Entries Tagged 'Blog' ↓

So before I forget I should write about the trip to see the baby on Wednesday.  My husband made me wake up more than a hour early and we headed  to the hospital after we took showers.  We walked through the little farmer’s market in the parking lot and got to the ultrasound department in the basement and sat down to wait.  The hubby gave me a bottle of water to drink because the doctor recommended that I should have a full bladder.

There was a bit of commotion as some paramedics wheeled in an old man, and then the radiologist called me into an examination room.   The hubby got a chair behind the doctor and I had to lie down on a bed, and unfortunately my head was behind the monitor so I missed most of the action.     All I could do was to watch the hubby’s face and he had this cute look that was a mix of amazement and amusement.  Apparently our baby was moving all over the place and it was hard for the radiologist to do her work.  My OBGyn ordered a regular anatomy assessment so the radiologist had to take pictures of almost every part of the baby’s body at specific angles.  Since the baby moved so much it was hard for her to capture the specific photos.

While the radiologist clicked and moved the ultrasound probe she kept on mumbling random comments like, “this baby is an absolute meatball”.  She also said, “this is the jumpiest kid I have ever seen, what did you eat this morning????”  I only had a bottle of water.

She also said to my hubby, “I don’t want your wife to get jealous now, you are having all the fun watching this kid here.”  The hubby later told me that he felt quite a bit of glee at that.  He thinks it is unfair that I get to feel the baby move all the time now and he still has not felt it.

So after 45 minutes of this she said, “mom’s bladder is getting a bit too full” and she allowed me to go to the bathroom.  She took quite a few more pictures after that and then turned the monitor over to let me see the baby.  It was actually quite interesting since I could see every little bone in the baby’s hands and spine.  It was also pushing against the walls quite a bit.  The heart was also very clear with all of its chambers and jumped very quickly.  I only got to look at it for about a minute.

Finally when all the pictures were taken the hubby asked, “do you know what the gender is?”

The radiologist said, ” oh yeah!”  Then she put the probe to show  an image that was right between the baby’s legs.

I saw it immediately and said, “well, it looks like a boy”, and she said, “yup you are right!”  The hubby was a bit disappointed, but I was happy that my guess was right.

Then I said to him, “well, it is your Y chromosome that made this boy!”

He said, “yeah I know, I messed up.  This means we will have another one!”

We took home a few pictures the radiologist printed out for us.  Several of them were profile pictures and one was of the baby’s face.  I thought that he really looked like the hubby.  He has the hubby’s nose and the bottom lip is shaped like the hubby’s, too.  Some people have said that I am nuts and it is too early to tell, though.   Later on,  we showed the picture to our moms and they could not find where the face was and the hubby had to mark notes on Flickr.   The hubby also said that he counted the little fingers on the baby’s hand and it looked good.  The radiologist told us that everything looked fine, and it seems that the ultrasound machine gave fairly good estimates on the baby’s size in relation to his stage of development.

Yesterday we told my hubby’s grandpa that the radiologist called the baby a “meatball”, and he laughed and said that should be the baby’s name.  I asked him what “meatball” is in Tagalog, and he said, “bolabola”.  I think that is a cute nickname actually.  Every Filipino kid has a nickname and now  the hubby’s family seems to be stuck on the “meatball” idea.   The hubby says that would encourage our kid to be overweight, though.

Anyway, we might go to a baby picture place in a couple months and take some 3D ultrasound photos of the baby.   By then the face would be better formed and we will see more clearly who he looks like.

Share This

Today the overseers of Social Security and Medicare reported that these programs are now closer to insolvency due to the recession and falling tax revenues.  Medicare is already pulling in less tax revenues than it pays out in benefits and will no longer be able to pay 100% of benefits in less than 8 years.  It seems that these programs would need to either increase tax rates or cut back benefits to be sustainable.  At the same time, many Americans are calling for single-payer healthcare, which means that the government alone would set up a health insurance system that pays all medical claims and negotiate rates with care providers.  Essentially, people are clamoring for universal healthcare, but how much would it cost?  Here are some of my thoughts on the issue.

First of all, I agree that healthcare expenses are  quite ridiculous in America.  If you ever get an itemized bill from a hospital where you were treated you would see that some small items such as bandaids are charged at exorbitant rates.  If you have adequate insurance from your workplace then the out of pocket expenses are not so bad.  For example, I will be paying $100 total for my upcoming delivery and hospital stay.  However, if you do not have good insurance having a baby could cost tens of thousands of dollars.  One of my friends said that a doctor was in her room for about half an hour while she was delivering her baby, and in the itemized bill she got the charge for that service was over $3000.  It is really no surprise to me that unexpected medical expenses are the number one cause of personal bankruptcy.

The biggest problem I see with the current system is that there is not much transparency in how much each hospital and care provider charges for various services.  Every care provider sets their own price for the uninsured and then another set of prices for each insurer they deal with.  There is pretty much no way for a consumer to get a decent discount without going through an insurer.  Basically, there is this extra layer of medical insurance consumers have to wade through.  Consumers are forced to shop between medical insurers, and not medical servicers and the priorities of medical insurers and medical servicers are vastly different.  Medical insurers do not want to pay for claims if they don’t have to, and so they have an incentive to reject applicants who need care the most.  As a result,medical insurance is prohibitively expensive for those with existing conditions or need constant care.

So what happens if the government takes over the healthcare system completely?  If that happens consumers will not have the choice of choosing between insurers and the government will have to negotiate prices with the care providers.  It would cut down a lot of overhead, but  it may not cost less than the current system for the individual consumer and here is why. Currently most people in America have some form of employment sponsored private insurance that costs very little out of pocket. Even without an employer, there are high deductible plans available with low premiums for most healthy people that individuals can choose from.   Some young healthy individuals even skip health insurance to save money because they have the choice to do so.    However, if we switch to a completely government based system it would be paid out of taxes, and there would be no choice but to pay it.   Currently Medicare is 2.9% of payroll, and it is not enough to insure just  the elderly and disabled.  It is estimated that Medicare taxes needs to be nearly 7% of payroll to be sustainable.  Just imagine if the program has to cover everyone in the United States and you will see that the tax may be well over 10% of someone’s pay.  Do you currently pay 10% of your yearly income on medical insurance?  I certainly don’t, and I think most people don’t.

I think a better way to healthcare reform is to let consumers have more transparency into the costs of services and allow a bit of comparison shopping.  I know how much it costs to fix my car, so why can’t I know how much it costs to remove a mole? It is possible that some people do not need insurance if they just want some basic preventive services that can be provided by care providers directly at reasonable rates provided that they stay healthy.   Insurers also shouldn’t be able to reject or price gouge patients based on existing conditions because everyone should get the care they need.  Perhaps universal healthcare could work here, but  many more relatively healthy people will have to pitch in much more money than before, and they won’t have a choice in the matter.  Once such a system is in place it would also be very difficult to remove, and it would only get more expensive as people live longer lives.

Share This

Some readers have said that I should write more about personal finance, and less about the politics of the United States, but I think the two topics are inherently related because the government is a very large part of our everyday lives and it affects financial decisions we make in so many ways.  Some commenters have said that they were surprised I am so much of a “conservative” considering that I am from such a liberal part of the country and seem to be fairly intelligent.  I thought about this, and I realized that most frugal personal finance writers would be politically conservatives whether they realize it or not.

First of all, being frugal is all about being fiscally conservative with your own finances.   So if you are pinching pennies by using coupons and sales, then why would you want your government to spend your tax dollars without any concern to the pricetag of things?  I imagine that most frugal people want a frugal government that looks for the best price in every purchase.  Unfortunately, this is not happening at all under the current regime, and that is disconcerting.

Second, being frugal is about being responsible for what you have been given in terms of income.  Nearly every personal finance blog I have read do not support the housing bailout and other bailouts that have been happening lately because these bloggers including myself think of the bailouts as rewarding the irresponsible.  So logically, these frugal bloggers would have voted with the Republicans against the new stimulus bills and bailouts and be labeled as “conservatives”.

Next, a lot of frugal bloggers write about getting rid of debt.  This is once again another fiscally conservative ideal.  Right now the United States is in $11 trillion dollars of debt, and the new administration wants to increase it by 27%.  Granted, the 8 years of Bush was not very conservative, either, and many people believe that George Bush is not a true conservative.   For the most part I think most frugal people want the government to get rid of its mounting debt, and again, being frugal is the same as being conservative.

I think it is sad that people think of conservatism as a bad word, but I guess just a few years ago frugality was not very popular, either.   Hopefully as frugality and fiscal responsibility becomes more accepted Americans will realize that they cannot afford to have big spenders in their government.  After all, more taxes means less savings, and letting the government take more of your own ability to be financially independent is equivalent to giving up your life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Share This

A reader of Wise Bread named Vlatro left the best comment I have ever read in two years of blogging on my article about the AIG bonuses.  Here is how it begins:

People seem to be missing the bigger issue. The tax code is now being used to punish people without giving them the benefit of a fair trial. The bonuses may be considered by some as unethical, I’m not going to waste time debating that. Has the law, as it is currently written, been broken? I don’t see indictments, trials or convictions. We just skipped the whole process and went straight to punishment. There are AIG employees receiving death threats and having their homes swarmed by angry protesters. Many of them were not the recipients of any bonuses. A Federally funded organization (i.e. supported by YOUR tax money) is providing tour buses to these people’s homes, doing every thing it can to throw more fuel into this fire. Not to mention that it was CONGRESS who authorized these bonuses, as a provision of the bail-out funds for the company.

Where is the public outrage against congress? Why aren’t their homes being stormed by angry mobs? We didn’t vote for any AIG members, but the elected officials who continue to be the beneficiaries of your tax money have betrayed to you. If you’re against the bonuses, they have played an equal part in robbing you. We’re throwing away the constitution to squelch an emotional need to act, even when the full facts aren’t available to the public.

I really suggest that you read the whole comment at Wise Bread because I don’t want to copy the whole thing.  It ends with this:

I would spend the money to mail out millions of copies of the US constitution. The government will make their end on the deal in the form of postage, and a few people might actually wake up and realize what’s happening here.

Awesome comment or manifesto if you will.

Share This

Before I begin, I will flat out admit that  Idiocracy is a pretty stupid film overall.  The premise of the movie was that imbeciles were procreating at a faster rate than highly educated people so after 500 years the whole earth was filled with idiots.  They created giant piles of trash and watered their crops with energy drinks.  It was a dumb movie, and my husband said he felt stupider after watching it.

The first time I got reminded of Idiocracy was when we watched Wall-E in the theatre.  These two movies both had giant piles of trash and also a very similar ending. The main difference was that Wall-E’s protagonists were cute little robots.  After watching that movie my husband said, “Idiocracy ruined Wall-E for me”.

This week I remembered the story of Idiocracy again after reading about Nadya Suleman.  Nadya Suleman is the mother of the now famous octuplets.  Apparently she now has a total of 14 kids.  Three of her older six kids are disabled so she’s receiving food stamps and money for them, and she funded her invitro treatments with her disability payments.  She is unemployed and now Kaiser is demanding money from MediCal to pay for the care of her octuplets.

I totally believe that everyone should be able to have as many kids as they want, but people need to understand that kids are huge responsibilities financially, physically, and emotionally.  An understanding these of responsibilities is what prevents a lot of folks from having a lot of kids, and this was illustrated in the movie Idiocracy.

So what’s my point?  I actually do not believe that book smarts is totally hereditary so I think it is possible that parents that are considered to be “dumb” can have very successful children. Basically, I do not believe that the world in Idiocracy would actually become a reality.  However, I am pretty annoyed by people who are perpetually unemployed and have  kids just to milk the system and collect welfare checks or discounted housing.   If you intend to provide for the kids you have and find a way to do it then there is nothing wrong with having tons of kids.  In fact, I admire the Duggar family of Arkansas a lot for what they are doing with their brood of 18.

With that said, if Nadya Suleman gets a reality show I think I would puke, because that would be true idiocracy.

Share This