Alternate Nursing Techniques...

Jack is my first baby in a long time who hasn't been a good, instinctive nurser. It's been two weeks, and he's finally figured out how to nurse for more than 5-10 minutes at a time. Most of my babies figured that out in about 3 minutes on the first day.

But he's still working on his technique.

Most babies latch on and then give five or six quick sucks to get the milk flowing, and then they nurse normally. Jack doesn't get this.

Instead, he opens his mouth and yells at the breast for a few minutes, moving as though he wants to latch on but refusing to actually close his mouth. Then he waits for the milk to start spraying. Once there is milk, he latches on and nurses normally. But not before.

Hopefully he gets his technique refined a little before we have to nurse in public...

Zig Ziglar

Ever since Zig Ziglar died, people have been posting quotes from him on Facebook. I had not paid much attention to Mr. Ziglar before, and I'll be glad when I don't have to anymore.

He's the feel-good pseudo-prophet of the month. His doctrines are meant to inspire and empower. He takes truth and leaves out a few key elements--like God--and then spreads it around, making promises that if you do certain things and believe in yourself, success will appear. Success, of course, meaning money.

But Mr. Ziglar's philosophies are flawed--deeply.  I don't know how he came up with his promises and formulas, but it seems like he looked at a bunch of successful people, guessed what they did, and then went around promising everyone it will work for them, too. Sweet little formulas like a dream + faith (in the dream and in yourself, not in God) + action + perseverance + time + patience = Dream Come True.

What he didn't take into account is that millions of people follow that formula and their dreams never do come true. But someone somewhere followed it and it worked, so we get promised it will always work for everyone. And there are some lovely built-in "outs" for Mr. Ziglar if it doesn't work--he can always claim you didn't have enough faith, you didn't work hard enough, you gave up too soon. In other words, you failed because You are a Failure. And if you believed in me long enough, you'd succeed.

I've heard this kind of stuff before, coming out of the mouth of my crazy grandma. Same formula, but her "dream" that starts out is crazy in the extreme--like being able to fly. Maybe that's why I can't stomach it from Mr. Ziglar.

Or maybe it's because it's overly simplistic. "You will either look back and say 'I wish I had' or 'I'm glad I did'." Is just overly simplistic. There's so much complexity in life that he just skips.  He doesn't address the reality that some dreams are not possible (being able to fly, or for me to play in the NBA, or for Tim to have our next baby, for example)--in fact, he teaches the opposite, openly and often. He doesn't address that some dreams would actually be nightmares if we could see the big picture, and therefore are not desirable.  He doesn't address the temporary nature of some dreams (I wanted to be a track star for about two weeks when I was in 3rd grade, now I have no interest in that.). He doesn't address the reality that we grow and learn and often give up on something we wanted for something we want even more. He also doesn't address the fact that life is not a one-track proposition. We have many interacting goals, dreams, aspirations, talents, limitations, experiences, etc. Isolating just one and making that our entire focus leaves us at risk of neglecting other important aspects of life. He doesn't address the very real situation that we are human and have physical limitations that can stop us from doing things we want to do--and that sometimes (often?) accepting those limitations makes us happier than fighting them. And he completely leaves out the reality that God is ultimately in charge, and His deepest interests for us deal with our development, learning, growth, and refinement--not with always helping us get what we want. If we put our faith in God, instead of our dreams or ourselves, we will find that we are often denied things we want--even good things we want, and even when we work really really hard for them--in order for God to help us get what He knows will make us happiest in the long run (as in the eternities).

Maybe it's because Ziglar's definition of success (and therefore his ideas of what we should be pursuing) are subtly tied up in social and financial success--he's promising money and power to people who work for it. The trouble is, those "rewards" are the wrong ones to be searching for. Life is much better when we stop seeking money and power (which President McKay said were temptations of the devil, not valid goals) and instead start seeking happiness (which God has taught us how to get--and he didn't include gaining money or worldly power in the equation).  In fact, nowhere in the scriptures or the words of the prophets are we counselled to pursue our dreams. Not once. Never are we told that the ultimate happiness comes from our dreams coming true, or following our passions, or shooting for the stars. (And, in fact, many many  musicians we have met--people who the world considers the ones who are "living the dream" and "free from the nine-to-five shackles"--spend their whole lives mourning what they can't have: a stable home and family. They are not any happier than everyone else, and are often just as discontent. "Living the life" is lonely and unfulfilling, it turns out.)

Ziglar's doctrines are also deeply cruel. It's not right to tell a woman struggling with infertility that she just didn't try hard enough or believe it enough or work hard enough--and that's why she doesn't have a baby. It's not right to tell a father of an autistic kid that if he just tries harder and applies the right formulas, the kid will turn out to be normal. It's not right to tell a hardworking, content family that if they work harder and neglect their family relationships, they will have money and be "truly" happy. I, personally, don't find it helpful for Mr. Ziglar to tell me that I could keep my house spotless if I just tried harder (completely ignoring that I have physical limitations, like fibromyalgia, that make that impossible). It leaves me always feeling like a complete failure instead of like a valuable person who has a lot to contribute--just not to my walls.

Personally,  I prefer to rely on the advice of real prophets. Snippets like, "Forget yourself and get to work" are much more powerful than formulas for "success."

Did I just read that?

"Simple blood test can help predict mortality, Utah researchers find"   http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865570970/Simple-blood-test-can-help-predict-mortality-Utah-researchers-find.html

I'd say it's probably a pretty simple test: if you have blood, you're mortal!

Grow Cube and Sphere Answer Keys

Kids have been assigned this for school:  http://schooltimegames.com/Logic/GrowCube.html

Fun, but how to solve the puzzle?

Now that I figured it out, I'm posting it here so we can find it again.

Highlight the area below to see the answer:

Put the items on the cube in this order:

Guy
Water
Seeds
Bucket
Glass tube
Fire
White dish
Bone
Springs
Ball


The kids also play this one for school: http://www.eyezmaze.com/grow/RPG/index.html#more

And how to solve it?

Highlight the area below for the answer:

Place the items on the sphere in this order:

House
Tree
Castle 
Water
Tower
Rocks
Treasure
Stairs

We also found a new one we hadn't tried before: http://www.eyezmaze.com/eyezblog_en/blog/2009/06/grow_ver3_remake.html

I haven't solved this one, but there is a solution on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCV_KrcJ1Ds


Grow Tower: http://www.eyezmaze.com/eyezblog_en/blog/2009/01/grow_tower.html
and the solution:

box w button
golden pot 
bricks
grass
pot

Did I just read that?

From ksl mobile: "Over weight people less likely to die, study says"

Less likely to die....ever? Cool.

Distressing Things I Heard about Congress Today

On facebook, people started passing around a picture saying that it's time for Boehner to stand down from being Speaker of the House because he compromised.

I'm really confused about this. Isn't compromise the point? If we all just stupidly stand and insist it's my way or the highway, we all would have suffered. Haven't these people read that old Dr. Seuss story about The Zax?   Even if we don't agree with the compromise, at least they are trying to compromise for once. All the gridlock and selfishness is not getting us anywhere.

The other thing I heard was a radio interview with Nancy Pelosi, who was explaining that some of the Republicans were having trouble accepting the compromise because "They listen to their constituents, and that makes them afraid they might pay later for accepting this."   She was talking about it as though a congressman or senator listening to their constituents is a BAD thing. But I thought that's what we sent to the Washington to do--not represent their own or their party's interests, but to represent their constituents. And that means they have to listen to us. And it scares me that Pelosi thinks that this is a bad thing that weakens the congressmen. Does she really believe they are there to dictate to us what we want? That's more than a little scary.

Personally, I don't have a lot of hope this will fix anything, but I sure wish it were the first step down a road that leads to people listening to one another  and compromising more. I'm so sick of watching our government stand toe-to-toe and call names like kindergartners.

Creativity and Can't

I'm sitting around a lot lately. I've never had fibro like this before, where the palms of my hands and the soles of my feet feel bruised, so I can't really do anything (holding a knife, walking, opening cans, etc hurt). My hips and legs and arms all ache, which adds to the difficulty in accomplishing anything.

So I'm sitting around a lot, looking at Facebook and the news and my email and thinking when the brain fog isn't too intense (which it usually is).

Today, I started seeing those stupid cards on Facebook again.

For example, one card advised that one of your New Year's Resolutions should be to cut out the word "impossible."  It's a nice warm fuzzy thought, that we can do anything as long as we believe we can. But it's really one of the stupider things I've heard.  Impossible is a reality in life. It's meant to be that way. We each have different gifts and different handicaps and different circumstances, and while it's nice to say I could earn a million dollars this month if I tried hard enough, it's not really possible. I'm never going to be able to play in the NBA, even when I'm not pregnant. I'm not able to fly without help, as much as I'd like. I am never going to be able to live loop a song.

It's really unfair to tell people with handicaps, like fibro, that the reason they can't do things is because they are thinking about it all wrong--that if they just tried harder and believed harder, they could do what they want to do. Fibro stops me from being able to play the piano without pain. I tried to take pictures of Tim yesterday and discovered that I can't hold a camera up in front of my face--my arms hurt and then they just won't cooperate.

Sometimes "I can't" and "It's impossible" are the most important things we can say because they allow us to accept our limitations--and either move on in a different direction (finding other pastimes and talents, for example, instead of playing piano) or ask for help (so that Tim makes dinner on the days that I hurt too much to hold a knife). Really, accepting "can't" and "impossible" are far more empowering than abolishing those things from our vocabulary. God gave us all things we can do, and we're much more happy and productive if we work on those things--the things that are easy and enjoyable, or the things we feel driven and motivated to work hard on--instead of wasting our whole lives pursuing unrealistic goals that we really can't do. (Not to say we should never do hard things--of course we should. But chasing impossible things is stupid.)

Another one I saw today said that an essential aspect of creativity is not being afraid to fail.  I think a businessman  must have written that. All (except maybe 1) of the creative people I know (and I know a LOT) are deeply terrified of failure. They are even more afraid of failure than the non-creative people I know. Most have so much anxiety about failure that they need counselling and medication (even if they don't get it).

And that fear is actually what motivates them to keep going and keep refining and keep polishing and keep perfecting their art. It's the thing that makes them rewrite the novel fifteen times until they're sure it's good, and then revise it again ten more times based on the feedback they got from one or two trusted people. It's the thing that makes them write a hundred songs and only release the best ten. Or one. It's the thing that makes them throw away dozens of canvasses and only try to sell the best one.

People who are not afraid to fail are not driven to succeed.

Sure you can be creative if you aren't afraid to fail--you're not afraid to look at things in new ways. But the really, truly creative people I know are the ones who can't help but think outside the box (not the ones who do because they aren't afraid to). It's not a change in thinking that makes them able to be intensely creative. They just ARE that way--and often are ashamed of it, frustrated by it, terrified of it. They are people who say, "Why can't I be normal?", not people who say, "Maybe if I work at failing on purpose, I can lose my fear of it and then I can be more creative." They are people who know it's irrational, know it's a "waste of time", know it's not financially viable, but they can't help lying awake at night thinking of new ways of doing things, new things they could create, new conversations for characters to have, new poems or lyrics to songs.

It has nothing to do with lacking a fear of failure, and everything to do with an internal compulsion that won't let them go. Creativity is not something they do on purpose. It's an essential part of their being, like breathing.

And the ones that develop it into something amazing are more often than not terrified of failing.

The American Dream

I keep seeing things like this article, claiming that the American Dream is in its death throes for those in my generation.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-21/american-dream-fades-for-generation-y-professionals.html

But when you read the article, it becomes clear that what they are defining as The American Dream is getting a good job and becoming a millionaire.

They got it wrong!

Traditionally, the American Dream was to have a family and own a house for them to live in--not a giant house, just a moderate house big enough for the family with a little yard.

And that dream is still within reach of people. What's not realistic is for a whole generation to become single millionaires with no obligations at all, or for them to work in their dream jobs for their whole lives without any break.

But that's the wrong dream anyway. It was never realistic for an entire generation to become millionaires. And living without family and without obligation is not actually going to make anyone happy. It will just make them old and lonely, selfish and egotistical, disconnected and drifting. The thing they define as The American Dream was just a set-up anyway: a setup for disappointment, for loneliness, for a long unresolvable midlife crisis as everyone discovers too late that what they should have done was spend less time working and more time building a family (which is one of the few things we really do have a biological deadline on).

Notice that God never said "Chase your dreams".  God never said, "Get a good career and work your way up the ladder."  God never said, "Earn a million dollars and live 'the life.'" And if God wants us to be happy, and He's given us a roadmap for happiness, and He left those things off, then apparently none of those things will get us there, despite how appealing they seem when we're young, and despite how much our culture has pushed the selfish way (because really all those things are about ME--my dreams, my career at all costs, my success, my money, my plans--and I guess focusing on  ME is, ironically, not the way to make me happy).

The American Dream, the way it used to be, is not dead. There are still opportunities for people to find love, build a family, have a steady career (even if it's not your dream work), buy a modest house to live out your life in. And that kind of dream is worth pursuing, and it is more in keeping with the guidelines God has given us--family, work (but reasonably, to stay alive and stable--not compulsively, to do nothing else but get money), stability and participation in a community all are included in that old American Dream. It's not a flashy dream. It's not something that will make you more special than someone else. It doesn't follow the new definition of "Success," but it encompasses the things we need to be successful at in order to be happy. (Hint: none of those includes having a lot of money).

That other American Dream? RIP and good riddance. It wasn't a good dream anyway, even if it looked like it should be.

Did I just read that?

"Mourners line the street as a hurst carrying Emilie Parker drives by following funeral services for the 6-year old Connecticut elementary shooting victim, Saturday, Dec. 22, 2012, in Ogden, Utah." http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Conn-victim-laid-to-rest-next-to-grandpa-in-Utah-4141059.php#ixzz2FpSo1IvA



Tim's related to the Hurst family. I didn't know they were in the body-moving business, though.  

Oddly, this is the second place I've seen this particular mistake online just today.  (The word, by the way, should be "hearse"). 

Wearing Pants to Church

Have you seen this? "Wear Pants to Church Day".  http://www.ksl.com/?sid=23355976&nid=1016&title=group-pushes-for-lds-women-to-wear-pants-to-church&s_cid=queue-3

I have seen this in several places lately, as feminists I know encourage each other to join.

And I find it completely ludicrous.

First of all, there is no prohibition against wearing pants to church for women. So how is this a protest against the church? Might be a protest against some areas' cultural traditions, for sure, but it does not say what the women involved think they are saying.

Secondly, it announces that women feel like they can't have power and influence unless they "wear the pants," which says to me they don't value what women are and think women should be more like men. Stupid stupid stupid. Women can be incredibly powerful sources of good in the world without trying to be men. And we all--men and women--are happier if we embrace our divine nature as well as our individual talents and gifts, instead of always seeking to be someone else. Men and women are different, and there should be no shame in that. As far as I know, only the feminists are ashamed of that. Ironic, no?

Finally, it's a rather blunt statement that the women involved don't believe that Jesus is running this church and, further, don't believe that the prophet or apostles talk to God. It really lowers the church from being the true church of God, run by revelation, to being just another of those religious organizations that atheists believe exist purely to extort and control people, run by people for their own purposes and their own glory, even if with good intentions. Might as well wear a T-shirt that says, "Forget God. Put me in charge because I'm smarter than He is."

There are certainly problems that crop up in the church. I don't believe it's infallible. It's is administered by people, after all, and sometimes those leaders (especially on the local level) can get mired in all manner of sins and mistakes, even when they have good intentions. I don't deny that happens. (I do think it's silly to say only male leaders make mistakes and offend people, though. I've had as much trouble and sorrow from the actions of women in the church as men--we're all just people, male and female! It's really ridiculous to claim the church would have fewer mistakes made and fewer offended people if women were in charge).

But there are better ways to effect change than wearing pants to church--like going right to God and telling Him your issues, and then working within the system, following the Spirit, to make things better.

Even if you really DO believe that God has said women should have the priesthood and the prophets and apostles are digging in their heels and refusing to change for their own benefit, I don't think having a social protest is going to get any positive results at all. And it certainly isn't going to get you, personally, into the kind of influential position you would need to have in order to change that. Sometimes working within a broken system is more effective than working against it. (And I don't think this system is broken, but if you did, this would be a poor course of action to choose--especially since the church as a whole is going to ignore it, and it will just prejudice the local leaders against using you in any callings).

Personally, I have worn pants to church before. I was in a church building in pants the week before last, in fact, just as the meetings got out. And last week several women came to church in pants in my ward. It wasn't a political statement, and nobody cared what they were wearing.

But I would be embarrassed to wear them this Sunday! It feels too much like a statement to the ward, not that I think women should have the priesthood, but that I have no faith in God or the prophets and I don't understand what the scriptures teach about the priesthood. I'd be embarrassed to say that to everyone, even if it were true!

Did I just read that?

From Longmont's paper, the Times Call today: "The man, identified as Pedro L. Villa, who's believed to be either 19 or 21 and is suspected of  “entering many of these homes at night, through unliked doors, while the residents are asleep,” Longmont police Cmdr. Jeff Satur said."
http://www.timescall.com/news/ci_22149541/longmont-police-seek-suspect-residential-burglaries-car-break


I guess he doesn't want to come through doors that people like.

Also, that is a perfect example of a very long sentence fragment. If you take out all the clauses, you're left with "The man," which isn't a sentence.

Sleep is what I want for Christmas

I've been on a 24 hour 20 minute day since we first tried chronotherapy. (That was a big mistake, obviously--would have been better to stick with going to bed consistently at 2:00 am!). That means I can't fall asleep until 20 minutes later each night. It's not too bad until bedtime passes 5:00 am, and then I have to just jump through the day as fast as possible to get bedtime back to night again.

Unfortunately, this pregnancy has done a number on my sleep. Most nights I sleep 3 hours, lay there awake 3 hours, and then sleep 4-6 hours.

And, worse, I seem to now be on a 26-27 hour day!

This baby can't come soon enough.

Did I just read that?

From the Deseret News: "State of disunion: 500,000 residents across the country petition White House to withdraw from U.S."  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865566651/State-of-disunion-400000-residents-across-the-country-petition-White-House-to-withdraw-from-US.html

Ha! I think most of the people on those petitions were asking for the states to withdraw from the union.  But I suspect most of them would be happy if the White House withdrew.

Halloween Song

I love this song so much that I am sharing it everywhere I can. It's very very cool--new song, inspired by Edgar Allan Poe's "Masque of the Red Death."

You can listen to it here:
https://www.facebook.com/MisterTimMusic/app_178091127385

Did I just read that?

From the dissenting opinion in a legal case regarding burial laws and funeral homes: "Burial services are a once in a lifetime event for every person." Judge Tim Garcia  http://www.ksl.com/?sid=22730981&nid=148&title=nm-court-family-given-brain-in-bag-cant-sue-utah-funeral-home&s_cid=featured-3

Yeah? I sure hope so....

Actually, I'm not really sure you can call it "once in a LIFEtime" since the person being buried is already dead, and the people burying him probably will face more funerals before they die. Technically, burial is something that happens after your lifetime.

Boss Looping Competition

Saturday, Oct 20, is the big day for the Boss Looping national competition.

Tim and his friend Matt Murphy are the first duo to ever compete (and might be the only live looping duo in the world--we haven't found anyone else). They are among the six finalists. The competition is, as far as I can tell, for people who use any boss looping pedal (they make a bunch--Tim uses the RC-50). All the finalists sing original music--it's not in the rules that it's required, but all the final videos are original songs, so I guess it gives you an advantage somehow? Not all the finalists do all-vocal live looping--three of the six use instruments in addition to their voices. All sing at least part of the songs.

You can see all the finalists' entry videos and read a little bio of each here: http://rolandarblog.com/2012/10/17/meet-the-loopstation-world-championship-3-finalists/. As you can see, there are some very talented people in this competition.

All six finalists flew to LA today, and tomorrow they get to perform ONE song each, up to 5 minutes long, at the competition. You can watch it here: http://www.guitartv.com/ live starting at 6:00 pm (competition itself starts at 6:30 pm, though--California time, I think, so 7:30 here at my house).

I will be watching. I have no idea what the judges are looking for. The preliminary round specified that the music had to use a loop pedal and that they were judging partially on facility with the pedal, but nobody has said anything about what the finals are judged on.

What I will be watching for:

First and foremost, is the act entertaining? I don't care how technically good an artist is if I get bored listening to the music. Looping is especially at risk of being boring because of the nature of the art--it takes a while to lay down all the loops to build a complete background for a song, and if you don't know how to do that skillfully and quickly, it gets really boring really fast. Also, looped songs are built around backgrounds that don't change throughout the songs. If an artist is really good at looping, they can usually handle things like bridges and chord changes okay, but it's not as easy as it is with a band. So the songs are always at risk of being too repetitive and of "not going anywhere." Even a good song, though, can be performed in a way that is just too boring to sit through. So the music itself AND the performance have to be entertaining. That doesn't mean gimmicky necessarily--just entertaining.

Secondly, is the act original? I don't see a lot of artistic value in cover bands. I do see cultural value in them, but I've been around the a cappella world too long to be really impressed with groups that are good mimics and not much else. That's 90% of a cappella, and I've had my fill of that. So I'm interested in seeing if the artists here are doing something that marks them as original--not just original songs, but are they doing something that makes them distinct, or am I going to watch and say, "I've seen this a thousand times before" or "Yup, that's live looping." Interestingly, groups can still do covers and feel original--like the Real Group, from Sweden, who Tim took me to see when they were in Colorado. It has a lot to do with the performance and the artists, I guess, more than the material.

Third, are they good? An act can be original and entertaining and still be musically horrible. Sometimes they're entertaining for all the wrong reasons. Sometimes they're original, but so far out there that they're not accessible or good. It's not too hard to write original crap--it's all over YouTube and filling up many an open mic night.

And finally, does the artist strike me as someone interesting personally? I'm not really into divas. An artist can be entertaining, original, and good, but if they come across as a jerk, as selfish, as egotistical, as rude, or generally as someone I would not want to meet, I  have a hard time rooting for them. No matter how great the music is, if the person behind it comes across as loathsome or self-centered, I lose interest really fast. In the music industry, being a generally nice person ends up being a really big deal.

As with every other gig Tim ever has, I hope two things: that people show up, and that Tim does a good job.

Another for the Why We Homeschool Files

http://www.belljarnews.com/2012/10/16/researchers-discover-secret-to-better-behaved-children/

Everyone knows you need enough sleep.

Not everyone knows elementary school aged kids need 10 hours or more of sleep per night.

I've noticed what this study says--missing just a little sleep makes my kids behave and think poorly.

In order to guarantee the kids get enough sleep and can think at their best, I can't conform to the school schedules, which were designed by morning people to allow parents to get to work on time. Especially with the sleep disorder!

So we homeschool.

Did I just read that?

The tagline for Bejeweled Blitz: "1 minute of endless fun!"  

http://www.popcap.com/games/bejeweled-blitz/facebook?icid=pop:hp:ompg:pos1:begbltz:all:en

60 seconds can feel endless, like when you're holding your breath, or in labor, or waiting for the pot to boil. But, as they say, time flies when you're having fun.

Apparently the game is not fun?

Sunset, courtesy Elijah

Elijah, age 22 months, just ran in to where I was sitting and started hopping up and down, looking like he was doing a Maori war dance. He gestured broadly and talked excitedly, but I couldn't understand him.

Finally, he closed my laptop and said, "C'mon, Mom!"

So I followed him. Through the kitchen and out the back door he trotted, looking back to be sure I was following. When we reached the back balcony, he gestured excitedly at the sky and said, "SOOOOO Pitty!"

I looked up--all the clouds were pink and orange in a gorgeous sunset, backed by that particularly brilliant blue that comes just before dusk. "Sooo PITTY!" he said again, looking awed. "See?"

I sat out on the chair on the balcony, holding him and watching the sky as he gaped and awed and jabbered excitedly, pointing at the sky, then down in the yard ("peent!" he said, pointing in the yard--the light was, indeed, rather pink on everything). I finally said, 'Do you like that sunset?' "Uh?" he said. "The pretty orange clouds are called the sunset," I explained. "Sun.Set," he said, "Soooo pitty couds."

Then he pointed down at the neighbor's bush, which was glowing with fall leaves in just the same colors as the sky. "Pitty eaves. Ornge, pint. Sooo pitty."

We sat until it got dark, looking at the fall leaves, looking at the sky, listening to the breeze and watching the leaves rustle above us, watching the clouds change colors.

Sunsets are one of the best things in the world. Sunsets through the eyes of a toddler are even better.

Back to this debate. Again.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/10/15/why-health-insurance-is-not-the-same-thing-as-health-care/

Actually, this is what I've been saying all along, more or less: Expanding medicaid, which no doctors take, will not help people get medical care.

And it's a serious mistake to confuse, as Obamacare does, having access to insurance with having access to medical care.

Personally, I don't think Obamacare will work for that very reason. Wish I knew enough to propose a viable alternative, though.