Everyone has an opinion as to whether to not the current proposals in Congress for how to fix health care in this country are good or bad. Few people are indifferent as most have a very strong opinion one way or another.
If you're hoping I'll tell you whether or not I like the plans, you're out of luck because there are parts of what is suggested I really like and parts that I believe are absolutely ridiculous.
What I am willing to share is at least one of my issues with our current system.
Like many folks, I take a daily allergy prescription. Come to think of it, so does my wife and daughter. For the last five years we had used the pharmacy at one of the OKC stores belonging to the world's largest retailer. When we started using this pharmacy, I really appreciated the fact that I could get prescriptions filled in a relatively short time frame and they always had what I needed.
For the past year, whatever prescription I have dropped off has been a huge inconvenience. Inevitably, whatever the drug and the number of pills being prescribed, the pharmacy would NOT have enough on the shelf to fill the script. The first time they told me they couldn't fill a script but here are a few pills to get you through until we can get some additional stock, I thought that was a good thing. When I made the decision in the last 30 days to move to another pharmacy, the decision was based on the fact that almost every script I took to the world's largest retailer received a partial fill and would ultimately require multiple trips to the pharmacy.
Here was the deal breaker for me - I had a sinus infection and was prescribed a very common antibiotic. I took the script to the pharmacy and when I went back to pick it up later in the day was told that they couldn't fill all 10 days worth, but they gave me three days worth of the drug. While that was frustrating, I could almost accept it. However, when I returned three days later, the pharmacy still couldn't fill the rest of my script and I had to come back a third - and wait, you guessed it - a fourth time to get a 10 supply of a common antibiotic.
If only it ended there. Even refilling my allergy prescriptions was often a challenge. I'm no brain surgeon, but even I'm smart enough to have my computer tell me when a current customer - especially one who had been a customer for five years - had a refill coming up on a script and to be sure I had enough product in stock to REfill that script. I can't even count the scripts that my wife, daughter or I had filled on a partial basis.
So, we decided we had had enough and we'd move to a new pharmacy. When we asked our new pharmacy, another major pharmacy chain, they told us to just bring in our current bottles and they would arrange to transfer our existing scripts from our previous pharmacy. Since the new pharmacy is just down the street we thought this would be a good fit. What we have learned so far is that is a new pharmacy same service challenges.
I took my allergy med bottle into the new pharmacy and gave them my insurance card. They looked over the bottle and told me if I'd like to wait they could fill the script in 40 minutes. I had several days worth of meds left so I told them I'd be back the next day. They asked when and said they needed to keep my insurance card. I didn't think that would be a problem. I took the bottle in to transfer the script on Thursday. I was due to go back on Friday and I forgot. Forgot again Saturday and Sunday. On Monday after work I happened to drive by the new pharmacy and it jogged my memory that I needed to stop and pick up my script. I parked the car and walked inside and patiently waited in line. While waiting, my wife called and asked where I was. When I told her, she said the pharmacy had just called five minutes earlier to tell us they couldn't fill my script at this store, but they had filled at another location that is only 10 miles away. While I appreciated the effort, it sure struck me as the same kind of thing that had prompted me to leave my previous pharmacy.
After I got over some of my initial frustration, I loaded up the wife and headed to the other pharmacy for my script. Upon my arrival, the staff spent several minutes looking for my script and then told me they hadn't processed my insurance or any of my other information and they needed me to give them all my particulars. Now, I had already given all this info to the pharmacy near my home and this was another in the same chain, I assumed they would already have me in the computer and this would be easy. It was anything but easy. In fact, the pharmacy near my home hadn't entered anything AND they still had my insurance card. So, after being given four days to fill a very common allergy medicine script and to enter me into the computer, nothing had been done. Fortunately my wife was with me and had her card, but it was still a hassle.
I wish that I could tell you that was the end of my trials, but it really wasn't. My daughter has come down with an ear infection and a growing cough so I took her to the doctor just prior to the winter storm. The doc prescribed an antibiotic and said she'd send it directly to the pharmacy. It was about 2:30 p.m. My wife stopped to pick up the script at 5:30 - three hours later - and they said there was no record of the script. They couldn't find it anywhere. We were resigned to calling the doctor this morning and trying to get the script sent again. After Elizabeth was up coughing most of the night I was more than a little unhappy and I was out driving in the storm early this morning, headed to the doctor's office to get a hard-copy of the script. My wife just happened to call the pharmacy again this morning and wouldn't you know they had miraculously found the lost script and had it filled. All I had to do was go get it.
Needless to say, I finally got Elizabeth's antibiotic. The bad part is after only two tries on my part at a new pharmacy, it isn't any better than what I was using. The issues have been different, but they are still issues.
Now that I've finished my rant, here's my suggestion for how to fix our health care system. Our providers need to remember that I am the customer. That should make giving me what I want and when I want it the number one goal of the health care provider. I changed pharmacies because the one I had been using seemed to think it wasn't important to give me a full fill on any of my scripts. My new pharmacy hasn't been any better. Anybody think a third pharmacy would be the charm?
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
White Death
"White Death is coming."
That was the quote from a local radio talk show host - fully tongue in cheek (I hope) - regarding the projected winter storm that may hit Oklahoma later this week.
Is the coming storm another projection like one almost a year ago when we were going to get 6-8 inches of snow in OKC and only got a a very light dusting? Is it similar to last month's projections that the Christmas Eve storm would leave a little snow in OKC but it shouldn't be anything too big?
Last week I posted to my Facebook page a question regarding weather forecasting and the constant interuptions to regular programming for a weather update. Who decides when programming should be interupted? How bad should a storm be before we put a map in the corner of the TV? Last week's "heavy storms" as indicated by one TV station had a little bit of lightning, but almost nothing that was severe - and I don't mean severe by my definition. The National Weather Service didn't call most of the storms severe.
Today, if there is a storm cloud anywhere in the state, we get a little map in the corner of the TV screen blocking our view and telling us that it might be raining somewhere.
When I was a kid and the TV played that obnoxious tone telling us there was a weather alert coming, you stopped what you were doing and paid attention to see where the storm was. Today, you just kind of shake your head and wish they'd stop interupting your favorite show.
I remember clearly what I saw on TV on May 3, 1999. The visuals of the storms were simply indescribable. The destruction and awesome power of that storm almost defied words. There is no question that TV and radio coverage saved lives that day. Perhaps that's what has prompted what we get today.
I recognize the weather in Oklahoma is very unpredictable and that severe weather can appear out of nowhere. That should make it all the more imperative that when we get a weather alert that it really be for severe weather. Did you ever hear of the boy who cried wolf?
I don't know what the storm later this week will hold for Oklahoma. It may a major winter storm event with ice, freezing rain, sleet, and inches of snow before it leaves. It might also be a rain cloud with cold north breeze behind it. We won't know until it gets here.
One thing I can tell you with absolute certainty. Between now and Thursday's expected arrival our TV weathermen will be telling us over and over and over and over how bad this storm will be. And who knows, they might be right.
That was the quote from a local radio talk show host - fully tongue in cheek (I hope) - regarding the projected winter storm that may hit Oklahoma later this week.
Is the coming storm another projection like one almost a year ago when we were going to get 6-8 inches of snow in OKC and only got a a very light dusting? Is it similar to last month's projections that the Christmas Eve storm would leave a little snow in OKC but it shouldn't be anything too big?
Last week I posted to my Facebook page a question regarding weather forecasting and the constant interuptions to regular programming for a weather update. Who decides when programming should be interupted? How bad should a storm be before we put a map in the corner of the TV? Last week's "heavy storms" as indicated by one TV station had a little bit of lightning, but almost nothing that was severe - and I don't mean severe by my definition. The National Weather Service didn't call most of the storms severe.
Today, if there is a storm cloud anywhere in the state, we get a little map in the corner of the TV screen blocking our view and telling us that it might be raining somewhere.
When I was a kid and the TV played that obnoxious tone telling us there was a weather alert coming, you stopped what you were doing and paid attention to see where the storm was. Today, you just kind of shake your head and wish they'd stop interupting your favorite show.
I remember clearly what I saw on TV on May 3, 1999. The visuals of the storms were simply indescribable. The destruction and awesome power of that storm almost defied words. There is no question that TV and radio coverage saved lives that day. Perhaps that's what has prompted what we get today.
I recognize the weather in Oklahoma is very unpredictable and that severe weather can appear out of nowhere. That should make it all the more imperative that when we get a weather alert that it really be for severe weather. Did you ever hear of the boy who cried wolf?
I don't know what the storm later this week will hold for Oklahoma. It may a major winter storm event with ice, freezing rain, sleet, and inches of snow before it leaves. It might also be a rain cloud with cold north breeze behind it. We won't know until it gets here.
One thing I can tell you with absolute certainty. Between now and Thursday's expected arrival our TV weathermen will be telling us over and over and over and over how bad this storm will be. And who knows, they might be right.
Friday, January 22, 2010
There's never enough time...
One of the things I have really enjoyed about my job at OPC is the interaction I have with members of the agricultural media. Sometimes I enjoy talking to other media as well, but members of the ag media seem to be less confrontational than other media members.
Case in point was this morning's trip to KWTV (News9) in Oklahoma City to shoot a 2 1/2 minute television spot for Saturday's 6:40 a.m. "In The Field" with Ron Hays - assuming some big breaking news story doesn't bump Ron's segment out of the morning show entirely.
If you've never had the opportunity to do television before, it is amazing how much time is spent making sure the microphone is in the right place and that your glasses don't reflect the glaring lights too much and that you stand in the exact spot and on and on and on.
"Remember, you're just supposed to look at Ron like you're having a conversation with him," is the general instruction and so you stand there - afraid to move - and wait for your turn to answer a question or two. And while you wait, Ron turns to speak directly to the camera as he introduces the segment. This always creates an almost irresistable urge to turn and look directly into the camera as well.
Now comes the fun part - we have 10 minutes of material to explain in 2 1/2 minutes. And, by the way, that 2 1/2 minutes includes the intro and exit to the segment.
Getting just the right amount of interview is like a giant game. The interviewer asks a question and you're supposed to provide an answer that fits neatly into the time slot they have designated for your piece. Since this is more of a feature story, we get to shoot the piece in its entirety and then it runs just like we filmed it - no cuts or clips for this segment. If you're doing a news story interview, then you might answer 5 or even 10 questions with 5 or six minutes of spoken material only to see 10 or 15 seconds of what you said show up in the news.
I must have done a hundred of these news interviews or features, but I still get nervous as they start that count 3, 2, 1, and the intro music plays. Inevitably, I get some word or words confused and stammer or stutter through part of the interview, but in 150 seconds the experience is over. We take off the microphone and walk away from the TV studio. Back to Ron's office near his radio studio where we take 5 minutes to cover what we just did in 2 1/2 minutes for television.
If you're shooting a TV interview for a news program there's never enough time to cover everything, but it is amazing what you can do in 150 seconds.
Case in point was this morning's trip to KWTV (News9) in Oklahoma City to shoot a 2 1/2 minute television spot for Saturday's 6:40 a.m. "In The Field" with Ron Hays - assuming some big breaking news story doesn't bump Ron's segment out of the morning show entirely.
If you've never had the opportunity to do television before, it is amazing how much time is spent making sure the microphone is in the right place and that your glasses don't reflect the glaring lights too much and that you stand in the exact spot and on and on and on.
"Remember, you're just supposed to look at Ron like you're having a conversation with him," is the general instruction and so you stand there - afraid to move - and wait for your turn to answer a question or two. And while you wait, Ron turns to speak directly to the camera as he introduces the segment. This always creates an almost irresistable urge to turn and look directly into the camera as well.
Now comes the fun part - we have 10 minutes of material to explain in 2 1/2 minutes. And, by the way, that 2 1/2 minutes includes the intro and exit to the segment.
Getting just the right amount of interview is like a giant game. The interviewer asks a question and you're supposed to provide an answer that fits neatly into the time slot they have designated for your piece. Since this is more of a feature story, we get to shoot the piece in its entirety and then it runs just like we filmed it - no cuts or clips for this segment. If you're doing a news story interview, then you might answer 5 or even 10 questions with 5 or six minutes of spoken material only to see 10 or 15 seconds of what you said show up in the news.
I must have done a hundred of these news interviews or features, but I still get nervous as they start that count 3, 2, 1, and the intro music plays. Inevitably, I get some word or words confused and stammer or stutter through part of the interview, but in 150 seconds the experience is over. We take off the microphone and walk away from the TV studio. Back to Ron's office near his radio studio where we take 5 minutes to cover what we just did in 2 1/2 minutes for television.
If you're shooting a TV interview for a news program there's never enough time to cover everything, but it is amazing what you can do in 150 seconds.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
To Run or Not to Run
What do you do with the clowns who choose to take off running when law enforcement attempts to stop them? Just last week there was a shooting in OKC where a citizen chose to run from the police and ended up shooting at an officer who was putting down "stop sticks" in an effort to end the chase. The runner was then shot and killed by police.
The debate in our house starts when we get into whether or not a police chase should have even taken place in this case. (Keep in mind my wife is criminal defense attorney.) Evidently the chase started when an OKC police officer attempted to stop a driver who was not wearing his seatbelt. Her argument is that there should never be a high-speed chase that starts with an attempt to stop someone for a seatbelt violation. My argument is the chase didn't start until the criminal decided to ignore the flashing lights and attempted to elude the officer.
We have this discussion oftern - almost everytime someone runs from a police officer and it makes the news. Who's right? Of course I think I am. I see this as a right and wrong issue. Whether or not I have done anything wrong, the law says when the flashing lights come on behind me, I must stop. There are no allowances for "there was no reason to stop me so it's OK to run."
My wife obviously believes she's right. She contends that since I'm not persecuted by the police, I don't understand why people run. Further, she tells me that it is the police officer's duty to protect the general public. "How does a high speed chase in a residential area protect the public?"
I argue that it takes a criminal with no regard for public life off the streets. She argues that it can't be worth the risk to the public to pursue the criminal. I argue if the criminal would just stop he might not be a criminal and there would be no chase.
It's almost a chicken or egg argument. I won't chase you if you don't run and I won't run if you don't try to stop me.
It's not often that I get engaged in a debate where there is no clear winner. This is one of those cases. Please feel free to share your thoughts. Maybe you can convince me she's right or convince her that I'm right.
The debate in our house starts when we get into whether or not a police chase should have even taken place in this case. (Keep in mind my wife is criminal defense attorney.) Evidently the chase started when an OKC police officer attempted to stop a driver who was not wearing his seatbelt. Her argument is that there should never be a high-speed chase that starts with an attempt to stop someone for a seatbelt violation. My argument is the chase didn't start until the criminal decided to ignore the flashing lights and attempted to elude the officer.
We have this discussion oftern - almost everytime someone runs from a police officer and it makes the news. Who's right? Of course I think I am. I see this as a right and wrong issue. Whether or not I have done anything wrong, the law says when the flashing lights come on behind me, I must stop. There are no allowances for "there was no reason to stop me so it's OK to run."
My wife obviously believes she's right. She contends that since I'm not persecuted by the police, I don't understand why people run. Further, she tells me that it is the police officer's duty to protect the general public. "How does a high speed chase in a residential area protect the public?"
I argue that it takes a criminal with no regard for public life off the streets. She argues that it can't be worth the risk to the public to pursue the criminal. I argue if the criminal would just stop he might not be a criminal and there would be no chase.
It's almost a chicken or egg argument. I won't chase you if you don't run and I won't run if you don't try to stop me.
It's not often that I get engaged in a debate where there is no clear winner. This is one of those cases. Please feel free to share your thoughts. Maybe you can convince me she's right or convince her that I'm right.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Squeeze the Bread and Feed the Fish
I don't have to tell the folks in Oklahoma what happened around here on Christmas Eve. Everyone has a Blizzard of '09 story and here's mine.
Each year at Christmas I load up the wife and kiddo and head out to Cordell and my parent's home. Melissa planned to work for half a day and then we'd be off to mom and dad's around 3 p.m. on Christmas Eve.
That all changed when Elizabeth came in to tell us that there was "something wrong in the fireplace." Let me tell you - when a 3 year old tells you something is wrong in the fireplace, you jump up to see what prompted that comment. It turns out that she was just hearing sleet hitting the metal cover on the chimney. A quick glance at the television and the reports from western Oklahoma prompted us to move up our trip and we loaded the car and out the door we went. We made it Cordell just ahead of the worst parts of the storm and buttoned up all warm and toasty at mom and dad's.
We were expecting my brother James and his family to join us for Christmas lunch, but they were snowed in at his in-laws. Despite their best efforts, there simply was no way to get back to Cordell on Christmas and it would be at least Saturday afternoon before they could get home. That shouldn't have been a problem but James had been kind enough to help Santa pick out the bicycle and helmet Elizabeth wanted for Christmas.
By Friday afternoon, Melissa and I were getting a little stir-crazy and thought we could run down to James' and get the bike and whatever else James needed us to do. We asked James if there was anything special he needed from the house and our instructions were to "squeeze the bread and feed the fish." I have to admit this was a really strange request. I understood feeding the fish, but squeeze the bread?
We drove south of town to James' house and were pleasantly surprised at how clear the roads were. That pleasure turned to frustration when we arrived at James' drive and found a drift three feet high and 25 to 30 feet long that we simply couldn't drive through. We could have turned around gone home, but we still had fish to feed, bread to squeeze, and a bike to get.
We made the 1/4 mile trek through the snow and over the fences to get to the house and found our way inside. I knew why we were feeding the fish, but I had no idea why we were supposed to squeeze the bread. It turns out that James' wife was making friendship bread and it has to be "squeezed" every other day or so as you make it.
After feeding and squeezing, we grabbed the gifts James had asked us to get and the bike and headed back to the truck. We used a plastic tub and rope to make a "sled" for pulling the gifts with us and I carried the bike.
I'm not in the best of shape, but a 1/4 mile walk is usually not too difficult. However, add a 20 pound bicycle, 4 to 12 inches of snow and the fact it's uphill all the way from the house to the truck, it was a real workout.
Of all the memories from this Christmas, I'll always be able to tell Elizabeth how we fed fish, squeezed bread, and "walked miles in knee-deep snow" to get her bicycle. The only thing missing is that it wasn't uphill both ways.
Each year at Christmas I load up the wife and kiddo and head out to Cordell and my parent's home. Melissa planned to work for half a day and then we'd be off to mom and dad's around 3 p.m. on Christmas Eve.
That all changed when Elizabeth came in to tell us that there was "something wrong in the fireplace." Let me tell you - when a 3 year old tells you something is wrong in the fireplace, you jump up to see what prompted that comment. It turns out that she was just hearing sleet hitting the metal cover on the chimney. A quick glance at the television and the reports from western Oklahoma prompted us to move up our trip and we loaded the car and out the door we went. We made it Cordell just ahead of the worst parts of the storm and buttoned up all warm and toasty at mom and dad's.
We were expecting my brother James and his family to join us for Christmas lunch, but they were snowed in at his in-laws. Despite their best efforts, there simply was no way to get back to Cordell on Christmas and it would be at least Saturday afternoon before they could get home. That shouldn't have been a problem but James had been kind enough to help Santa pick out the bicycle and helmet Elizabeth wanted for Christmas.
By Friday afternoon, Melissa and I were getting a little stir-crazy and thought we could run down to James' and get the bike and whatever else James needed us to do. We asked James if there was anything special he needed from the house and our instructions were to "squeeze the bread and feed the fish." I have to admit this was a really strange request. I understood feeding the fish, but squeeze the bread?
We drove south of town to James' house and were pleasantly surprised at how clear the roads were. That pleasure turned to frustration when we arrived at James' drive and found a drift three feet high and 25 to 30 feet long that we simply couldn't drive through. We could have turned around gone home, but we still had fish to feed, bread to squeeze, and a bike to get.
We made the 1/4 mile trek through the snow and over the fences to get to the house and found our way inside. I knew why we were feeding the fish, but I had no idea why we were supposed to squeeze the bread. It turns out that James' wife was making friendship bread and it has to be "squeezed" every other day or so as you make it.
After feeding and squeezing, we grabbed the gifts James had asked us to get and the bike and headed back to the truck. We used a plastic tub and rope to make a "sled" for pulling the gifts with us and I carried the bike.
I'm not in the best of shape, but a 1/4 mile walk is usually not too difficult. However, add a 20 pound bicycle, 4 to 12 inches of snow and the fact it's uphill all the way from the house to the truck, it was a real workout.
Of all the memories from this Christmas, I'll always be able to tell Elizabeth how we fed fish, squeezed bread, and "walked miles in knee-deep snow" to get her bicycle. The only thing missing is that it wasn't uphill both ways.
Welcome to Lindsey's Low Down
Welcome to Lindsey's Low Down. For more than 25 years I have looked for avenues to share my thoughts on a wide and eclectic range of subjects.
In college I had the opportunity to write a column for The Daily O'Collegian. The topics were usually related to the political issues of the day. I still really enjoy politics and discussing current events with friends. parts of the Low Down will include some of my thoughts on the day's political issues.
The first crack at Low Down comes one day after the massive earthquake hit Haiti. As I watched the news this evening I was struck by how poor that country really is and how devastating this quake was. It reminded me of watching the aftermath of Katrina, the May 3rd tornadoes in Oklahoma City, and 9/11. Low Down will include my thoughts on some current events.
Almost four years ago I wanted to start writing a journal to reflect the events and happenings of as my daughter grew up. I started that journal on a number of occasions and was never happy with how it read. I think I was trying to write too much and too often. The Low Down will include some observations of the life of a three year old girl and her parents.
My wife is an attorney in the public defenders office and I spend a great deal of time working in the political environment that is the state capitol. While these professions are not really related, they do create some remarkable stories. Some I can share here and others that I can't, but there will some that I hope you will enjoy.
I'm hoping to add to the Low Down two or three times per week. Some weeks there'll be more to write and others I may be out to lunch mentally. But I'll get something up on a regular basis.
I welcome your thoughts, comments, questions, and suggestions. Let me what you think and enjoy Lindsey's Low down.
In college I had the opportunity to write a column for The Daily O'Collegian. The topics were usually related to the political issues of the day. I still really enjoy politics and discussing current events with friends. parts of the Low Down will include some of my thoughts on the day's political issues.
The first crack at Low Down comes one day after the massive earthquake hit Haiti. As I watched the news this evening I was struck by how poor that country really is and how devastating this quake was. It reminded me of watching the aftermath of Katrina, the May 3rd tornadoes in Oklahoma City, and 9/11. Low Down will include my thoughts on some current events.
Almost four years ago I wanted to start writing a journal to reflect the events and happenings of as my daughter grew up. I started that journal on a number of occasions and was never happy with how it read. I think I was trying to write too much and too often. The Low Down will include some observations of the life of a three year old girl and her parents.
My wife is an attorney in the public defenders office and I spend a great deal of time working in the political environment that is the state capitol. While these professions are not really related, they do create some remarkable stories. Some I can share here and others that I can't, but there will some that I hope you will enjoy.
I'm hoping to add to the Low Down two or three times per week. Some weeks there'll be more to write and others I may be out to lunch mentally. But I'll get something up on a regular basis.
I welcome your thoughts, comments, questions, and suggestions. Let me what you think and enjoy Lindsey's Low down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)