2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

So, bluna - would you propose state mandated atheism?

posted 3 years, 10 months ago
view in context

Even though I am not a Christian and not a religious person at all, I guess I feel that religious freedom is more important than many other people do.  I think it's unfortunate that this child had to die, but I would support the parent's rights to practice their religion.  I would find it a different situation if the parents had completely ignored or neglected the child's health, but in their view and in their religion they were doing what they were supposed to do - praying. 

I would ask the question of people, why is it so bad that someone dies?  Why are we as a society so afraid of death?  Before the days of hospitals and antibiotics, this child would have died regardless of her parents decisions.  And in many, many countries around the world she would have still died.  For some reason as privileged americans, we believe that because medical care exists we are also obligated to use it.

posted 3 years, 10 months ago
view in context

I'm sorry I didn't realize earlier in the day that this was the TOL topic for the day! As a hospice social worker for the past three years, I have learned that while most people wish to die at home if possible, most adults have no idea what the costs of long term care or in-home care really are.

While the medicare hospice benefit is a wonderful benefit, it does not cover 24 hour care and is designed to provide "support" to families who are caring for their loved one at home or in a long-term care setting. Many families are upset when they find out that we can't provide a 24 hour caregiver or pay for nursing home care as part of their hospice benefit. Many people assume that medicare simply pays for nursing care when they need it, when in fact medicare only pays for nursing home services for rehabilitation and will not pay for rehab and hospice at the same time.

Now, add to the already difficult situation that families need to either a) have the time and capability to provide hands-on care to their family member at home or b) have the funds to pay for in-home care (avg $20/hr in the pdx area) or for care in a long-term care facility ($1500-$7000/mo depending on the type of facility and care need) that medicare will be cutting the reimbursement to hospice providers. This means that providers will be less able to fill the "gaps" in care and help families do their best to meet patient needs at home. The difference may look like one nursing visit per week instead of two or having only one visit from the bathing aide each week rather than two or three. As a social worker, it may mean that I have a higher caseload and therefore families have to wait longer to get my help with making funeral plans or assigning a medical power of attorney.

posted 4 years, 9 months ago
view in context

To ask the question, "Do you think racism is still alive?" is an outrage and an embarrassment. It is akin to asking, "Do you think we are still at war in Iraq?"

Not only does this question have an obvious answer - of course racism is still alive and well all over the world, as well as here at home in Oregon - but the act of asking the question suggests that there is a possibility that the answer could be "no". It opens the door to the belief that racism is not a problem. The question itself gives people the option to close their eyes and their minds and choose to believe that we do not have a problem with racism.

Some better questions might be: How do you experience racism in Oregon? What are some of the unique racial issues here in Oregon?

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context