I suppose it was insanity to think I could maintain two different blogs. It appears all my time lately goes into The Other Blog
One problem I have is that I cannot simply post and let those puppies go. I have to go back and re-edit and add links and fix punctuation and do all those things that you're not supposed to do when you're blogging, because that kind of freedom from editorial obsession is exactly what makes blogging so great. So even when I'm just writing 5 posts per week, it turns out that they end up sucking up all sorts of time because I keep going back to the things, even long past the time anyone's likely to read them. Does anyone else do this? Surely I'm not alone in my crippling inability to leave well enough alone
I've always heard that writing frequent posts is a tried-and-true way to up your readership numbers; advice I blithely ignored on the theory that writing more frequently wouldn't be helpful if I had to resort to anecdotes about toenail clipping and other such fascinating activities in an effort to be more prolific. I mean, some people could make toenail clipping into some hilarious parable illustrating the Meaning of Life, but I'm pretty sure I'd just end up writing about, well, toenail clippings. And maybe also about how sad toenail clipping really is.
But now either the blogosphere is just getting too big to keep up with frequent posters, or my Toenail Theory was spot on, because I am apparently getting fewer readers now that I post all the time
. So maybe I should just roll this blog up into the ClubMom
? Would it make more sense just to have the one blog? Make the situation less complicated? Ease my guilt when I see that my last post was nearly a month ago, and really only contained a link to the other blog?
So, anyway, here's something: we were finally sent a copy of the contract that the re-insurer has with our insurance company. We had requested a copy around the time of the whole insurance fiasco
, just to convince ourselves that there really was some justification in black-and-white for our impending screwing. Not only was there no mention of using the date billed, rather than date of service, to determine our annual maximum, there was no mention of this "annual maximum" business at all. If you remember, it was the annual maximum (as opposed to a lifetime maximum) that left us ineligible for most government help programs (since she was still technically "insured," even though our insurance wouldn't pay). There is, however, an annual maximum clause listed in our contract with the insurance company (as opposed to the re-insurer). Did I mention that the annual maximum idea was new in the past year to our healthcare plan? Proposed after Annika entered the pool of insurees? (Things that make you go "hmmmmmm.") And even more you wonder what happens to people who don't have the resources to fight these decisions. We were extremely lucky that we had powerful people at Jörg's workplace pushing for our situation to be remedied.
It's good to be out of the emergency situation, both with Anni's health and the insurance. It's too bad neither one of them has been fixed permanently. I can't believe that Annika could still slip between the cracks of our insurance system with just one PICU stay at the wrong time of the calendar year. And, of course, I still can't believe that Annika really needs to be transplanted, again. I really hope that the next presidential campaign includes lots of debate over the healthcare situation in this country. Then I would at least have something to blog indignantly about over in this space.