Archives: January 2012

Homeless Elderly Baby Boomers

01.31.2012 4:43 PM

This month the Journal of General Internal Medicine highlights a recent study of geriatric conditions in homeless individuals aged 50-75 in and around the Boston area.  The study shows that when the elderly become homeless they tend to become chronically homeless and that they experience a decline in mental and physical abilities comparable to individuals twenty years older.  Dr. Margot Kushel offers a thoughtful editorial on how some creative solutions could both be cost-effective in the long run, treat the elderly homeless humanely and, perhaps, bring an end to chronic homelessness.

“The average age of individuals experiencing homelessness is rising. Between the early 1990s and 2003, the proportion of homeless adults aged 50 and older increased from 11% to nearly one-third1. This trend continues. Demographic research has shown that for the last 20 years, adults born in the second half of the “baby boom” (mid-1950s to 1964) have experienced a sustained elevation in their risk of experiencing homelessness2. As this population ages, so does the average age of the homeless population…Widespread homelessness has persisted for 3 decades, but the face of it has changed. With the specter of large numbers of frail, older people living on our streets, there is a moral imperative to intervene. In light of a poor economic climate that may both place more vulnerable older individuals at risk of homelessness and threaten the safety net that cares for them, demographic projections of a continued rise in the proportion of homeless adults who are over aged 50, and compelling data describing the frailty of this population, we may have an economic incentive to do so as well…Read More…”


With friends like these

01.30.2012 6:01 PM

At the NYTs, an interesting post by Thomas Edsell on Gingrich and cultural conservatives.  I see the same thing that Edsell sees, and it is shocking.  Only a few years ago, Christian conservatives seemed genuinely outraged at Clinton’s sexual misconduct and, in general, seemed sincerely to place a high priority on supporting politicians who, at least publicly, were seen as sober, clean-living, family-oriented people.   But in South Carolina, anyway, Christian conservatives didn’t seem very enamored of either Santorum or Romney — each a poster boy from central casting for what used to be called “family values” — and instead largely voted for Gingrich, beside whom Clinton on his worst day seemed like an uptight Sunday School superintendent.  In fact, I think it’s fair to say that if Christian conservatives can accept Gingrich’s personal behavior, there is absolutely nothing, nada, in the area of personal sexual and family conduct that is unacceptable to them.  When exactly did this change occur, and what on earth does it mean?  I’m not sure, but one guess is that society as a whole, conservative Christians included, are changing their minds on nearly all things sexual and familial at what amounts in socio-political terms to warp speed.   I know there are other (and maybe more damning) possible explanations, but this strikes me as one of them, anyway. (Sigh.)   It seems quite likely that, after Florida, in the coming weeks, Gingrich, a truly awful man, will win or nearly win a number of primaries in the Deep South, largely on the basis of the male evangelical voter who used to be, but appears to be no longer, concerned with the issues of marriage and family.


Men Without Women

01.28.2012 5:08 PM

A study found that in polygamous cultures, levels of rape, kidnap, murder and robbery increase as the dissatsified men left on the shelf go on the rampage. Researchers from the University of British Columbia say that monogamous marriage has replaced polygamy because it has lower levels of inherent social problems…


How much do you want to pay to keep an old prisoner in jail?

01.27.2012 2:28 PM

NYT today:

The number of Americans in prison older than 55 is growing at a faster rate than the group’s share of the population at large, and many prisons are unprepared to provide them with health care, which can cost as much as nine times more than for younger inmates, Human Rights Watch said in a report released Friday.

The complications in handling the swelling number of aging prisoners range from making allowances for those with Alzheimer’s or dementia and finding sufficient ground-floor cells for inmates in wheelchairs to ensuring that older prisoners are not exploited or robbed by younger inmates.

While you’re at it, see Adam Gopnik’s essay on U.S. mass incarceration in this week’s New Yorker.


And then you got old…now what?

01.26.2012 11:49 AM

“When I was younger, so much younger than today,
I never needed anybody’s help in anyway.
But now these days are gone, I’m not so self assured,
Now I find I’ve changed my mind, I’ve opened up the doors.

Help me if you can, I’m feeling down
And I do appreciate you being ’round.
Help me get my feet back on the ground,
Won’t you please, please help me?”  Beatles, “Help”

In today’s Dear Prudence column we read this question:

Dear Prudence,
I am in my early 50s, and almost a decade ago my husband suffered a traumatic brain hemorrhage, which left him with the mental capacity of a perpetual 11-year-old. I am the center of his universe, and not in a good way. I work part time, and when I go out he’s afraid I’m leaving him. We haven’t had a husband-and-wife relationship since his injury. We are more like mother and child. I miss kissing, touching, and sex. Counseling wasn’t helpful; I was advised to get out more. My children are in their mid-20s, and if I left my husband he would become their problem, which isn’t fair. Is it wrong for me to find a man for adult companionship and sex? I don’t think I can do this for another 20-plus years.

—Lonely

Prudie answers by supporting her to move on.  She cites the recent Washington Post article about Robert Melton and his wife who divorced him in order to remarry, while remaining the primary caregiver for her debilitated ex-husband.  In that piece, the wife genuinely wrestles with breaking her vow of “in sickness and in health” to her first husband, and overall, she and the author of the piece say that they are reinterpreting the vow and giving that vow new meaning.

Again, let me first say, I err on the side of compassion.  If either of these women were my friend, I would whole-heartedly want to support them in both honoring their vows to their debilitated spouse but also wanting them to be happy.  Having a spouse who changes physically, mentally and emotionally in ways that are irreversible is not something I have experienced, but through many years in hospice have observed to be gut-wrenching and full of sacrifices.  Change is not easy.  Vows are not easy.

And so I come back to some core questions:

Why do we make vows in the first place?  And why do we make them to mortals who inevitably change or as Shakespeare un-romantically says, “rot?”

How do we balance personal happiness or fulfillment with commitment?

I ask, because if you are in a committed relationship, rest assured that you and he/she will AGE!  At some point, either you or he/she will be caring for the other or being cared for.  In 2011, the National Family Caregivers Association’s Caregiving Statistics, reported that more than 65 million people, 29% of the U.S. population, provided care for a chronically ill or disabled person.  Most of those were spouses caring for spouses.  The average time span of care giving is 5 plus years.

At some point, we may all look at our spouses and think, “This is not the guy or gal I married!”  (and of course vice versa!)  What then?  Since I started with the Beatles, might as well end there…

“Will you still need me?  Will you still feed me, when I’m 64 (or 74 or 84 or 94!?”

 


Just Released

01.26.2012 10:37 AM

My Daddy’s Name is Donor is now available as an ebook!


Children of Divorce: Broken Origins and the Question of Being

01.25.2012 7:44 PM

If you’re in Washington, be sure to go see Andrew Root talk about his excellent book, Children of Divorce: The Loss of Family as the Loss of Being, on February 6th.


Three Parent Reproduction

01.25.2012 7:40 PM

From the UK:

The controversial technique known as “three-parent IVF” came a step closer yesterday after the Department of Health asked the fertility regulator to conduct a public consultation into its acceptability.

For more, see One Parent or Five.


The multitude of family structures for persons raised by gay and lesbian parents: A challenge for researchers

01.25.2012 5:43 PM

Studying persons raised by gay or lesbian parents is such a challenge. There are not so many gay and lesbian persons to begin with, the sexual identity of the parents can be fluid, children raised by persons who have identified as gay or lesbian may have started life with parents who identified as heterosexual, and even in an intact gay or lesbian relationship the children will always have come, at least in part, from somewhere else: via adoption, reproductive technologies, or a previous heterosexual encounter, relationship, or marriage.

Which means finding, naming, and making sense of the experience of these young people is and will remain an enormous challenge, given that father or mother loss is inevitably a part of their story, with such losses happening through distinctive and sometimes multiple channels that may be having independent effects on children (adoption, donor conception, single parent childbearing, divorce) and oftentimes more than one of these experiences happening over time in the life of one child.

A recent paper in the Journal of Marriage and Family, “Marriage (In)equality: The Perspectives of Adolescents and Emerging Adults With Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Parents,” by Abbie E. Goldberg and Katherine A. Kuvalanka, illustrates the variety of experiences found in even a small sample of youth raised by a gay or lesbian parent:

Participants grew up in a variety of family situations. In 20 cases, participants had been born to two mothers via donor insemination and had a biological mother and a nonbiological mother. In 22 cases, participants had been born to heterosexual parents, one or both of whom later came out as LGB (in 13 cases, their mother; in eight cases, their father; in one case, both parents). Two participants were born to a single lesbian mother, one was born to a lesbian couple and a gay male couple who coparented, one was born to a bisexual mother and a gay father, one was adopted by two gay fathers at birth, one was adopted by two lesbian mothers at birth, and one was born to heterosexual parents but later adopted by a lesbian couple via the child welfare system.


Co-Parenting Pre-Conception Arrangements

01.25.2012 5:29 PM

I wrote about them here and here.

A FamilyScholars reader sends me two recent examples in the news, apparently spurred by yet another ridiculous new “family building” website:

…In comes co-parenting.  It’s a concept where unmarried adults who decide that marriage isn’t for them, or whose biological clock is winding down, decide they want to have a child, married or not.   Two mature adults can decide that they want to have a child, become loving parents, and never even live together.  …A start-up company has actually moved to capitalize on this concept.  Modamily, a New York based firm, has developed a social network for potential parents to find a mate without the pressure of relationships or marriage.  The site reminds me of Match.com, but with a completely different focus. You can even choose which method of conception you are open to (natural or artificial).

…Simply put, co-parenting is the practice of raising a child together without all the messy romantic stuff. Two adults, both hankering to be parents, join forces to have and raise a baby. But they don’t get married. And they don’t love each other, at least not like that. According to Modamily, a website for people looking to create co-parenting arrangements, co-parenting is, “the shared raising of a child between two loving, committed, and financially secure adults.” Modamily claims that the set-up helps to solve the problem of quickie-clock-ticker marriages and resulting divorces.

If you want to learn more about Modamily google them yourself.


The M.Guy Tweet

01.25.2012 2:45 PM

Marriage Media
Week of January 16, 2011
Courtesy of Bill Coffin

 

1. Family Fact of the Week: Marriage’s Sobering Effects, Heritage Foundation

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a new report last week showing that. . . one in six U.S. adults binge drinks about 4 times a month—that’s more than 38 million people. Fortunately, marriage appears to have a positive effect on both men’s and women’s relationships to alcohol, with a decline in alcohol problems among couples who have tied the knot. . . The instance of binge drinking declines by 11 percent among recently married men, and marriage seems to also reduce the number of women who report binge drinking by 20 percent.

2. Are You with the Right Mate?, Psychology Today

What to do when the initial attraction sours? “I call it the first day of your real marriage,” Real says. It’s not a sign that you’ve chosen the wrong partner. It is the signal to grow as an individual—to take responsibility for your own frustrations. Invariably, we yearn for perfection but are stuck with an imperfect human being. We all fall in love with people we think will deliver us from life’s wounds but who wind up knowing how to rub against us.

3. Marriage: Saying ‘I don’t’, Los Angeles Times

As of 2010, according to a recent report from the Pew Research Center, married couples had fallen to barely 51% of U.S. households, with a full 5% drop in new marriages between 2009 and 2010 alone. The data for 2011 aren’t in yet, but if that decline continued last year, less than half of American adults are in a legal marriage now. Is marriage going the way of the electric typewriter and the VHS tape? Not exactly.

4. Blair: Marriage Without Meaning, The Dartmouth

I just want to focus now on the reason legislation about marriage is appropriate to pursue even in our time of fiscal crisis. The state does not create marriage – it recognizes it. It recognizes it because of the terrible importance marriage possesses for the health of a country. The decline in a healthy marriage culture, which started in the ‘60s and ‘70s in our country, has been linked again and again to higher crime rates, higher poverty rates, poorer education and lower levels of psychological health in children, among other things.

5. Relationship Help, Huffington Post

However couples therapy is only part of the answer to the question of how to increase relationship health. The most important answer is in one word: Education.

Relationship education includes classes, workshops, and online learning where partners can learn the skills and principles that over 30 years of research has shown to be associated with relationship happiness. In controlled clinical trials, couples who complete a relationship education program communicate better, handle conflicts and negative emotions more constructively, have lower risk of divorce and higher levels of relationship happiness. My message to couples: Don’t wait until things get really nasty or until you have lost that loving feeling.

6. Twogether in Texas, East Texas Review

Twogether in Texas grew out of the federal Healthy Marriage Initiative and operates with funds from Texas Health and Human Services Commission. In just over three years, it has helped thousands of people nurture stronger marriages — and save a few bucks in the process.

“I originally came here today to get my $60 voucher,” one participant said after attending a workshop in Fort Worth. “However, I’m leaving with so much more. I don’t even care about the money I saved because the knowledge I gained today is priceless.”

7. Your Marital Style May Predict Divorce, Houston Chronicle

After thirty years of divorce research, she came up with five basic marital styles. What is important to note are the ones that were most likely NOT to end up in divorce. The two that led to the longest, most content marriages are the cohesive marriage and the traditional marriage. Indentifying your style may be the first step in re-taping your communication and saving your marriage.

  1. Cohesive Marriage. This marriage style is one in which the couple doesn’t spend every waking moment together, but they are tightly bonded. These couples often have their own interests, their own careers, but at the end of the day they want to be in each other’s arms. They draw their support and love from each other. They are the gold standard as they make marriage look real. Most people idealize this type of marriage.
  2. Traditional Marriage. This is the marriage your parents may have had. The breadwinner is the guy, and the wife takes on the duties of the home, kids and running the couple’s social life. Although it led to the least divorces in Dr. Hetherington’s thirty-year research study, the individual people may not have been the happiest. This marriage works great if both partners enjoy and embrace their roles. If something changes, such as the wife begins working, this type of marriage may become unstable.

 

For more, see this site.


In Defense of Divorce

01.25.2012 2:16 PM

House after  divorce

Marina Adshade, an economics professor with an interest in “sex and love,” writes:

Today we will take a few minutes to show a little appreciation for an important right in Western society – the right to divorce. [...]

Economists Justine Wolfers and Betsey Stevenson, in a 2006 paper, showed that these legal changes had significant impacts on the quality of life of women. Taking advantage of in state-by-state variations in the time in which these laws were put into place they found that freer access to divorce brought with it an 8 –16% decline in female suicide, a 30% decline in domestic violence and 10% decline in the murder rate of women.

You may argue that these benefits to unilateral divorce laws come at significant costs – hardship for children and female poverty, just to name two – but that would only be true if the change in divorce laws increased the rate of divorce and that has not been proven. In fact, the best evidence suggests a very small positive effect on divorce rates only in the ten years after divorces became easier to obtain. And even then, that effect was only among those who were married before the laws were put in place.

The explanation for why easier access to divorce has not increased divorce rates is simple – men and women enter into marriage more cautiously when they know that divorce is easier to obtain. This is because while the laws may have made divorce easier from a legal standpoint, they have not made marital dissolution emotionally or economically painless.

It is this fact that explains why women marry later in life when it is easier to divorce.

A second explanation, which also explains the fall in domestic violence and suicide in states that support unilateral divorce, is just knowing that your spouse can divorce you without your consent encourages married individuals to treat each other better.

In the article, Adshade also argue that the use of “covenant” marriage agreements doesn’t actually make people less likely to divorce, but they do make the divorces harder on the people involved (“Anecdotal evidence suggests that even when abuse has been proven judges strictly enforce separation periods of up to two years.”). Those costs fall disproportionately on women:

The purpose of a covenant marriage is to increase the cost of divorce, significantly, and as a result give parties an incentive to stay in a failing marriage. If women are lower wage earners than men, or are out of the workforce all together, then the imposition of these costs falls disproportionally on women making it difficult for them to leave a bad marriage. That part of the arrangement is significant since in the majority of divorces it is the wife who wants the marriage to end.

I pretty much agree with Adshade on all of this. Married life was not a paradise in the 1950s, and the people I know who got divorced did so only after a lot of anguish and thought. Contrary to what the marriage-rescuers seem to believe, most Americans take marriage very seriously; trying to make it even harder to divorce is punitive, it is anti-liberty, and it will not actually improve anything.


Is Grief the Same Thing as Depression?

01.25.2012 8:58 AM

Yesterday’s NYTimes reported on the ongoing work of the American Psychiatric Association to revise the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or D.S.M.  One contentious issue has been the debate over whether or not to include or exclude grief or bereavement in the clinical diagnosis of depression (it is currently excluded).  This is not to say that you can not be grieving when you are diagnosed as clinically depressed, it just means that if loss is the only precipitating event to symptoms of depression, than other interventions are tried before a diagnosis and treatment plan for clinical depression are made.

“Under the current criteria, a depression diagnosis requires that a person have five of nine symptoms — which include sleeping problems, a feeling of worthlessness and a loss of concentration — for two weeks or more. The criteria make an explicit exception for normal grieving, which can look like depression.

An estimated 8 to 10 million people lose a loved one every year, and something like a third to a half of them suffer depressive symptoms for up to month afterward,” said Dr. Wakefield, author of “The Loss of Sadness.” “This would pathologize them for behavior previously thought to be normal.”

To show my hand, I fall in the camp that continues to exclude grief from the clinical definition of depression.


How Will the Death of Disney Moms Shape our Grief?

01.24.2012 12:18 PM

Today’s Obit.com re-posts a piece by David Jays on Disney movies and death, and aptly points out how mothers are most likely missing in Disney movies.  Does Ariel have a mom? Does Belle have a mom?  Does Jasmine have a mom?  Pinnochio has no mom.  Cinderella’s mom is dead and replaced by an evil Stepmother who competes with her.  Snow White’s mom is dead and replaced by an evil Stepmother who competes with her. In Tangled, Rapunzel is kidnapped by an evil, faux mother who uses her magic hair to stay eternally young. Sleeping Beauty has a mom, but she also doesn’t really have a name (can you think of it? It’s Aurora…) and she is in a coma. And of course, Bambi’s mom dies:

“Disney’s films are undeniably weird about mothers. Dumbo’s mother is locked up, Pinocchio lacks one entirely, while the maternal instinct curdles in stories drawn from fairy tales. Snow White’s villainous stepmother is both icy beauty and cackling hag, intent on murder. Bambi, however, is full of anodyne mothers – a herd of Stepford beasts contentedly putters along with their cubs and chicks (where are all the fathers? Do they commute to hunt and gather?). But the maternal bond truly interests Disney only when under threat. The little deer’s mother is less a character than an enveloping maternal instinct – a vague presence but an awesome, aching absence.

The studio was already preparing Bambi when Flora Disney died from carbon monoxide poisoning in 1938. According to biographer Neal Garber, “it may have been the most shattering moment of Walt Disney’s life … he was inconsolable.” He refused to discuss the death, but instructed the artists creating Pinocchio to delete all references to the wife of woodcarver Geppetto, making him a bachelor. Bambi’s trauma may have been Disney’s own.”

Granted, now a days kids are inundated with all sorts of movies and TV but for my generation Disney and Charlie Brown (no parents!) were it.  The very words “limited release” and “Disney vault” still spark anxiety in me.  Makes me wonder how Disney depictions of mother and death will shape our future caregiving and grieving practices.  Will we be looking for escape a la coma, dwarfs, balls, and beasts?  Will we be alone?  I am always struck by how despite being reunited with family and future spouse, the Disney Princesses are always depicted alone, staring off into space.  No one shares their reality, not even what they are looking at!


Casino Prep Schools

01.24.2012 11:15 AM

Dr. Lloyd Sederer, Medical Director for the New York State Office of Mental Health, coins this phrase: Casino Prep Schools, as he describes the evolution of arcades to casino-like fantasy worlds.  He writes:

In casinos for kids, in addition to the games there are drinks and food everywhere you turn: high-sugar and high-fat foods, including huge glasses of sugary beverages, nachos and potato skins in which cheese and bacon swim, sour cream like it was running water, and chicken and buffalo wings as plentiful as kudzu. These foods fuel the brain and body for the high intensity, electronic world of video games (and the few retro toss-the-ball games embedded among the digital delights). These are foods that antecede (and later accompany) the nicotine and alcohol that youth will graduate to further stimulate the reward centers of the brain.

There is also the paper gaming tickets of varying values in casinos for kids. Youth and adult players buy these at a gazebo located at the very center of the well of machines so there is never far to walk to convert paper money for valueless paper that lets you play. The tickets are paper versions of gambling chips, of course. There is a store at the rear where wads of tickets can be exchanged for stuffed toys of every color in the rainbow. The machines are programmed to let some win, some of the time, just like in any casino. But make no mistake: The house always wins.

As a mother who avoids Chuck E. Cheese or other such “pizza” and arcade destinations/Dante’s 7th ring of hell like the plague, I find myself agreeing with Dr. Sederer.  Any place that requires your children to be stamped with a matching, infrared stamp as their parents so that other adults do not steal your children under the guise of total chaos, is not somewhere I want to be.  And yet, my kids would sell their right arms to go.

Makes me wonder, whatever happened to Skee Ball?


Forgiving is not forgetting

01.23.2012 5:45 PM

A recent article in Huffington Post Divorce Section piqued my interest.

The author, psychologist Rachel Sussman was commenting on the number of times she was aware of both divorced parents being present at several holiday functions she attended.

In her article focusing on forgiveness between a divorced couple for 2012 she states:

Forgiveness is a conscious decision to let go of unpleasant or disturbing feelings about your ex.  It’s about releasing the fury and the resentment. It’s about reaching deep into your soul and discovering some degree of empathy.Or even better, understanding for the person who caused you pain.  This doesn’t mean you have to exonerate what he or she did to you—but it’s about being able to look past those transgressions and say, ‘Yes I can forgive this person for being imperfect.’  Believe me, uttering these words can release you and help you get on with your life in a more positive way.

This reminded me of what I had meant in my book, IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU: A Grandparent’s Guide to Surviving Divorce in the Family:

 What makes the difference with the divorces that succeed and those that fail?  No magic formula is required. Any parent can succeed in “Divorce 101.’  It’s really simple.  It only requires two divorced parents who understand that their marriage may have failed, but who are both willing to take the “ME” and the “YOU” out of the divorce and work together to achieve a successful one.

Regarding the possible forgiveness of one ex for another a common response is the following: How can I possibly forget that my ex did such and such to me?

Yet those very same individuals seem to have been so easily able to forget the loving reason they got married to their ex in the first place.

Forgiveness really seems to be the key to being able to get past all the ugly stuff that always comes up between a couple getting a divorce.   It certainly takes time after a divorce for the willingness to forgive is developed.  But when finally given, the couple will find it much easier to work together to achieve a successful divorce for the benefit of their children.

Forgiving is very hard for those who have experienced divorce. But forgiveness doesn’t mean you have forgotten or pardoned any of the wrongdoing or egregious mistakes that led up to your bad divorce or of the battle that took place afterward. It only means that you have chosen to reposition your focus from a negative to a positive one, from the past to the future. And by changing your focus you will prevent the anger and rage you have been storing from consuming you.   It’s like the old saying, “ if you keep looking in your rear view mirror. You are sure to see a wreck.”

Those who have been thinking that forgiveness must be given by one ex-spouse toward the other may have really been focusing their attention in the wrong direction.  The gift of forgiving an ex-spouse may be more easily achieved by first forgiving oneself for a marriage perceived as a personal failure.

Once you can forgive yourself, you can start looking ahead to the future.   Or as the author and theologian Lewis Smedes put it so eloquently, “To forgive is to set a prisoner free and discover the prisoner was you.”


Washington State Could Have Marriage Equailty Law Within Weeks

01.23.2012 5:35 PM

From KIRO TV today:

Washington’s Legislature has enough votes to legalize gay marriage with a statement from Democratic Senator Mary Margaret Haugen Monday who said she will support the measure, becoming the 25th vote needed to pass the bill out of the Senate. The House already has enough support, and Gov. Chris Gregoire has endorsed the plan. [...]

Washington would become the seventh state to legalize same-sex marriages, following New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. Washington state has had a domestic partnership law since 2007, and a “everything but marriage” law since 2009.

And from the Seattle Times a couple of days ago:

Once the hearings are over, the bills could move out of committee by Thursday in the Senate and by Jan. 30 in the House. The chairmen of both committees said they have the votes they need. The House bill is also expected to go through the House Ways and Means Committee. It’s not clear if the Senate’s measure will go through Senate Ways and Means.

Gay-marriage advocates say the earliest the bills could get floor votes would be the first part of February.

If the bill passes, according to a Fox news report, “gay and lesbian couples would be able to get married starting in June unless opponents file a referendum to challenge it at the ballot.” Of course, NOM and other opponents of marriage equality are already gearing up for just such a challenge.

But this time it might not be easy for them.

In October, a University of Washington poll found that an increasing number of people in the state support same-sex marriage. About 43 percent of respondents said they support gay marriage, up from 30 percent in the same poll five years earlier. Another 22 percent said they support giving identical rights to gay couples but just not calling it marriage.

When asked how they would vote if a referendum challenging a gay marriage law was on the ballot, 55 percent said they would vote yes to uphold the law, with 47 percent of them characterized as “strongly” yes, and 38 percent responded “no,” that they would vote to reject a gay marriage law.

Of course, it’s happened multiple times that marriage equality has done worse in the voting booth than polls indicated. But poll trends indicate that more voters favor equality with every passing year. So we’ll see.

The fight against marriage equality in Washington is led by Pasteur Ken Hutchingson, who says that people who favor same-sex marriage are like John Wilkes Booth, and “trying to put a bullet in the head of one of the greatest traditions that has ever existed,” and tells lawmakers who vote for marriage equality that they think “that you know better than God.” Oy.


Death and Ritual in the Hunger Games Trilogy

01.23.2012 11:47 AM

Well, if reading about Medicare Advantage Plans was not exciting enough for you, check out my newest piece up at HuffPost on Ritual and the Hunger Games trilogy.  Yes, the books are like Pixie Stix for your brain, but come on, who doesn’t love Pixie Stix!!


Insurance Primer and Gaps in Medicare Advantage Plans for Cancer Patients

01.23.2012 11:43 AM

I read an interesting article from Dr. Richard Leff, an oncologist, who raises some critical concerns about gaps in coverage for elderly cancer patients who enroll in Medicare Advantage Programs.  If you are wondering what Medicare Advantage programs are, see here for a quick overview, but basically, the elderly can enroll in an Advantage plan which will often cover such things as dental or eye care, but the deductible, co-pays, and as Dr. Leff points out, the co-insurance may vary dramatically from traditional Part A and B Medicare. As a side note, when you enter hospice care, you always revert back to traditional Medicare–I’m not sure why, but it does make billing a lot easier for hospice organizations, which I am fairly confident is not the reason that it reverts but is a nice side effect for hospices.

Dr. Leff highlights the problem:

“While the stress associated with a cancer diagnosis and treatment is severe, in many cases patients and families are subjected to the additional stress of unexpected insurance gaps that leave them with unimaginable and unmanageable bills. In some instances, this problem may actually prevent patients from receiving optimal care. Yet, we as oncologists and our national organizations do little or nothing to help patients prevent this serious problem. Nowhere is this issue more apparent than in the growing Medicare Advantage plan arena. Dental care and vision care are wonderful, but how important are they if the plan you joined only covers 70% of the cost of your cancer care…

Unfortunately, otherwise well informed people who would never take the risk of Medicare part B without a Medigap policy, are now moving toward Medicare managed care products unaware that they may be facing 20 to 30 percent coinsurance costs for expensive outpatient therapies including chemotherapy. But not all Advantage programs are equal and the best have much more comprehensive coverage for outpatient therapies. In addition the information about the coverage is available if you really want to find it, thanks to a great effort by Medicare to require full plan disclosure. So why do people make the decision to join a less comprehensive plan? Because Medicare Advantage plans market the immediate availability of wellness services (which are also important) that a member can use right now and don’t proactively point out the gaps that may exist should members be faced with a serious illness.”

Now, there is a small cynical side of me that wonders if he is having a hard time billing for expensive treatments which is why he is raising this concern, but I’m going to fight giving into that cynicism.  His words are a good reminder that we should all shop around for our insurance policies, especially when I am learning that even for those enrolled in high deductible/health savings account plans, which typically cover at 100% after the astronomically high deductible is met are starting to incorporate co-insurance.  If co-insurance, co-pays, deductibles, confuse you (which if they don’t, you are Einstein!), check out this helpful video.

If you are a loved one supporting someone contemplating enrolling in a Medicare Advantage Plan, definitely check out the terms for the co-insurance and I would talk to your oncologist if you have a history of cancer.


On Hatred and Bigotry, Again

01.23.2012 9:00 AM

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization “dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society.”

Unlike some nonprofits, especially those centered around contentious social issues, SPLC publishes its Annual Report, audited financial statements, and Form 990 (which is a nonprofit’s “tax return”) on its website for public viewing.

Although SPLC engages in a wide variety of progressive activist, anti-racist, and social justice work, it is particularly notorious among those who oppose equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people for its monitoring and labeling of “active anti-gay groups” on its website.

The SPLC’s labeling of these organizations as “hate groups” used to be more prominently displayed and explicit on its website. This no longer seems to be the case.

However, in its Winter 2010 Intelligence Report, SPLC listed 13 groups as anti-LGBT hate groups, saying:

“Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling. Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups.”

That is, according to the SPLC, a belief that homosexuality is wrong or immoral, is not enough to warrant the “hate group” label. Nor is being a religious group that believes homosexuality is wrong enough. What the SPLC looks at, by its own definition, is a group’s pattern of spreading falsehoods about LGBT people that have been discredited and engaging in “repeated, groundless name-calling.”

Some of the more abhorrent examples the SPLC cites as messaging that contributes to the “hate group” label include:

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association claiming, “[h]omosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and 6 million dead Jews.”

Steven Anderson, the pastor of Faithful Word Baptist Church, saying, “The biggest hypocrite in the world is the person who believes in the death penalty for murderers but not for homosexuals,” claimed that “sodomites” recruit through “rape” and “molestation,” and told an openly gay interviewer, “If you’re a homosexual, I hope you get brain cancer and die like Ted Kennedy.”

Several groups, including Peter LaBarbera’s Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), were included partly for the dissemination of the discredited work of Paul Cameron, who during his career has made many inflammatory and inaccurate claims about “homosexuals.” (Just for some “thought food” here, because some FSB readers and bloggers might not be aware of it, in 1986 the American Sociological Association “repudiated any claims that Paul Cameron is a sociologist and condemned his misrepresentation of sociological research” (PDF). Other professional organizations make similar complaints.)

So, it was with much aggravation and disappointment that I heard of this spin:

“Black pastors join pro-family groups to condemn Southern Poverty Law Center for ‘bigotry’”

This article (yes, at a conservative Christian news source) discusses a protest of the SPLC that several SPLC-labeled hate groups participated in on Martin Luther King, Jr’s birthday, such as the Illinois Family Institute, Mass Resistance, Abiding Truth Ministries, and AFTAH. It quotes Matt Barber, a figure prominent in the LGBT “culture wars,” as saying:

“The SPLC has moved from monitoring actual hate groups like the KKK and Neo Nazis to slandering mainstream Christian organizations with that very same ‘hate group’ label. By extension, the SPLC is smearing billions of Christians and Jews worldwide as ‘haters,’ simply because they embrace the traditional Judeo-Christian sexual ethic.”

He then accused the SPLC of engaging in “anti-Christian bigotry.”

The relevance of noting the race of the pastors involved in the protest is questionable. The implication seemed to be that (presumably heterosexual) African-American pastors possess moral authority to say what does and doesn’t constitute legitimate hatred and bigotry, even against minority groups that they may not be a part of. Yet, what some audiences (predominately anti-LGBT ones) might see as some sort of United Colors of Love, Tolerance, and Christianity, other audiences (predominately pro-LGBT ones) might see as an opportunistic alignment of bigotry.

For instance, one African-American pastor involved in the protest added his two cents:

“I think every African-American ought to be appalled, ought to be angry, and begin to wave their fist in the air and declare black power and say to the homosexual lobbyists, the homosexual groups, how dare you compare your wicked, deviant, immoral, self-destructive, anti-human sexual behavior to our beautiful skin color.”

Look. People.

We need to have a serious talk about what constitutes civility, hatred, and bigotry.

From my perspective, this protest was deflecting genuine criticism of the tactics some of these SPLC-labeled “hate groups” engage in and was mis-attributing the critiques as being evidence of “anti-Christian bigotry.” It is an absurd claim. Not only because SPLC has documented the actions and messaging that they believe constitute hateful behavior, but because if this were a case of bigotry against Christian groups and churches that “merely” oppose homosexuality, the list of “hate groups” would be far more numerous than 13.

Indeed, to those who oppose same-sex marriage, LGBT rights, and/or “the homosexual agenda,” look again at the accusations cited above that the SPLC-identified “hate groups” have made about LGBT people. Read the SPLC report for yourself.

Do you find the messaging of these groups to be in any way problematic?

Do you find the messaging to be evidence of hatred? Of ignorance? Of something else?

If a peaceful resolution of these “culture wars” is a goal, and given that the “hater” label can shut down dialogue, what do you think would be a more productive way for LGBT rights advocates to point out the problematic aspects of these accusations and misrepresentations that it call it hate?

Do you feel that some of these groups unfairly give the rest of those who oppose same-sex marriage “a bad name”? How might the fact that prominent opponents of same-sex marriage so rarely call out people on “their” side of bigotry, hatred, or misbehavior impact the perception that supporters of LGBT rights have of you? How might it impact the crusade to save marriage, if some people are giving “all of you” a bad name?

Finally, to all readers, is it “just as mean” or morally equivalent to call someone a hater or bigot who refers to homosexuality as “wicked, deviant, immoral, self-destructive, anti-human sexual behavior” as it is to make that reference in the first place?