The Tin Lizard

Insurance Equality

Equality of the sexes, equal pay for equal work, women in the military (if they want to be there) -- these are all fine goals, and we're getting closer to achieving them all the time.

But there are areas where the question of fairness needs to be examined closely.

One such case, apparently, is long term care insurance.  Currently, and even after ACA is fully implemented, LTC insurers are free to charge women more than men.  So, there have been complaints that it's unfair to do so. 

But wait - lots of statistics prove that women on the whole live longer than men, and ultimately are more likely to actually use long-term care benefits (because in living longer, they are less likely to have a loved one remaining to provide them in-home care).  Shouldn't those who can statistically be shown to use more of a coverage be expected to pay more for the likelihood of a larger payout, on average?   After all, that's the principle of actuary science: premiums are set based on the odds of payout. Are hormonal male teenagers getting automobile liability insurance for the same cost as 60-year-old married women?   

It has been noted that in the health insurance field, the ACA will pretty much prohibit companies from charging women higher premiums than men.  That's because health insurance will operate under a different principle:  the costs of insuring everyone - young or old, male or female, sick or healthy, are pooled so that everyone can pay the same.  In this model, to be frank, those who consume less health insurance help pay the freight for those who pay more.  Medicare works the same way.  This alternate arrangement has been widely accepted because it helps mitigate the costs of catastrophic care for those who need it, and we consider that the entire society benefits from a healthier population.

The article linked above is missing a point here:  Long term care is a hybrid of health and life insurance, but it seems to me more of a life insurance product.  That's why ACA doesn't encompass it. I'm sure we'll eventually progress to the point where LTC can be sold to men and women at the same price.   Until then, though, it's unfair to suggest that different rates for men and women are unfair.

Europe Outstrips US In Privacy Protection

An Austrian student is reportedly gearing up to challenge Facebook's privacy policy (which if you're familiar with Facebook, you realize is "no policy at all"). 

The case brings home to me how different are concepts of privacy in the U.S. and in Europe.  While we may believe we're dedicated to privacy here, in fact Europe is far ahead of us in law and regulation that protects privacy.  Living in Germany 20 years ago, for example, I learned it was illegal to have a second telephone in your house from which listening in was possible.  As soon as anyone picked up a phone anywhere in the house, all other instruments on that line would go dead. 

Here, the basic assumption underlying privacy doctrine is that information about you is not generally protected unless you take specific steps to deny its use.  And who really reads those long, turgid agreements that you click on when you sign up for sites like Facebook?  So it's quite possible for a company, organization, or individual to amass private data on nearly anyone and use it in any way they see fit. 

A few years ago when I was more active on eBay than I am recently, I accidentally discovered that it's possible to see a bidder's record -- not just "feedback" on reliability/honesty, but a full listing of items he/she has bid on in the past, amount bid, and the like.  I was pretty sure most people didn't realize this information about them was available (I know I wasn't).  I told eBay about my discovery, pointing out I thought it was a violation of that other bidder's privacy  The response, from some half-baked customer service rep was to ask what I had to hide.  Well maybe nothing, really, but I don't see why a bidder against me should know about every bid I've made in the past, nor do I expect to be able to find such information on him.

It appears to me that privacy doctrine in Europe is the opposite:  Your information isn't presumed to be available to, or shareable by, others unless you specifically opt in to allow it.  That seems to be what the Austrian contender is arguing.  It's a far more protective concept of privacy.  It's what we should work toward.   

Scammed If You Do, Scammed If You Don't

Two interesting items appeared in my Sunday paper this week.  The first related to financial crimes against seniors, and how to help the oldsters who are near-and-dear to you keep from being victimized by them.

It's a pretty good article, well worth a read if you have aging parents to protect, or are yourself getting into the senior category.  One interesting finding was that nearly 80% of cases involving theft, embezzlement, or misappropriation from unwary seniors is perpetrated by a family member. 

I offer one caveat:  The list provided here of tell-tale signs that someone may be being scammed needs to be taken with a grain of salt.  One of them, for example, is that the senior may complain that a care-giving or helping relative is taking their money in one form or another.  Of course that's possibly true - IF the person in question is fully in control of all his faculties.

However, in my experience it's not unusual for a senior to make such an accusation against someone who is doing nothing wrong at all.  As old age turns to dementia, Alzheimer's, and other mind-bending afflictions, seniors tend to grow cantankerous, suspicious, and even paranoid.  They can and will make such charges against a trusted relative -- a daughter or even a spouse -- who is in fact a careful and honest steward of the funds involved.  So proceed with caution.  Your loved one might be delusional, even if you have no reason to suspect so.

Another article, on the same page, deals with the arrangements that major charitable organizations make with telemarketing firms, under which the telemarketers may take 60, 80, or even 100% of the money they collect.  The charities that make such deals - such as the American Cancer Society and the American Diabetes Association, amng others - say that the percentage of their funding coming from such phone campaigns is minimal, so that they are still maintaining their vaunted claims that "75% of funds" go to helping [whatever cause]. 

But if so, why even conduct such campaigns, if their major effect is to turn the telemarketing firm into a major recipient of charity?  Furthermore, they don't seem to worry much about the violation of trust that's involved here.  I feel pretty certain that if people knew most of what they were giving would go to the telemarketer, they wouldn't give at all.  I wouldn't. 

The Post doesn't draw any parallel between these two articles, but as I see it, here are two sides of the same coin:  Getting scammed by somebody you have good reason to believe you can trust.

 

When Things Go Wrong

Today was one of those days when the news brought quirky reports of things going wrong.  But they were little things, no more than irritating sand in the roller track of life.  And luckily, bigger things were going right enough to allow us to laugh at these smaller nuisances.

Park And Steal Part I: Three parking lot attendants at the Udvar-Hazy Center (an adjunct of the Smithsonian Institution which houses the "large animal" collection of the Air & Space Museum) stole some $400,000 by the simple expedient of unplugging the machine that was supposed to keep count of the number of vehicles that entered the garage.  Then all they had to do was pocket the money paid by those cars that weren't registered, at $15 a pop.  It's sad.  Sad that we spend so much money just to park our cars; sadder that the system was so poorly designed that the means to turn off the controller was so readily at hand to those who could benefit from it.

Park and Steal, Part II:  I suppose it happens in all big cities -- parking is tight, merchants and apartment owners who have lots want to keep them for their own customers/residents.  The latter hire companies to monitor lots and tow cars that try to use them.  But the tow companies effectively go rogue, towing people who shouldn't be towed.   Profits can be high:  In Montgomery County, Maryland (suburb of Washington DC) towers are permitted to charge $168 per tow, and sometimes other fees are assessed.  For those who get caught up in it, these unfair practices are costly and extremely inconvenient.  

Still, I see a system failure here.  Is it really impossible to fix this problem?  Businesses need to hear from customers who park legitimately to patronize a place, then come out to find their car towed; local governments have the power to set an upper limit on how much the towers can charge -- why on earth would it be as high as $168?; and frankly, it's surprising that some of these tow companies' trucks don't experience retaliatory damage.

 

On Morning Fog today:
When Things Go Right

 

Who Is Edwina Rogers, And Can She Separate Church And State?

I had never heard of Edwina Rogers until today.  Not surprising, since I don't much keep up with pop culture or the doings in area "society."  However, today's Washington Post gossip column ("The Reliable Source") describes her as a flamboyant local Republican lobbyist who will soon become head of the Secular Coalition for America, whose aim is to support the separation of church and state.

The Post column is wondering about the disconnect - a Republican working to advance secularism.  But it doesn't seem such a reach to me.  Who better to try to moderate the noisy god-in-government righters and bring them under the mainstream tent?   On this one vector, if she's serious and not an agent-provocateur, Ms. Rogers may be laying the foundation for the GOP to modernize, gain lost relevance, and reaffirm its place in the mainstream. 

 

The Donald's Inconsistencies - Can You Trump This?

A few days ago the country's best-known large investor, Warren Buffett, made a splash by saying it is inherently unfair that he should pay only about 17% in taxes on his huge income, while his executive assistant might pay nearly twice that amount.  Well, who could disagree with that, really?

Answer:  Donald Trump. Really?  Yep, really!  But that's only one of the inconsistencies evident in ABC-News/Good Morning America gossip-monger George Stephanopoulos's interview with Trump this morning.  The interview doesn't seem to be available online yet except as snippets more focused on meaningless points; such is the state of "news" these days.  But look for the transcript later.

On Buffett's pronouncement regarding tax rates, Trump says there a "many different views" on that question.  Later on, he claims that he would be prepared to pay higher taxes, but other rich guys wouldn't.

News flash: Trump believes job creation is the key to economic recovery!  Now, he says (defending Texas Governor Perry's record of creating lots of menial jobs in his state), we're so desperate that it doesn't matter if we create good jobs - any kind of jobs will do.

And he's noticed that American jobs have gone to India and China!  That's very astute. But he omits to say how that happened, or who made the decisions to shift those jobs.  Though he can't bring himself to name the disease (Let's say it for him:  "corporate execs")  he knows the cure:  it's lower taxes on business.  Business will move offshore to flee taxes because corporations are "business machines" and can't be expected to be "patriotic."  

So, doesn't Trump share the views of Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, and the GOP faithful everywhere, that corporations are "people," individuals who have rights like free speech, which enable them to spend freely on political advertising?  Apparently not.  If he did, he would certainly also expect them to be patriotic, and possibly even ethical.  The "answer" to this inconsistency is, of course, that corporations are people when it suits them to be, and not at other times.  (Is anyone hearing echoes about now?  It may be the Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland, shouting in the distance.)

Trump is handy as the poster child of the business genius whose smarts don't serve him so well in other areas.  That makes it easy to take potshots at him.   But he's just the messenger of a much more widely held flawed view of corporate responsibility.

Foraging Afoul Of The Law

The New York Times reported yesterday about the growth of -- and efforts to curb -- foraging for food plants (or even fish and turtles!) in New York's Central Park.  It seems the movement has got a bit out of control, as more people have taken to removing things from the park for their dinner.

Admirably noble-savage though it may be, I have to side with city officials on their efforts to crack down.  Foraging in this case has another name:  it's called stealing.  It's called poaching, too.  If you sneak over the fence to your neighbor's yard to grab a watermelon or a few tomatoes from her garden, that's theft.  In a public park, if you pull up watercress, or mushrooms, or net a fish from a pond, that's theft - multiple counts, since the owners in this case are the entire citizenry of New York City.   Add to that charges of vandalism, because the park can be ravaged by such raids, and you see why public officials have good reason to increase enforcement efforts.

Foraging isn't new.  In the midwest, at least, it used to be accepted practice.  My mother had a favorite patch of wild asparagus she used to stop at in the spring.  My father-in-law used to gather watercress from nearby streams.  No one thought much about stopping alongside the road to pluck a few wildflowers.  But times have changed, and we now understand (some of us do, anyway) that there are too many of us gol-durned people in the world to make it possible for everyone to "forage" without destroying our environment. 

Unfortunately for foragers, I suspect there's very little land anywhere anymore where their pursuit would be technically and strictly legal.  Everything is owned by somebody.  There may be spots along country roadsides where no one objects; there may be large plots of private land where an owner might even give permission (especially if the foraging is limited to certain sorts of invasive species or troublesome plants); but by and large, foraging these days depends on taking something that isn't yours.

As an alternative perhaps today's foragers could get the same thrill out of scavenging in garbage cans.  Almost universally, objections are unlikely unless the searcher leaves a mess; a real service is provided, waste is prevented, and the forager gets what he seeks - free food. 

Does Church Save Marriages?

An interesting item in Saturday's Washington Post explores research done by Christian groups suggesting that Christians who attend their church regularly have much lower divorce rates than professed Christians who do not take their religion quite so seriously.  This finding contradicts more general data that concludes divorce rates are the same for people who identify themselves as religious and those who don't.

Thus the question in the title of the article, "Can Being Christian Save Your Marriage?"   (Sorry, the item is not available for linkage right now: look for it on the Post's website later). 

I'm perfectly willing to believe that those who attend church regularly would have lower divorce rates than others.  It would be surprising to me if that were NOT the case.   After all, if you take religion seriously and attend church regularly, then you've self-selected as the kind of individual who's more likely a rule-follower, who looks to others for spiritual guidance, who might endure adversity with more equanimity, who accepts that an external framework of behavioral dos and don'ts holds authority over your life. 

The traits of the frequent-attenders aren't intrinsically bad, of course.  (Except to the extent that some are so overinvested that they might take seriously a churchman who turns a blind eye to abuse and urges his parishioner to tough it out.)  However, there are people who share these characteristics without necessarily rushing to church every Sunday; and others who share the attitudes but attend different, non-Christian forms of worship.  I'm betting that those groups also have lower divorce rates. 

Then there are "the others," those who don't identify themselves as regular church-goers, who may feel more competent to make their own moral, spiritual, and relationship choices, or who don't feel hemmed in by a one-size-fits-all code.  Many such people have long-lasting marriages, but it's only to be expected that this group would opt for divorce more often.

The likelihood of divorce depends on many factors, including knowing before you marry what kind of person you are, andwhat you truly want in a partner, as well as such unpredictable variables as whose path crosses yours in life, and what changes may occur in your spouse as he/she matures.  It doesn't depend on whether you go to church, but it may depend on whether you're "churchy" by nature.  Hunters and military personnel on average probably know more about weapons than other segments of the population; this might make them gravitate naturally to membership in the NRA, but it's not the NRA that makes them weapons experts.

As for the question in the article's title, it's like so many of these questions posed in the "style" or "modern living" sections of newspapers and websites:  It's backwards.  Going to church won't help save your marriage; but being the sort who's more heavily invested in the commitments you make may make you more likely to attend church.  

Help For The Holidays - Amazon's Return To Its Roots

Amazon.com is said to be developing software that would reduce the amount of returned merchandise by enabling people to block gift orders from certain recipients, or to prevent certain types of gifts from ever being delivered.  The cited example is the sewing kit from Aunt Millie, who might mean well, but whose gift would never be used by her nephew, who might choose to put Aunt Millie on his "no gift" list and get a credit, or select something else.

This idea has already elicited commentary from some quarters as being cruel, impolite, or antisocial.  I understand those complaints, but mores do change over time.  Just as no one under 50 thinks it necessary to "RSVP" to an invitation any longer, and a post on Facebook is rapidly replacing the Christmas card, there's no doubt the idea of heading off gifts you don't want is likely to catch on, at least with a segment of the public.

I sort of like the idea in the abstract.  Think of the trouble it could save in receiving the unwanted item and getting it packaged up, returned, and credited, not to mention the costs of return shipping.   It's intriguing for someone like me -- at this point in my life, most of my needs are met and I often have trouble thinking of something when a relative asks what they can buy me -- to have the possibility of converting all gifts to a spendable credit (assuming that's an option). On the other hand, maybe I'm just fortunate, but as I try to think of someone whose name I would put on a don't-send-it list, I can't think of anyone.   

The system would have other clear drawbacks.  The service would supposedly be anonymous, but even so, it would likely complicate your later communications with Aunt Millie.  And think about missed opportunities:  What if the gift were a book by an author you'd never read but might love; or an introductory training session for skydiving, which might have become your life's passion if you had tried it?  Finally, we already have other ways to accomplish the same thing, such as wish lists or gift cards.  So on balance, I suspect the appeal of Amazon's new service is real but finite. 

Affinity Cards

A reader of the local column "John Kelly's Washington" complains that the issuance of those little store loyalty cards has got out of hand, (a point with which I'm sure few of us would disagree) and suggests that the answer would be to develop a single card that would "do it all," register our purchases in every place we went.

In fact, this technology already exists, so it may not be so difficult to achieve, if we really want it. 

Do we?  As Kelly points out, the real purpose of the cards is to gather information about your buying habits, your favorite brands, the frequency of your purchases, and such, so that they can sell to you more successfully.  Many consider this an invasion of privacy, and might find the combination of such data from many stores on one card even worse, regardless of whether the data is controlled by different chips and supposedly remains compartmented.  (I predict it wouldn't; if individual stores couldn't access it all, the makers of the cards and the card readers certainly could.)

I'm not much concerned about privacy in this situation, but I do think it's essentially unfair for retailers to use the cards to discriminate against those who don't have them.  In most stores with such cards, you don't get the "sale" price unless you have a card.  Yet stores still publish those big ads, touting those low prices on milk, toilet paper, or ice cream; and those ads are intended to draw in all customers, not only those who already regularly shop at that outlet.  In fact, I'd argue the sale ads are more aimed at drawing in a new customer than an old one.

With that in mind, it seems about the only way around the proliferation of these annoying cards is grass-roots revolt.  Check out without the card; go to the store manager afterward to complain about not getting the discount; and if he/she isn't prepared to rebate, insist on a full refund of your purchase, and go to another store.  A manager who has to deal with 100 or more people a day this way is going to realize very quickly that he can't afford the time; he'll find a better way.  If there's a sale price, everyone should get it.