I use to hate "Back to School nights". Thank God my son is done with all of that! I am sure no one really enjoys them - those occasions where you return to grammar, middle and high school classrooms to hear what your child or children will be learning in the school year that has just begun. My frustration, however, was not with the tedium of the event, not with the fact that I was coming from work and tired, nor that these events really provided limited insight into what my son was actually learning. For me they just would overwhelm me. I would leave the school actually feeling depressed, even angry.
Over the years I have not really spent a lot of time examining why that was. I was usually just thankful that it was over, and that I was done for another year. Schools, I quickly concluded, were simply not for me. Which is is interesting in that I love universities. For roughly ten years I lingered in proximity to Rutgers and enjoyed pursuing at first a Bachelors in Philosophy and then for another period of time working towards a Masters in Social Studies Education. That is right, I was for several years there at night attending the Rutgers Graduate School of Education pursuing a Masters in Social Studies.
As I write this I realize that this last detail might be a part of the dynamic. You think?
So in some respects, those days at Rutgers Graduate School of Education were the best and the worst of times. I was during the day working at Prudential doing a customer service function. And then at nights I would run to class. I enjoyed the hustle of it, and the classes were a mix of things. Some required, others not. I was exposed to a range of areas from Education Research to Political Science Methodology, which was actually courtesy of the Rutgers Political Science Department. I was of course given a smattering of topics within Social Studies from the bizarre funding of New Jersey schools to the development of actual social studies lessons. Most intriguing to me was my introduction to the philosophy of Pragmatism courtesy of Professors Giarelli and "JJ" Chambliss.
So I did enjoy much of this, but the end product, what the Graduate School of Education is focused on, the school - I have come to have little use for. A case of the operation was largely a success, but the patient died. I was a few credits away from a degree when I decided to abandon the project. Despite the time I had spent in classes, the thought and study I had put into it. the student loans I had taken out, the student teaching I had done, I left and jumped into IT staffing, basically the sale of IT services and staffing solutions. So it is no wonder that I feel a sense of desperation and regret when entering into a school. I made a commitment to this vocation, but ultimately walked away.
The question remains why? And to answer that I will leave you with two stories.
The first takes place in Spotswood High School, where I did my student teaching. I basically survived that experience. There were moments I was proud of, and there were moments that were problems. My classroom management style left something to be desired. My luck of being given free rein in a History of Psychology class still puts a smile on my face. My poor attempt at contrasting the Progressive Movement circa 1900 to Manifest Destiny prior to 1860 in an AP History class is another moment that haunts me. The American History class, which was mandatory. . . I do not know what to say.
The most amusing moment was right at the tail-end of my assignment. It was perhaps the last afternoon of my last day, right before the holidays. We perhaps had had a holiday party of sorts, One student had given me a tie, another a coffee mug. So some connection had been made? The kids were now gone - school was done for the day. The Assistant Principal comes in to shake hands and wishes me well. I am wrapping things up and he says,"Yeah, you might consider another vocation." This is during the course of a conversation touching on well wishes, the last few weeks, the kids, the holidays. Nothing too serious. Nor does he elaborate.
The second story is even further back. 1978 I guess. Yeah I know we are talking prehistory. I am assigned a seat in a Mr Stryker's Biology class. With that I happen to share a desk, a double desk with two seats, with a kid by the name of John Kolba. Perhaps the luckiest break I got. I did not really relish sitting next to this dude. I did not know him, He was not thrilled either. Stryker had separated him and his buddy. He was pretty long-haired even then, and I really had little use for such at that point.
I myself, however, had just started checking out music. Led Zeppelin II was my first album and that was in the fall of 1978. We did get to know each other and talk about such. I was quite impressed with his solution to the "bug collection" project. Unlike the rest of us, he worked out a deal with Mr Stryker to draw 20 or so insects in detail. From the little I saw, I was impressed. So we did kind of get to know each other. He proceeded to introduce bands such as Rush and Thin Lizzy to me and a friendship developed.
Jump ahead to 1981. I believe it was either in the spring or we had just graduated. Me and my buddy are heading on a Sunday night to the Warford House, a dive bar located in the little nearby town of Frenchtown. It is not far from Easton PA on the Delaware River. The Warford House was commonly referred to as the "Lower" back then. I am fairly certain it was in the spring of 81, as I recall it being a school night, literally. Spellbinder was playing there. Spellbinder is John Kolba's band, playing a mix of covers ranging from Tom Petty to ZZ Top to Thin Lizzy. And it was just cool going into a bar to see these kids perform. We were all 16, 17 maybe some were 18 at that time, and the drinking age though lower back then was not that low.
It was the exposure to bands such as Thin Lizzy and Rush, the exposure to the likes of a live band and the Warford House that was the beginnings of an education, and of a friendship. It was in these environs that I learned something. Interestingly, the things I learned, the things I valued, might have been acquired in schools and universities. They were not, however, listed typically in the formal curriculum. They were not the stated goals of these institutions, and it is that, which gives me pause each time I return.
Saturday, February 18, 2017
“The Most Vulnerable” versus “The Able Bodied”
House Speaker Ryan offered up on Friday
a Healthcare Policy Brief. For my money it boils down to several key
points:
- Medicaid is for those who are the “most vulnerable patients“ versus the “able-bodied adults”, who will have to find coverage elsewhere. Further Medicaid will be largely controlled by the states. The state governments will be able to control how they spend these dollars. Lastly, states will get limited funds from the federal government for Medicaid, and the big question here is how much? I think we know one thing it will be less, perhaps far less than we see today.
- So Medicaid shrinks and the private market grows. To help contain the cost of insurance he offers several items.
- Health Savings Accounts – This is wonderful if you have money for Health Savings accounts. Also if you have an actual health issue you could burn through such an account pretty damn quick, at least with today's healthcare regimes and costs.
- A market solution to the the lack of healthcare insurance products - the breaking down of “barriers that restrict choice and prevent Americans from picking the plan that is best for them and their family”. This is basically allowing insurance to be available across state lines. State lines are the barriers he refers to. It ultimately takes away the States rights to regulate the insurance products available in the states. My reading of this idea is that it is an assault on Federalism.
- A tax credit, which all adults will seem to be given, regardless of whether you pay into the federal coffers or not. The question here is how much of a tax credit? What will this actually amount to?
These are the solutions he is offering.
These are the solutions that he has been offering for the past five
or six years now. He is promising that the “most vulnerable
patients“ will continue to have some type of Medicaid product. Those
who are “able-bodied adults” will go to the market place and get
coverage. Further, the federal government will give all “able-bodied
adults” a check to take to that marketplace. Lastly, the federal government will strip the states of their right to regulate insurance within
their borders, with the intent of stimulating market choice.
My criticism of these is that I expect
little in regard to tax credits and poor quality insurance plans for
those at the lower end of the income scale and market. Regarding
Health Savings Accounts, I see little use for them as you will burn
through them very quickly if you have an actual health care problem.
And you can only burn through those funds, if you have those funds to
set aside in the first place. In short, the upper-middle class get
little or nothing. Those at the bottom get some kind of care, which
is largely contingent upon where you live. Those who are “able-bodied
adults” who are simply poor, you might have some type of coverage,
maybe, but it will not cover much.
If after five years of talking,
thinking and discussing these matters this is the best that the
Republican leadership can offer, we are in trouble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
