Nothing Up My Sleeve

With the national health care debate in full swing and the anticipated decision by the Supreme Court, it is surprising that I don't think I've heard even once an explicit discussion of what may be or should be the most significant aspect of universal care.  It isn't just about who is covered and who pays, nor is it about the myriad of important individual issues.  Yes, we can all agree that it would be great if everyone had excellent health care, but now the fun begins in defining what that means, what that costs, and how that can be payed for and delivered in a nation with so many people and so many people living longer.  But while most seem to focus on the former, I think that it's the latter that merits real debate. I have read that 80% of a person's lifetime health costs occur in the last 3 years of one's life, and 75% die in a hospital or nursing home.  It is end-of-life where the big money is, and big moral questions, too, yet these are taboo subjects.  So we at some point become infirmed with cancer, senility, or any number of terrible maladies and traumas, and if we are lucky we may be healthy and wealthy enough to live in a decent managed care facility or with our spouse/family.  But the point will probably come where we are too much for these others to care for, and into the nursing homes and other forms of major managed care we go, along with our life savings, and when that's depleted, then the government will warehouse us in cheap (only $50,000/yr+), dehumanizing facilities.  And when the end nears in that nursing home or hospital, expensive and extraordinary efforts will likely be taken (even when we've explicitly said no to this, often) to extend our low-quality of life.  We will not be allowed the dignity and freedom to control our end, which will probably come in a sterile hospital room, connected to various machines and tubes, and after perhaps a million dollars and unknown suffering.  Yes, there are many complex issues here, but the point is that many of us will not have a good death, not good for the individual, and not good for society.  But let's keep arguing about choice of physicians, generic prescriptions, and the like.  That's so much easier.

image from majorspoilers.com

Claude Rains

I may have mentioned in a earlier blog how surprising it was to have become invisible, not that I was ever particularly visible in the first place.  I don't really think about this much until those rare occasions when somebody actually sees me.  I'm not talking about work, where all day long people I don't know are saying hello to me, as wearing a suit apparently seems to fool people into thinking you're somebody.  No, I mean like in the supermarket a couple of days ago, where an attractive younger woman (and suddenly that means 35-40, ouch!) smiled at me and made eye contact like might have happened, albeit rarely, a couple two three (a local expression) decades ago.  But while these rare occasions are somewhat surprising, what really took me aback was that I don't know if I even had the courtesy to smile back.  By the time what was happening registered in my tiny brain I was by her.  I just passed by her expressionless, and didn't feel any particular desire to redress the discourtesy.  I don't know when becoming invisible happens, and especially when it becomes accepted.

So I'm not talking about men that can be seen. We know that at least half of them cheat, though I have no idea how such statistics are gathered as a cheater is likely to be a liar too.  And obviously there are some men that don't cheat because they don't have the opportunity, the corollary being that if given the chance they would and do cheat.  The "men as hounds" notion requires no elaboration.  But of the faceless masses, how many continue to believe and act as though they can be seen? The interesting part is not so much the shameless attempts or utter lack of conscience in inappropriately approaching women, even the clearly unattainable ones (they're men, after all), but the apparent disregard, disbelief, or distorted perception of the invisibility that comes at some point during middle age.  Judging from the bleacherfulls of stocky, dyed-hair weathered soccer moms ubiquitous at the kids' various events, the same phenomenon may happen to women, but I can't be sure as they are invisible to me.

There are probably ways to combat and overcome the invisibility.  Probably the most obvious way for men is to acquire wealth or power, as many women look for and therefore see those that can show-me-the-money. But what does the common Joe do?  Live long, for the ratios become increasingly  favorable with age.  What do women do?  Those women still desperately trying to cling to her fading beauty- you know, the ones with the leathery skin, troweled make-up, still showing the bony sternum with now-saggy cleavage, often real estate agents- have become a tragic icon.  How do they become visible?  I suppose that if they still have enough looks they can go for cougar status or enough dough they can go the Norma Desmond route (though I am skeptical as to how many of these "kept men" really exist), but really most have to go up in age to be seen.  In other words, most men can only see women younger than them, and this becomes especially pronounced as men age, so that most 45 year old women can only be seen by men that are 60+, which is kind of ironic in that when the surviving men finally get to an age where they can pick from the large number of old ladies available, many still try for the 20 years younger women.  Other options for both invisible men and women is to drastically lower standards, get a cat, or actually get lucky and find someone that isn't as superficial as most of us.

image from deformeddestructive.blogspot.com