#care home policies and procedures | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 23 days ago

Text

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

December 5, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Dec 06, 2024

Yesterday a gunman assassinated the chief executive officer of UnitedHealthcare, Brian Thompson, as he arrived at a meeting of investors in New York City. While authorities are still investigating, officials have released the information that the casings of the bullets that killed Thompson bore the words “deny,” “defend,” “depose,” all words associated with companies’ denial of health insurance, taken from the longer phrases “deny the claim,” “defend the lawsuit,” “depose the patient.”

While those clues could simply be a red herring, posters on social media have cheered what they seem to see as revenge against an abusive system in which people’s lives are at the mercy of executives who prioritize profits.

Health insurance companies have long been under scrutiny for their practices. For the past two years, ProPublica has run a long series exploring the different ways in which companies have developed systems to deny healthcare coverage to their policyholders.

UnitedHealthcare has been no exception either to such practices or to scrutiny. Its parent group UnitedHealth has a market valuation of $560 billion and was the eighth largest corporation in the world last year as measured by revenue. This year, UnitedHealthcare—Thompson’s unit—is expected to bring in $280 billion in revenue.

UnitedHealth is embroiled in a number of lawsuits. Andrew Stanton of Newsweek reported that on November 14, 2023, families of two now-deceased patients sued UnitedHealthcare over denial of coverage for Medicare Advantage patients for nursing home stays prescribed by their doctors. Medicare Advantage is the private insurance alternative to Medicare that receives a flat fee from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. It’s an enormously profitable industry, and UnitedHealth controls almost a third of it.

The lawsuit alleges that UnitedHealthcare uses artificial intelligence to deny claims from Medicare Advantage policyholders. The lawsuit claims that the company knowingly uses an algorithm that makes errors 90% of the time because it also knows that only about 0.2% of policy holders will appeal the decision to deny their claims. Last month the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations hammered UnitedHealth for dramatic increases in their denial rates for post-acute care between 2019 and 2022 as it switched to AI authorizations.

On the same day as the shooting, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance covering Connecticut, New York, and Missouri announced it would cover anesthesia during surgery or procedures only for a specific time period in order to make insurance more affordable by reducing overbilling.

After an outcry both from anesthesiologists and the public, the company today retracted its policy change, saying it had never intended to avoid “medically necessary anesthesia,” but meant simply to “clarify the appropriateness of anesthesia consistent with well-established clinical guidelines.” Their explanation might have calmed the news cycle, but its suggestion that the insurance officials rather than doctors should determine what anesthesia is appropriate for a patient during surgery echoed the argument in the UnitedHealthcare lawsuit.

Thompson’s murder seems to be a cultural moment in which popular fury over the power big business has over ordinary Americans’ lives exploded. Maureen Tkacik of The American Prospect noted, “Only about 50 million customers of America’s reigning medical monopoly might have a motive to exact revenge upon the UnitedHealthcare CEO.” The shooter, whose actual motive remains unknown, is fast becoming a folk hero.

Social media has exploded with users writing things like “[t]his claim for sympathy has been denied”; songs featuring the words “deny, “defend,” and “depose”; and recorded commentary condemning the healthcare insurance industry. UnitedHealth Group posted its sadness about Thompson’s death on Facebook yesterday about 1:00 p.m.; 36 hours later the post had 65,000 laughing emojis under it.

Security expert Charlie Carroll expressed surprise to Josh Fiallo of the Daily Beast that Thompson did not have a security detail. “We’re living in a world where people are extremely disgruntled,” Carroll said. “When people lose trust in the system, you start seeing more kidnappings and assassinations because they feel like they have to take matters into their own hands.”

In the wake of the shooting, UnitedHealthcare and several other insurance companies took down from their websites the names and photographs of their officials.

Billionaires Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy were on Capitol Hill today where they met with lawmakers to explain their vision for the Department of Government Efficiency, the group designed to cut the U.S. budget. Neither they nor the lawmakers shared much with the press, although Fox Business played a video of Representative Ralph Norman (R-SC) saying that that “nothing is sacrosanct,” and that “they're going to put everything on the table,” including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Representative Tom Tiffany (R-WI) told Just The News that cuts to the budget “don’t have to be just the discretionary spending. We can get at some of the mandatory spending also…food stamps, some of those things.” He continued: “There may be more bang for the buck in terms of growing our economy…making regulatory changes, get the impediments out of the way, let those job creators and entrepreneurs really be able to go to work.”

In view of today’s news about healthcare, it’s probably worth remembering that Musk has called for the elimination of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and that Project 2025 has called for making Medicare Advantage—the privatized Medicare in which UnitedHealth specializes—the default enrollment option for Medicare. This would essentially privatize Medicare for the 66 million people who use it, but since Medicare Advantage costs taxpayers about 6% more than Medicare, this would not create the savings Musk is supposed to be finding.

Andrew Perez of RollingStone reported today that election financial disclosures filed yesterday revealed that Elon Musk was the secret funder of the “RBG PAC,” a Super PAC created just before the election that claimed Trump had the same position on abortion as the late Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Although Trump has bragged about overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision recognizing the constitutional right to abortion and the 2024 Republican platform supported the far-right idea of “fetal personhood”—which would apply all the rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from the moment a human egg is fertilized—the RBG PAC ran ads promising that Trump would not support a national abortion ban.

Ginsburg’s granddaughter called the comparison of Trump and her grandmother “nothing short of appalling.”

The super PAC was created so late that it avoided disclosure before November 5. It was funded entirely by Musk with an injection of $20.5 million.

Bridget Bowman, Ben Kamisar, and Scott Bland of NBC News reported tonight that Musk spent at least $250 million to get Trump elected. In addition to the $20.5 million to the RBG PAC, he put $238 million into the America PAC. Musk also supported Trump through free advertising and commentary on his social media platform X.

Today provided a snapshot of American society that echoed a similar moment on January 6, 1872, when Edward D. Stokes shot railroad baron James Fisk Jr. as he descended the staircase of New York’s Grand Central Hotel. The quarrel was over Fisk’s mistress, Josie, who had taken up with the handsome Stokes, but the murder instantly provoked a popular condemnation of the ties between big business and government.

Fisk was a rich, flamboyant, and unscrupulous man-about-town, who was deeply entwined both with railroad barons like Jay Gould, Daniel Drew, and Cornelius Vanderbilt and with New York’s Tammany Hall political machine and its infamous leader, William Marcy Tweed. Tweed made sure the laws benefited the railroads and, the papers noted, snuck into the hotel to say goodbye to his friend in the hours it took for him to perish.

After the Civil War, most Americans applauded the nation’s businessmen for the support their growing industries had provided to the Union, but by 1872 the enormous fortunes the railroad men had amassed had tarnished their reputation. At the same time, big operators were starting to squeeze smaller enterprises out of business in order to control the markets, and popular anger simmered over their increasing control of the economy.

Stokes’s shooting was the event that sparked a popular rebellion. Newspapers covered every minute of the event and Fisk’s demise, while sensational books about the murder rolled off the presses.

Together, they redefined late nineteenth-century industrialists, with one painting Fisk as a representative businessman who with just “an hour’s effort,” could “gather into his clutches a score of millions of other people’s property, impoverish a thousand wealthy men, or derange the values and the traffic of a vast empire.”

Both those covering the murder and those reading about it rejoiced in Fisk’s misfortune.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#Letters From An American #Heather Cox Richardson #insurance #insurance industry #Medicare #Medicaid #Medicaire Advantage #American History #history #income inequality #stress #assassination

28 notes · View notes

goth-oatmilk-latte · 3 months ago

Text

hey as your favorite hot goth girl mortician I am begging screaming throwing up to please have manners when yall come into a funeral home.

I promise we are not scamming you. we know our laws and regulations better than you because we had to study and pass board exams. please for the love of all things good and beautiful stop making like we are lying. stop being rude to us. stop talking over us and stop being argumentative when we explain policy, procedures, laws, etc. we don't make them, but we have to abide by them.

I understand grief, certainly, but pls have some decorum. we are just trying to assist you. I am tired of being yelled at, talked down to, talked over, etc bc you don't like that im simply following laws and protocol regarding post mortem care.

44 notes · View notes

itslenagain · 2 months ago

Text

I take all of this shit personally.

When I was 15, I was raped by someone I dated and became pregnant. I could not access abortion without my parents permission due to my age. They are "pro-life" Catholics. I knew even if I had attempted to get one, it would have created an unsafe environment for me at home.

When I was 17, I had a miscarriage. I was on the pill and didn't even know I was pregnant.

When I was 21, I got pregnant with a Nexplanon implant in. I suffered with hyperemesis gravidarum for my entire pregnancy. I lost 80lbs, had to be hospitalized, and my stomach, esophagus, and teeth are permanently damaged from vomiting 40+ times a day every day for 9 months.

When I was 24, I got pregnant with a Mirena IUD in. My OBGYN jokingly called my eggs "Olympic-level escape artists."

When I was 25, I got a bilateral salpingectomy. I remember feeling relieved that my OBGYN at the time did the procedure without questioning me.

In all of these situations, I got "lucky." I turned out as okay as I could have possibly turned out every time. I have 3 really great kids that I love. My miscarriage did not require serious medical intervention. My deliveries were not complicated. I have gotten help for the PTSD I live with and mostly manage fairly well. I find ways to make it through tough days (like seeing what's happening right now on Twitter).

But you know what? Just because I survived it... doesn't mean it's been easy. And it also doesn't mean that other people should have to live through it, either.

I will never stop vocally supporting abortion. I will never stop vocally supporting reproductive rights.

This shit has been so fucking hard. Loving and caring about my kids while acknowledging that this is not the life I wanted for myself. Being grateful for them while also acknowledging the permanent damage to my mental and physical health. Recognizing that people have in the past used my story to promote their pro-forced birther bullshit. Nobody should be forced to do this. Ever.

I support choice. I support giving people agency over their own bodies and letting them make their own decisions. I support abortion for those who want one. I support pregnancy care for those who need it. I support policies that protect birthing people. I support IVF. I support abortion with no restrictions. I support research and development into birth control that works regardless of your sex or BMI. I support policies that support children and families.

The incoming administration wants to take away already limited resources for families and eliminate safe reproductive care. We cannot let them win. We cannot let them do this. It is important now more than ever that we keep fighting. I do not want my daughters to grow up in a world where they do not have agency over their own bodies.

WAYS TO PROTECT YOURSELF:

Crowdsourced list of providers willing to perform sterilizations

Legitimate website that helps find abortion providers for all 50 states

WAYS TO FIGHT BACK

Donate to ACLU

Find contact info for your local representatives

Donate to Planned Parenthood Action Fund

#cw rap3 #abortion #reproductive rights #reproductive health #us politics #healthcare #my body my choice #pro choice

15 notes · View notes

justinspoliticalcorner · 7 months ago

Text

Alanna Vagianos at HuffPost:

Many Republicans want you to believe that women are getting abortions in the eighth and ninth months of pregnancy simply because they can. The right-wing rhetoric has been used to criticize abortion rights supporters and Democrats for years. Even Donald Trump — who up until recently consistently dodged the topic of abortion — has started repeating the myth.

Democrats “support abortion up to and even beyond the ninth month,” the GOP presidential nominee said last month. Democrats can “have [an abortion] in the seventh, eighth, ninth month, and they can kill the baby,” he said in another interview, adding that in some states “they can kill the baby after the baby is born.” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said this week that “there are late-term abortions and every single Democrat supported it.” (“Late-term abortion” is a popular right-wing talking point, but HuffPost is not using it because it’s medically inaccurate.) The belief that pregnant people use abortion like birth control is a well-worn boogeyman that the anti-choice movement has peddled for decades. Though rife with misinformation, the political strategy has been extremely successful, creating cultural stigma so deep around abortions later in pregnancy that many Democrats, including President Joe Biden, and even some pro-choice advocates, are uncomfortable discussing it.

But people do get abortions later in pregnancy — a phrase that generally reflects abortions at or after 21 weeks. Some are women with wanted pregnancies who get a fatal fetal diagnosis. Others are young people who don’t realize they’re pregnant or don’t have a safe way to get an abortion right away. Still, others experience something catastrophic and life-changing later in pregnancy — a partner becoming violent, their home burning down, a job loss — that will make it nearly impossible to safely raise a child. There’s also an increasing number of people pushed further into pregnancy because they experience barriers to care early on: their home state banned abortion forcing them to travel, or their immigration status makes it dangerous for them to seek health care, or they need to save up for the procedure because it’s not covered by insurance.

No one is getting an abortion in the second or third trimester because they woke up one day, months into being pregnant, and decided they didn’t want to be pregnant anymore. But the politically manufactured shame around later abortion care runs so deep that many Democrats believe it too, in part because of the power of these lies. Biden has centered his reelection campaign around restoring Roe v. Wade, and advocates are building policy around it too, protecting abortion care until viability or around 24 weeks — effectively ignoring those who will need care later in pregnancy.

“One of the mistakes we’ve made as a movement is to not talk about later care,” said Dr. Diane Horvath, an OB-GYN and abortion provider at Partners In Abortion Care, an abortion clinic in Maryland where 90% of her patients receive care in the second and third trimesters. “I think we thought we were protecting ourselves by being quiet about it,” she said. “But when you leave gaps in the narrative … anti-abortion folks have always been very happy to fill them in with things that are scary and incorrect, and really debase people who have abortions and debase people who provide them.” Most abortions do happen in the first trimester: Almost 93% of abortions reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2020 were done before the 13th week. Nearly 99% took place by the end of the 20th week. Somewhere around 1% of abortions occur at 21 weeks or later, and the subset of abortions in the third trimester (around 26 weeks) is even smaller.

[...]

Even under the best of circumstances, with a lot of privilege and resources, getting an abortion in the third trimester when Roe was still intact was extremely difficult. “The whole time we’re asking ourselves, ‘What would we have done if any of these pieces were not in place? What if we couldn’t have accessed that money quickly? What if we didn’t have IDs that allowed us to get on a plane? What if we didn’t read and speak English?’” recalled Christensen, who along with her husband founded the abortion strategy and advocacy group Patient Forward.

In 2020, 9% of people who accessed abortions had to travel out of their home state to receive care, according to The Guttmacher Institute. Three years later, after the Dobbs decision that repealed Roe, that number has doubled with around 20% of patients seeking care across state lines. (That number does not account for the increase in medication abortion by mail, a common access point for pregnant people in the first trimester post-Roe.) Horvath and Morgan Nuzzo, a certified nurse midwife, opened Partners in Abortion Care shortly after the Supreme Court repealed Roe v. Wade in the summer of 2022. The two met working at a Planned Parenthood clinic, but didn’t become close until Nuzzo was pregnant with her first child, and Horvath offered some hand-me-down baby clothes from her kids. Partners in Abortion Care in College Park, Maryland, is one of a small handful in the country that offer all-trimester abortion care. During the first year the clinic was opened, they saw patients from 40 different states and three countries.

Their clinic sees about 10 to 15 patients a week ― nearly all of whom are getting abortions after 20 weeks. The clinic caps the number of patients they see weekly because later care takes more time. Unlike early care, which can often be done using abortion pills, abortions in the second and third trimester are more complex. An abortion between 20 and 26 weeks is typically a two-day procedure, and past 26 weeks is a three-day procedure.

HuffPost explores the stigma of those who get an abortion post-fetal viability and how anti-abortion propaganda (such as falsely calling post-fetal viability abortions "late term abortions") plays a role in creating such stigmas.

Those who choose abortion in the later half of the 2nd or the 3rd trimester do so because of extenuating circumstances.

Post-fetal viability = anywhere after 21-25 weeks in gestational age.

#Abortion #Reproductive Health #Anti Abortion Extremism #Abortion Stigma #Fetal Viability #Post Fetal Viability Abortion

25 notes · View notes

cloudoc2022 · 10 months ago

Text

The Role of Quality Improvement Initiatives in Home Care Policies

Quality improvement initiatives play a vital role in enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of home care policies. These initiatives focus on continuously monitoring, evaluating, and improving the quality of care delivered to patients in their homes.Here's a breakdown of the key aspects of the role of quality improvement initiatives in home care policies:

Enhancing Patient Outcomes: Quality improvement initiatives aim to improve patient outcomes by ensuring that the care provided meets established standards of quality and safety. This includes reducing hospital readmissions, managing chronic conditions effectively, and promoting overall wellness and independence among patients.

Ensuring Compliance with Standards: Home care policies must adhere to regulatory standards and guidelines set forth by governing bodies. Quality improvement initiatives help ensure that these policies are implemented effectively and that all staff members are trained and compliant with the required standards.

Identifying Areas for Improvement: Through data collection, analysis, and feedback mechanisms, quality improvement initiatives help identify areas within home care policies that may need improvement. This could include processes, procedures, or even staff training and education.

Implementing Evidence-Based Practices: Quality improvement initiatives in home care policies prioritize the use of evidence-based practices. By staying current with the latest research and guidelines, home care providers can ensure that their policies and procedures are based on the best available evidence, leading to better outcomes for patients.

Promoting Continuous Learning and Development: Quality improvement initiatives foster a culture of continuous learning and development within home care organizations. Staff members are encouraged to participate in training programs, share best practices, and engage in quality improvement projects to enhance their skills and knowledge.

Improving Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness: By streamlining processes and identifying areas of waste or inefficiency, quality improvement initiatives can help home care organizations deliver high-quality care in a cost-effective manner. This is particularly important given the increasing demand for home care services and the need to use resources efficiently.

Enhancing Patient and Family Satisfaction: Quality improvement initiatives focus not only on clinical outcomes but also on the overall experience of patients and their families. By listening to feedback, addressing concerns, and implementing patient-centered practices, home care organizations can improve satisfaction and build trust with the communities they serve.

Fostering Accountability and Transparency: Quality improvement initiatives promote accountability and transparency within home care organizations. By regularly reporting on performance metrics and outcomes, organizations can demonstrate their commitment to quality care and maintain the trust of stakeholders, including patients, families, and regulators.

In summary, quality improvement initiatives are essential for ensuring that home care policies are effective, efficient, and patient-centered. By continuously striving for improvement and innovation, home care organizations can deliver the highest quality of care to patients in their homes.

#home care policies #cqc policies and procedures #care home policies #supported living policies #care home policy and procedures #care home policies uk #residential care policies and procedures #care home policies and procedures #home health care policies and procedures

0 notes

timetravell · 5 months ago

Text

Twas the first day of school, here is a little recap:

We mainly went over all the new procedures. Theres one about phones and if they have to take it up 4 times in a row you have to pay a fine of 15 dollars. And the dress code regressed?? No teacher is enforcing it though. We still have the same tardy policy (10 tardies = ISS).

If this phone policy doesn't 'work' then we just- wont be allowed to bring our phones at all Which is a HUGE safety concern.

below is a recap of all my class periods <3

1st period: Colorguard

Nothing much happened here, again a lot of today was just a repeat of all procedures. There were a few band specific things, such as attendance, rehearsals, UDB, and stuff pertaining to the band hall itself. There is now a form so if need be, your istrument can be turned into the shop to get fixed!

We also cleaned out the guard locker room/area. All of the costumes from last year got put in one of the lower lockers. We somehow found stuff from seniors who left YEARS ago. And 3 year old water....in a jug still.. yikes.

2nd: Forensics!!!

Im actually so happy I got to be in this class. Im looking forward to a lot of things in it. Especially the labs and that one lecture about blood splatters. Our teacher is actually absent this first week, but thats because he's also the volleyball coach. (Our volleyball team is in Hawaii for nationals I believe)

We had three assignments. One of them was designing a locker (mine is super cute, it has a Marina poster), the second was a Syllabus scavenger hunt which isn't due until tomorrow but I wanted to get a jump on it so I finished it at home. The third was homework, which was just a student survey.

3rd: ELA

It was just, again, more policy updates and a little get to know you card. This class, thank god, wont be all on computer. We'll have some paper assignments. We haven't gotten our reading yet (which upsets me a teeny bit, but I'm sure we'll learn about it later in the week)

4th: AP World History

I'm actually so exited for this class its not even funny. I was genuinley upset when we didnt get our unit 0 packets and when I found out we werent getting our textbooks until Friday.

We did learn that the AP teachers are no longer allowed to split that 70% weighted major assignments to 40/30. Which absolutely sucks, and on top of that our first unit is stuff our state says we NEED to know to get said World History credit. Which means we wont even be tested on it come spring. Our district hates us.

I actually have a good teacher for this AP class, last year I had a very (idk how else to put it) 'White privlidged' teacher. AND AND I narrowly missed being stuck in a class with someone I despise. Made me so happy!

I also learned that 'The History of the Entire World I guess' is pretty accurate! So I can use that as a study resource for like- a short summary.

5th: Astronomy

SO SO SO excited for this class. And there is no math! None! (If they added math it would have to become an AP class). My teacher is so funny unironicly. He's very monotone and you would think he'd be a bore, but he's actually really funny in my opinion.

We actually will talk about why Astrology isnt real which I think will be really fun. I dont nessicarily believe astrology is real, I like the idea of it. But going indepts on why it isnt is going to be really interesting!

We also will get to learn how galaxies and solar systems form, which will be really helpfull for making my story, Abyss. Theres also gonna be night labs!! (if we go we get a free 100 on a test grade) And maybe some Day Labs if the school can get their hands on a solar telescope.

6th: Geometry

It's geometry. There wasnt really anything of note here. Just the fact that i somehow have a class full of kids who dont care abt the Highschool grades. (I have confirmed this, it isnt speculation) It's gonna be a loud period..

7th: Band (they split it up weird)

Again nothing of note. EXCEPT NOW I HAVE TO LEARN THE SHOW?? ON MY FLUTE?? WHAT??

Im in guard, i dont do 'band' until concert season. I cant work on my solo during this period OR my homework. Pissed me of factually because the original plan was as followed:

Used as a study hall

Practice choreography

Practice flute

But nope! They hate me! /j

8th: Musical Theatre!

So many new people! Its gonna be so much fun! I have a lot of friends in that class so im really excited!

I already know the song im gonna do for our first solo, just gotta get permission cuz its technicly not from a musical (Wont say im in love from hercules)

Anyways thats it!! Tmmr will most likely have some more stuff so follow if you want to see!

#study blog #studyblr #digital diary #chaotic academia #girlblogging #tumblr girls #studyspo #study motivation #study inspiration #study space #back to school #high school #school

8 notes · View notes

whistwhistler · 2 years ago

Text

some thoughts on jane tennant & kate whistler and the awful takes i’ve seen on their characters so far...

I think there’s a particularly harmful narrative out there that has been started that Jane “uses & abuses” the people around her (namely, Whistler) when she needs something or when she’s in trouble and I just think that’s incredibly antithetical to who she’s been designed and created to be as a character. Do you really think the writers would a) do that to Vanessa (or Tori), b) be so careless in handling an incredibly complex, woman of colour (and in senior leadership, no less) who has been involved in the espionage game and all the toxicity surrounding espionage, war, intelligence and politics in this current political climate and c) write female friendships/working relationships to be so toxic in an age where females doing literally anything on tv are scrutinized for no good reason? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, it was intentional from the start to highlight how at the core of Jane’s being, that she’s not an inhuman byproduct of what the CIA creates its operatives to be?

NCIS: Hawaii, so far, has been deeply intentional in the way the seasonal story arcs/thematic arcs are crafted. Everything about each season has led up to what happens in its finales. The first and second season has established and zeroed in on the theme of family/found family/etc., and that’s not something that’s just thrown in there because it sounds pretty or cute. The theme of family is constantly reinforced because it’s the backbone that drives this series. Ohana. It’s what sets the Hawaii office apart from the other shows. It’s not as dark, gritty, violent, or depressing, and that actually works to its advantage. Family drives every aspect of this show and its characters. And you know what else? Family is messy. And while I still have my own grievances on how they’ve focused so heavily on Jane (again, for obvious reasons), her family/kids, and her past and not so much the other characters (yet), I also believe it’s worked to their advantage. I haven’t seen a show do flashbacks and retrospective character study on its characters, and do it well, in a while especially for a “police procedural.” For us to even have flashbacks and character-centric episodes is a gift for a procedural, and we have to remember that. We’ve seen bits and pieces of Jane’s past, and now we see how it all plays into this storyline of how her past is coming back to haunt her. Jane is a woman who fiercely loves and cares deeply for those who are close to her heart, but even to those who cannot fight for themselves, or are in deep trouble. That was made so beautifully highlighted in 2x18. That’s what makes her an incredible boss, an incredible leader, and most importantly, a wonderful friend. Has your boss ever invited you to their office for a drink? Let alone to their own home with an open door policy? Has your boss risked their life to rescue not just themselves but others who are wounded and are in desperate need of medical attention, all the meanwhile being badly injured themselves? Jane’s life revolves around family and caring for others because it’s something she was deprived of as a child. Her mother was not around. She did not have siblings. She had a loving father, but with him being in the military, she would have had to move from base to base. Her childhood would not have been steady. Friends would have come and gone. Her entire life was on the go. She’s had to fend for herself growing up. She’s had to stand up for herself. Jane Tennant is a woman who is deeply informed and shaped by her experience and leverages that to be the person she needed as a child to those around her. It’s what has made her an extraordinary SAC. But Jane also isn’t perfect. She has flaws, and they’re making themselves known in this finale.

So now, despite Jane being the Special Agent in Charge of the Entire Pacific Rim™, she also has a past. We can’t ignore that. Jane Tennant has a past. And it’s a CIA past. And from the sound of it, it’s a past she’s not particularly proud or fond of. We can see that Jane’s CIA past has deeply affected her, as it should. You’ve all seen (in some shape or form, fictional or non fictional) the extent of what the CIA is, what it represents, the shadiness and the dark side of how it operates, and what its people are capable of. We know the toxic culture of secrets, lies, deadly surprises and betrayal that can follow with being involved with the CIA. Jane has been involved with all of that. And she is still, unfortunately, involved with that despite having switched agencies and careers. She no longer is a covert CIA operative, she is the SAC of the NCIS Hawaii office. But that doesn’t mean she won’t slip back into covert CIA operative mode the moment she finds out she’s in danger. Like everyone else, Jane has a fight or flight response... She just happens to do both. So what does this mean?

Well, if Jane is in danger and it involves her extremely dangerous, shady CIA past, everyone in her life will inadvertently be in danger as well. Why else would Ernie call Jane out that she was being shady? She doesn’t really have a choice. She’s played the intelligence game long enough to know that secrets, information, and data can get people killed. The people she’s dealt with are extremely dangerous, and if they get the slightest idea of who is important to Jane, they will stop at nothing to eliminate those around her to hurt her. To torture her. Can you imagine the weight of that? Knowing that your past has put your kids at risk for being targets? Your closest friends, your colleagues - your family? Hell, I’d be shady too. Jane is incredibly smart. She knows the loopholes, she knows what angles to play. She knows the risks she has to take. She has been through it and knows exactly how to manipulate and play the system. That’s what makes her such a polar opposite to the character Kate Whistler is.

Okay, enter Kate. Because I know what you’re all thinking. What was the point of reinforcing the family theme with Kate with the amount of Jane/Kate interactions we’ve had all season only for Jane to use her to get into the bank in Venezuela and then handcuff her to a column in a kitchen, basically leaving her to dry? What was the point of all of this if Jane going rogue anyway is going to put everyone in danger? Wouldn’t Kate be pissed as hell for Jane getting her into this mess, risking her career, putting her in danger, etc etc etc? Well, I’m glad you didn’t ask, because I’m still going to tell you anyway.

Short answer, Kate didn’t see it like that. Long answer, Kate Whistler isn’t a chump and is a foil to Jane Tennant’s character. Aka, Whistler is everything that Jane is not, and yet, is everything that Jane needs. I’m not saying Whistler is an antagonist (maybe it seemed like she was in the first season, but we’ve seen how she’s grown since then - keep this thought tucked away in the back of your minds for later). But why else would they have introduced Whistler the way they did in the pilot, if they weren’t going to use her to balance Jane out? And vice versa? Why else have they spent so much time developing Whistler’s character, despite her being an agency-adjacent character (AKA, a non-NCIS character on an NCIS show)? Why have they spent so much time writing scenes and moments between the two women and developing that friendship? One, it’s because they’re establishing Whistler to be just as an important part of the NCIS team despite her being interagency, and two, it’s because Jane and Kate both need each other. And most importantly, they trust each other. Keep this thought pinned. Trust. Whistler looks up to Jane, despite her sticky way of operating. And Jane looks up to Whistler because of how brilliant she is. How unlike Whistler is to herself. Jane recognizes that Whistler is someone she needs in her corner; not because she has malicious intents of using Whistler for what she can do, who/what she knows, and what she’s capable of, but because Whistler is just wired differently, and she needs that - dare I say, craves that. Jane has spent so much of her life depending on and trusting people like Maggie who are like her, only for people like Maggie to betray her in the end. She knows that Whistler will never do that, because she knows what Whistler is driven by (protecting the intel/secrets/data to the highest degree, etc.) Whistler knows, understands, and can play the intelligence game just as well as Jane can, and Jane sees how much of a breath of fresh air she is. And for Whistler, despite Jane’s way of not doing things by the book, it’s yielded results. Jane’s methods have worked, and that’s what Whistler has seen and understands of Jane and who she is as a leader. She sees and appreciates Jane’s ideology as a leader, reminding her of the kind of person, perhaps one day, the leader (ASAC, SAC) she wants to become.

And that’s why she’d listen to Jane in going to Venezuela.

Okay, let’s back it up a bit. Jane’s methods have worked.

... But they don’t always do.

Alas, the moment you’ve all been waiting for - Jane’s habits of slipping back into a covert, secretive, protective and shady operative, is not working. Jane going rogue is not working.

And yes, it puts others in danger. It puts herself in an immense amount of danger.

Okay, so that part was obvious, so what am I getting at? Once again, I’m glad you didn’t ask (because I did, for you), so here we go.

As we can see in next week’s promo, Jane is kidnapped, and is being tortured by Adrian Creel, a dangerous person from her past. Not only that, but is someone who she thought was dead. Both her past and present worlds are colliding, and she’s now scrambling to do damage control. So she goes rogue. We have to remember that Jane is highly intelligent, calculated, and cunning. That combination of words is absolutely fucking terrifying if used for harm instead of good. But that’s not who Jane is. And we saw that in a flashback.

This is what sets Jane apart from the person that Maggie Shaw is. Maggie is a textbook CIA operative. She has little regard for those who cross her and will do whatever it takes to get a job done. Spies are trained to not get attached to others. To push aside their emotions and feelings. And despite Maggie having a soft spot for Jane and becoming a mentor/mother figure to her (which makes her betrayal so deeply wounding to Jane not having a mother of her own in the picture), Maggie and Jane are fundamentally different people. One sees people as assets, assignments, collateral, or worse - collateral damage. The other sees people as human beings. One is completely unaffected by betrayal. The other is deeply affected. One is unfazed by death. The other is. You catching my drift?

Jane’s CIA experience has shown her how terrible the world of espionage can be. How messy, interwoven, terrible, and haunting it can be. Right now, it’s haunting her, and coming back to bite her in the ass. So what do you do when your past is coming back for you in the present? You pull every stop necessary to protect those you care about the most. To protect your family, the people you’d easily lay your life down for. Jane is not the kind of person that would intentionally get others she cares about into messes, nor is she the kind of person that gets people into messes that she herself wouldn’t be able to pull them out from. These are calculated risks Jane is taking. It’s not that she doesn’t know or think that her actions won’t cause problems for herself or others later on, she absolutely knows and understands the weight of every outcome and every choice she has to make. She wouldn’t put her team or colleagues in more danger than they need to be. Please understand this language. She can’t protect them from everything that could possibly happen, but if she has the smallest chance of controlling what she can control, then she’ll put herself on the line first. So she’ll make the choices that have the least collateral damage. She voluntarily pulls herself off the case from NCIS to protect her team. She would rather risk herself getting fired or killed before there’s a slightest chance of danger coming towards her team. She reaches out to Whistler, not because she doesn’t care about Whistler as much as she does with her own team or doesn’t care about her enough to not put her in harm’s way, but because Whistler is the only person she can trust right now (and that’s a massive thing for Jane after being betrayed by the one person she thought she’d never, ever get betrayed by). Jane knows that Whistler is absolutely vital in ensuring that whoever is after her, will never be able to reach Whistler, her team, or her kids. Her team can’t do that (lead her to Venezuela) for her. In a weird way, Jane knows that she cannot do parts of her mission alone, but she also recognizes that she cares too much about Whistler to fully let her accompany her in a mission that she knows that she may not come back from alive. This is the grey area of the espionage game that Jane is playing. Jane going rogue and the espionage world is not black and white. Things just aren’t that easy. And it’s baffling that so many people think “well if Jane would have just been honest and let her team help her they wouldn’t be in danger.” It literally doesn’t work like that. Why else would they continue to highlight the stickiness of Jane’s CIA past? Why even highlight the CIA at all? Simple: to show how drastically different NCIS is, how NCIS operates, but also how much Jane has changed since getting out of the spy game, and how much she’s affected the people around her because of the person she is. It’s not that she’s gone rogue and isn’t letting people in and is putting everyone in danger like everyone sees it to be, but she’s trying to keep everyone safe from how deep and messy things are when they’re not taken care of (i.e. “I made a mistake and I need to fix it”), and how much of a splintering effect it can have if not dealt with the way things need to be dealt with (and I mean “dealt with” in the CIA terms of killing someone). For Jane, Creel cannot know that Whistler helped her get close to him (despite her not knowing Creel was alive this entire time, just that someone has impersonated her and has emptied out the account). Creel cannot know that Jane has kids. Creel cannot know that she is in charge of multiple offices full of NCIS Agents and American government personnel. Creel cannot know anything. The stakes are so fucking high.

Jane is involved in a war that has now involved death, and will continue to do so. And she’d rather it be Creel’s, or hers. What if Jane had allowed for Whistler to accompany her to the house of her impostor in the name of not keeping Whistler in the dark? What if Whistler had been the one that was shot instead of Charlie-1 because none of them had vests on? Or conversely, what if Whistler had been kidnapped along Jane and had been the one getting tortured by Creel in retaliation of what happened to him?

Jane would never forgive herself if harm (or death) came Whistler’s way. So handcuffing Whistler to the column was genuinely to protect her. Not because she’s an ungrateful asshole who just uses Whistler for access or that she doesn’t trust in Whistler’s ability to handle herself in the field or that Whistler wouldn’t have her back, but because Jane knows the violent outcome of what this will be. And she’ll do everything in her power to avoid Whistler (or anyone else in her life that is important to her) to become collateral damage or fall victim to her dangerous past. It’s not that Whistler is a rookie that Jane can’t trust to have her back in the field; it’s that Jane can’t afford for harm to come her friend’s way: for Whistler to get injured, tortured, or die on her account. Jane can’t afford her closest friend to fall victim to something they will never come back from. It’s not perfect, it’s messy, but it’s Jane’s way of keeping her safe. Once again, Jane is built like a spy. Secrets and lies and shiftiness is unfortunately, a part of her DNA. But she also isn’t a heartless, unemotional, ghost of a shell. She cares so deeply for the ones she loves, and it motivates her to do the things she needs to do to keep them as far away from imminent danger as possible.

Okay, now back to Whistler. (I told you it was long)

I think what was greatly overlooked was Whistler’s reaction. She wasn’t angry, hurt, or betrayed by Jane cuffing her to the column. Frustrated, yes, but Kate immediately recognized the gravity of the situation that Jane is in, and once again, worries for her friend diving headfirst into danger. Kate doesn’t yell at Jane, she calls out her name because she fears for her friend’s life. Listen to the tone of their exchange closely. It’s not one that’s done in anger or rage. Both of them know how dangerous this has become. Again, Kate isn’t a poor chump that walked into Jane’s mess. Whistler understood what Jane has asked of her to risk. She didn’t like it, but she also can’t stand around and do nothing while her friend is in danger. Of course she’s going to help. Whistler understands immediately what Jane has walked back into. Whistler knows exactly who Jane is from her time in the DIA. I have no doubt in the back of my mind that she’s run extensive background checks on Tennant and the team while she was at the DIA because of how much of a liability the NCIS team was with the DIA (hence, her having to liaise and almost babysit them in terms of data sharing and collection.) Whistler has seen Jane’s dossier, and she’s probably studied the woman’s profile like she would’ve studied material from grad school or studied a profile on a terrorist. That’s what made Jane Tennant the bane of her existence, but it’s also what fascinates her the most: how unlike Jane is for someone that has worked for the CIA. That Jane puts others first, treats her team like they’re her family, and fiercely cares for them. This baffles Whistler to the core, because she’s worked with CIA/NSA/DEA/all government acronyms type personnel. She’s worked with spies. She’s interrogated terrorists and traitors. She knows the formula of what makes a covert operative. Jane has been everything but that. And on top of that, Whistler has worked with upper brass. She’s worked with bosses, admirals, generals, commanders, ASAC’s and SAC’s. She’s worked with people who don’t care about you unless you have impressive accolades and accomplishments that are worth listening to. So for her to cross paths with SAC Tennant... It drastically changes the way that she sees world; the people that she works with, has worked with, and it changes the way she approaches things. Whistler is a type-A personality; likes to plan ahead, likes to know exactly what is going on; every detail, and overarching piece. DIA Whistler would never have allowed for this to happen - in fact, she probably would’ve been the one to inform the brass about what was going on and would immediately have Tennant arrested for treason. But Kate Whistler, friend of Jane Tennant sees that her friend is in need of her help, and that’s what informs her decision to help Jane and go to Venezuela, despite her not actually knowing what the outcome of this entire thing will be. Despite the high risk she’s taking. Despite the fact she could very well lose her job over this if things go south. Despite seeing how much her friend has shifted back into fight or flight CIA mode. Whistler realizes how much danger Jane is in. So no, she’s not angry.

But she sure as hell isn’t going to sit around and do nothing either.

This is where things get real juicy, because once again, DIA Whistler would never. But FBI Whistler has spent enough time around Jane Tennant to know the kind of person she is and her value of others, that people are the priority. And when people are in danger, she will stop at nothing to come to their aid. This entire season has highlighted Whistler coming to Tennant’s rescue in sticky situations (2x08, 2x11, 2x18) and some being situations she didn’t particularly like, but have followed her and/or sent aid, or has gone to rescue Jane herself. And so far, the finale has been the culmination of that. Not because Whistler’s a pawn in Jane’s game, but because of the incredible growth that has transpired in Whistler’s character to become someone who will take risks for others, despite every ounce of her being saying otherwise. To play things safe, by the book. Whistler’s unlearning her patterns and habits of going by the book, being a stickler for the rules, because not everything in life will happen by the book. Having a relationship with someone you work with isn’t in the book. Having a drink with your co-worker at her home after having a 50-cal gun aimed and shot at you by a Yakuza member isn’t in the book. Your friend having a dangerous CIA past isn’t in the book. Not everything is in the book. Whistler is starting to see that. Whistler could’ve easily packed her shit up and angrily gone home. But she stays to go after Jane to try and rescue her. Because that’s who Whistler is.

So, finally, what’s the point of all this again?

Ah, yes. The Tennant-Whistler relationship and how it will be affected by all of this. (Oh, yes, sorry. I forgot to mention this is actually the thesis. I just hoped you would entertain my thoughts long enough and read this far, so if you did congrats. But also, I’m sorry.)

There’s a few articles out there already teasing how this will affect the team in the future - how Jane’s secrets and past will affect everyone, and immediately, how this whole “come with me to Venezuela and help me but also I’m going to handcuff you in the kitchen to keep you safe even though I might die” discourse will affect Jane and Kate’s relationship moving forward. Because on the surface, Tennant asking Whistler for this massive favour feels incredibly transactional and one sided. But if you’ve been watching the same show as everyone else has, this wouldn’t have happened if their relationship wasn’t built slowly on trust. The Whistler we see now isn’t the same Whistler that was introduced to us. The Whistler that helps Jane in Venezuela is a Whistler who, like Jane, is being formed by her experiences, which informs the decisions she makes. The Whistler we see now is someone who would lay their life down for their friend because she knows that Jane would do the same for her. The Tennant-Whistler relationship, aside from the romantic Kacy relationship, has pretty much been the forefront of this season. The tension/disagreements, the favours, the seeking out wisdom and advice, comfort & encouragement, coming to each other’s (mostly Kate coming to Jane’s) rescue. If I may be so bold to say, I actually don’t think this will affect the others as much as it will affect Jane and the choices she’s made. It’s very Jane-centric. It will be Jane-centric in the way it shapes her as a boss, a leader, and a friend. Everyone else is very secure in who they are, in their ability, and who they’re working for. It’s Jane that needs to see that she cannot continue acting on the lone wolf mentality. I wouldn’t be me if I didn’t say that I think this is still very much building into NCIS Hawaii’s overarching theme of family but also how this now could be flipped on its head in later seasons as we explore more of the other characters and their pasts. But like I mentioned earlier, Jane has a past. But so does everyone else. And they needed to establish Jane’s character, all her strengths as well as her flaws, in order for people to see why she goes the absolute lengths that she does to protect who she loves (I’m still so convinced that Whistler’s DIA past and involvement in various top-secret assignments and the many people/contacts she has everywhere will also come back to haunt her in the future and when that time comes, Jane will 110% return the favour Whistler has constantly been doing for her by coming to her rescue this entire season but that’s a theory for another day), but also why the people she loves will also do the same for her (Jesse’s line in the promo, “I’d put my life on the line for you”, and Whistler coming to her rescue literally 4x this season). Jane wouldn’t abuse that. We know that Jane is going to be fine, but in light of these revelations, Jane is going to have to make some major changes regarding the way she operates as a person as a result of what happens from this entire situation. We already know that the season will conclude in its trademark ohana-esque manner (thank you promo pics), but it’s not to say that this won’t cause tension in the future. Family is messy. I can’t stress this enough. But all of them are mature enough to understand that what Jane was doing, was ultimately to protect them all. Even Alex understood the gravity of the situation. They might not like it, but they understand. And that’s an important word - the understanding. They will come to the realization that the damage control Jane was doing was very much for their safety, despite how in the dark they all felt. It’s not invitation for them to be petty, bitter, or angry with Jane. When they find out that Charlie-1 is dead and that Jane was kidnapped and tortured, they’ll see just how dangerous her past life is, and why Jane did what she had to do. Because getting shot or being kidnapped or tortured could have easily been one or more of them, had Jane not played her cards right.

Back to the Tennant-Whistler dynamic. I think Whistler and Tennant are going to continue to have their moments, but I think the establishment of this dynamic (over, say, Jane’s dynamic with Kai, Lucy, Jesse, or Ernie) has been so vital this season, a) because it shows not only how much trust has been built between the two, but how fundamentally different their dynamic will be moving forward from how Jane and Maggie’s relationship was, b) how Kate has never really had a friendship or relationship with someone like Jane ever, and aside from her own relationship with Lucy, and how much Kate also needs Jane as a figure in her life. Both women have been able to lean on each other for support and both women recognize how much they need each other. They see each other as equals; they are each other’s professional/career match (and I will die on this hill despite Kate being significantly younger than Jane, but I think Kate’s career has invited her to tables that people her age would never normally be invited to, but because of her intelligence, high capacity and ability to see things quickly and put things together has placed her higher up quicker than anyone else) and c) the theme of Whistler coming to Jane’s rescue this season will eventually come to a reversal where Whistler will find herself in trouble and will be needing Jane’s support or even rescue, and Jane will be there for her. They’ve hinted at how equally dangerous Whistler’s job is this season. They’ve hinted at Whistler being in the field more, gaining more experience. They’ve hinted Whistler leading teams, working with CI’s, setting up sting operations and leading join efforts in busts. They’ve hinted at the kind of criminals she deals with (serial killers, terrorists, assassins, etc.) This undoubtedly is going to come into play in the future.

Jane values family over everything else. But she also realizes that she can’t just use them when she needs something. She’s going to have to learn how to let her family in, and she’s going to learn that family isn’t transactional, but unconditional. And I think that’s the angle they’re going to play in the latter half of this finale, as well as building into future seasons. The lone-wolf thing will never work. We’ve seen it with Kai in the pilot. We’ve seen it with Lucy (especially in 2x19). It’s not going to work for Jane either. I mentioned earlier, Jane is not perfect. Nobody is. She’s going to have to unlearn things from her past, and she’s going to have to work towards letting people in. She’s going to have to learn to take her own advice. Yes, she’s been badly burned, and being in the espionage game has traumatized her. She’s got literal scars and experiences to show for it. But the beautiful thing is that she has a family surrounding her that will be with her every step of the way - she just has to let them be there for her the same way she’d be there for them in a heartbeat. Yes, this can be so hard to do when you’ve lived on your own and had to fight for yourself for so long, but NCIS Hawaii wouldn’t be NCIS hawaii without these incredibly important themes and arcs, and I’m thankful they’re exploring this with Jane. We’ve gotten a taste of how fiercely protective Jane is with her team and family. When a situation in the future calls for her to step into action, she absolutely will lay her life on the life for her colleagues and team the same way they would for her. I think Jesse’s line to Tennant will be the turning point for her, and she’ll do better moving forward. They needed to do this in order to set up the future story arcs for others in future seasons. Family is messy. But we’re all in it for the ride, and so are they.

#NCIS Hawaii #oh man I’m tired #Jane Tennant #Kate Whistler #maybe I’ve seen too many spy shows #but the takes I’ve seen on both women are ridiculous #anyway #I will defend Jane and Kate with my life

102 notes · View notes

yourreddancer · 22 days ago

Text

Heather Cox Richardson 12.5.24

On the same day as the shooting Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance covering Connecticut, New York, and Missouri announced it would cover anesthesia during surgery or procedures only for a specific time period in order to make insurance more affordable by reducing ove,rbilling.

In the wake of the shooting, UnitedHealthcare and several other insurance companies took down from their websites the names and photographs of their officials.

Ginsburg’s granddaughter called the comparison of Trump and her grandmother “nothing short of appalling.”

The super PAC was created so late that it avoided disclosure before November 5. It was funded entirely by Musk with an injection of $20.5 million.

Stokes’s shooting was the event that sparked a popular rebellion. Newspapers covered every minute of the event and Fisk’s demise, while sensational books about the murder rolled off the presses.

Both those covering the murder and those reading about it rejoiced in Fisk’s misfortune.

—

3 notes · View notes

misfitwashere · 23 days ago

Text

December 5, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

DEC 6

In the wake of the shooting, UnitedHealthcare and several other insurance companies took down from their websites the names and photographs of their officials.

Ginsburg’s granddaughter called the comparison of Trump and her grandmother “nothing short of appalling.”

The super PAC was created so late that it avoided disclosure before November 5. It was funded entirely by Musk with an injection of $20.5 million.

Stokes’s shooting was the event that sparked a popular rebellion. Newspapers covered every minute of the event and Fisk’s demise, while sensational books about the murder rolled off the presses.

Both those covering the murder and those reading about it rejoiced in Fisk’s misfortune.

—

#heather cox richardson #letters from an american

2 notes · View notes