- Good intro to this weekend’s WMRC ... and a more detailed review
- Justin’s blog re: TRR. Damn. DCH post too. It is pretty clear that hanging out with your buddies for a week running may not necessarily be the vacation you were expecting.
- Byron Powell with a very good post re: Leadville
- Perhaps as part of an aftermath wave of Erik Skaggs fight with renal failure, I am seeing lots of posts pointing out Vitamin I is not a good idea for endurance folks.
- 12 miles. Felt sluggish physically, but mentally just enjoyed the time out.
- Pups … (the female - the red brown one, her eyes have opened)
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Thursday 090309
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
check-out the reader comments following the article posted on RVR's blog. In short, a lot of "readers" call Skaggs out for not having insurance.
ReplyDeletePretty interesting discussion actually.
Cheers.
Missing that ... similar topic came up when Ballengee had her fall in Moab. What link?
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing this: http://roguevalleyrunners.blogspot.com/
ReplyDeleteIbuprofen is SOOOO tempting after 4 hours of running and feels soooo good when it takes effect. It is scary to use though. I suppose, like everything else in ultrarunning, try it in training runs. It doesn't seem to affect me negatively, especially when I keep up with water and salt.
Lots of people don't have insurance; I played that gamble for years and am very grateful nothing terrible happened.
Maybe at some point proof of insurance will be required along with entry into ultra events over a certain distance.
tl
Yeah ... but I don't see any "contraversy" in any of those comments. Maybe they have been culled ...
ReplyDeleteOh yeah ... Matt, Tim ... any chance you two guys can get together for a run?
ReplyDeletetried, not gonna work. I fly out tomorrow at 5pm
ReplyDeleteah ha, I think Matt may have read this and thought it was the rvr blog.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8860166&postID=753421321708314644
Eric can earn money just like anyone. I don't earn much money at all but know that what I choose to do in my free time is dangerous (motor cycle riding, ultra running, trail running, bicycling, climbing up mountains, etc).
He can afford insurance. The new plan requiring all Americans to have insurance will make sure of it.
I have a feeling that if "we" (meaning a bunch of GZ-blogosphere dudes) showed up for TRR with about a dozen of our running friends, we could make it a good time. Lots of shenanigans!
ReplyDeletehttp://forums.mailtribune.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?webtag=mm-news&nav=messages&tid=10643
ReplyDeleteHere it is.
Yeah, I'm actually surprised 100s don't require insurance. Skaggs didn't even have surgery (i don't think) and his bill is apparently 25-30k.
Brandon - I like that!
ReplyDeleteFirst - yeah some pranks at TRR. Panty raids. Kool aid in the shower heads. THREE beers a night and no napkins. Subbing the toe rope for the leading team to actually be a steel chain.
... just getting started ...
I love how the whole BC police came out in force because someone peed on a bush.
Insurance ...
ReplyDeleteThe topic is obviously one that is contraversial and emotional. Nobody wants to see Eric struggle like that and we all wish for his safe recovery.
I hesitate to comment on this because it asking questions about and speaking to this topic is one about a population's choices ... and it is easy to make generalities with a population. It is suddenly a very different topic when you are talking about an individual.
I think there is a fair and valid question aside from Erik's recovery - and that is our obligation to have health insurance.
While the government does not subsidize my insurance for me to drive a car, it is the law that I have a minimum amount of it. In other words, our society has deemed it appropriate that if I wish to engage in the risk / privilege of driving a car, I need to have some money in the kitty just in case something bad happens.
Should such insurance also be required for inherently risky behaviors like running a 62 mile race as hard as you can?
Wouldn't it be considered irresponsible of me if I chose not to have health insurance for my family? We all know that kids are going to get sick. It is part of the risk of growing up. Wouldn't it be considered a stupid risk if I decided to just forego insuring them? If I did do that, or even just had minimal insurance, because that was my choice, my life style, would it be appropriate for me to ask this blog for help?
I don't know if there is a clear answer to that, but I do scratch my head when I see able bodied young people standing at the end of the 36 on ramp at South Boulder Road asking for a hand out. Is this insurance thing greatly different than that?
FWIW - I realize there is an insurance problem in this country for many. I am not sure that having the government regulate that is appropriate. My faith in our government to run effective smart customer centered businesses went out the door with DMV years ago, and that lack of faith has been compounded with the idiotic TSA dance we do at the airport.
Sure this will get me in trouble with someone ...
Brandon/GZ - would you take your wives and keep everyone up past 10 PM too?
ReplyDeleteYes. We regularly stay up and play scrabble post 10PM.
ReplyDeleteJM, my wife would stay back to manage my offspring. Then I would be free to drink you under the table into the wee hours of the night.
ReplyDeleteGeorge, (et al.):
ReplyDeleteI understand your point of view re: insurance. It is basically my point of view, too. Some of the faux-bums asking for hand-outs on Pearl St. get my ire WAY up. That's not "living simply", that's being irresponsible and probably just a bit lazy, too.
But, there are at least two differences in Erik's situation. One, Erik is not lazy and I can 100% guarantee you that he didn't ask for a hand-out. He knew that not having insurance was a risk (he and I have had the conversation several times; until last week I was riding a 2+ year stretch without insurance myself), especially as a mountain runner, and once he incurred the $30k bill I guarantee that Erik wasn't asking for any help from anyone. He was ready to shoulder his debt and just start paying off what he could each month. He gambled and knows that it is his responsibility--as a member of our current society--to pay the consequences.
Two, because Erik is not lazy, and because the people who know him know that he is one of the good guys--one of the most kind, selfless people you'll ever meet--those people have responded with an unsolicited outpouring of goodwill that has begun to manifest itself in the form of donations and fund-raising races. I assure you that neither the account at Umpqua Bank nor any of the fundraising races were Erik's ideas. He would not presumptively ask for money.
Third, the lone fact that Erik's bill is $30k for a non-elective, non-surgical stay is impossibly absurd and should signal a need for healthcare reform. It essentially makes life--and when I say "life", I literally mean "being alive"--unliveable for someone without a certain type of job. And, even if everyone wanted those types of jobs, there wouldn't be enough of those types of jobs to go around to everyone of working age in this country. And, since Jon Voight wants to talk about free will in the context of the healthcare debate, the current health insurance system essentially NEGATES any of that basic free will by forcing us, in this society, to lead a so-called "productive" life where mostly all that we produce is a lot of money, in this case, to spend on over-priced health insurance. I could discuss at length the other productive activities in this life and society that aren't appropriately widely valued (as signified by the wage/salary currently associated with them), and I am going to put out there that Erik is an assiduous practicioner of one of these "other" "productive" activities that is undervalued.
So, no, I don't think that a government/a taxpayer has an obligation to pay for everyone's healthcare. But, I DO think that a government has an obligation to provide a system that allows every person in that society a chance to live. And if someone thinks that, oh, Erik was taking a risk, that is true. Life is risky behavior, period. It is vulgar that someone (a hospital) can capitalize so shamelessly on someone else's mere attempts to truly live life and in the process of doing so, coming across a few bumps (like, for instance, acute renal failure).
I welcome the debate and hearing other people's points of view on this. Thanks George for providing a forum where we can all be a bit reasoned and courteous instead of anonymous and inflammatory.
Tony
We have world class healthcare.
ReplyDeleteHealthcare is very expensive because:
* Insurance companies can't sell it across state lines. There is not enough competition.
* Trial lawyers get $20M judgements for people at the drop of a hat. I really don't care what happened to you in the hospital, these judgements are obscene.
* Most Americans are overweight and make personal life choices that result in expensive healthcare bills later in life.
* Everyone who uses healthcare pays more because of those who use it and don't.
I think Erik's case is the beauty of being an American in a free country. He made his choices, and I don't think he was stupid, lazy, shortsighted or anything. My deductible for my family's insurance is $2000/year, plus we pay another $5000/year out of our paycheck and my company pays another $5000/year. Its obscene. But my daughter has Type 1 Diabetes, and just in general we are pretty conservative financially in my family, so we have insurance.
But in America we are free to do as we choose. So the hospital will write down a lot of the costs for Erik. And his friends and family will kick in some. And he will kick in some. And he will be fine. In the end he will still come out ahead because what we would have paid over the last several years will be more than what he ultimately pays out of pocket in this instance.
My own opinion is if the government was between Erik and this episode...who knows. They could say it was his fault and he's not covered, or he could wait 10 months for reimbursement, or who knows. Given things like cash for clunkers, how is the government going to create from scratch a new insurance company with any amount of efficiency? Can you imagine the wait times on their 800 numbers? And so on and so forth. And if they overhire so that doesn't happen, its going to cost a mint. They don't have the industry expertise, experience, and knowledge base.
What I want to know is why can the government give people $5000 for buying a new car (and take on new debt they can't afford), but not give people $5000 to buy their own health insurance?
Brett,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment. I think, however, that our respective definitions of "world-class healthcare" differ. I think of a world-class healthcare system as being one where NECESSARY (e.g. for Type 1 Diabetes) treatment is affordable and accessible to everyone.
You, however, admit that currently our healthcare is obscenely expensive. Which, by definition, means it is inherently exclusive. Why should your daughter, when she grows up, be forced to work only careers that either: A) earn her enough money to be able to pay her medical bills and still be financially solvent, or B) offer health benefits?
I'm not saying that life needs to be inherently fair (it can't be), but your daughter having her job choices so severely limited just because she is unlucky enough to have diabetes doesn't seem right. In fact, it seems downright un-American!
T
Interesting stuff and perspectives.
ReplyDeleteBeing Canadian I don't know a lot about the American system, or lack there of. Even though we have some issues with our system, it is comforting to know that I would not be in a similar situation if I was in Erik's shoes.
Hoping for a quick recovery for Erik.
P.S. Cash For Clunkers was retarded, but only because I think that A) depending on consumer spending to save the economy and boost GDP is foolhardy and inherently unsustainable, and B) the resource consumption and CO2 emissions necessary to manufacture a new car FAR outweigh the CO2 emissions from driving an older, already-existing vehicle that has a lower MPG. Reusing ANYTHING (cars, clothing, furniture, etc.) is the cheapest, most effective mode of recycling.
ReplyDeleteYep, good points Tony. Its crazy that healthcare and jobs are linked. Other than the first logical reason, having to have money to buy insurance.
ReplyDeleteBut really, companies could save $5000 per year from dropping that.
Why not keep it very simple...take that $5000 that companies used to pay, couple it with another $5000 from the government, and buy an insurance plan thats independent of work status, work at all, etc.
Yea and you're right to call out what is included/implied in a statement like 'world class'. I meant the actual technologies, people, etc.
I am convinced that if regular people got together, we could fix 95% of the problems in healthcare in less than 1 day.
Did this blog just go into a vortex?
ReplyDeleteHow is everybody's running?
Tony, when are you going to let GZ and I take you out for a run so you can kick our asses?
Derrick, I'm with you. Growing up in England, health care was something that was there for me if I needed it, free of charge. I was pretty shocked to get to the US (a country I held in almost mythical regard) as a young man to find that medical care was not available to me on my very limited means.
ReplyDeleteIt was way, way cheaper for me on one occasion to fly back to the UK for a particular procedure than it would have been to get it done in the US. Lucky I had that option, or I would likely have been facing medical bills similar to those Erik is now facing.
Although I took it for granted while growing up in the UK, I now realize that access to health care for all is/should be a pillar of any nation serious about the well-being of its people, which therefore requires some degree of governmental intervention.
Left to the free markets, health care providers/insurance companies will pick and choose the people they wish to treat/cover based on the profit motives that define who they are. I'm not saying the single-payer model in the UK/Canada is the answer, but it certainly doesn't deserve the scorn thrown at it by those who equate 'socialism' with the devil's work. And for the record, the UK and Canada are about as far removed from socialism (as I understand it) as the United States. We just happen to believe that access to health care for all is a governmental responsibility equal to that of education, national defense, etc.
Ask the average Brit what he/she thinks of the NHS and they will bitch about waiting times for certain procedures (they can buy private insurance, if they so choose, to get immediate care for elective needs), but would be horrified by the crippling and restrictive prospects of living under the current US system.
While there is no doubt that some of the best medical services in the world are to be found in the US, they simply are not available to the whole populous. I have never quite understood why the insurance leeches in the middle hold the position they do in the system, but in my opinion their stranglehold on the system is the central problem, and the first that needs to be addressed.
If I had to pay out of pocket, I would:
1. consider carefully if I needed to visit a doctor before going.
2. Shop around for the most affordable options.
3. Consider preventative actions, such as exercise, worth the cost/effort.
As the system exists, people who have insurance couldn't care less what the provider costs are as they're not picking up the tab, which allows providers to keep costs high, which leaves those without insurance paying ridiculous costs for hospital stays, and those with coverage paying ever higher premiums and co-pays. Not sustainable.
Insurance companies should offer coverage for major surgeries and serious unforeseen costs (as was the original model), but the costs for simple procedures and doctor visits need to be paid for out of pocket (thereby seriously driving down costs as people shop around), or be subsidized by an entity, such as the government, that can set certain prices for certain procedures - rather than have those prices all over the map as they currently are.
There's my rant. Feel free to label me a leftist pinko!
Oh, and Brandon, talk to GZ about the Foco vs Boulder running smackdown. We're looking at November.
Nick,
ReplyDeleteFoCo v. Boulder - you should bring your crew down for the Basic Boulder Mountain Marathon in November.
JV,
Better get with it if you want to hold on to that title!
I call it first! I am putting a tow strap on Justin. Weeeee!
ReplyDeleteWow.
ReplyDeleteSo Anton - definitely looking forward to a couple of miles with you - and these sorts of conversations. I find that some of my best intellectual stimulus these days comes from folks I run with. Of course, it is also a place for some of the most crass humor.
Brett - wishing you could be there!
In no way did I wish to imply in anyway that Eric was lazy. I still need to drill through the mail tribune thread - although I can guess that it is probably ripping him.
I need to dig into your comments a bit. (digest)
Yeah - we are kicking around a FoCo versus Boulder Co (ish) race series. We have thought November, with one up there, one down here and one neutral. Racing, beers, pancakes. Solve healthcare problems and discuss eastern thought when you can catch a breath. You get the idea.