when told the peasants had no bread, " then let them eat cake."
This second one is my answer to the Register editorial team asking if Trump was right to pardon the truly infamous , and without morals, Sheriff Joe Arpaio. (This one got published)
In a word , no. He was not.
He was within his legal rights, but skirted every convention, courtesy, practice and control ever put in place regarding pardons.
Pardon requests are usually submitted to the pardon office of the Dept of Justice which screens them and researches them, usually after a minimum waiting period of 5 yrs. Usually the convicted person has served time, and expressed remorse.
Trump issued his pardon prior to sentencing, thus all but negating the conviction unilaterally. He made clear in his speech in Arizona the day prior that he thought the sheriff was just doing his job, and that violation of the court order (forbidding him and his officers from racially profiling Latinos) was no issue to him. He made it clear he was taking care of his good friend Joe, whom he thought should have not been convicted. His disregard for the court order, ( and for the rights of the people being profiled as possible illegal immigrants) and issuing of the pardon even before sentencing, sent a message of arrogance and disrespect. And the former sheriff made it clear he had no remorse, and may even run for office again.
The blatant disregard for the rule of law was palpable on both their parts. It was not merely "somewhat unorthodox" timing, as you blandly put it.
Trump has made clear that he will do what he wants, when he wants, no matter the appearance or consequences. And also, apparently, no matter what the court has ruled. His supporters can only hope that the next person he sets free has not done something to compromise their own personal rights.
Friday, January 27, 2017
Sad, mad, tired.
I am tired. Tired for a number of reasons. Tired of being angry at the despicable twit of a man and the people who elected him President It is, however, inescapable. Every day he bleats or tweets some new chunk of narcissistic and self serving crap, and signs (with a showman's flourish) yet another executive order to undo years of progress on so many fronts. Tired of being the only person of the loyal opposition reading my local newspaper full of letters of ignorance and smug condemnation of all things left of center. Writing my furious ( and often published ) letters to the editor when I just can't let something go by.
And in my fury of the state of things, I say and do ( like I always have), whatever I can to keep fighting against prejudice and ignorance.
And exhausted at the thought that the monsters have ( for the moment) won, and have encouraged the worst of our society to feel free to say out loud what they have thought.
And then saddened, even defeated, when comments are made, in print, on Facebook, on TV, to the effect of "who the hell do you think YOU are?" Or " thanks so much, its about time, where ya been”, or "what do you know about it, with all your privilege?" Well, I am pretty sure I have been right here, saying the same things I always have, supporting the same people I always have. I am pretty sure this isn't a bandwagon that I haven't been on before. And, as I responded to someone, although I haven't had to deal with it all my life, nor from the inside, I still hope to be a help to the work.
Part of the fight ( for reproductive rights) is very much mine. As old as I am, I also have dealt with my fair share of sexist crap. However, my life has never been in danger for who I am. And I get through my day to day life without being seen as a threat to life and limb or the very fabric of society.
But I care, and hate injustice and prejudice and will keep saying so. No matter what it looks like to either side, or how late they think I am to the party.
And in my fury of the state of things, I say and do ( like I always have), whatever I can to keep fighting against prejudice and ignorance.
And exhausted at the thought that the monsters have ( for the moment) won, and have encouraged the worst of our society to feel free to say out loud what they have thought.
And then saddened, even defeated, when comments are made, in print, on Facebook, on TV, to the effect of "who the hell do you think YOU are?" Or " thanks so much, its about time, where ya been”, or "what do you know about it, with all your privilege?" Well, I am pretty sure I have been right here, saying the same things I always have, supporting the same people I always have. I am pretty sure this isn't a bandwagon that I haven't been on before. And, as I responded to someone, although I haven't had to deal with it all my life, nor from the inside, I still hope to be a help to the work.
Part of the fight ( for reproductive rights) is very much mine. As old as I am, I also have dealt with my fair share of sexist crap. However, my life has never been in danger for who I am. And I get through my day to day life without being seen as a threat to life and limb or the very fabric of society.
But I care, and hate injustice and prejudice and will keep saying so. No matter what it looks like to either side, or how late they think I am to the party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)