Next Chapter

Reading one chapter at a time provides you with the ability to focus on the content in front of you and make the most of it. Writing one chapter at a time also allows you to pay attention to the details and not miss those random moments of creativity and clarity.

I am not referring to a book - but rather life.  Yesterday marked a turning point in one chapter for my family.  Our final check for our children's primary education was paid.  Seventeen years of paying for a catholic education has come to an end with a simple 'check cleared' update from our bank.  My wife and I decided several years ago that we would do what we could to insure a quality education for our three children and can now say we made it.  Our children did not let us down!  Each of them, in their own way, took advantage of the opportunity and have more than pleased us with what they did with that opportunity. Excellence in school, role models as citizens, discerning thinkers, athletic standouts - overall, just really good people.  I could not be more proud of them individually, and as a trio - I am often breathless just thinking about them.

So what about the next chapter?  That started a few years ago, when our oldest was graduating high school.  It didn't really register for me at that time, but he made a decision (or series of decisions) that started it all.  Listening to him share why he was making his decision to attend a specific college - I was attentive but it was surreal.  The same thing happened with our daughter .... listening intently on why she was making 'the choice' on where to go to school. Both of them shared the why, where and when information with us and both have done extremely well following their dreams and decisions. But I wasn't really there - it was somewhat an out of body experience for me.  How could my kids be making such grown up decisions to leave home and chart their own course?  The exclamation point came to me the same day as the final check cleared for high school. Simply, our youngest made his decision on where to attend college and the deposit was sent in. 

This chapter began a little while ago and I honestly had not noticed how fast it was being written. As the final days of our family's connection to primary school comes to an end, we are reminded that each chapter is special ... and finite. The college years are flying by and in a few months - another chapter will start.

Thanks Coach

As we walk back through time, each of us can remember different inspirations and life lessons that provoked a turn in our lives.  This week I can't stop thinking about one that happened many years ago with what was a simple request for help.

I was a teenage boy, with a love of sports. I was surrounded by supportive people.  Coaches, friends, parents of friends, neighbors and my parents.  I was encouraged constantly to be my best. Some would say that my best was all that was acceptable.  My parent's neighbor and friend to all suffered an injury and much to my surprise - he contacted me for help.  He was coaching a girls soccer team (I can't remember if it was U-8 or U-10) and his injury was going to limit his ability to coach.  His request was simple - just help out, but the ramifications of the request and my eagerness to try literally changed my life.


I began helping with the running of drills and teaching the girls different aspects of the game.  I loved the game so this was rather simple.  However, I learned that fall that coaching soccer had less to do with my soccer skills and ability, rather it was about communication, coordination, and working towards a common goal.  I learned how to organize a group of people (pre-adolescent girls) to accomplish a task.  I learned that being supportive of the group would go further than teaching a few of them a new trick or technique.  Through my working with the coach, I learned to truly love the art of coaching.


Ever since that fall season, I have been a coach.  I have coached youth sports for most of my life. Some of those sports were organized recreational programs and some of them were simple training sessions with individual players.  I moved from coaching young girls soccer through coaching co-ed and boys soccer through high school age.  I coached baseball from U-5 through U-18. I am an assistant coach for a girls Track and Field team.  I also find myself serving as coach at work and in the community.  All of that coaching started with one man and the lessons he shared.

This past weekend I learned that he passed away after a battle with cancer.  My heart sunk with the news. My deepest condolences go out to his family - his daughter's Paula and Jaime and to his wife Ms. Bert.  I regret never having told Mr. Pete how much he impacted my life. I am truly thankful for having known him and him thinking enough of me to give me the opportunity. You never know the lives you impact with your simple actions.

The drive in

     The drive to work today was very symbolic of how our world seems to be going. The simple drive (drop off two children at carpools, get gas, drive third carpool then head to work) brought with it direct comparisons to the world around me that I feel compelled to share.

     A simple enough start to the day was getting my two high school aged 'children' to their respective carpools.  Carpools are an absolute must when you make the decision that your child will not attend school with those in the neighborhood. Carpools are also a very direct representation of people with completely different backgrounds and directions coming together to solve for a common need. Dropping my children off was quiet and uneventful. I reminded both of them to make the most of the opportunity before them, to be safe and do their best. There they went - off in completely different directions from me and each other (opposite sides of town, different schools, different sports after school ...) with the faith that we would be together again this evening for dinner.  Eating together as a family is something that is extremely important to each of us in the family - if one is missing ... it just is not the same.

     Following drop off, it was time for a quick stop  at the gas station.  Three things stood out as I pulled in and began the ritual of filling the tank.

• The first was the small economy car that pulled in next to me. I really did not think too much about it until the driver felt compelled to tell me that I was destroying the environment with my SUV (I drive a fairly new Ford Explorer).  I like to stay to myself, so I did not offer a retort. In hindsight - maybe I should have offered to inform the inconsiderate savior of the environment for the reasons for driving such a vehicle.  Simply, that my family participates in three different carpools and the most effective/efficient method for transporting my children, the other children in the carpool and their backpacks, gym bags, instruments and miscellaneous school projects to/from school is to have a vehicle that seats all the children and their gear in a safe manner.  While I appreciate the owner of the SMART car in their efforts to save the world - their world is not mine. I guess, in hindsight it was better not to offer my opinion as the discussion could not possibly turn into a positive experience for either of us.
• Interesting enough, the same individual driving the gas sipping vehicle, had a little more to offer in their opinion of what I was doing wrong. You see, I support my children's schools by placing a school spirit magnet on the back of my car.  Apparently, this is an advertisement that I am one of the rich people who don't pay enough taxes and shelters my children in private institutions.  The comment was made - that to my ears sounded like '... you will get yours soon enough. You are going to have to start paying your fair share next month - then we will see how you treat the rest of us'. I don't know where this person thought it was their place to make such a comment - it was offensive, inaccurate but very telling about them and the world around us.  My children attend private schools - not to separate them from society, but to insure they understand society. I would do everything in my power to provide them the opportunity to learn and experience the world so they can make a difference.  The development of their faith and making it part of every decision they make is my job (as parent) and the schools they attend extend that development. I can only assume that when the individual noticed the private school magnets - they believed that 'private' schools were more expensive than public schools and therefore elitist.The truth is - private school does cost my wife and I more than public school does. However, tuition for my children is less than the state reports to spend on a per student basis - across the state.  Yes, the state of Maryland reports that a per student expense of over $13,700 per year is what tax payers are hampered with for 'free public schools'. And yes, I still pay all my taxes in the state and DO NOT WANT A DISCOUNT FOR PRIVATE SCHOOL.  I think not commenting to the individual on this topic was also the right thing to do - absolutely nothing positive could come from the exchange.
• The third item that stood out during this brief pit-stop is that there are again different prices for paying by cash and credit.  While this used to be the way years ago - we (the citizenry) were incented to use credit for its convenience while reducing the work of the attendant. The argument was that automation was the way to reduce cost for all, so use your plastic and we can keep the price low.  I know this for a fact, as I worked at the local gas station back in the 80's and both heard (from corporate) and shared (with the locals) the plan. I understand the reason for the different prices - the use of credit has never been free (especially to the seller), but I can't help but think that I was promised one thing only to be redirected to another later down the road.

     After picking my youngest son up at the house, I proceeded to meet the third carpool of the day.  No challenges during this leg of the trip - we all talked about upcoming exams, pop music and where the 8th grade students were looking to go to high school.  I dropped the kids off - wished them well and proceeded to head to work.  When not driving a carpool in the morning, I typically leave my house at 3:30 AM and the commute is wonderful. One, maybe two traffic lights and a smooth trip to the office. However, when dropping kids off and then taking a different route to work - the most popular route for many, many daily commuters in the Baltimore suburbs .... well, it takes a little longer.  Much like my politics - I am fairly conservative in my driving habits (only speeding on occasion) and prefer to select and enter the lane that causes me to change the least.  As I safely entered the highway, I found my cruising speed in the proper lane and embarked on the trip.
     All was going fine on the way to work with limited backups along the way. However, when the road I was traveling on merged in to the Baltimore beltway more examples of society's ugliness appeared again.  I was crawling along at 10 miles an hour, sitting in the same lane I had been in for several miles. The lane in question combines with the other lane to the right and creates a new lane on the beltway.  As I was crawling along, I noticed that a car to the left of and behind me changed lanes (from the left of me to the right of me) quickly.  I am very aware of my surroundings while driving but the jerkiness of the cars and trucks behind me as this person made their transition highlighted what was happening. A small SUV was cutting through traffic - without blinkers and without care as to what problems they created along the way. Make note - they did not hit anyone in the process.
     As we continued moving along, I was maintaining pace with the car in front of me, allowing the lane to my right to continue to yield without disturbing the established flow.  The individual in the small SUV decided they had a better approach to yielding and proceeded to attempt to 'push me' into the next lane over by trying to run up the bumper of the car I had allowed to yield in front of me.  I did not move - I simply continued driving forward at the same pace.  This was met with a very angry, middle aged women winding down her window and sharing her thoughts on the situation with me - most of which I can not repeat here as the language is not what I wish anyone to endure.  She followed it up with the universal symbol of displeasure (the flip of the bird) and wound her window up.  She then moved on to the shoulder of the road and slammed the accelerator.  When she thought she had a good opportunity (approximately 3 cars ahead of me), she jerked the wheel to the left and cut off the line.  Sitting high in my SUV, I saw what was happening and covered the brake before she actually jutted in to traffic.  However, when the line of cars all started braking, the cascade went on from three cars in front of me until about 4 cars behind me.  Unfortunately for the 4th car behind me - the 5th car wasn't aware of what was happening.  At this point the accident happened. The offending vehicle never even saw what happened - they were on to the next lane change (to the left, pass three cars, then back to the right lane for 10 seconds then took the exit on the right).

    Why do I bring any of this up? Quite simply - the world is spinning faster and faster.  Individual opinions are the only thing that seem to matter to some people.  SLOW DOWN. Take a look around. You really need to pay attention to what impact you are having on the world. Whether it be insulting someone when you have zero idea how your comments will impact their world or even how they arrived at that moment or causing an accident that you don't even realize happened. What you do matters.  There is a line in a song that was featured in Disney's Pocohontas  - " you cant' step in the same river twice ". From the time I heard the line in the song it has become part of my personal mantra - be careful what you do for you do not know how you will alter it. One persons improvement to a situation may become the demise of the situation to another person.  We are all entitled to our own opinions and beliefs but when those opinions cross a line into changing others - we have overstepped our bounds.

Politics ...

    I had a brief text session with a friend recently and it reminded me that my last post did not address the larger issue.  Specifically, my last post was about politicians playing games with the sole intent of 'gumming up the works.' in Washington. What I failed to note was that it was the political drive for 'Universal Healthcare' that brought us to this point.
    Ms. Fluke's testimony regarding contraception was not really about contraception. No, it was about free access to a 'service' since the service is now being provided by our government.  I have heard numerous arguments regarding women's healthcare as opposed to men's healthcare and why the disparity in the services provided. This morning I stumbled across the article that highlights my concerns from the beginning. The article is all about access to men's ED medications and vasectamies.
    I think the combination of Ms. Fluke's testimony and the lawmakers trying to manipulate the public's consciousness regarding healthcare is serving as the perfect example of what I feared would happen. The government is no longer talking about providing healthcare to the citizenry - instead they are focused directly on how to manipulate the masses.  You don't believe me?  Prior to Universal Healthcare (even though it still has not been implemented), we did not have discussions of forcing citizens to undergo additional procedures if they wanted access to a specific drug/service.  Now that the government is the only supplier - we see the unintended consequences of such a plan. Unintended is being nice as I personally believe this was the plan all along.Very directly the government can tell us what steps we must take to receive the medication or service that we need. We must meet certain criteria before being allowed to have the procedure or drug and our ability to argue or disagree has been muted.

Let me be clear - I am opposed to government run healthcare. I am opposed to the government providing for ED medication and services. I am opposed to the government providing for contraceptive services. I am fully in support of private companies building products and services and inviting private citizens to purchase and subscribe to those.  Please remember - the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act is not about providing healthcare it is about access to healthcare.  What discussion would we be having right now if the government was not taking over access to healthcare? The economy? Education? Defense of our nation? Immigration? Drugs? Safety of our children?

The politics of opinion

I am a firm believer in individual rights. That all of us (men and women) have a right to be heard and that no individuals rights should interfere with any others rights. The balance between what I just wrote can be challenging at times - but in the end we are all here together and we must be respectful of each other.

With all of the talk regarding the Department of Health and Human Services declaration that all employers / health insurance policies be required to support contraception as a baseline - I decided to take a look around and see what was actually written. Interesting enough, on January 20, 2012, the following was issued

A statement by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius

In August 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services issued an interim final rule that will require most health insurance plans to cover preventive services for women including recommended contraceptive services without charging a co-pay, co-insurance or a deductible. The rule allows certain non-profit religious employers that offer insurance to their employees the choice of whether or not to cover contraceptive services. Today the department is announcing that the final rule on preventive health services will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine’s recommended preventive services, including all FDA -approved forms of contraception. Women will not have to forego these services because of expensive co-pays or deductibles, or because an insurance plan doesn’t include contraceptive services. This rule is consistent with the laws in a majority of states which already require contraception coverage in health plans, and includes the exemption in the interim final rule allowing certain religious organizations not to provide contraception coverage. Beginning August 1, 2012, most new and renewed health plans will be required to cover these services without cost sharing for women across the country.

After evaluating comments, we have decided to add an additional element to the final rule. Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law. Employers wishing to take advantage of the additional year must certify that they qualify for the delayed implementation. This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule. We intend to require employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support. We will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss their concerns.

Scientists have abundant evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women and their families, is documented to significantly reduce health costs, and is the most commonly taken drug in America by young and middle-aged women. This rule will provide women with greater access to contraception by requiring coverage and by prohibiting cost sharing.

This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty. I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services. The administration remains fully committed to its partnerships with faith-based organizations, which promote healthy communities and serve the common good. And this final rule will have no impact on the protections that existing conscience laws and regulations give to health care providers.

source:http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html

What I read in to that is that the Department of Health and Human services listened to constituents and made a decision. Whether you agree with it or not - they listened and published. So, I dug a little more into what the 'interim final rule' was and found it interesting ... again:

II. Overview of the Amendment to the Interim Final Regulations

The interim final regulations providedthat a group health plan or health insurance issuer must cover certain items and services, without costsharing, as recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Notably, to the extent not described in the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations, HRSA was charged with developing comprehensive guidelines for preventive care and screenings with respect to women (i.e.,the Women’s Preventive Services: Required Health Plan Coverage Guidelines or ‘‘HRSA Guidelines’’). The interim final regulations also require that changes in the required items and services be implemented no later than plan years (in the individual market, policy years) beginning on or after the date that is one year from when the new recommendation or guideline is issued.

In response to the request for comments on the interim final regulations, the Departments received considerable feedback regarding which preventive services for women should be considered for coverage under PHS Act section 2713(a)(4). Most commenters, including some religious organizations, recommended that HRSA Guidelines include contraceptive services for all women and that this requirement be binding on all group health plans and health insurance issuers with no religious exemption. However, several commenters asserted that requiring group health plans sponsored by religious employers to cover contraceptive services that their faith deems contrary to its religious tenets would impinge upon their religious freedom. One commenter noted that some religious employers do not currently cover such benefits under their group health plan due to their religious beliefs.
The Departments note that PHS Act section 2713(a)(4) gives HRSA the
authority to develop comprehensive guidelines for additional preventive care and screenings for women ‘‘for purposes of this paragraph.’’ In other words, the statute contemplated HRSA Guidelines that would be developed with the knowledge that certain group health plans and health insurance issuers would be required to cover the services recommended without cost-sharing, unlike the other guidelines referenced in section 2713(a), which pre-dated the Affordable Care Act and were originally issued for purposes of identifying the non-binding recommended care that providers should provide to patients. These HRSA Guidelines exist solely to bind non-grandfathered group health plans and health insurance issuers with
respect to the extent of their coverage of certain preventive services for women. In the Departments’ view, it is appropriate that HRSA, in issuing these Guidelines, takes into account the effect on the religious beliefs of certain religious employers if coverage of contraceptive services were required in the group health plans in which employees in certain religious positions participate. Specifically, the Departments seek to provide for a religious accommodation that respects the unique relationship between a house of worship and its employees in ministerial positions. Such an accommodation would be consistent with the policies of States that require contraceptive services coverage, the majority of which simultaneously provide for a religious accommodation.

In light of the above, the Departments are amending the interim final rules to provide HRSA additional discretion to exempt certain religious employers from the Guidelines where contraceptive services are concerned. The amendment to the interim final rules provides HRSA with the discretion to establish this exemption. Consistent with most States that have such exemptions, as described below, the amended regulations specify that, for purposes of this policy, a religious employer is one that: (1) Has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit organization under section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Code. Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) and (iii) refer to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, as well as to
the exclusively religious activities of any religious order. The definition of religious employer, as set forth in the amended regulations, is based on existing definitions used by most States that exempt certain religious employers from having to comply with State law requirements to cover contraceptive services. We will be accepting comments on this definition as well as alternative definitions, such as those that have been developed under Title 26 of the United States Code. The definition set forth here is intended to reasonably balance the extension of any coverage of contraceptive services under the HRSA Guidelines to as many women as possible, while respecting the unique relationship between certain religious employers and their employees in certain religious positions. The change in policy effected by this amendment to these interim final rules is intended solely for purposes of PHS Act section 2713 and the companion
provisions of ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code.

Because HRSA’s discretion to establish an exemption applies only to group health plans sponsored by certain religious employers and group health insurance offered in connection with such plans, health insurance issuers in the individual health insurance market would not be covered under any such exemption.

III. Interim Final Regulations and Waiver of Delay of Effective Date
Section 9833 of the Code, section 734 of ERISA, and section 2792 of the PHS Act authorize the Secretaries of the Treasury, Labor, and HHS (collectively, the Secretaries) to promulgate any interim final rules that they determine are appropriate to carry out the provisions of chapter 100 of the Code, part 7 of subtitle B of title I of ERISA, and part A of title XXVII of the PHS Act, which include PHS Act sections 2701 through 2728 and the incorporation of those sections into ERISA section 715 and Code section 9815. The amendments promulgated in this rulemaking carry out the provisions of these statutes. Therefore, the foregoing interim final rule authority applies to these amendments. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551, et seq.), while a general notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment is generally required before promulgation of regulations, an exception is made when an agency, for good cause, finds that notice and public comment thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. The provisions of the APA that ordinarily require a notice of proposed rulemaking do not apply here because of the specific authority to issue interim final rules granted by section 9833 of the Code, section 734 of ERISA, and section 2792 of the PHS Act.

Even if the APA requirements for notice and comment were applicable to these regulations, they have been satisfied. This is because the Secretaries find that providing for an additional opportunity for public comment is unnecessary, as the July 19, 2010 interim final rules implementing section 2713 of the PHS Act provided the public with an opportunity to comment on the implementation of the preventive services requirements in this provision, and the amendments made in these interim final rules in fact are based on such public comments. Specifically, commenters expressed concerns that HRSA-supported guidelines issued
under section 2713(a)(4) that included coverage of contraceptive services could impinge upon the religious freedom of certain religious employers. The flexibility that is afforded under these amendments is being provided to HRSA in order to allow HRSA the discretion to accommodate, in a balanced way, as discussed above, these commenter concerns.

In addition, the Departments have determined that an additional opportunity for public comment would be impractical and contrary to the public interest. The requirement in section 2713(a)(4) that preventive services supported by HRSA be provided without cost-sharing took effect at the beginning of the first plan or policy year beginning on or after September 23, 2010. At that time, however, HRSA had not issued any such guidelines. Under the July 19, 2010 interim final rules, group health plans and insurance issuers do not have to begin covering preventive services supported in HRSA guidelines until the first plan or policy year that begins one year after the guidelines are issued. Thus, while the law requiring coverage of recommended women’s preventive health services was enacted on March 23, 2010, and has been in effect since September 23, 2010, no such guidelines have yet been issued, and it will be at least a full year after they are issued before group health plans and issuers will be required to start covering preventive services recommended in the guidelines without cost sharing.
source:http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-08-03/pdf/2011-19684.pdf

So, the Departments declared that no further comment by the public, other than the definition of church organization, was in the public interest. However, they listened to other comments and changed the policy 6 months later. So, which one is it - is the federal government listening to comments or not? The federal record stated that the case was closed - but a few short months later they report the people have spoken.

Based, not solely, on the above direction that the Department of Health and Human Services has chosen to take - on February 16, 2012, Chairman of the House Oversight Committee Rep. Darrell Issa held a hearing entitled 'Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?' .The purpose of the hearing was not centered on women's rights, rather it was to discuss, as the title implies, has the government trampled the Freedom of Religion and Conscience.  At that time, a law student from Georgetown University was "denied" the right to speak and the panel stated that she was not qualified to speak on the issue. However, they did post her video as part of the official record (follow link above). All persons who testified that day were directly 'in-standing' with the discussion being held.

On February 23, 2012 Democratic leader Nanci Pelosi held a hearing on women's health issues. The hearing was held by and for the Steering and Policy Committee for House Democrats. So, for all of the women's health issues in this country, the committee decided to call just one witness. The witness addressed only one topic - that of contraception. Not just contraception, but that contraceptive services should be available to all women and no cost. The testimony was that of a representative of the student body of a private institution. There were no medical topics, techniques, calls for research ... No, Ms. Fluke simply told her story and the story of a few women from Georgetown University. There were no reports on breast cancer, cervical cancer, bulimia, endometriosis ...   Perhaps, the government would have us believe that the only medical issue facing women today is pregnancy and other 'preventable' issues... Yes, I understand that some contraceptives are used to treat related issues - so don't start the flame wars.

Please don't get me wrong - I am 100% in support of holding hearings by any group within Congress. What I am opposed to is trying to tie one to the next or using the pretense of a hearing to push forward a political agenda. Rep. Pelosi held a very small hearing to get a political message out. It was held to promote an agenda - that is it - no other way to read it.  The testimony had already been heard and was made part of the record with Rep. Issa's hearing - even though they were NOT DIRECTLY connected.

The entire situation was a political stunt.