Death's Dirge

People are funny in a strange way about death: they either embrace it and allow it to pervade their lives for awhile or they turn from it, afraid that somehow it may be communicable. This past week, there have been some odd public comments in the on-line newspaper regarding the deaths of people reported in the media.

A long-time Supervisor, well-known and acknowledged for his numerous contributions to the Valley, resigned last Friday and died Wednesday. Many people reacted to the sudden death with sadness, especially since his resignation was so abrupt and his death so final: there was no retirement party, no public recognition of his contributions and/or celebration of his future leisure. The comments, however, were also indicative of people who make judgments about the way others live their lives, including the person who posited that "old, sick people should get out of the way so their replacement can have a job," and another who queried why "old, sick officials" don't resign so they don't die while still in office.

Someone, referring to the Supervisor specifically, wanted to know who "signed his resignation" as it is "obvious" to the writer that the guy was unable to sign it himself. No cause of death or circumstance of death has been released to the public, so perhaps this observer either has inside information or psychic ability. What the writer does not seem to possess, however, is an iota of tact or respect for death.

Senator Kennedy's death was expected: he was dealing with a brain tumor. Perhaps, in that instance, I can more understand the need to resign so his death does not create a political vacuum, but we all feel that we can "beat the Big C" and live to fight another day. Often, when the end comes, it comes more quickly than we are prepared to accept, so others do have to deal with what comes after, including the political process required for another Senator to fill the deceased's Senate seat.

However, it may well be that the Senator, as well as the local Supervisor, were in the same position so many of us find ourselves: our insurance coverage is terminated the day we resign and, with a pre-existing medical condition, we are no longer insurable. For a person who, for instance, suffers a stroke or is dealing with cancer, no insurance is not an option. A person who has any assets loses all of them before being awarded free medical care that is given to a person who has nothing at the time of the medical necessity. It is far better to be an illegal alien or indigent than it is to accrue assets when it comes to the cost and consequences of medical care in the US.

Am I an advocate of socialized medicine? No; I was a military dependent for 18 years and know what it is to join the cattle call for services and slog through the process to get a specific doctor to deal with a specific medical condition. In today's insurance lingo, that process is known as an HMO, which seems to stand for Hope the Medical treatment is Okayed.

I pay for PMO, but have no hope of continuing that level of insurance coverage once my 36 months expire with CalCOBRA, a plan that costs me $561/month and was literally my only option with two pre-existing medical conditions, neither of which seriously affects and/or restricts my daily life, used as cause to deny me insurance when I retired after 30 years on the job! It was time for me to move on professionally, to open a spot for the recent college graduate to fill, but it was not time for me to sit idly and wait for the Grim Reaper to knock on my front door; however, insurance coverage is far too often tied to employment, rather than to personal necessity, so no longer on the job? No insurance.

Thus, I am one of the seniors who is concerned about health care reform: it impacts me directly. I must be insured, but no reputable insurer wants to accept my premium as I have both asthma and Diabetes II, both of which are controlled by diet and exercise except in extreme circumstances. I am no less healthy than many individuals half my age, but I will pay twice as much each month to be insured based solely on age and pre-existing medical conditions. Is this fair? No; when I was half my current age, I used medical services much more often because I was much more active, accrued injuries and required surgeries. I am no more at risk today than I was then, but I pay more for insurance that covers less of the cost of medical care.

I'm still thinking about what I think about the proposed changes to medical care. My initial response is that the President wants to move too quickly to make a change that too many people will have to live with for far too long. The old saying, act in haste; repent in leisure, assures me that we do not need to make a decision today. It would still be a milestone in Obama's presidency if he were to take 3 years to define a plan that the majority can live with, rather than 3 months to publicize a plan the majority questions.

As the demographic ages, we need to adapt to the present needs, rather than continue to serve historical trends. We need as a nation to make decisions that are right for us, rather than expedient. No one wants to work until their dying day because that's the only way they can obtain medical insurance!