More Healthcare Clusterf*ck

So, as most of y'all know by now, we had to switch health-insurance companies at the end of last year, moving from Blue Shield to Aetna. We've had Aetna before and were pretty happy with them -- as happy as one can ever be with an HMO. We were all able to keep our old doctors, so that was a relief. The costs of everything went up, but that's okay -- we expected that. No more cushy state-subsidized healthcare for us. ;-)

One of my first orders of business was to switch my prescriptions to the new plan. Since the cost of everything had gone way up (can you say $50 for a Nuvaring?), I was motivated to set everything up via their mail-order pharmacy. I went to my doc, got the scripts, and submitted everything, easy-peasy.

After awhile, I received a letter from Aetna, saying there was a problem with one Rx, and it had been delayed. I knew which one it was -- my anxiety med. A very basic med, I'm on a low-dosage, and there is a generic available. But I had requested to have the dosage reduced by half, in the hopes of eventually weaning myself off of it. I would, however, need to continue to take 2 per day, until my body adjusted to the lower dosage.

Aetna didn't like this. To them, on paper, it looks like I'm just taking double the number of pills for no reason. Their costs go up, so they put the kibosh on it.

From what I can piece together, they tried to talk to my doc about this; I dunno whether he talked to them or not. He hates HMOs and has advised me that he will soon be affiliated with none of them. I don't blame him! Who wants to have your every move questioned by a paper-pusher?! The order was cancelled altogether.

This leaves me running low on this medication that I've been on for years, and which has a NOTORIOUSLY bad cold-turkey withdrawal. Now, I will have to go BACK to my doc, and get ANOTHER Rx that won't be questioned by Aetna. I guess I'll ask for the half-dosage, once a day. That should fly. And if I have to take extra to combat side effects... Well, I dunno what will happen then, because I know they won't like that. Their rules don't allow for people's differing reactions to medications, or the lack thereof. Their rules aren't about PEOPLE. They're about MONEY.

Good thing I'm unemployed and have time for this bullshit, huh.

But seriously. This is insanity.

I'd like to see ALL state/federal/government/military workers -- but most especially POLITICIANS -- have to deal with these HMOs. Because only then will "certain people" in power recognize that this is ridiculous, embarrassing for America, bad for society, bad for people's health, and COSTS MORE IN THE LONG RUN.

I will also point out to Aetna... when your customers are social-media whores, this stuff IS NOT GOOD FOR YOUR PR. #sorry

"Twilight" backlash: Sexism?

Is the backlash against ‘Twilight’ rooted in sexism?

This was the question that popped into my head recently after watching the movie “Twilight”. (Which is funny, because I watched a RiffTrax of it, and you wouldn’t think I’d be left with such a serious question after viewing THAT little slice of comedy… “LINE?!” But anyhoo, I digress…)

What first struck me was, “JESUS, that was a funny
RiffTrax.” After that, I got to thinking how extremely cool the Twilight STORY is. Seeing the movie actually made me want to read the books. Not because of the vampire romance – I can take or leave vampires. What I loved was the framework of the story – that the vampire “Dad” (who is the town doctor) actually saves people’s lives, in a way, by turning them into vampires when they’re gonna die anyway. So in the story, the Doctor’s family is comprised of these young people that he’s saved (including Edward), and a “Mom”, all of whom have been given eternal life by this vampire/doctor. Oh, and they don’t live on people-blood, these vampires, they live on animal blood, so as not to take innocent human lives. They’re like a band of vampire humanists, I guess.

So now, as the basis for a book series, I ask you… HOW FREAKIN’ GNARLY IS THAT CONCEPT?!

Okay, so then… why all the mockery, and, at times, vitriol? Remember, the anti-Twilight “movement” – if one can call it that – began as a reaction to Stephenie Meyer’s books (which I will NEVER understand, being a big fan of ALL BOOKS and anything that makes someone read). It reached a heightened pitch, certainly, after the release of the movies and the surrounding teen-heartthrob hubbub, marketing blitz, etc., but it was in full-swing before there was even TALK of a movie, before R-Pattz and K-Stew were even CAST! Grown women were forced to cover their Twilight books in their kids’ schoolbook covers in embarrassment, for cryin’ out loud!

Being a library worker, I have lots of literary-snob peeps, bless their hearts, who were among the Twilight haters. I’m not callin’ y’all sexists, so don’t get yer collective academic panty in a bunch. I’m just wondering -- MUSING, if you will -- as to whether, on some subconscious level, a deeply ingrained, societal sexism had something to do with the rather bizarre anti-Twilight backlash. I don’t believe for one minute that a book series aimed at, and appealing to, teenage boys, would have met with such a public flogging and complete dismissiveness. I think it’s full-on, socially ingrained, sexism in action. People who would never think of bashing Harry Potter, for example, bashed Twilight … in many (most?) cases, without ever having cracked even one of the books open.

Interesting, no?

I welcome your thoughts on my hastily fleshed-out theory.

Particularly if you’ve actually read the book(s), which I have not.