Category: Random Thoughts

It is a few weeks away from Election Day 2005. There are no Federal officials on the ballot, but there is very likely a slate of local officials that you really ought to read up on. There may also be some very important ballot initiatives and/or amendments to your State Constitution.

I said it last year and I will repeat it this year: ballot initiatives are a good idea that almost always turn out badly.

This year, Washington State has a pair of dueling ballot initiatives — cue the banjos! Both initiatives have as their stated goal to control the cost of medical malpractice insurance. On one hand, we have I-330, supported by some doctors groups: “it caps at $350,000 the amount an injured patient can claim in noneconomic — also known as pain and suffering — damages. It also limits fees for plaintiff attorneys, shortens the time limit for filing malpractice claims and allows health-care providers to require binding arbitration for damage claims.” On the other hand we have I-336, supported by some lawyers: “it revokes medical licenses of doctors who have three malpractice jury verdicts against them in a 10-year period and makes it easier for patients to learn about medical errors. It also creates a state-run supplemental malpractice-insurance fund and requires public hearings on malpractice-insurance-rate increases.” Of course, all this is a summary of probably 20 pages of fine print legalese. For each initiative.

Supporters of I-330 claim that their proposal will improve medical care and access to it, as well as get more money to patients. Detractors say that “voluntary” binding arbitration will be something that doctors require before they will even treat you. Detractors have not pointed out the compete red herring of a cap on non-economic damages. The fact of the matter is that there is already a cap on what malpractice insurance will pay, and that amount is often exceeded by actual real damages when a person has been killed or disabled by true medical malpractice. The only state in which it appears that damage caps have kept down malpractice insurance rates is California, which happens to have a system in place for controlling insurance rates.

Supporters of I-336 claim want to create a “3 strikes” system for doctors and hold “public” hearings on insurance rate increases. Yeah, 3 strikes worked so well for California criminals. I am not against trying to get the “few bad apples” out of the doctoring business, but threatening the entire industry is not the way to do it. And as for hearings on rate increases that nobody will really attend? If you want to mandate regulation of rates, just do it. There is a State Insurance Commissioner, after all. Opponents say that I-336 will create more bureaucracy and put more money in the pockets of trial lawyers.

Allow me to join with several major newspapers and urge you to vote heck no on both I-330 and I-336. While you are at it, vote against all the other voter initiatives. But please, if your local schools and libraries need money, vote to let them have it.

In closing, I bring you these tidbits: On average, 2 American soldiers still die every day in Iraq. Don’t like the 9th Circuit? Hack it up! Fun with Science in the Home! and How a Democrat can get elected.

What did he know and when did he know it? Uh, what about her? See something wrong in this picture? No? Ok, how about now? You might recall that August 6, 2001 — the date ascribed to the photo — was the same day that the Presidential Daily Briefing was all about some guy named Bin Laden. What is that in her hand? I’m not sure what to make of Ms. Miers, and neither is anybody else. President Bush is expending some effort to defend his decision. A Democrat I normally have the utmost respect for, Harry Reid, supports her nomination. Is this because he honestly thinks she will be alright, is this because of some back-room deal to keep out a real wing-nut, or is this to poison her nomination? How does that work? Well, the conservative base isn’t happy (everyone else is waiting to see what happens next); by supporting her as a liberal Democrat, he makes them less happy. If the Republican base in the Senate then turns against her, he can defeat her while claiming to be the very face of bipartisan support.

Beep beep, beep beep, his car went beep beep beep. Ford and GM had an absolutely abysmal September, and the fun in Detroit is only starting: by a terrible coincidence GM is having a big board meeting today. It is expected to be ugly. Meanwhile, Joe and Jane Average are “Getting strangled at the pump.”

Search Me. Wired brings to our attention some people you won’t find online, the UnGoogleables. There are plenty of people with legitimate reasons they don’t want to be found online. I sure hope Wired used fake names when they put it online….

Ralph Kramden’s Bowling Team. One last word on Katrina. Ok, make that 25 questions about Katrina.

It’s easier to eat cat food than to figure out the prescription drug benefit…. “Most seniors don’t understand the new prescription-drug program being offered under Medicare and don’t plan to sign up for coverage, even after months of salesmanship by the Bush administration.” Yeah. “The program is projected to cost $720 billion over 10 years, according to the latest calculations by the Bush administration. Some members of Congress have suggested delaying the program’s start to help offset the costs of recovery from hurricanes Katrina and Rita, but the White House has rejected those appeals.” Yeah.

Fannie! Finally, my favorite whipping post, Fannie Mae. I’m not the only one who thinks there might be trouble brewing in the world of real estate, and that Fannie might just be the eye of the storm.

It would have been easy to miss this story if you rely on national news sources. Although the Associated Press wrote the story, it has mostly been covered by local news people despite the fact that it will impact the millions of people who will buy light trucks in the next decade. After resisting pressure on the issue for years, the Bush Administration is considering tightening fuel economy requirements on most light trucks.

This might be a politically motivated move designed to placate voters before the 2006 elections, but if so it’s too little far too late; the standards in question won’t begin to phase in until 2008.

Environmentalists, scientists, economists, and people concerned with national security have been pushing for improved CAFE standards for years now, and have yet to make much headway with the Bush Administration. Why the Flip-Flop?

It seems unlikely that there is genuine concern over the fact that record high gas prices are cutting profits at some retailers, inasmuch as the Wal-Mart customer who can’t afford gas to drive to Wal-Mart also can’t afford a new truck. Gas prices are changing the way average Americans do things, but this proposed change won’t make things better for another 5 years, if then.

I predict that — if this change to the CAFE standards ever happens as planned — it will be smoke and mirrors. Please note that the new standard would break “light trucks” into 6 classes based on size and weight. Sure, a 2010 minivan should theoretically get better milage than a 2001 minivan, but it will no longer be compared to pickup trucks or SUVs. This complicated standard opens the door for auto manufacturers to use all sorts of engineering chicanery to manipulate vehicles into different classes of light truck. Don’t forget, each of the articles describing the change include a sentence like this one: “But the largest SUVs, such as the Hummer H2, and cars would not be affected by the plan.” The “light truck” category is already very complicated. It can be difficult to figure out what qualifies and what doesn’t. This should actually be a vital concern inasmuch as “light trucks” in addition to having different fuel economy standards, have different safety standards than passenger cars.

The plans don’t include better fuel economy, just more categories that make it seem like there is better fuel economy.

I propose radically simplifying the system. Let’s classify vehicles based on the number of passengers they are designed to safely transport. Three seats and under would be called “work vehicles.” This would include panel vans and pickup trucks, and have lower fuel efficiency requirements. Yes, this category would also include two-seater sports cars, but that’s alright; not only would this mean these cars could be more powerful, a higher milage sports car could be added to the fleet to improve average fleet economy. Anything with four to seven seats would be called a “passenger car” and be held to the highest fuel efficiency standards and strict safety standards, as this would represent the vast majority of vehicles on the road. Everything from the Hyundai Accent to the Chevy Tahoe would fall into this category. Even more strict safety standards, but lower fuel efficiency standards, would apply to vehicles that seat eight or more people, a category I would like to call “passenger buses.” I feel this label accurately describes the practical uses of such vehicles.

In closing, I have two items of concern. First, Pat Robertson advocates assassinating the democratically elected President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. Why? Because “he’s going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism” and anyway, “It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war … and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop.” I don’t know what’s more startling: that Robertson has never heard the phrase “godless communists;” that he thinks he has the authority to call what is in essence a fatwa; that he admits that oil is a huge part of the issue; or that he still claims to follow a God who said stuff like “Thou shalt not kill” and “Love your enemies… and pray for them.” My second item of concern, “The Government” says Look out! Vagrants might really be terraists in disguise. The fact that no single department is claiming to have issued this warning, but rather it is “based on a State Department report” is very interesting. This sounds suspiciously like an excuse that will allow mass roundups of the homeless.

Or, “IE Sucks, Firefox Sucks, Krypton Sucks.”

This is the third installation of a series on the state of personal computing. Scroll down for the two previous parts, and be sure to come back later this week for the stunning conclusion.

Back in Part I, I pointed out that there were two web browsers running, and another two that I use fairly frequently. Why so many browsers? Quite simply because I need them.

Firefox is my primary browser. It does tabbed browsing fairly well, and I am a woman who often has 3 or 4 tabs open. I sometimes have a dozen tabs open if I am working on a post, as it allows me to have all my links handy. It gladly opens links from other applications in a new tab. It allows better cookie management than most browsers. It allows me to Google from the toolbar, and plugins are available to let me search different places selected from a pull-down menu. It also blocks pop-up windows, but only most of the time. It is still necessary to check now and then. In fact, just before I wrote that sentence, I discovered a pop-under from University of Phoenix. Sometimes, Firefox will decide that for whatever reason it needs to use 90% of the available processor resources. Then I must hunt down whatever is causing this behavior and make it stop. I could just quit Firefox, but then I lose whatever items I had loaded into tabs. Depending on the information, it can be a pain in the butt to find it again. Other times, the SPOD will appear, and it will be necessary to force quit. In fact, I will have to switch applications to get the operating system’s attention long enough to be allowed to force quit. This happens with enough regularity that I refer to it as “the weekly Firefox crash.”

The second most regularly used browser on my computer is OmniWeb. In fact, I almost always write posts in it. Why? The one truly compelling feature it has is spellchecking in forms. My spelling is okay (OmniWeb insists that ok is not a word and I must mean auk), but it’s nice to be able to correct typos before publishing. Furthermore, browsers being what they are (see title), there is something to be said for working in one and having references in another. I only have one annoyance with OmniWeb, that it has problems if you try to log in to a site you have logged out of. Quitting and restarting makes everything happy. In the end, I’m not sure that these days any web browser is worth $30. After all, the other 3 browsers I use regularly were free. The guys who wrote it are entitled to make a living, but I have to ask myself whether or not there is $30 worth of value over and above Firefox, which is free.

I also am forced to use Microsoft Internet Explorer, or MSIE. I am “forced” to use it because certain sites will not work in anything else. I do not have the option to just “don’t go there,” as I need these sites to get very limited and specific things done. I am not sure whether it is because of some lazy web designer using an obscure IE only feature, but the great irony is that most of the sites that require it are of the “secure login” variety. Irony, because IE is generally considered one of the least secure browsers. Of course, I am using the Macintosh version, which isn’t quite as up-to-date. It is also only about 90% compliant with the things that demand IE. There are times I have to boot a windows machine just to use a site that demands whatever Windows IE security widget is needed. So if you like, consider IE two browsers.

The final browser in regular use on my computer is Safari. When Safari was new, there were a lot of things to like about it. However, all those things are now done better by one of the other browsers. You can search Google from the toolbar, but only Google. It does tabbed browsing, but if you have what it considers too many tabs, it shunts the “extras” into a difficult to access and impossible to close area marked only by an arrow. It has a built in but inferior RSS reader. It too theoretically blocks pop-up windows, but somehow that “gets unchecked” now and then. It is theoretically faster, but at the sacrifice of compatibility. Lots of things just don’t work right in Safari. It also has a propensity for unexplained crashes. Why do I use it at all? Primarily to check compatibility of code; if it works right in Safari, it will work right almost anywhere. The other reason is that it is not possible to export my bookmarks to one of the “standard” browsers in an automagic fashion. As a result, I just check back in when looking for “something interesting I found once.”

There are other browsers, and while I am sure each has advantages, I also am sure that each has its very own flavor of sucking. In fact, the existence of legion browsers is damning evidence that they all suck. Each of them was created to address whatever issues the creators had with one of the big browsers. None of them is good enough to rise from the cyberdebris as a competitor to the big players. Few of them are even good enough that the big players have come knocking on the door to buy whatever unique bit of superior code they might possess. We are stuck with browsers that suck, and no superior answer is poised to come over the horizon.

This is part two of a four part series on the current state of personal computing from the standpoint of a savvy but not “power” end-user. Scroll down for Part I: My Computer Sucks. The remaining two parts will be published later this week.

Software Sucks

I considered breaking this post into “Operating Systems Suck” and “Applications Suck,” but the sad truth of the matter is that it is nearly impossible for the end user to determine which of these is the culprit when the SPOD turns (Spinning Pizza Of Doom, OS X’s way of telling you the computer is too busy to care what you want). Adding to this difficulty, a call to technical support will result in finger pointing: the OS manufacturer will blame the application; the guys who made the application will blame the OS. There’s a kernel of truth — pun intended — to both points of view, but mostly because both are at fault.

It can be very difficult to isolate what is going wrong with your computer, partly because it’s a complicated bit of machinery. Because the manufacturers of the hardware and OS don’t really want you mucking about too much, they give you things like the SPOD, which are about as useful as a single light marked PROBLEM to let you know something is amiss. The problem might be that it is loading a file. On the other hand, it might be that a program has hopelessly crashed. Or worse.

Let’s start with the Operating System, because you can’t run a computer without one. There are for all practical purposes 3 major operating systems: Mac OS, Windows, and Linux/Unix. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. Purists will point out that Mac OS is based on Unix, that Linux is based on Unix, that Mac OS only represents 5% of the market, that “almost everybody” uses Windows, that Linux isn’t really a system designed for personal use, etc. ad nauseum.

No matter which you run, you will find that upgrades and patches are an all-too-regular thing. Because of security issues, it is absolutely imperative that computer users keep up with this stuff, and many upgrades actually fix problems you might be having. However, most of the time, upgrades result in “broke different.”

My last OS upgrade a few months ago, for example, fixed a few under-the-hood type of things that I would not have noticed except for being told it is so. It also gave me something called “Dashboard,” which puts stuff like a calendar, calculator, dictionary, and weather report just a click away. This impresses Mac newbies a great deal. Whatever. It also got me a disk search technology called “Spotlight” which everyone tells me is just wonderful except for what had to be done to the email program to make it work right. This of course means I have an updated Mail.app that I didn’t really need with a new user interface to learn and a new storage system. All to make my email searchable at the operating system level instead of just searching it from within the email application.

It also broke three different applications in fun and exciting ways. In two cases, a fix was immediately downloadable from the software manufacturer (thank goodness for Version Tracker). In the third case — ironically an Apple product — there is no fix. The program works, but some things just don’t work right. The worst part is a nagging feeling that they don’t care.

It also got me “Megahertz Gnomes,” a phenomenon where upgrades make… things….. run…….. slower……….

Applications deserve their fair share of blame too. As far as I am concerned, nothing illustrates this like the single biggest must-have software suite, Microsoft Office. I recently upgraded to Office 2004 for Macintosh, and the best thing I can say is that it is “bigger and badder than ever.”

This behemoth takes up 486 meg of space on my hard drive. The bit I use most, Word 2004, is 19.5 meg alone and has so many features that it actually inhibits my ability to get things done. In fact, 80% of the features are only used by 20% of users. They have officially reached the point where features obliterate other features. The other night I spent well over a minute trying to figure out where they had moved the toolbar that lets you see what font, size, and formatting were in use. But if I were writing, for example, a textbook, there would be handy formatting tools at my fingertips.

I didn’t want to write a textbook. All I wanted to do was write out a recipe.

The other bit of Office that I use on a semi-regular basis is Excel. Over a decade has gone by since its inception, and this version just almost has feature parity with its Windows namesake. It is still slower, still more difficult to use, and just occasionally will decide it doesn’t like something about a spreadsheet made in Windows Excel, but there you are.

Bundled with these two programs are 3 additional programs that I have no use for. I do not use Entourage for my email, and have not for some years. Microsoft still seems to hope I will migrate. Nor do I use MSN Messenger. The last thing in the world I need is another messaging program. Everyone I care to talk to is either on AIM or IRC. And as for PowerPoint, I haven’t the faintest idea what I would use it for. Outlining? I won’t go so far as to join those who call it evil, or say it makes us dumb, but I sure have seen a lot of bad uses of PowerPoint for someone who doesn’t work in a large office environment and doesn’t attend a lot of academic events.

What is this doing on my hard drive again? Oh yeah, it came with the suite and someday I might need it. A nagging voice in the back of my head tells me that “I might need it someday” is how hoarders get started.

Some items of interest to regular readers:

“That’s not a snake, it’s a housing bubble deflating!” Job growth may bring enough people back to the job market that unemployment rises. Textbooks are so bad they are discouraging reading. And finally, Big Brother is our friend.

I do not often write about technology, however this week will be devoted to a series on computers. We will return to our regular diet of economics, business, world events, and general silliness next week. Over the last few years, I have become increasingly frustrated with not only my computer, but computing and computer performance in general. This is a huge topic. There are multiple journals on computers and computer industry news that publish weekly, and there is no way to cover the state of All Things Computer in one column. As for my own limited musings, I will break things down as follows: My Computer Sucks; Software Sucks; Browsers Suck Even Worse; and Buying a New Computer Sucks.

My Computer Sucks.

I am writing this post on an Apple Titanium PowerBook with an 800 MHz G4 processor, 40 Gig hard drive, and 512 meg of ram. It doubled the speed of the 400 MHz TiBook that I used previously (and which still sits 15 feet away). I am using Mac OS X (pronounced “ten”) version 10.4.1, which was released within the last few months. At this moment, currently launched applications are Finder, Dashboard, iChat, Mail.app, Drop Drawers, Firefox, and Omniweb. Yes, that’s two web browsers, more on that later this week. Applications I have used within the last week or three include Safari, MS Internet Explorer (yes, a third and fourth browser, I said I’d get to that later), Word, Excel (both from Office 2004), Terminal, Quicken 2005, iTunes, iCal, Address Book, Preview, Quicktime, Garage Band, X-Chat Aqua, and a few relatively low tech games (Bejeweled, Mike’s Cards, Snood, BableBlox, Age of Empires II).

As you can see, I do not have the latest greatest computer, I should probably consider a new one, but it’s not like I am trying to calculate the size of the universe or find a cure for cancer or anything of the sort. Truth be told, my computing needs are not all that different from Joe and Jane Average’s needs. I use the internet for pretty standard web browsing, email, instant messaging, and hanging out on a computer oriented IRC (Internet Relay Chat) channel (we call them channels, not chatrooms). Like most people I need to write the occasional document, calculate some figures, balance my checkbook, look at documents (like tax forms) in PDF format. Like most people I like to listen to music, watch film clips, and play games. Oh, and I write music and the posts on this site. Nothing big here.

One serious frustration with my computer is the display. My current resolution is set at maximum, 1280 x 854. I live with many things going on at once — as you can tell from the list of currently running applications — and the extra pixels are darn nice to have. However, sometimes it can be quite difficult to read the screen. A peek at a friend’s Sony Vaio leads me to believe the problem is not a need for new glasses, but rather my screen. It is hollow reassurance that “the reviewers” raved about how much better this monitor was than its predecessor. Current model PowerBooks do not necessarily improve this situation.

As if the readability problem were not bad enough, there is also a really awful glare problem. It is not practical to use this TiBook in bright light. Between that and the somewhat less than optimal WiFi reception, taking it outside to work on a nice day is only theoretically possible.

Another problem is the battery life. I can get maybe 2 hours on battery, if I am careful to clamp down java right away. Theoretically, I can tweak the System Preferences to give me greater battery life, but only at the expense of usability. Foolishly, I thought the idea of a portable computer was that I could leave my desk and still, you know, get things done.

I am aware that some of the problems I experience with my TiBook stem from the fact that Apple made a conscious decision to emphasize style. There is no question about the fact that Apple notebook computers look fantastic. I know multiple people who decided they had to have a TiBook within moments of first seeing one. However, sometimes style trumps utility. For example, because they use a fabulous looking metal (Titanium or Aluminum) case, wireless reception suffers. Greatly. So not only is this not a machine to take wardriving, this is not even a machine to take any meaningful distance away from the wireless base station.

Style trumps utility when it comes to the optical media drive as well. Because the CD/DVD drive is a slot loading unit, it is a pain in the butt to use. If the computer is on a desk, it is hard to get the disk in. If the computer is on a stand, the feet which keep the computer from sliding off get in the way. Non-standard disks are non-usable; there is no way to load a minidisk or an unusually shaped disk. Such disks are often used for promotional materials. Good thing I have access to a PC.

A problem which has actually been fixed in the newer models relates to travel. If you are planning on toting a TiBook, it is important to use a screen and keyboard protector. This will keep the keys from rubbing on the screen during transit. The scuff marks the keys can leave behind are mostly annoying, but as I noted above the screen is hard enough to read in the first place.

Another style over substance issue which has only sort-of been fixed is the power supply. The original TiBook came with a power supply that, well, looked like a UFO. It had a slot around it, horizontally, for cable that went to the computer. The cable that went to the wall socket was wrapped around the saucer vertically for travel. Not only was this inconvenient, but made airport screeners nervous. Furthermore, it was difficult to find an appropriate place to put it because of its unusual size and shape. Since then, Apple has moved to a small power supply, about 3.5″ square by 1″ high. Little tabs fold out to hold the wire that goes to the computer, but the one that goes to the wall still has to be haphazardly wrapped around the unit, poised to come apart in the least convenient possible way when you open your laptop bag. Another unfortunate detail is that it is almost exactly the same shape, size, and color as an iPod power supply or an AirPort Express. It could be a little confusing to sort out which white block is which. At least it has flat edges.

Be sure to come back in a day or two to read Part Two, Software Sucks.

Ok, this is just wrong:

Elderly people with low incomes may lose some of their food stamps if they sign up for the new Medicare prescription drug benefit, the Bush administration said Saturday.

You know what’s even more wrong? The New York Times was scooped by an astute guy with a blog.

But back to the issues at hand. The Food Stamp Program is designed to help some of the poorest Americans, those who can’t even afford food for their families. We’re talking about folks who have to think twice about paying full price for house brand macaroni and cheese mix. The purpose of the Medicare Drug Benefit was to make it so Medicare recipients didn’t have to choose between groceries and medication — both of which they need to stay healthy and alive. But if you want help paying for your medications, you may loose your help putting food on the table.

What happened? Did Big Ag not pay as much to the Administration’s re-election fund as Big Pharma did?

The official excuse for this robbery is that since these people will have lower pharmacy costs, they will have more to spend on food and actually come out ahead on the whole deal. Let’s look at the cited example:

The drug benefit will be available to individuals with monthly income of $1,197 or less and married couples with income of $1,604 or less.

The guide gives this example of how the new law would affect a hypothetical Medicare beneficiary, Mrs. Smith, who receives $798 a month in Social Security. She does not receive Medicaid. She now pays $147 a month for medical expenses, including $51 for three prescription drugs. Her monthly rent is $421.

Under the Medicare drug plan, Mrs. Smith will not have to pay a monthly premium or a deductible. She will have a $3 co-payment on each drug, for $9 a month. Her medical spending will decline to $105 a month, from $147, for a saving of $42.

But Mrs. Smith’s monthly food stamp allotment, $27, will be reduced to $10 a month, because her “out-of-pocket medical costs have gone down.” The administration says she will come out ahead because “she still has $25 more cash in her pocket – $42 medical savings, less the $17 decrease in food stamps.”

Forgive me for pointing out that Mrs. Smith is paying far too big a percentage of her income in rent each month. Well over half her money goes to rent, when she should really spend no more than a third. Now, I don’t think you can find a decent place to live for $266 a month, so she might consider a roommate.

My second point is what 3 prescription drugs could she possibly be taking that add up to only $51 per month? Remember, she doesn’t have any coverage for that in the “before” scenario, so she’s paying full price. Even generics are going to run more than $17 each for most things that anybody would need to buy monthly. Oh, and keep in mind that last year prescription prices went up between 4.1% and 7.1% depending whose figures you like.

Finally, according to the official “after” numbers, Mrs. Smith is ahead $25 per month. That’s about 3% of her income. Of course she’s still spending over half her money on rent and 15% of her income on medical expenses. Economically she is still behind the 8-ball, particularly if she owns a car.

But hey, maybe she can afford to go crazy and buy a can of sale-priced tuna to go in her house-brand mac-n-cheese.

Maybe they call them “judges” because they use “judgment.”

Today’s LA Times has an item called “Judges Say Overhaul Would Weaken Bankruptcy System.” Here’s the no registration required version. In short, a lot of bankruptcy judges — the guys who actually deal with debtors and creditors all day long and try to Get Stuff Done — say the bankruptcy overhaul passed by the Senate and under consideration by the House is a Bad Idea that will do more harm than good. The article is long, but meaty. Here’s a bit from near the end, emphasis mine:

Practically, they warn, debtors who would no longer qualify for Chapter 7 and fail to complete Chapter 13 repayment plans would either have to keep paying creditors indefinitely or drop out.

“If you’re confronted with a mountain of debt and have no hope of getting out from under it, you’re either going to go underground or turn to crime,” said Kenneth N. Klee, a former Republican congressional staffer who was one of the chief authors of the last major bankruptcy law change in 1978 and now teaches law at UCLA.

Yes, a Republican who has been a bankruptcy expert for 30 years says this thing is bad and he tells you why. It is not too late to write your Representative and tell him/her what you think.

Of course my favorite devilish detail is that this bill will drive up the costs to file bankruptcy. Brilliant. So it will be entirely possible to be too broke to go bankrupt.

Security Theatre Act VII: Insecure Flight

The latest version of CAPPS, known officially as “Secure Flight” is set to be implemented in 4 months despite the fact that it only meets 10% of required goals. Some of the little things that aren’t quite worked out yet include “developing redress procedures for passengers to correct erroneous information if they’ve been unfairly or incorrectly singled out for scrutiny on a watch list; conducting tests to measure the accuracy and efficacy of data used to screen passengers; establishing oversight policies for who can access data and how they can use it; ensuring that data is secure from outside intrusions or manipulation; and establishing privacy safeguards to preserve passengers’ rights.” No biggie, right? And experts say this is no surprise.

Of course it was just last week we found that the TSA lied about its use of information on 12 million air passengers. You can find top notch commentary and a link to the actual GAO document on Secure Flight in this post by security expert Bruce Schneier.

Get Out of My Bedroom!

Today’s big personal health news is that most people sleep poorly. I personally suspect that a lot of people simply don’t allow enough time for a “good night’s sleep” in the first place. Furthermore, half of Americans are at risk for sleep disorders and many are ahem too tired for intimate relations.

Speaking of intimate relations, I have something to say to the pharmacists who refuse to fill valid prescriptions for birth control on “moral grounds”: find a job that doesn’t conflict with your morals! Your job is to fill prescriptions. If you think there is a medical reason not to fill a prescription, take it up with the doctor. If you have moral problems with doing your job, you must quit. Today. Otherwise, you are saying your morals only matter when they inconvenience others. A vegan waitress knows she will have to serve meat unless she works in a vegetarian restaurant; a recovering alcoholic realizes he should probably not go to bartender’s school; pacifists normally don’t enlist in the armed forces. What is your excuse?

Maybe it’s time we all took a nap.

Heads they win, tails you lose.

Depending on which Seattle news paper you read, you might have noticed an article that said Thousands of people could lose mental health coverage, or that millions might gain mental health coverage. Strangely enough these really are two sides of one coin.

In Washington State, Medicaid covers mental health. Most private health insurance policies only have the barest of coverage. As a result, people with severe mental health problems can very quickly end up on Medicaid. However, in this age of governmental belt tightening, the state feels they no longer have the money for this coverage.

This is a real shame, because people who are mentally ill have a hard time getting by without treatment. It should not be rocket science to say that if a person has a mental illness, it effects how he or she sees the world, and this has a very direct bearing on someone’s — anyone’s — ability to hold down a job and pay the bills. This is not an issue of pulling ones self up by the bootstraps, because they can’t necessarily tell that there are any boots. By some estimates, 20-25% of the homeless are mentally ill. If you want to solve homelessness, you have to treat mental illness. Although it is difficult to obtain figures for the number of convicted criminals who are mentally ill, there is evidence to support the idea that treating mental health issues among prison and parole populations reduces recidivism, or repeat offenses. Since reducing homelessness and crime are both societal priorities, it should be a no-brainer that mental health is an issue to address.

So, the Washington state legislature finds themselves in the unenviable position of not being able to afford services that would cost substantially less if there were insurance parity. The obvious answer is to mandate insurance coverage of mental illness.

However, before we gloat over having found such an obvious solution, let’s deal with why insurance companies do not already provide this coverage. First of all, it’s expensive. Rates will have to go up to provide this coverage, even if only a small percentage of the covered individuals need it. And since, as the saying goes, things are tough all over, this means that more employers will opt for cheaper, less comprehensive coverage for their employees, or that more employees will decide to take their chances with no coverage. The great irony is that these people might well end up on the new, improved, reduced mental health benefit Medicaid.

The other reason for the lack of coverage is buried decades ago. There was a time when mental health coverage was abused by authority figures, parents, and mental hospitals. A trouble maker could be labeled mentally ill, and taken out of the picture for a while. The hospital was happily compliant, as long as the insurance company paid up. It was the 80s version of boot camps for troubled teens, and it wasn’t a new phenomenon then. Insurance companies decided that it was easier to drop the coverage than to sort out the fraud from the actual necessary care.

Getting medical help to the mentally ill is a good thing, but we must tread lightly in how we provide it.

This morning I read an article entitled “GOP taking aim at health insurance paid by employers.” Let me save you some time, it’s another Ownership Society bit of propaganda, stating “they want to erect a system in which workers, instead of looking to employers for health insurance, would take personal responsibility for protecting themselves and their families: They would buy high-deductible “catastrophic” insurance policies to cover major medical needs, then pay routine costs with money set aside in tax-sheltered health savings accounts.”

Now, don’t get me wrong. I feel that traditional health insurance drives up costs by, among other things, directly short-circuiting market forces. Most people have no idea what their health insurance costs, because it is paid for by their employer. There is no ability, let alone incentive, to try and get a better deal. This GOP proposal largely addresses that problem, although I must admit some amusement that the party of the Supply Siders is proposing a Demand Side solution to the problem. The benefits of this idea are not only that people would be in control of their own medical and health insurance expenses, but also that it would limit the medical expenses that have to be funneled through the overhead (read: unnecessary added expenses) of the insurance company, and that Doctors would actually get what they bill in a timely fashion. Win-Win, so far.

However, there is a bit of this puzzle that is missing, and it can be fixed with a little change of wording on the 1040. Scoll down to the instructions for lines 28 and 31. You can probably get them on one screen together. Line 28 allows you to deduct personal contributions to a Health Savings Account, unless your employer contributed. Oh, yeah, and you need another form. Line 31 allows the self-employed to deduct health insurance premiums.

Change that line so health insurance premiums are deductible, period, without having to itemize, and we might just have a plan to rein in costs.

Of course, this still doesn’t do a darn thing for 45 million Americans who don’t have health insurance at all, mainly because they can’t afford it. They won’t be able to afford this proposal either.

In closing, by the time I finished watching this video clip of Jon Stewart commenting on a Good Morning America interview with the CEO of WalMart, an interesting question came to mind. Why does the CEO of one of the biggest companies in America so rarely appear on America’s number one business news channel, CNBC? (Apparently he was on January 13, but strictly to talk about how they will counteract perceptions, probably to say the exact same things he said on GMA. I can’t tell because I run an “unsupported operating system.”) Maybe because Mark Haines wouldn’t be as nice as Charlie Gibson.