This is always the kind of thinking that gets my juices flowing. I don't know if I'm any different than the next person, but I have always feared getting old and feeble. I used to live around alot of ailing family and that was a bit scary. As I started to look around, I noticed folks that were old, but not feeble, some were downright phenomenal. There seemed to be a strong correlation between exercise and quality of life. At the same time I also have what I would call an entrepreneur spirit, but also alot of fear of risk. Maybe there is a link somewhere in here :). Thanks bud!

Very inspirational and right along the lines of some of my latest thoughts! Thanks for sharing!

I think you're exactly right Jason. Rather than trying to "balance" by figuring out what has to be done to achieve balance, focusing fully on this minute seems to add a very strong sense of well being. Maybe committing to this minute is the same as committing to yourself. If you can commit to yourself, then you must be self assured, self loved, and worthwhile.

A question I haven't been able to answer is what would it cost for the government to run health insurance, and would that be higher or lower than private insurance. One aspect of the US Government is its outstanding democratic attitude. The government does very well at attempting to consider all facets, opinions, interests, and people. However, doing so, comes at a cost. Resolving all the differences that come with developing a system that provides for all, or as many as possible, requires people to deliberate and spend resources to come up with such a system. By nature, a democratic government is not efficient because it must consider all facets of an issue. A private enterprise, on the other hand, is not bound by such ideals and can cut through quite a bit of bureaucracy, although, obviously a private entity will not fully address the needs of all. The government does not have to make a profit, whereas the private business will. So, I think a significant issue to which I've seen no empirical data from which to judge is, will the US govt's greater administrative cost be greater than or less than a private insurer's profit margin? Theoretically, this is what will make one or the other system more or less costly to the citizen. This is all a fairly simplistic analysis and I'm sure there are many more smarter people than I that could add clarity to this issue.

Will the proposed bill limit my healthcare options? Yes, any system which makes decisions by default will limit options. I think the right question is will the options be limited to the point that the care is unsatisfactory. Another thing to consider is will the limits be more or less restrictive than what private insurers offer? Sec 122 of the proposed bill is touted as rationing health care; I'm not finding anything in this section that does so. This section describes the minimum type of care under this plan and limits the cost-share of the individual. Sec 123 confirms the existence of a committee that will determining treatment and benefits: "(1) IN GENERAL.—There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans." I believe this is how a private insurer also makes similar determinations. The difference is that with multiple insurers, an individual can make a choice on which company to contract with.

I remember Jason telling me one time, speaking of a client of his, "I couldn't help them make a light beam any smaller, but I could help them with the 300 emails they had needing answers." If taking care of those emails freed up productivity in optical physics, maybe Jason did help them make the light beam smaller.

We did that when we moved from Oklahoma to Washington. We drove across to Yosemite, then to San Francisco, and took PCH all they to the northern part of Oregon. Man, what a drive!

Absolutely inspiring!