Mixed Grill II

With less than one week to go before election day, I've been paying very close attention to what's going on, both in my neck of the woods and to other well-publicized races in other areas of the country.

But before I get to that, I need to drag my DME soapbox out again.

DME: A Many Splintered Thing
I saw in HME News that a new DME group has formed in Michigan by a "handful" of providers. The only person mentioned or quoted was Robert Binson, and one person doesn't qualify as a "handful," so I'm somewhat perplexed as to who else is involved with this new organization.

According to the article, Binson says that "Some of us said we would be better off having an association made of DME, mainly," that "Either competitive bidding is good or it's bad," said Binson. "It's not good for some and bad for others."

Huh?

Binson's is well known in the industry for pursuing (and in some cases trying to instigate) contracts with state Medicaid programs for incontinence supplies. In light of his active and deliberate efforts to secure such contracts, I'm at a loss as to how Robert Binson can put himself out there as a champion and representative of independent DMEs.

Either competitive bidding is good or it's bad, says Mr. Binson. When is competitive bidding a good thing, exactly? And how can an organization that's formed to represent the interests of DMEs benefit from a president who has demonstrated his belief that competitive bidding is good for him and his company?

And why did HME News fail to raise and address those points?

I've made no secret of my disdain for AMEPA, TAHCS, and FAHCS. I think they deserve every word I've written about them (and all the ones I haven't yet written). This new organization, the Michigan Independent Providers Association (MIPA), will go into the same category as what I fondly refer to as the "Brant Bunch." Binson may not be associated with them, but I think he's being as counter-productive and divisive as that group is.

If you're not happy with the activities of the association in your state, and you're a dues-paying member, talk to them about your concerns, and make productive suggestions on how to change things. Offer your time and services. Volunteer! All the Directors and Officers of those groups do that. They give their time to serve and try to steer the organization. If you don't like the direction they're steering in (apologies to my English teachers), volunteer. Get on the Board and try to steer in another direction. Don't start another group to serve your own interests; there are far too many groups in this industry that have done that, and that's why there's no unified message and no unified voice that's loud enough to be heard and to get results.

The HME News article, if it's accurate, makes it clear that the issues that Binson used to justify the splintering weren't necessarily pertinent to nor the responsibility of the existing association, Michigan Home Health Association (MHHA).

How many Michigan DMEs attend Medtrade West? Was the scheduling of the MHHA conference really such an issue? Seriously?

Binson is quoted in the article as saying that he does "worry that it's [the forming of MIPA] going to dilute the message," that he doesn't "agree with multiple associations all doing the same thing," and that his group will "meet with MHHA leadership in the future to talk about coordinating efforts."

Mr. Binson, you could and should have talked to MHHA leadership and coordinated efforts before forming your own club. That way you wouldn't have to "worry" about a diluted message and multiple associations doing the same thing.

Unity
1 : the quality or state of not being multiple : oneness
2 : a condition of harmony : accord

Politics, Politics, Politics!
This has been one hell of an election year. I kind of feel like a deer caught in headlights. I know that something is fast approaching, and I know it's bad in many ways, but I'm mesmerized; I just can't look away.

These negative, bloody campaigns are a symptom of the train wreck that is our government, the apathy of most of the country, and the too-short memories of us all.

I keep hearing and reading that the electorate is angry. I'm not impressed. They'll be "angry" for a while, and then lapse into their usual apathetic ways.

The electorate should be angry first and foremost with itself. We're the ones who elected (and too often re-elected) the self-serving, grand-standing, narrow-minded, idiot politicians in the first place.

We're the ones who allowed the partisan politics to go on and on and on and on, and now nothing gets done that benefits us when anything gets done at all. The politicians play their partisan games and the result is legislation that does far more harm than it does good; we end up with laws and programs that favor pet causes and minority interests, programs that are expensive short-term fixes to problems that demand a more intelligent and thoughtful approach, and we spend billions on foreign issues when we could better spend that money on solving our own issues.

This year's crop of candidates look into a camera and tell us that Washington is broken, and that they're going to "fix" it. They're going to be independent-minded enough to work for us.

The problem with that is that everyone is saying that, even the incumbents who have been guilty of playing partisan games all along. They're the ones who "broke" Washington in the first place.

The sad truth is that they think we're all stupid, even if we're angry, because they're banking on the fact that once the election is over, we'll go back to being absorbed by our day-to-day lives and forget our anger until the next time they need to make us promises that they're not going to keep.

Baa-aa-aa-aa-aa!
Political parties count on the flock-of-sheep mentality common to humanity. How many of you are Republicans (or Democrats) because that's what your parents were or because that's the mindset of where you came from?

How many of you are staunch Republicans (or Democrats) who vote for the candidate your party offers you, instead of taking long, objective looks at the individuals running?

The two main political parties have ideology handbooks that govern what they're for, against, and what they're about. If you're a Republican (or Democratic) politician, you must agree to abide by and support the tenets found in those books.

Yes, this is an over-simplification, but I'm trying to make a point.

Here's what a politician's mantra should be: Serve the interests of constituents, and serve the fiscal well-being of the country. This country is deeply in debt, yet still spends like a drunken sailor on shore leave. Are our own problems being solved? No. Yet our government has spent more than $1.1 billion on post-quake relief in Haiti, and has pledged another $1.15 billion for rebuilding there.

Excuse me?

We have millions out of work here. We have an education system that is, in a word, crap. We have millions here who can't afford health care. Our social security fund will collapse within the next 30 or so years. We have border issues and illegals living here, earning here, demanding benefits, and not contributing a dime. We have our own disasters with which we cope alone.

Yet we pledge money we don't have for a country that is basically sitting on its collective backside, expecting everyone else to do their work for them (and pay for it too). Now they want more money to help them cope with a cholera outbreak. What have those people been doing for themselves the last nine months?

Nothing. Not a damned thing.

I do feel sorry for the people in Haiti. But I'm not interested in billions and billions of my country's dollars going to rebuild a country full of people who won't help themselves. I'm certainly not interested in billions and billions that we don't actually have going there (or anywhere else).

We don't have that kind of money, and charity begins at home. So does fiscal responsibility, which is something our legislators don't understand, but need to (and should be made to).

Which brings me to my point: Incumbents got us where we are. I don't care if an incumbent is Republican, Democrat, or independent. The incumbents have, with their partisan politics and stupidity, gotten us into the mess we're in. The incumbents aren't going to solve the problems; if they could, they would already have done so, and we wouldn't have an "angry" electorate.

When you go to the polls, vote for the candidate who will do the most good. Yes, your choice may have to come down to voting for the person who will actually do the least amount of harm (which is a pathetic state of affairs!). But vote responsibly.

Campaign Glimpses
As I said at the start of this blog, I've been paying very close attention to races around the country. Many of them are fierce. Most of them make the races in my area look almost tame.

California
Boxer vs. Fiorina for a Senate seat, and this one's close. Very close. Does Boxer need (or deserve) a fourth six-year term? I would say not, but I'm in favor of term limits. It's one thing to plant your behind in a seat for a while; it's another to grow roots.

Oh, Florida!
Florida is an interesting state (and by interesting I mean wacky). I could talk about McCain's campaign in Arizona, or the Sestak/Toomey Senate race in Pennsylvania, or a host of other people and places, but once again Florida is too colorful to overlook.

Florida seems to be the Liberace or Adam Lambert (depending on your generation) of politics. Flamboyance must be the order of the day there.

The Scott vs. Sink governor's face-off would be high comedy if it wasn't so tragic. In one corner you have Alex Sink, a woman who can't seem to take responsibility for anything (more on that below). In the other corner you have Rick Scott, the CEO of a healthcare company that is alleged to have billed Medicare for millions of dollars in fraudulent claims.

There was, on CNN, a debate between the two candidates, both of whom agreed to specific rules governing the event. My understanding is that they both agreed that aides would not be present, and that there would be no communication of any kind with aides during the event.

During a break in the debate, Sink's make-up artist brought her a message from an aide. After relaying the message sent via text to a cell phone, the make-up artist handed Sink the cell phone, and Sink read it.

She read it on camera!

Her opponent, Rick Scott, saw the deed, and immediately reported it to a CNN staff member, who confiscated the phone after reading the text message. Scott addressed the debate violation on the air, after the break. Take a look:

CNN Link

What did Sink do? She blamed the aide and fired him from her campaign. Should the aide have sent the text? No. Should the make-up artist have conveyed both message and phone to Sink? No. Should Sink have accepted the phone and read the message? No! But she did, and of course it's not her fault at all.

Then there's the three-way Senate race with Marco Rubio (R), Charlie Crist (I), and Kendrick Meek (D).

MSNBC Link

There was a debate among the three last night, moderated by NBC's David Gregory, and though the blurb next to the video clip says that Rubio and Crist "ganged up" on Meek, the clip shows them bashing the Republican party (yes, even Rubio, though he was mild about it). The article above the clip, however, skewers Crist.

Polls indicate that Rubio is in the lead, Crist is second, and Meek trailing at a distant third, but I'm not sure what to think. Nothing in Florida is ever what it seems to be.

We've got a Rhode Island Democratic candidate for governor telling Obama to "shove it," and a nasty Senate race going on in Alaska.

It's time to put a stop to all the nonsense and get things straightened out. How? Stay engaged, and pay attention, even when it's not an election year.