Defenestrating Thoughts from the Bivouac

The water dispenser at work has two functions:

1. Dispense cold water
2. Dispense hot water

Yet it has three buttons!

So now I have to first select the water temperature (cold is default) and then press another button to dispense the water. Notice, there’s also a light for an indicator of your current selection (green is cold, red is hot).

I thought this was always silly; it’s just unnecessarily complicated. There’s a very simple precedent for this: one blue button (for cold) and one red button (for hot).

And then I saw this next design, which by comparison makes the previous design seem downright brilliant.

This is a combined water and ice dispenser. Look at those buttons in the top right. In the picture they look ok, but when faced with this machine in real life, no one sees those buttons; they just too far away from what the user is looking at.

Now, by using those on and off switches at the top right, you can pick whether it will dispense (1) water, (2) ice, (3) both, or (4) neither.

The buttons at the top right give you the ability to have 4 states, but 2 of them are useless. First, why would a user ever have it in “neither” mode (with both buttons off)? And second, while the “both” mode seems reasonble (“yes, I’d like ice water”), in practice it’s useless. When you try to dispense both, the ice drops into the water, which splashes everywhere and makes a mess.

Again, there’s a simple precedent for this: most refrigerators can dispense 3 things (ice, crushed ice, or water) with just one selection button or slider.

ABC recently ran a fascinating story about the TSA. It’s a great lesson on how not to solve problems:

… undercover TSA agents testing security at a Newark airport terminal on one day in 2006 found that TSA screeners failed to detect concealed bombs and guns 20 out of 22 times. A 2007 government audit leaked to USA Today revealed that undercover agents were successful slipping simulated explosives and bomb parts through Los Angeles’s LAX airport in 50 out of 70 attempts, and at Chicago’s O’Hare airport agents made 75 attempts and succeeded in getting through undetected 45 times.

So in the government’s own tests, the TSA failed to detect a bomb or a gun nearly 70% of the time!

[Department of Homeland Security Inspector General Clark Kent] Ervin said a combination of factors is likely to blame for the persistent failures on the part of screeners. Low pay, poor training, and the monotony involved in watching bags pass through x-ray machines are a recipe for trouble, Ervin said.

Apparently it’s hard to find folks that are good at screening the bags as they go through the x-ray machine. So then, how does the TSA solve it?

TSA Chief John Pistole told ABC News that the poor performance during undercover tests helped convince him that airport screening needed to get that much tougher — and a desire to do better helped give rise to the controversial new regimen that includes enhanced pat-downs and back-scatter machines that can see beneath a traveler’s clothing.

So, if I’m reading correctly… the TSA is unable to screen bags properly, so they started pat-downs on people!

It’s amazing how literally the words “security theater” apply here.

We saw this sign in Zurich. I know things in Zurich are expensive, but I didn’t expect prices to go up during a sale.

“HPV: Pass it on.” And there’s even supporting imagery to emphasis the point.

“2 McNuggets for $4.99″? That’s a bit more than usual. Maybe the sign was intended for the Zurich locations?

You probably reacted to this post’s title with a “Well, duh!”. But the extent of the unhappiness is very surprising:

• Only 21% of voters nationwide believe that the federal government enjoys the consent of the governed (the Declaration of Independence posits that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed”). (Source)
• A majority of Americans (56%) say the federal government poses an immediate threat to freedom of ordinary citizens. (Source)
• A big majority of likely voters  (63%) believe that it would be better for the country if most incumbents in Congress were defeated this November. (Source)
• A vast majority of Americans (75%) are angry at government’s current policies. (Source)
• Only 11% of all voters now think the government spends taxpayers’ money wisely. (Source)
• A vast majority of Americans (83%) say the size of the federal budget deficit is due more to the unwillingness of politicians to cut government spending than to the reluctance of taxpayers to pay more in taxes. (Source)
• A majority of voters (58%) think that if Congress raises taxes to reduce the deficit, Congress is more likely to spend the money on new programs. (Source)
• A majority of Americans (61%) favor a law that would limit the amount of taxes paid to state, local and federal governments so that no one would pay more than 50% of their total income in taxes. (Source)
• 45% of voters think that a random group of people selected from the phone book would be better than our current Congressmen. (Source)
• A majority of voters (59%) believe that cutting taxes would create more jobs than even more government spending. (Source)

The first two polls really shock me. Only 21% of voters think the government currently has the consent of the governed?!? And most people think the government is a threat to our freedoms?!?

The rest of the polls show that people are quite angry at Congress for wasting their money and passing bad laws. They want fewer taxes and less spending. They also think that all incumbent Congressmen should be replaced.

It’s unclear how this anger will manifest itself. Congress doesn’t seem to understand the anger and is seemingly content to keep doing business as usual: more spending, more payouts to special interests, and more taxes wherever they can sneak it in.

When November rolls around, I think we’ll see a lot of incumbents replaced, but this will be limited because Americans tend to think, “my guy is good, those other guys are the problem”. And given that we have a two-party system, the choice still comes down to “Tweedledee vs Tweedledum”. Real change will probably take a bit longer, since it will take a while before we have a real 3rd party alternatives or a massive restructuring of an existing party.

Yesterday a guy in Texas set fire to his house and then flew his plane into a Federal Building. His suicide note states that he is very angry at the government and wants the people to violently overthrow it. For some reason, the government is refusing to call this terrorism.

Let’s take a look at his suicide note:

I choose to not keep looking over my shoulder at “big brother” while he strips my carcass, I choose not to ignore what is going on all around me, I choose not to pretend that business as usual won’t continue; I have just had enough.

…

I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. … violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer.

…

I am finally ready to stop this insanity.  Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well. (Source)

The official government definition of terrorism is “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.”

Lets check the criteria:

• Premeditated – yes
• Politically Motivated – absolutely
• Violence – definitely
• Against noncombatant targets – yes
• Perpetrated by a sub-national – yup

So why is he not a terrorist? The only reason I can think is that guy who did it isn’t a brown-skinned guy with a funny sounding name and a turban.

To summarize: “A man flies his plane into a federal building trying to kill innocents and hoping incite people to overthrow the government. But he’s white, so he’s not a terrorist.”

Dave Barry writes an annual “Year in Review”. I thought 2008′s review was amazing, but 2009′s review managed to top it. It starts with this:

It was also a year of Change, especially in Washington, where the tired old hacks of yesteryear finally yielded the reins of power to a group of fresh, young, idealistic, new-idea outsiders such as Nancy Pelosi. As a result Washington, rejecting “business as usual,” finally stopped trying to solve every problem by throwing billions of taxpayer dollars at it and instead started trying to solve every problem by throwing trillions of taxpayer dollars at it.

And then:

In an alarming technological development, hackers shut down Twitter, leaving a desperate and suddenly vulnerable America with no way to find out what the Kardashian sisters are having for lunch. The Federal Emergency Management Agency urges the nation to “remain calm” and “use Facebook if you can.”

And finally my favorite:

Also, as the year draws to a close, the Centers for Disease Control releases an urgent bulletin warning of a new, fast-spreading epidemic consisting of severe, and in some cases life-threatening, arm infections caused by “people constantly sneezing into their elbow pits.”

It’s well worth the time to read the whole thing. :-)

If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, then the “no denial for pre-existing conditions” clause in the current healthcare bill is sufficient to pave a 12-lane superhighway.

Prohibiting insurers from denying coverage based on a pre-existing medical condition is a very noble-sounding idea. But it’s as naive and myopic as the idea of eliminating poverty by giving everyone a million dollars and a pony.

To understand why, we need to think about how insurance actually works. Let’s look at auto insurance. For example, Crissy and I pay around $100 per month to have $500,000 of coverage per incident. It’s very unlikely that either one of us will ever cause that much damage in an accident, but if we did, it would financially catastrophic. So, we voluntarily buy insurance even though we don’t really expect to ever collect.

The insurance company collects $100 premiums from lots of people and pools the money so that a large sum of money is available if the low-probability event happens to one of us.

The system works since people pay small sums to protect against a low probability event.

If you wrecked your car yesterday and bought insurance today, would the insurance replace your car? Of course not. You would be asking them, “How about I give you $100 and you give me $25,000 to replace my car?”

Basically, you’re asking them to charge you the small premium of low probability event, even though the event already happened. You’re just asking for free money.

The same holds true for healthcare. If we pass a law that says you can’t be denied for pre-existing conditions, then people will just wait until they are sick and then buy insurance. The latest proposal from Congress has a penalty if you don’t hold insurance, but the penalty is a measly $750/year. So healthy individuals would still wait to buy insurance until they need it.

In this world, every policy holder will be filing claims. Which means every customer will be saying, “How about I give you $100 and you give me $25,000 to replace my car?” and the company will be required by law to say yes. The law essentially dictates that private companies have to give you free money to pay for your medical expenses.

In this system, all the companies will either go out of business or raise their rates drastically. And the whole private sector of insurance providers would collapse.

And though the government will claim this is a “market failure”, it should be clear that the cause is government meddling.

Once the private sector is gone, all we’ll have left is a government “single payer” system. And despite the touted theoretical benefits of a “single payer” system, does anyone actually believe that the same bureaucrats that brought us the the TSA, FEMA, the DMV, and the IRS can run a nationalized healthcare system that is cost-effective and also provides high quality care?

The sad thing is that politicians are using the “pre-existing condition” issue to distract people from the real problems: government bans of insurance competition, out of control malpractice lawsuits, and government subsidies that forced us to have a “3rd party payer system”.

Remember, a single-payer nationalized system has rationing by definition. Anytime something is provided for free, it is rationed. Every existing single payer system in the world and every single US government program is rationed. This includes Social Security, Medicare, Cash for Clunkers, $40 vouchers for digital to analog converter boxes, welfare, subsidized CFLs, tax credits for hybrids, and so on.

There’s no way anyone can claim that healthcare would be any different.

Finally, while I shouldn’t have to say it, I’m all for fixing healthcare. I’m just against the ideas coming from Washington. Those plans won’t make things better; they will make things much, much worse. If you’re interested in learned why and how to really fix healthcare, check out my earlier posts on this topic:

• The root causes of our healthcare problems
• How to fix healthcare
• Some closing thoughts on healthcare – I guess these didn’t turn out to be “closing” thoughts :-)
• Healthcare reform and Corporatism

This article on healthcare “reform” from a couple weeks ago is fascinating in a rage-inducing sort of way:

WASHINGTON — A measure to allow the importation of cheaper prescription drugs from Canada and some other countries fell short in the Senate Tuesday night, but lawmakers were working on other ways to squeeze concessions from the pharmaceutical industry.

So our Senators had to ask the drug companies if Americans could have permission to buy medicine from non-American companies.

A free people should be able to voluntarily buy goods from whomever they want. The ban on importing drugs is nothing more than corporate welfare thanks to the industry’s liberal bribing of our Congressmen.

The drug companies claim that safety is an issue. But an amendment to allow importation of medicine if it has FDA approval was voted down in the Senate as well, which means the concern about “safety” isn’t valid.

I know we’re told that our economic and political system is Capitalism, but it’s very untrue. Sadly, we really have a system of Corporatism, where companies essentially run the government and write the laws. Heck, even Michael “I hate Capitalism” Moore agrees.

In this case, American pharmaceutical companies bought Congress and got a law passed that makes it illegal to buy products from their competitors. And it can be even more blatant: sometimes companies just get big piles of taxpayer money. A study that shouldn’t surprise anyone found that banks that spent more on lobbying were more likely to get bailouts.

An obvious, simple fix for healthcare is to let Americans voluntarily buy medicine from whoever they and their doctor feel is best. This alone with save Americans over $8,000,000,000 a year! But it’s not on the table; Congress doesn’t work for the people, Congress works for wealthy and powerful corporate interests.

But, don’t lay all the blame on the companies. The majority of the blame should be on our leaders in Washington. If they weren’t for sale in the first place, then they couldn’t be bought.

Merry Christmas everyone! As my Christmas gift to all of you, here are two very entertaining and highly annoying Christmas videos:

(Source)

(Source)

And Happy New Year! :-)