Checksum Arcanius

When I heard that the $700 billion bailout plan was rejected by the U.S. House of Representatives, I grew giddy. It was wonderful and strange to have that feeling caused by politicians, after the constant disappointment I have become familiar with, especially with the Bush Administration. Dave Reichart, for whom I voted, was one of the gutsy Republicans who defied the Administration to vote no.

Principles are those central tenants a person can fall back on when the going gets tough. One of the principles of the Republican party — at least in theory — is believing in the free market and keeping it mostly free. Admittedly, a lot of people figured this out before me, but it has become apparent to me as well that George W. Bush and his administration generally lack principles, or at least any principles that I can fathom. This bailout package is just the latest,and for me the greatest, indication of this.

Perhaps if the Democrats had shown as much guts back in 2003 as the Republicans just did, we wouldn’t be in this Iraq 2.0 mess? Just a thought.

Of course, as a friend recently pointed out, we’re not out of the woods yet on the bailout package. More votes are likely, and this first one may have just been the “well we rejected it once” vote before it gets tweaked and passed, essentially the same. So get up and write your representatives and senators. Lets leave this thing dead for the long run.

The only thing Bush could do at that point to restore any of my respect would be to veto. Anyone want to guess what the chances of that are?

Initially, I thought that both the driver and the cyclists who assaulted the driver after the driver ran over a cyclist should be charged and tried for the crimes they each committed. I even thought that the cyclists who attacked the car after the incident were really just shooting themselves in the foot, because without the damage to the car, the driver couldn’t have claimed that people were beating on his car before he drove over cyclists. However, based on the hugely biased police report that the Seattle Police Department appears to have no intention of correcting, I have grown pretty certain that even with no damage to his car, the driver would have avoided any charges.

The City of Seattle’s refusal to hold the driver accountable for his actions has, in my opinion, legitimized the vigilantism pursued by the cyclists. The City can’t expect its citizens to shun vigilante justice while the city itself shuns justice altogether. Maybe the cyclists who attacked the driver knew, from previous experience, that the city would not hold the driver accountable, so they knew they had to do it themselves. Or maybe the cyclists were just thugs looking for a fight. Regardless, in my mind, the cyclist’s actions have been justified by a government unable or unwilling to perform its most basic duty.

Here is a very worthwhile article by Brad Templeton about some of the myths we hold about transit. Seeing empty buses roam around the Eastside most of my childhood, I always suspected that this was the case, even though it flew in the face of “common knowledge.” Its good to see that I wasn’t so far off in my suspicions.

The same guy also does a brief analysis of walking versus driving, with surprising results.

Well, as it turns out, four people all managed to show up at the wrong precinct at the caucuses, so we all were disqualified — both myself and the alternate are not delegates to the legislative district caucus, although we can still have our names on the ballot to the state caucus (as can anyone); we just can’t vote on those ballots.

It wouldn’t really have mattered anyway, because the precinct we should have been at already had a Precinct Committee Officer (PCO) who is the automatic delegate the the legislative caucus.

When I first received the letter, I was a little pissed about it, but it appears that their reasons for disqualifying me as a delegate were legitimate. I guess this is how politics works — too much of it is about following the little rules and double checking to make sure you’re not missing something.

Oh well. We’ll do better next time.

Ban Guns? 6 Dead in N. Illinois U. Hall Shooting

Or Ban Cars? Car Hits Md. Street-Race Crowd; 8 Killed

Maybe we just ought to ban people?

I took part in my first ever Presidential Caucus today. Since my permanent address is still in Bellevue, I met up with my parents and arrived at Eastgate Elementary’s Gym just before 1:00. We spent a few minutes looking for our precinct among the dozens meeting at the same place. It turns out that we were the first from our precinct to show up, so we sat down with our sign and tried to make heads or tails of the situation. Eventually a fourth precinct member showed up, and we were under way. Since our precinct had no precinct committee officer (PCO), we first needed to elect a Chairman. My mom suggested me, and my Dad and our new lawyer friend agreed. I then appointed my Dad as the secretary, since he was already writing down what was going on.

After some discussion and an explanation of the process, we got down to business. First we nominated delegates. I was nominated, and I nominated Rando, the lawyer. After three calls for additional nominations with no names put forward, we voted. I (somewhat predictably, I guess) received three votes and Rando one. This elected me to the position of delegate for our precinct, with Rando as the alternate.

The process was extraordinarily easy, and, as the title says, I am now a Ron Paul delegate.

Everyone talks about medical expenses spiraling out of control. While the notion is not entirely true for a variety of reasons, it is certainly true that medical expenses — even with insurance — can be very high. Let me first hedge by saying that I am not an expert on this subject. On the other hand, the experts certainly haven’t done us any good in a long time. So let me offer my idea on how to control medical expenses.

About a week after I tore my ACL, I went to the UW Roosevelt Medical Center for an MRI of my knee. At the time, I asked how much it would cost. “That will depend on your insurance,” came the quick, prepared answer. Yes, I pressed, but what about a ballpark? Again, “It depends on your insurance” with a little edge this time. Not wanting a confrontation, I accepted that and went on with it. The MRI itself was almost pleasant — listening to Pearl Jam and laying supine, I almost drifted off to sleep. I soon forgot about it.

Then came the surgery. It seemed so necessary at the time that I didn’t even think about asking the question of how much it would cost. Besides, I had insurance, so I was covered, right? Well, then the bills started showing up.

As it turns out, the MRI and Radiologist’s opinion cost about $1800 — most of it paid for by insurance, but not all by any means. Then there were the other bills. UW Medicine. UW Sports Medicine. UW Medical Center. Hospital Bill. Physical Therapy Bill. Bills for each of the two braces I now possess. A separate bill for the Cryo Cuff (which I thought I paid for at the time with a $95 bill to my credit card, but after much finagling, apparently not). The list goes on and on. I’m not quite sure at this point how much I have paid out (Quicken is my next activity), but it is certainly well above $1000 at this point — most of which I had absolutely no idea was coming.

Had it been fully disclosed what each part of the process would cost before making the decision to go forward, I may have still chosen to go through the process. But maybe not. And this, in my opinion, is why medical expenses are so high — people have no idea what they are getting in to when they go in for a procedure, and the people who might know either don’t know (because it really does depend on the insurance) or don’t care enough to help everyone figure it out.

Take, for example, a convenience store. What if no prices were marked on anything, but everything you put into your basket seems necessary to your health. Then when you check out, no amount is shown. The cashier simply tells you that the store and each supplier will send you a bill later on. Sounds pretty good until the bills start arriving and you find out that you’ve paid $30 for a book on exercise and $300 for a thermos. If this is how most stores worked, then everyone would be paying huge amounts of money for even trivial things. Without the foreknowledge of cost, rational economic decisions cannot be made.

So, my idea is simply this: state all medical expenses up front. Before the patient signs anything saying that he or she will pay, the form should say how much. There are enough paper pushers in every medical establishment to make this happen before the exam or procedure instead of happening only after the procedure as is now done. This way, people know what they are getting into before it is too late, and people can make better decisions about their own medical care.

But it gets better than a go or no-go decision. When prices are stated up front, the customer (like me) can then shop around. If I don’t like the $1800 MRI offered at the Roosevelt Clinic, then I can go down the street to Seattle Sports Medicine and see if they offer it for $1700. Or maybe $600. Who knows? By enabling customers to shop around, up-front pricing introduces market forces to the medical services world in a way that they have not had to deal with in a long time. The competition will force prices down, just like it does between QFC and Safeway. The consumer of medical services will be better off.

While this approach won’t work to lower the costs of products protected by government-granted monopolies (ie, patents on drugs), it will, I believe, reduce the cost of many medical procedures. I would not be surprised by a drastic reduction of up to one half of the current cost. Furthermore, it will let blokes like me know what they are getting into before they get there.