So my 100 days of overhaul have gone by and soooo many things have happened. We found a house, packed everything up, moved, and have taken about half of our house apart.
I have learned a few things since this whole thing has started. One of them is that choosing the right time for a life overhaul is important. It's not the best idea to try and overhaul yourself in the middle of moving you life to a new location and trying to settle everything, especially when you purchase a super fixer. The other thing is that it is very hard to change. Changing one's life and way of thinking does not happen over night. With those things being said, I would not call this whole thing a failure.
I have not lost as much weight as I wanted to but I can now jog 8+ miles at a time. I still treat myself sometimes but I am trying to separate when I just want a treat from when I'm just in a bad mood. I am learning that chocolate does not fix things, and eating a box of chocolates will give you a stomach ache (and has a negative effect on the wellness plan). I guess in short what I'm saying is that this is just a work in progress. Eventually I want to get to a point where a friend of mine is. She doesn't eat sugar. No sugar unless it's in fruit. I know she treats herself to ice cream or a shake every once in a while, but I've been out places with her when everyone is eating yummy things and she's able to say no. This will power is amazing to me, given that I have the will power of a gnat.
As always, I conclude that I am (and probably will forever be) a work in progress.
In connection to a Facebook post that I put up this morning, I want to clear something about my thinking. I know that different people have different ideas of what being 'moral' consists of. I think sometimes people confuse knowing their beliefs and the changing values of our culture. Reading our scriptures can teach us a lot of things; who we are supposed to value, how we're supposed to build our families and (one of the most important in my mind) how we are supposed to treat other people. Disagreeing with someones life choices does not mean that I hate them. It does not mean that I think that they are going to hell. Christ treated everyone equally and told us all to love one another, that message is simple.
Now I've got a funny story from yesterday. Given that we are on such a tight time schedule during the day right now, I've gotten really good taking fast showers and getting my self out the door in time to pick up L from school. While running out the door yesterday I was running late and therefore not checking everything as closely as I should have. I managed to lock my self out of the house, while at the same time locking my keys, and Q, inside the car. Long story short, I got my keys back and got L from school on time.
Ah, the adventures in parenting!
Friday, May 11, 2012
Thursday, May 3, 2012
We can't have it BOTH ways.
As I'm sitting here listening to the storm that is rolling it outside, and the noise of Mom and DH positioning things to jack up the floor in the basement, I keep thinking about a news story that was on the local news a couple days ago. A number of nurses were headed down to Springfield to protest and talk to the legislature about not cutting things from Medicare. They were saying that they were going down there to speak up for the needs of their patients and against cuts that the state is talking about making to the system to keep itself solvent.
On the surface this is a really good and noble idea. Those who care for others giving them a voice against those in power taking advantage of those who are vulnerable. But if you look at the issue on more than just a surface level, you can see many layers of a very complicated issue. Companies are "retiring" people earlier and earlier these days, in many cases people who are very good at their jobs are being "retired" out so that the company will not have to pay them retirement benefits. They are making the argument that they can hire someone younger to do the same job for less money. In the short term I can see the business case. But what about the cost to the rest of us, outside the business world. What happens when all the aging Babyboomers, who were "retired" out of their jobs before they qualified for retirement benefits, when they become older and need more care? Right now most of them are healthy, my Mom and In-Laws included, but so many of them are starting to suffer the diseases of old age and are working at jobs that they may lose at any time. Do the powers that be understand or care what happens to the bill for their care once they are kicked out of the private sector??? Maybe it's because I already lost one parent that I have a pretty consuming worry for the well being of my remaining parent. She is one of the lucky few who are able to purchase private healthcare, for the time being. When she's not able to do this anymore the burden of bills will go to the tax payers; the rest of us. The nurses idea is still a good one.
But.
One of the major political arguments that is bound to come up in this election year is this issue of taxes. Now in case anyone has not made this connection before, its our tax dollars that fund things like Medicare. I know it's part of Social Security and all that but it all comes from the same accounts. Now while we argue that no funding should be cut to seniors and other Medicare recipients, it occurs to me that there is no way of doing this without raising or freezing the amount of taxes that we pay. No one wants this. So it occurs to me that we can't have it both ways. We can't be an entitlement society and not be taxed very heavily (and unfortunately we are moving more and more toward an entitlement system). If those who have worked most of their lives are not able to take care of them selves we should have something in place to help them and at least provide adequate medical care. In the case of those who are NOT willing to put in the work, I'm sorry but my policy would be, no job (or proof that you are looking as hard as you can) and your benefits need to have a time limit on them. I know this will get me flamed but I'm going to say it anyway: Just because you are born into bad circumstances does not mean that you automatically get benefits or help. Sometimes peoples bad situations are not their fault, sometime they are no ones fault but their own, but bad situations should not entitle you to free healthcare on my dime. We just can't have it both ways.
So either we tax up, or we get off the entitlement bandwagon. What is fair is not always equal.
I'll get off my soapbox now. . .
Have a good night everyone!
On the surface this is a really good and noble idea. Those who care for others giving them a voice against those in power taking advantage of those who are vulnerable. But if you look at the issue on more than just a surface level, you can see many layers of a very complicated issue. Companies are "retiring" people earlier and earlier these days, in many cases people who are very good at their jobs are being "retired" out so that the company will not have to pay them retirement benefits. They are making the argument that they can hire someone younger to do the same job for less money. In the short term I can see the business case. But what about the cost to the rest of us, outside the business world. What happens when all the aging Babyboomers, who were "retired" out of their jobs before they qualified for retirement benefits, when they become older and need more care? Right now most of them are healthy, my Mom and In-Laws included, but so many of them are starting to suffer the diseases of old age and are working at jobs that they may lose at any time. Do the powers that be understand or care what happens to the bill for their care once they are kicked out of the private sector??? Maybe it's because I already lost one parent that I have a pretty consuming worry for the well being of my remaining parent. She is one of the lucky few who are able to purchase private healthcare, for the time being. When she's not able to do this anymore the burden of bills will go to the tax payers; the rest of us. The nurses idea is still a good one.
But.
One of the major political arguments that is bound to come up in this election year is this issue of taxes. Now in case anyone has not made this connection before, its our tax dollars that fund things like Medicare. I know it's part of Social Security and all that but it all comes from the same accounts. Now while we argue that no funding should be cut to seniors and other Medicare recipients, it occurs to me that there is no way of doing this without raising or freezing the amount of taxes that we pay. No one wants this. So it occurs to me that we can't have it both ways. We can't be an entitlement society and not be taxed very heavily (and unfortunately we are moving more and more toward an entitlement system). If those who have worked most of their lives are not able to take care of them selves we should have something in place to help them and at least provide adequate medical care. In the case of those who are NOT willing to put in the work, I'm sorry but my policy would be, no job (or proof that you are looking as hard as you can) and your benefits need to have a time limit on them. I know this will get me flamed but I'm going to say it anyway: Just because you are born into bad circumstances does not mean that you automatically get benefits or help. Sometimes peoples bad situations are not their fault, sometime they are no ones fault but their own, but bad situations should not entitle you to free healthcare on my dime. We just can't have it both ways.
So either we tax up, or we get off the entitlement bandwagon. What is fair is not always equal.
I'll get off my soapbox now. . .
Have a good night everyone!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)