Too Many Things to Talk About!

So, earlier this week I thought I would write yet another blurb about healthcare, given the president’s address to Congress last Wednesday. Then, I read a report about campaign finance reform and the U.S. Supreme Court’s scrutiny of over a hundred years of jurisprudence concerning corporations’ ability to contribute money to campaigns and thought I would write about that. And THEN I read about how medical malpractice reform is cited by some as a key component of cutting health care costs. And again I read about protestors converging on Washington to protest… pretty much Washington itself. (Funniest thing about the article I read about the protest this morning was the difference in the estimated size—the principal organizer referenced “1.5 million people.” The AP and other organizations (not affiliated with the organizers) estimated “tens of thousands.” That’s quite an exaggeration! I think I spot a pattern here…)

So, I’ll take these one-by-one and offer up a few quick observations:

Medical Malpractice Reform

I was frankly a bit dismayed to hear Obama reference medical malpractice reform as an idea from the Republicans that could be incorporated into health care reform, ostensibly to control costs. Typically, when you hear “medical malpractice reform” that means hard-line caps on damages in lawsuits, a sort of brutal slapdown to people who’ve been hurt in my opinion. Such caps are appealing to people who don’t understand the legal system, because there seems to be a simple one-to-one connection: hey, let’s limit recoveries on these lawsuits, and insurance rates for doctors will go down, and maybe costs will go down, too. There are *so* many problems with hard caps on recoveries that it is sometimes difficult to sit down and talk through them all.

The first and I think biggest problem that non-lawyers don’t understand is that caps on damages don’t limit frivolous lawsuits. Frivolous lawsuits don’t go to trial and don’t end up with a big judgment. They get dismissed by a judge on a pretrial motion. Or, if there is enough doubt to go to trial, a jury reviews the evidence and determines whether or not a doctor has committed negligence—that is, screwed up and hurt someone really badly. Thus, a hard cap only limits damages for people who got really hurt as a result of a serious infraction on the part of a doctor, nurse, hospital, etc. E.g., to take the easiest example, “whoops, we amputated the wrong arm! Sorry, we’ll just have to go in there and cut off the right one tomorrow. Too bad you’ll be armless, but hey, mistakes happen, right?” (And yes, this does really happen).

But wait, you say—okay, maybe you don’t say, but let’s assume for the sake of argument that you did—aren’t these caps only on “pain and suffering” damages? Sometimes. That’s the current proposal from some in Congress. You could still get some damages for loss of lifetime income. But let’s take an example where that is not going to help. Let’s say that as a result of a doctor’s negligence, you lose an arm. Ouch! If you’re a high-caliber pianist, you’re likely to get a serious lifetime income award. But what if you’re a financial analyst? Or a customer service rep? It might be inconvenient to you to do your job one-armed, but no one would seriously argue that you couldn’t do it or that it’s going to seriously limit you in your career. You’re not likely to get much for that.

Doesn’t that seem wrong? Seems wrong to me. If someone cuts of someone’s arm (or kills someone, say), there should be financial recourse for that.

Second, does limiting recoveries in medical malpractice cases actually lower health care costs? The assumption is that those savings would be passed along to consumers. It’s also assumed that doctors would no longer practice “defensive medicine,” ordering unnecessary tests and treatments. Sounds reasonable. The problem is, there is no data to back up these claims. In fact, the most recent study I could find cites that medical malpractice premiums represent one-half of one percent (0.5%) of total health care costs in this country. That seems a fair price to pay for legitimately injured people to have some kind of recovery and peace of mind. It also confirms what I’ve understood based on reading I’ve done over the years: premiums have more to do with prevailing interest rates (as a result of insurance companies being big financial companies nowadays) than they do with lawsuits. This just proves that sometimes you have to look deeper, that the intuitive, simple “logical” link is not always the right one.

There is much more to say about this topic, but I’ve got other things on my mind. I hope I’ve at least created a little doubt in the minds of those who think that doctor’s negligence damages caps are the holy grail to controlling health care costs.

Healthcare Reform in General

A couple of months ago, I suggested that the best way to reform healthcare would be to separate the unholy union between heath care insurance and the provision of health care, push insurers back to providing insurance rather than health care plans and require everyone to get catastrophic health care insurance (among other things). I recognized then as I recognize now that it is simply not politically expedient to tell all of America that we are completely blowing up the health care system that you know. You couldn’t change things that dramatically; i.e., you had to be able to say, as Obama said, “if you’ve got your employer-provided health care plan, there will be no change, you can keep it.”

But he did go with the mandate idea and used the same analogy I did: the analogy to automobile liability insurance. (Not that I claim any ownership of the analogy; and, in fact, it serves to show the efficacy of the comparison, because it is so obvious). I think it’s a great analogy, though it’s not perfect, obviously: driving a car is something that you can choose not to do (of course, outside of the northeast, forget it! This is America, we drive cars!). It’s also not a “right,” in the sense that health care is or may be (I’m not going to discuss this concept, but my inclination is that it is a right). But it provides an excellent justification for the mandate. The seat belt law is another good analogy—yes, you give up the “freedom” of being stupid and driving without a seat belt, but your liberty is infringed upon because the cost that saddles the rest of society is too great. Politicians have been so afraid to discuss the requirement of obtaining insurance, but the example is right there for us. I’m happy that Obama showed the grit to lay it out there.

It Was the Supreme Court, Stupid!

Remember the 2004 presidential campaign? There was sort of a sense of low expectations for both candidates from the perspective of what the individuals themselves would do in the office of president. The race became more about the “issues” (or did until Kerry was swift-boated). On one side, you had neo-conservatives playing up the fear of terrorism and, in this writer’s opinion, intentionally conflating the war in Iraq with 9/11. On the other side, you had growing skepticism of the reasons for the war and the foundation and trustworthiness of the sources suggesting the imminent production and use of WMDs (weapons of mass destruction). On one side you had the typical social conservative overweening concern with right-to-life issues, while on the other side you had right-to-choice issues and stem cell research (though that became a bigger deal in 2006). People did not see either candidate for the presidency as an inspirational leader, generally. The argument can be made that the better spin doctors won that election. But that is another topic (and one that I discussed briefly earlier this year when Obama was sworn in).

“It’s the Supreme Court, Stupid!!!” Remember that slogan? A prominent issue was the thought that the next (or same) president would appoint one and possibly two Supreme Court justices. That thought was borne out when Rehnquist was replaced by Roberts and O’Connor by Alito. The replacement of Rehnquist by Roberts as Chief Justice has been considered an ideological wash, though it is still a bit early in Roberts’ jurisprudence to say whether he is more or less conservative than Rehnquist or more or less prone to respect precedent (viz., more or less “activist”). But clearly the replacement of Sandra Day O’Connor, a straight down the middle centrist, with a true conservative in Samuel Alito (together with Antonin Scalia, called without affection “Scalito”) is a difference-maker and one that will last for quite a while, because the next justices to be replaced will be older liberals. Most of the focus of the shift to the right on the Court was on abortion, but we may be about to see a major ruling occur soon on campaign finance reform. Three of the Justices (Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy) are on record as saying they would be willing to reverse a law dating back over a hundred years preventing corporations from donating to political campaigns. The two who will apparently decide whether to overrule the established law will be the two new appointees. Most consider that Alito has made his mind up already, but some wonder whether Roberts, who prefers to rule narrowly, will be willing to sign a sweeping opinion.

I personally think it would be a poor result to allow corporations to donate to campaigns. We are a nation of people, not corporations. Corporations can’t vote and are driven by the single-minded concern of profit for their shareholders. Let’s leave it to human beings to make laws and consider notions of fairness, rights, and more communal concerns like, say, defense and the environment. Don’t corporations already have enough power?

In Conclusion

I was actually going to talk a little bit more about the protestors and seek to deconstruct the virulent anti-Obama movement, but I think that is a bit of a long conversation. It combines parts of a general upset about the state of the economy and unemployment, desperation in one’s own personal life, touches on racism in some cases, and in general is one of those open-ended discursive debates that merits a full discussion in a different entry. If I feel the urge.

Local Racial Politicking: Alive and Well in Atlanta

For this newest entry in our blog, we need look no further than our own fine city of Atlanta, where, this year, a new mayor will be elected in the fall. Some, like me, view this is a chance to get new leadership in the door—to break a power structure that has thrived on cronyism for a long time; to get someone in the mayor’s office who can fix the budget; who can address a recent and disturbing property crime increase; to ensure a water supply for residents, since Lake Lanier is being taken away; and to promote the city in a real way. (The current mayor has been kind of a mixed bag. She’s leaving us all with a faint feeling of disappointment, possibly as a result of very high expectations.)

In fact, things have been trending in the direction of a break from the old guard—which has frightened a group calling itself the “Black Leadership Forum,” which recently disseminated a message written by two Clark Atlanta University political science professors espousing the “Black point of view.” Apparently, the black agenda is—not to put too fine a point on it—all about making sure a white mayoral candidate (of which there is only one) is not elected mayor. Never mind the issues—the important thing is that the mayor is black. Period.

I’m not joking. The link is here.

What’s more, when the authors—the two Clark Atlanta professors—were revealed, they refused to acknowledge that there was anything wrong about what they wrote. Here’s a quote from their joint statement:

The recent suggestion that it is somehow racist to highlight an agenda that promotes the interests of African American voters is patently false. It is a red herring that polarizes debate about electing the most qualified candidate for Atlanta’s next mayor.

The need for African American voter and taxpayer interests to be addressed by all candidates is just as legitimate as it is for candidates to respond to issues raised by the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, Georgia Stand-Up, Central Atlanta Progress or any Neighborhood Planning Unit (NPU). . . We stand by our belief that “a black agenda would enable African American interests to be respected by any administration.” The interests of African American voters are just as legitimate as other Atlanta voters, and the notion that we must apologize for highlighting those interests is absurd.

* * *

Dear Esteemed Professors:

I urge you to set aside your vested political interests for a moment for the sake of progressive racial relations, intellectual honesty, and decency. What you have said is tantamount to what a lot of white people said in the ‘50s and ‘60s. It is racism, pure and simple. You may glean this from a simple exercise: substitute the word “white” for the word “black” and the words “Aryan American” for the words “African American” in your message. Read it back. Think hard. Swallow hard. Then apologize.

Here’s an example:

Original:

“1. The view that the times are too serious to stand on the sidelines is absolutely correct from the perspective of a black mayor at all cost. In fact, if a white candidate were to win the 2009 mayoral race, it would be just as significant in political terms as Maynard Jackson’s victory in 1973.”

becomes:

“1. The view that the times are too serious to stand on the sidelines is absolutely correct from the perspective of a white mayor at all cost. In fact, if a black candidate were to win the 2009 mayoral race, it would be just as significant in political terms as [analogy fails here—but really gosh darn significant].”

I ask you this: what would your reaction have been to a leaked memo promoting “white interests," a “white mayor at all costs” agenda, and the promotion of a unified “white” front in order to tank any and all black candidates? More than charges of racism, which would be true, wouldn’t the greater charge be that such an agenda misses the point? We’ve got a lot of problems in this city. We don’t need another one—racial tension.

Also, please do not confuse a “black agenda” with your own entrenched political interests—you call the government of the city from 1973 on—and these are your own words—a “Machine.” Well, maybe it’s time for this particular political machine to be traded in—cash for clunkers. It’s time for a new political order in the city, a not exactly post-racial order but one that is not driven by race, but by solutions to problems.

I voted for Barack Obama (who is half-white / half-black) because I felt he was the right leader for our country, at the right time, with the right ideas. Why did you vote for him? Because he is “black?” Do you really think that the election of a white mayor today would return Atlanta to pre-1973 race relations? C’mon. We know what it’s about—power, and the retaining of it. Just be honest.

* * *

Probably the most disturbing thing about this whole affair is that this memorandum was propagated by two professors at a college. These are the people who are supposed to open our kids’ minds? Expose them to new ideas? I urge Clark Atlanta University to suspend both of them post-haste. These are not the kind of mind goblins we should be exposing our young people to.

If It Sounds Like an Evil Villain from a Spy Movie Came Up With the Concept...

... It’s Probably Not True
(Or, Some Misconceptions About Health Care Reform)

To counteract the incredible display of horse manure flying about the airwaves, on tv, and being suggested to you by your friends and neighbors, I put together this list of a few misconceptions about health care reform. Note that I am talking about the general gist of the main bills currently on hold in Congress while our representatives are on vacation or being harangued at town hall meetings. Note also that I don’t necessarily agree with all terms—current terms, that is—of the health care bill(s). In fact, in my most recent post, I suggested a few quick reform measures of my own. Nevertheless, the amount of disinformation being broadcast motivates me—no, compels me—to put together this list.

1. The current health care reform bills will produce a system of socialized medicine in this country.

First—no, they wouldn’t. Socialized medicine is the direct control of the practice of medicine by the government. The government employs virtually all medical providers (doctors, nurses) and hospitals and places of care. All citizens receive health care free of charge unless they elect to pay for it privately. Regardless of what you might think about socialized medicine, that is not what Congress is proposing. The bills before Congress propose to achieve a few core objectives: (i) stop health care insurance companies from being able to cherry-pick their insureds; principally, this means that individual policies would be treated akin to group policies. This is very important, incidentally, to self-employed people and small businesses. It would also mean the elimination of the “preexisting condition” exception from insurance policies. Anyone who has been confronted with this form of denial realizes that this is the correct and humane thing to do; (ii) offer a government-subsidized plan to the working poor and lower middle class families (akin to Medicare); (iii) make—yes, make, as in require—the uninsured get insurance (and objective (ii) is very closely related to this objective). The culmination of all three of these principal goals is intended to produce the goal of universal coverage; viz., everyone can get health insurance of some kind in this country.

Second—every time I hear someone shout out “socialized medicine” with that sort of crazy glint in their eye, I wonder: Do they really know what they’re talking about? I don’t think so. I think it’s like we all accused someone of being a Communist back in the ‘80s. I think really it’s a substitute for “bad.” So, what they’re really saying is—health care reform! Bad!

Well, maybe if it’s the wrong kind of health care reform. And maybe socialized medicine would be bad, though the Brits seem to think it’s okay. In any case, that’s not what we’re getting, so this is a misconception and is FALSE.

2. A faceless government bureaucrat will make your health care decisions for you.

Okay. This one makes me smile a little bit, because, I mean… isn’t a faceless insurance company bureaucrat making your health care decisions for you right now? I know that’s the case for us, where my wife and I were prevented from having our second child for a year and a half because of insurance waiting periods. (Needless to say numerous conversations over the years with … wait for it… faceless insurance company bureaucrats trying to get something covered. If you haven’t experienced this yet, just wait—it’s coming, my friend. Unless, of course, health care is completely reformed). Wouldn’t it at least be better if the faceless bureaucrat were a government employee, theoretically working for you, and also subject to review by Congress and our elected representatives?

Also, of course— and here’s the zinger—uhm, no. A faceless bureaucrat would not be making health care decisions for anyone. The healthcare plan “czar” (is anyone besides me getting a little tired of the use of the word “czar” every time we set up a program where one guy is the head honcho? It’s like appending “-gate” at the end of any supposed scandal. Do they have a special course on hackneyed phrases in journalism school?) would be in charge of approving plans proffered by insurance companies who want to participate in the healthcare exchange. Doctors would be in charge. Or, as I prefer to think about it after spending some time in the hospital with my wife following her c-section, patients are in charge.

3. Health care reform will encourage euthanasia of the elderly.

This falls under the category of “if it sounds crazy, it probably is.” I am continually amazed at the capacity for some people to be so gullible and… ingenuous (as in, innocent… not “ingenious,” as in clever). Look, if it sounds like a concept of an arch villain in a spy movie, it’s not likely to be true, okay? A purpose of health care reform is not to kill elderly people. The fact that this assertion even has to be refuted disgusts me. But thanks to people like Sean Hannity and friends, this disinformation is countenanced and given air time. (Much like the “Obama was not born in Hawaii” claims. Complete and utter garbage.)

I was going to call this the “top five” misconceptions about health reform, but it’s late and I’m tired. There is also a certain level of tolerance I have for mentally engaging with and refuting what, seem to me, to be such blatant errors. Where is our independent media? Oh, wait, that’s right, we lost it when Fox started winning the air wars.

My tolerance level and endurance for this sort of thing is also taxed by an undercurrent of dismay and cynicism. These arguments—these outright lies, really—are not the real powers that need to be fought. These misconceptions are propagated by very powerful interests that stand to lose a great deal with health care reform. Insurance companies, certain health care providers, pharmaceutical companies, basically everyone profiting from skyrocketing health care and treatment costs (sellers, not providers for the most part—hospitals and, for the most part, doctors have not seen lasting prosperity from the massive inflation in health care costs over the last 20 years). My dismay and cynicism arise from the fact that the people fighting this battle on the ground for these powerful interests are harming themselves—they have been manipulated and do not even realize it. It’s truly disgusting. With a little money and an ingenious campaign of disinformation, powerful, fortified interests can manipulate people to fight a battle that harms their own interest.

But that’s the nature of the beast in our current socio-economic-political system. There will be no discussion on the merits. Only a Machiavellian power struggle.

We will see a similar event with the global warming bill—already tremendously watered down. When the time comes, I will fire up the ol’ blog. But for now, I shine my blazing beacon of truth on health care reform! And will continue to do so as long as I can tolerate it.

Peace be with you.

A Healthcare Proposal

Healthcare reform. It’s all the rage—except for the fascinating revolt of the middle class playing out in Iran. But I digress.

It’s easy to digress when you’re talking about healthcare, because it’s hard to understand, miserable to confront, and there are so many vested interests filling the airwaves with misinformation, you can almost feel the magnetic radiation bouncing off your skin.

But I’m going to attempt to identify some of the main problems and propose one or two possible solutions.

First, what are the problems? The conservative pundits would have you believe that we have a wonderful field of competition out there—one of the most common statistics I’ve heard George Will, Michael Steele, Lindsey Graham and others on the right cite is that there are “1300 competing providers of health care” out there—as though the sheer number proves 1) competition exists, and 2) that it’s working.

Neither proposition is true. Anyone who has ever had any sort of medical procedure beyond an annual check-up and has received a bill knows that the care they got wasn’t worth what they’ve been charged. Not that the care is bad, but--$500 for 1 hour in a hospital room? $2,000 for a simple ER visit with an xray? There is a hidden cost that is being surcharged to all persons who receive healthcare, especially hospital care, which is directly related to those who cannot afford to pay their bills—usually, the uninsured. This cost is passed on to others who can pay or have insurance. This is not the market in action. This is some kind of strange dance between insurance companies and hospitals and other healthcare providers. And we get caught in the middle. And oh, by the way, insurance companies reap a healthy profit. (At least they did operating in their own industry. Once they started speculating in exotic financial vehicles (insuring credit swaps, e.g.), they started losing money.)

So, regardless of whether we have some sort of faux competition among health insurance companies, the market itself is not currently working. Not existent, actually, because we have this weighty anchor pulling us down, inflating our costs threefold or more.

What’s more, we have moved to a strange confused view of health insurance versus health care. Insurance is a contract for money payable upon the occurrence of certain events. Perhaps one of the purest examples of insurance is auto insurance. You don’t think you will get in an accident (your fault or otherwise) but you better have insurance to cover the risk that you will, otherwise you will end up with a large sum out of pocket. In fact, states require auto insurance, because too many people were causing accidents and did not have the means to reimburse the damages of the person they injured—medical bills or automobile repairs.

Compare this to health insurance. You have a plan that has certain benefits. You pay a premium, as with auto insurance, but certain in-network procedures and certain medications are completely “free,” while others aren’t. Certain coded procedures are allowable, while others are not. These days, you’re not really buying insurance, but a health plan with insurance-like features (like a total pay-out limit). And, because it’s insurance and not a health plan, meaning you have to make a claim against the contract you’re paying for and the insurance company has the right and does carefully scrutinize the treatment (and carefully crafts the language of its policies to limit payouts), it’s a crappy health plan.

The current state of things, then, is that (1) we have a broken market for healthcare “insurance” (or healthcare plans) with (2) a hidden and uncontrollable variable linked to the uninsured, and (3) plans that are full of holes and inevitably create an antagonistic process between the claimant (the patient) and the insurance company. Meanwhile, hospitals, and to a lesser extent doctors, are caught in the middle.

How do we fix this morass? Here are some ideas, none of which are mutually exclusive:

1. Government mandate for healthcare insurance. We all hate government mandates, right? Here’s one that would instantly fix a lot of problems: Require all persons in this country to obtain catastrophic health care insurance. That’s right, I’m asking for this invasion in our lives, but for our own good. Much like the requirement for liability insurance for automobiles (which is required in almost every state in the union), the cost protection we all gain from not having to subsidize someone’s $1 million treatment far outweighs the impairment of our liberty. Catastrophic health care insurance is pretty self-explanatory: it insures against high-cost medical events. Essentially, it is very high deductible health insurance. The mandate I would be looking for is something on the order of requiring all persons to obtain a health insurance plan with a $25,000 (or less) annual deductible. It should be very cheap, because a person rarely spends more than that amount in a year. Proviso—I’m not sure where the number should be exactly; we might be a little high or a little low here. But I think an optimal number could be reached. Also, we will still have to have Medicare, because as people age, the cost of even a catastrophic health care insurance policy becomes prohibitive; this is not a unifying healthcare reform effort in the sense that all pieces line up under this one piece of legislation.

A corollary to this idea is that either the government would have to offer insurance alongside competitors to “uninsurable” people; e.g., people like my mother who have had breast cancer or some other kind of disease, probably as an extension of Medicare. Or, the government would have to impose on the insurance industry a requirement that such persons cannot have preexisting conditions held against them. The insurance industry has actually offered this carrot to prevent the current overhaul of healthcare that we’re seeing.

2. Preventive healthcare. A lot of folks are not going to like this one, but we can tamp down a lot of health care costs by providing for free to every person legally in this country (perhaps even illegally, since illegals go to the hospital, too, and drive up all of our costs) preventive care, including annual checkups, vaccines, and routine procedures. This would cause some cost for the government, but I believe that the savings would be greater. These people would also presumably contribute income rather than being sick, and generate tax revenue. Obviously, this is hard to gauge, but I think it’s a fair risk to benefit us economically, and allows us to feel good about ourselves as a society from a moral perspective, because we are taking care of our own.

3. Bar healthcare providers from discriminating against single payers. A lot of small business owners and independent contractors cannot afford a group policy that offers discounted rates. When we go to the hospital, doctor, etc., we sometimes don’t get the negotiated rate. Prevent healthcare providers from engaging in these practices. It unfairly punishes those people who need the most help and create the most jobs in this country.

These are just a few ideas. But the goal should be to get everyone covered, at least for the big stuff, and to control health care costs by engaging in preventive medicine and restoring true market prices. There are many other approaches, including a full-on national health insurance plan. I leave discussion of that for another day, mainly because I have no idea what it would look like in the United States at this point in time. But there is no doubt—none—that we cannot continue to skate along this increasingly steep slope of skyrocketing health care costs and arbitrary (and occasionally immoral) healthcare treatment.

GM Still Doesn't Get It

30.1 Billion dollars. Billion with a capital "B" because it's a huge frickin' number. And it will be wasted. Like the 9 billion before it. And more billions before that in subsidies, non-tarrif barriers to trade, loans, etc.

GM CEO Fritz Henderson says GM has made mistakes. That GM is now going to be a corporation focused on the customer. And with that statement, I know he doesn't "get it" any more than Rick Wagoner got it as he watched GM steadily lose market share while blaming everything except the root cause. He blamed Japanese policy as protectionist and undercutting US competitiveness. He blamed anti-union policies in southern factories. But what Fritz and Rick have never acknowledged is GM simply builds bad cars.

That's right. GM's cars suck. They are unreliable, shoddily built, made with cheap components, and problem prone. From the Cobalt to the Corvette. Any GM car that makes it past 150,000 miles - nothing for a Japanese-built car - is considered exceptional. And when the car breaks, GM frequently fails to stand behind its cars or its warranties. Five years ago, Hyundai built crap cars just like GM, but they stood behind their warranties, and steadily stole market share from GM. Now they build good cars, and are still stealing marketshare from GM.

Consider my own experience. Since I was a kid, the only car I ever wanted was a Corvette. I even remember the first Corvette I ever saw - a two-tone black and silver "C-3." So, when I had the money, I ordered and bought a 2001 C-5 Corvette, Navy blue with black interior. It was beautiful. When I sold it in 2006, it had less than 30,000 miles on the odometer. In that time, I had all four tire sensors replaced, both window motors replaced, the temperature regulator failed (clogged by the "100,000 mile coolant" that coagulates if a car is not driven daily), the seals around the roof tore and ceased to be waterproof (leaked in the rain), the leather on the drivers' seat wore through and 12 of 16 pushrods were found to be bent. The icing on the cake was the poor fit and finish - I could see wires through the dash...

The story behind the pushrod repair explains why GM finds itself in bankruptcy as of 9 AM this morning. Shortly after the dealer's mechanic told me the source of the noise I heard, I was called in to talk to the GM warranty claims agent. I don't remember her name, but I remember the conversation after I was told GM would not pay for the warranty repair. I asked why not. Here is the conversation:

Agent: "Well, we feel it is obvious you have repeatedly red-lined the engine."
Me: "Excuse me?"
Agent: "We have determined because you caused the problem, it is not our responsibility to cover the repair."

To understand the ridiculousness of this statement, consider this: The Corvette redlines at 7500 rpm. In 6th gear, the car would do 90 mph at 2400 rpm. The car would do 90 mph in 3rd gear at 4500-5000 rpm. To "repeatedly redline the engine" I would have had to "repeatedly" downshift from 6th gear to 3rd gear at something like 130 mph - something I never did.

Here's the rest of the conversation:

Me: "So you are accusing me of abusing my car?"
Agent: "We aren't accusing you of anything. We just feel you have exceeded the terms of your warranty." (huh?)
Me: "Amazing. You realize I am never going to buy another Chevrolet?"
Agent: "I am sorry you feel that way."
Me: "I'm sure you do." click.

What I should have said (I've had a little time to think about this since 2002...): "And you realize I am going to tell everyone I know about this and encourage them to not buy Chevrolets?"

And so I have. In 2002, I knew Chevrolet - and GM with it - was headed for the toilet. And why? Simple. They don't build good cars, and then they fail to stand behind their product.

This is the company that is going to "focus on their customers." Sure. I'll believe it when I see it. And I don't expect to see it. But good luck, Fritz. You'll need it. It's just a shame we will all have to pay for it.

Quick Thoughts on the “Tea” (Bag?) Parties

Yeah, yeah, I know. Where have all the posts gone? Perhaps it’s spring fever. Or maybe the fact that it’s not an election year. (Or that I’ve been busier with work. Which is good.) But I have posted fewer blog entries recently. I won’t say I “promise” I will put more together, but I will “try.”

So here’s something now that I’ve been meaning to discuss. All these “tea” parties—which with great misfortune began to be known as “tea bagging” parties… ehhh—on April 15. What was that all about? I think it was about a lot of things, actually. I don’t think it was what many conservative commentators were trying to frame it as, that being some kind of conservative groundswell/revolution for the Republican point of view. As has been written about extensively by others (I promise—go read it if you haven’t already), most of the supporters were not fans of Republicans, either. Some of them even got booed when they tried to sort of preempt the event or earn some political points.

I think the tea parties were a groundswell of sorts, but mainly of the Ron Paul-esque libertarian variety. I think that the economy being in the tank has hurt a lot of people, and many of these people are feeling very poorly used. So they’re mad.

What the tea parties were not about was accuracy. The guys in Boston who threw the tea into the harbor to protest the British Empire’s tax upon the product were, in fact, not represented. A Parliament and king across an ocean were making policy and extracting money from the colonies for their own imperialistic purposes (i.e., war-funding in Europe). They were quite ill-used. So, to make a point, they threw out the tea which was owned by a government-sponsored merchant outfit (the East-India Company) in protest. The people who attended the tea parties circa 2009 voted or had the opportunity to vote. Presumably, their candidate lost. I doubt they would be protesting if they’d voted for Obama, though I suppose I could be wrong. They also are not being taxed more now than they were last year. They’re being taxed less. So, the name for the protest was a bit weak in my opinion.

The hyperventilation about the government suddenly being tyrannous also seems to be quite resoundingly false and misleading. Is the government suddenly a dangerous tyrant because it, on the advice of virtually all economists—the specialists in the field of our capitalistic economic science—is attempting to stimulate the economy with public investment? Because, based on similar recommendations, it is trying to save the financial system? Because it is trying to fix our wildly warped and UNCAPITALISTIC health care system? Because it is attempting to internalize the cost of pollution emissions? These all seem to me to be good purposes for the government to pursue. Indeed, some of these tasks are things that ONLY the government can do, because it requires enormous collective action.

Let me tell you what I think. I think that our government is now LESS restrictive and “tyrannous” because we no longer have a government that thinks it is okay to take people and hold them indefinitely. To torture people. To set up warrantless wiretaps. That refuses public disclosure at all costs and destroys electronic records. That initiates costly wars upon specious evidence with questionable motives. That favors the wealthy at the expense of the poor. That cynically disputes science in order to reward special interests.

I also have a name for those protestors: sore losers. Believe me, guys, back in 2004 I was ready to move to New Zealand. How could the country have re-elected that fool and his bungling outfit? I get it. But I got over it. In part, because I knew that eventually the pendulum would swing, the information would get out there, and we’d see some backlash—like we did in 2006 and 2008.

You lost, your agenda is on the wane and losing steam. I’d try to convince you of the errors of your ways if you’d listen. But I know you won’t. So, I’ll just say, and this should be pretty familiar to you: This is America. Love it or leave it.

It's a bittersweet life

Perhaps it's just because it's late. Perhaps it's because the song has sentimental ties. But the line "you make some money, then you die" has always resonated with me. Song being: Bittersweet Symppony http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx3m4e45bTo -- It's like our capitalistic system is grinding us down, driving our virtues to a simple matter of "well, did you make some money?" It saddens me, everytime I hear it. Yet, I count it among my favorite songs. I think because it speaks the truth, and, as you, my loyal readers know, I appreciate the truth. True, that we are driven by unaccountable forces. True, that the system is NOT fair. True, that those that deserve not are sometimes -- oftentimes-- rewarded.

I believe that is enough for a sad late night posting, don't you?
Happy Easter, all!
D