Yes we have no prunes

Thursdays are grocery-shopping days in the GG household and today was no exception. We do ours at the HEB in the bigger town nearby because Mrs. GG insists the prices there are less than in the local grocery in our own little town. She isn't deterred in the least when I argue that the cost of gasoline offsets any savings in grocery costs. I think I embarrassed her today by asking anyone within listening range where the prunes were. I'm talking about the prunes that used to be in among the fruits in the grocery aisle; the kind you would cook on the stove and then refrigerate. As I child, I remember that there were always prunes in the refrigerator and how much I loved them. Since then, the only time I've had prunes were on the trips back home in my early adulthood, when my mother and grandmother and aunt always saw to it that the refrig would be stocked with plenty of prunes. Little did I know that no longer do people eat prunes, at least not the kind you cook on the stove and then refrigerate. I learned that today from the amused responses I received from the folks around me in the grocery store when I naively wandered around in the fresh fruit section inquiring about the whereabouts of the prunes. So now I add prunes to my growing list of things that were an integral part of my early life but have now gone by the wayside. You'd think with an aging population, prunes would have made a comeback. Maybe I'll start one. For now, thinking about a life without prunes makes me very grouchy.

Tell the guy in the striped shirt to take his yellow flag and stick it..........

The Grouchy Geezer loves to watch football on TV, but lately it seems like more and more games are decided by an official's unnecessary and untimely call. The scenario usually goes like this: I'm rooting for Team A. Team B is trailing by a touchdown or less and takes possession of the ball deep in its own territory with only a couple minutes left on the clock. Team B's QB starts to heave long Hail Mary passes downfield. Invariably, on third down and long, just when it looks like Team A's safety or cornerback has made a brilliant defensive play to break up the pass, the field judge throws a flag signalling pass interference. Yes, that's it--I'm talking about the dreaded PI. (I call them that for shorthand because they usually do really PIss me off.) Too often, the result is that Team B gets a fresh set of downs and goes on to tie or win the game. All because of an official's questionable call. I don't mind when there is obvious and flagrant PI. But why does the official have to inject himself into the game in that manner when the penalty isn't obvious? If I were a coach, I'd pass on every down because I could depend on an official to call PI on the other team's defensive backs at least on every third play, whether justified or not. I wonder what football would be like if they were to do away with the rules about pass interference, holding, illegal use of the hands, etc.and let the players grab and hold and use their hands however they wish--within reason, of course. It'd no doubt change the way the game is played. But it might keep us grouches from getting POed over the PIs!

Health (S)care--Is Grouchiness a pre-existing condition?

The more I hear and read about the various health (s)care reform proposals, the grouchier I get. On one side, we seem to have those who don't want any reform at all. These are people who trust insurance companies and don't trust the government. They go around uttering phrases like "government takeover," "socialized medicine," etc. These tend to be people who think the answer to everything that ails us is a tax cut and that government should limit itself to fighting our wars (and lots of them). On the other side, we have those who favor reform. These are folks who don't trust insurance companies and trust the government to make things better. These folks tend to believe that the answer to everything that ails us is a new tax or tax increase or selling bonds to the Chinese, or both.


The first group thinks it's just fine that the insurance industry, like major league baseball, enjoys an exemption from the anti-trust laws that allows them to collude to set prices and split up markets. To them, if Uncle Ned or Aunt Martha can't purchase insurance or if their insurance is cancelled because they filed a claim, that's just the American free enterprise system at work. And if they want to use the money they save from denying coverage to Martha and Ned to help pay for million dollar bonuses to their executives, why that's just the free market system at work. Any attempt by government to rein in these practices is automatically broad-brushed as "government intervention in the free market economy," or "socialized medicine." (These folks usually aren't amused when you remind them that Medicare and Medicaid are immensely popular government-run programs.)

The second group thinks a major, comprehensive overhaul of the entire system is required all at once to reform the system, no matter that such reform will cost upwards of a trillion dollars. They assume the insurance companies will simply "eat" the profits they will lose by being forced to insure Ned and Martha and won't pass those costs on to the rest of us in the insurance pool. Not only that, but such things as malpractice litigation reform and allowing people to buy insurance across state lines are off the table. A better solution for them is to have a "government option" to compete with the insurance companies. (These folks usually aren't amused when you remind them of the cost to taxpayers and/or the increase in the already ballooned deficit that many predict will result from their proposal.)


So where does The Grouchy Geezer come down? As usual, somewhere around the middle. Before becoming The Grouchy Geezer, I spent my career in the public utility industry. A public utility is nothing more than a private business regulated by the federal government. To me, health care should be reformed along those same lines, with insurance companies being regulated by the federal government in terms of the types of policies they could offer or be required to offer and their premium charges. The premium charges would be high enough to allow the companies to recover their costs and earn a fair and reasonable return for the risk they take. This would look something like "Medicare for all" but would remain in the hands of the private insurance industry, though subject to regulation by the federal government. There might be other alternatives I could live with. But most of what I have seen and heard so far from both sides makes me very very grouchy and even downright sick.

If only John Crapper could see this

Missus GG and I stayed at a brand new Drury Inn in San Antonio over the weekend. Whenever I travel, the first thing I check out in a room is the air conditioning and the plumbing fixtures so I will know how to use them. The john in our bathroom was unlike anything anything I've ever seen. I know the john-makers are doing everything possible to help us conserve water, but this one was over the top. Instead of the usual flush handle, it had two buttons, one marked "Liquid" and the other marked "Solid". I guess that's self-explanatory. But I couldn't help wondering what button, if any, one should push if one was afflicted with, say, diarrhea. Or if one were to confuse "liquid" with "solid" what the result would be, e.g., would the toilet police come to the door? I wondered what John Crapper would think about this latest tweak to his invention. I wonder if it would make him grouchy as it did me?