My policy of the most important thing that happened to me may bore you, but I see that the co-pay portion of my prescriptions has almost doubled. From $25 to $45. No doubt this is in the fine print somewhere, but people don’t stop being ill at midnight December 31st. This means my share goes up from $90 to $137 per month. Yet, my premiums haven’t changed. This is the type of nonsense that causes folks like me to seek alternatives, and pisses off people like them because I always find one. Next week I contact Julie to see if it’s cheaper overseas.
I empathize with the insurance people that prices are high. But the medical profession regularly gets together to keep them high. Anti-trust be damned, insurers should fight fire with fire. Maybe they already are, like what do I know about the insurance industry, but one thing I know for sure is they are vastly overpaying for everything and not apparently doing anything about it. If I was there, I’d get together with my buddies and simply refuse to pay for any medicine that costs more than 50 cents a pill no matter what it does. So, a few may die to ease the suffering of the remainder, but what is wrong with that? Happens all the time.
If you’ve read this far, you probably strongly agree or disagree. So here is my philosophy on the subject (so I can see how I once felt when things eventually go wrong for me, ha!). Now, nature has a way of weeding out the weak. There are some conditions meant to end with the death of the host. Nature over-produces to the degree that some experiments must end in failure. Man, the creature that can alter his enviroment, can artificially preserve life, and I think that is where the quality of life issue comes in. I’m no expert on the details at that level, but I am 100% sure of the details at financial level. Should society be allowed to any degree to pass on costs to others? Careful here, if your reply shows any kind of vested interest, you will not be listened to.
Take this example. The airlines offer special meals. What is my stance on that? First of all, yes, I have a strong opinion justified by the large segment of my annual budget that goes to air travel. Isn’t that a vested interest? No, because I am speaking for myself, not someone I know or am related to. There are two sides to the special meal coin. One: of course, let the guy have any meal he wants, it’s absolutely none of my business. As long as he pays the full differential cost of having that meal. Two: But let not the airline or anyone pass one cent of the cost of that “special meal” on to me, either directly or indirectly through a ticket price increase. Then it becomes my business. Not one billionth of a cent to cater to someone else’s religion, health problem, preference or tradition. On principle, not one zillionth of a cent. Nothing. Got it?
The same with other social issues. I would never prevent anyone from paying their share of anything they want or believe in. I draw the line when they try to compel others. We already have sickening tax laws that do that. And I mean compel in any way, including merely noting someone’s name is not on a list, type of thing.
I had my fill of that nonsense at the phone company. They used to have a person dress up like a supervisor come around a little early on payday just before Xmas, and hand you an envelope that looked exactly like your paycheck. It was a charity form to donate part of your pay to their cause(s). An hours pay, a days pay, etc. by payroll deduction. The form had your name, address, phone, social security number and birthdate on it (what is known by law enforcement as ‘positive identification’).
Then they would stand nearby watching your group, allowing no time to talk or think things over. Par usual, a few of the more guilt-ridden and weaker members of the group would loudly announce they were giving the largest chunk, a week’s pay. Now there are several necks craning to see how the others act. Me, I threw the form back at the bastard and said he could go screw himself before he’d pull such a stunt on me. Furthermore, I gave my ID for the purpose of getting the job, not so numbskulls like him could use it to pull off this brand of begging. Take my name off your list, not only is the answer no, I don’t want to be bothered telling them no again in the future. But very few people have such social courage.
I was, alas, the only one, although afterward many others admitted they’d had the same feeling for years, but were embarrassed into saying nothing. You see, the form had to be returned. If you gave pay, that was recorded. If you gave zero, it was their intention to keep that on record as well. I grabbed the form back out of his hands and put it in the shredder. He had a conniption fit. I clapped at his performance. Now, all this boils down to one thing – keep your nose out of other peoples affairs. Your cause is not everyone’s concern. And it is not people’s duty to listen to your sales pitch. Did I tell you late last year I was walking into the planetarium when the bloodmobile lady asked me if I wanted to donate blood? I said no. She yelled after me “Why not?” (Unfortunately there were too many people around for me to give her a swift kick in the ass.) I complained to the planetarium but they said there was nothing they could do but record the complaint along with the others, and there were many. It’s sad when the bleeding hearts get the upper hand.
There’s a movie on Channel 33. It’s a sixties thing by the look of the clothes and haircuts. There is a line I liked. “There are two places they send people who are having too good a time. Church and prison.” I like that, plus I don’t think I’ve seen this movie before. That’s rare. I keep thinking it’s that one about the psycho on the run who crawls through the motel window just as a john is killing the hooker who just went through his wallet and just discovered he was a preacher and just decided to blackmail him. But that’s not it, only the theme is familiar. So is the plot, the terror trip across the county with a madman who never sleeps, keeps threatening to kill you and swears he only wants you to ‘understand’ him. No, not familiar from the movies, but from Sunday drives with my family. This version is probably called “Hatchet Man”.
So today is a long entry. I didn’t set foot out of the house. That would be sad if this were not Florida and I was missing something out there. So I pored back into the book on crime, “Taking Sides”. It shows you how some people get educated beyond their intellect. The final chapter asks if human rights are basic to justice. Oddly, they found someone who says no, somebody called Vinay Lal. He/she argues that in non-Western societies there are no individuals, everyone is part of some group, thus individuals cannot have rights and therefore cannot be denied such rights! I think the motives Lal must have to hold such a circular view are disgusting below the lowest contempt. Then again, I don’t have an unearned inheritance to protect by getting educated long enough to come up with such lofty nonsense. He further assumes the state has “an agenda to produce conformity”, not of the application of justice, but of people themselves. Where did they find this yahoo?
Now, he does raise other valid points, many of which have not any direct connection to his argument. How come the demonstrators overseas are heroes fighting for rights, but the ones in Los Angles are hoodlums to be arrested? He overlooks that people here already have the right to demonstrate as individuals (example, by voting, although that’s touchy if you are a minority). It escapes Lal that by joining a violent group, they lose individuality and may pay for it if they are the individual who gets caught. Cops with radar use this logic successfully in court every day. He keeps flip-flopping between the big and small picture whenever it suits his immediate point, the fallacy of composition, and thus loses credibility. The fact that the groups or castes (my term) to which he refers are unmistakably composed of individuals is beyond his grasp. It may be that he has never learned to count, I’ve seen it, college grads who cannot spell or count.
There is a more interesting undercurrent in the chapter about ignition interlocks, the device which stops drunks from turning the key. To me it is hilarious, because they make a point that most people already know that is so offensive nobody wants to say it. I’ll get to it, but first their logic: Drunk drivers are totally different than other people, that you can pick them out of a crowd, and they should be singled out for extra punishment. There is some gravity to the theory that the melding of separate images cause mistaken public perceptions, in this case the drunk driver and reckless driver, which in turn causes strange and unworkable solutions. Like ignition interlocks, home incarceration and suspension of driver’s licenses. (“… the vast majority of traffic fatalities involve a single vehicle with a single occupant crashing at high speed.” Cameron, 1977; Zylman 1975)
The point missing, that is the unstated factor, is stupidity. Nobody wants to outright document the accidents in which stupidity is a factor. There is no cure or punishment for stupidity. Was the stereo cranked up to ten? Was the driver on the phone? Were there unrestrained children near the driver? What was the driver’s highest grade of schooling? See what I mean, nobody wants to go there. Yet, if you want cause and effect instead of just correlation, there is your connection. It is stupidity that causes bad judgement in the first place, including being stupid enough to drink too much.
It is a well-written article with many facts. Apparently a “significant” number of alcohol related deaths are from natural causes and suicides. Hmmm. And overseas countries which jail drunk drivers greatly exaggerate the results. Devices which are complicated enough to defeat drunks also defeat elderly drivers. No doubt stupid drivers as well, but nobody wants to go there. Lower insurance premiums for non-drinkers don’t work, there just aren’t enough of them to make a difference. I fear there are not enough non-stupid drivers also.
The solution? The only thing stupid people truly fear is being held responsible for their own stupidity. North American society thrives on pretending you are not stupid. Are you stupid? Not a problem. Just walk through a bookstore and look at the subject material for self-help. Sign up for a Master’s degree on the internet, what could be easier? Get a new haircut and change your image, at least in your eyes. Well, I say, make the stupid accountable for their actions and you will see a vast improvement. You hit them right in the wallet and hit them hard, and make the punishment fit the crime. Like in Finland, where a fine is based on your net worth or income. (Apparently some Finn got a $92,000 speeding ticket on this one.) Rather than check stops, have the police follow the dude for a while and document all the stupid mistakes he makes. This would also prevent the police abuse of check stops, and yes, unreasonable search is a severe problem. The police could only investigate traffic problems here, not run national searches, the reasonable cause constraint.
This will work, because only pretending to be “not stupid” cannot be projected very far, usually no more than the length of a boardroom. From several car lengths back, stupidity is both obvious and constant. Stupid people do everything stupid and do it often. The most common form of automotive stupidity is inattentiveness. You notice it every time the light turns green. Just think how effective this near natural ability could be once the cops get trained. Think of the plea bargaining, the honor of a lesser charge because you admit being an ignoramus and not merely some garden variety cretin. Tailgating is automatic moron, sharing socially a slot with bank manager. Eating while driving is the low 90s, etc.
Which brings me to another topic. Florida and Canada are breeding grounds for geniuses. Everybody there is related to somebody with an IQ of 180, I hear. Yet nobody in either place seems to know what an IQ is. They are unaware that if the whole world got smarter, or dumber, the average IQ would still be 100. Except for schools that want you to pay extra to teach your children, their “average” score is 120 and a huge chunk of your money. May I say, in my life I have met people with IQs of I would guess between 95 and about maybe 107. With an IQ of 95, I’ve read that some people can be trained to feed themselves, but tying shoelaces is out of the question. Apparently chimpanzees have an IQ of 65. Going up, at 105 you are the upper limit of ordinary, a doctorate degree in anything you want is a breeze if you have the time and money.
I’ve met two people I think rate a 107. One physics professor and a kid who got through medical school in record time who was in my scout troop. I’ve also met individuals with incredible mental abilities on one subject that would not effect an IQ test. Some people think I have a high IQ with languages. This is not so, I simply grasped the concept of Indo-European grammar a wee bit better than normal. I cannot speak any language except English, but I quickly notice the difference in grammatical structures. This is a far cry from speaking another tongue, but I can see it might impress some people. I also happen to know an awful lot about World War II, and a lot of good that does me. I’m now so old people might think I was actually in that war.
