Ron Amundson’s Political Blog

I took a quick look at the 177 page NHTSA-NASA Study of Toyota Unintended Acceleration full report this evening. I had hoped that with NASA involved, it would have been a really hard core report. Sadly, the design of the experiments aspect of it appears to so financially and resource constrained, it seems to raises more questions than answers.

For sure, the obvious things tested for in published standards are ruled out. In addition, the human factors analysis appears well done, albeit such is mostly outside the scope of my expertise. Perhaps the biggest disappointment is the lack of detail provided… yes, its likely written for politicians, rather than EMC engineers, but being NASA, I guess my expectations were a lot higher than reality.

Since I have a number of years in the EMC field, I’ll take a look at section 6.8 My guess is there are likely substantial internal NASA discussions on these factors, albeit they didnt make it into the report.

Sample size:

Six vehicles were chosen for testing, all of which were reported to experience UA… Sounds good, but none of them have the same option set, and the years 2005 and 2006, were skipped entirely. Granted, I am not familiar with Toyotas, but I would certainly expect substantial year to year variation.

Frequency range of radiated susceptibility testing

The frequency range of testing lined up with ISO, Toyota, and NESA standards, and on the outset appear a good thing. However, there is a gap between conducted and radiated susceptibility tests (its a royal pita to test there, standards dont require it, and its rare in todays world to have problems in such an area… but I’ve run into it before (science is no respector of standards)).

Dyno testing

Units were tested on a dyno… and a dyno that can withstand 250V/m radiated fields, without causing distortion in said field has to be a really really cool device. On the other hand, in likely trying to avoid killing the dyno, its design probably shoots a number of anomalies into the field surrounding the car (Granted, I’m not sure I’d want to drive a car while subjected to a 250V/m field for an extended time… but it is a test limitation to consider).

High Current Audio Injection Failure precluded some testing

NHTSA-NVS-ETC-SR15 failure report is not included… perhaps the high current failure was an anomaly, perhaps not. Granted, the audio injection test is an unusual one. On the other hand, why did 4 pass, and 2 fail?

Also, being a 3300rpm increase was detected at 2Vpp at 150Khz… perhaps this test should have been run on more than 1 vehicle? Granted, outside of the test lab, such should never occur, but it is a point of interest. I’m a bit surprised testing was not explored at 125Khz, as such has repeatedly bit me in the field over the years. Likely civil litigation will explore this further with differing power levels, and/or frequency sweeps.

DTC Issues

Its assumed that DTC’s which were triggered were reliably recorded. Ie a Toyota Tech Scan was attached and data was pulled before, and after testing. (Obviously having it connected during tests would either kill it, and/or potentially disturb the results).

Orientation

Orientation was limited to 1 orientation for the TEM cell, and 8 orientations for the semi-anechoic. Such seems a reasonable approach, on the other hand… which orientation for TEM cell setup? Were other orientations possible?

Tests not performed (see table 6.8.1-1)

Early failures of vehicles 13C and 14C precluded many tests, and the fact that so many tests were skipped is a cause for concern.

The victim terminology

This is just a point of interest. Years ago, the usage of the terms source and victim were discouraged, as the legal field would tend to run with such. I gotta admit it is nifty seeing such terms once again.

The lack of any discussion or test data concerning ESD

On the outset, short of a minor discussion in section 6.9, this is not mentioned. The ToC suggests that data is available in appendix B, which is pretty nebulous as well. Section 6.9.6 is not a confidence booster, and such does leave the door open for civil litigation. Granted a Camry is not the space shuttle, but I bet the NASA guys were going WTF when they saw the watchdog/heartbeat monitor setup.

The observations in section 7.1

These are interesting…

sample size again is a concern

F-3. At full throttle, brake vacuum boost can be diminished or lost (apparently unlike Nissan of 20 years ago, they dont see the need for an auxiliary vac pump for such situations). It was also interesting, that even with the vacuum boost lost, one can decel at 0.25g with 112lbf on the brake pedal at 30mph. I wonder what the deal is a 75mph?

F-5 Tin whiskers… no wonder Uncle Sam and aerospace is exempt from Rohs. At least Toyota expected this might happen and designed around it. The big question though, is what if the whiskers show up in other places, and what about other manufacturers?

O-3, and O-4 are interesting… yes, the smog stuff is important, but I’m not sure its wise to not hold safety to a similar standard.

O-7 and O-8… yep, this is a problem. If I had a Camry, I’d code up an Iphone app to address this exact situation. If they really want to get to the bottom of it, wide scale testing either via an Iphone, Android, or something related might be a cheap and fast way to explore this aspect.

O-11, I agree 100%… even more so if the driver is tired, and its a different vehicle than what they normally drive. Ie a rental car fleet an airport might well provide for a great study of this human factors issue.

7.3-R-1 Likely they wont approach any of the concerns presented in this report, until either something really high profile occurs, or as the vehicles age, more problems show up.

My conclusion

Most of the obvious issues have been ruled out, or put in the category of being statistically low probability events. This does not mean there isnt some type of anomaly, but that if there is, it will be rare, and it will be a really bugger to get to the bottom of it. The biggest deal to me, is that so many of these issues transcend the whole industry, Toyota just happened to get in a jam mechanically (floormats, and/or brake pedal sticking) which put them in the spotlight.

Liberals are not opposed to cutting taxes, and thus cutting government programs per se… but more so, which programs get cut. I think you would see liberals jumping up and down for tax cuts, if said tax cuts reduced the amount of money wasted on prisons, defense contractors, national security, F100 subsidies for their irresponsibility, educational overhead apart from the class room etc.

Its not that liberals don’t see a need for the above at all, but that the priorities are different. Ie, there is no question prisons are needed for murderers and rapists, but so much of the prison population is for over than violent crime. Case in point, most liberals feel it is more important to provide cancer drugs for grandpa and grandma on medicaid rather than $80K/year to keep a non-violent criminal in jail. Most liberals feel it is more important to provide for our veterans and current soldiers, than it is to reward incompetance in the defense contractor world. Most liberals want to see decent textbooks and facilities, rather than 70% skimmed off the education budget for overhead and other fish smelling deals like QComp.

Now, some conservatives should say, grandma and grandpa should have set aside $1-$3 million to cover the costs of their health care, or that their families or churches should do so, and not the government. I concede that such does make a valid point… but then what about the person who doesn’t make 6 figures a year? What about the young family who can’t put aside at least $20K/year to save for their care in later life and another $20K to pay for their elders? What about the average 65 member church who can’t spend millions over a period of years to care for the least of these? Should we as society value the lives of the less economically or geographically fortunate as having less value?

Should we as society view those whose employers no longer cover pregnancy and delivery as being worth less than others? Should we as society hold mothers who had a c-section at one time as forever un-insurable, and toss them and their baby out the door (beyond EMTALA) once their hospital bill goes beyond what their parents were able to save up for, or get a loan for prior to delivery?

The above are the concerns of many liberals. Is government always the answer, of course not… but it should provide a safety net. The tricky balance is to provide a safety net, and at the same time not create a disincentive system, nor a circular counterproductive one.

Harley Davidson is cutting ~20% off their workforce since their peak a couple years back and their profits are shooting up. Of course, they also had greater than a 20% loss in sales, they killed off Buell, and sold MV Agusta too. I’d say its pretty hard to attribute causality to any one factor, but more so the total combination of things. Here in MN, there is one dude running for governor, who says we can’t cut our way to greatness… Well, he is right, if we only look at one thing, ie cutting taxes alone doesnt do much of anything, other than enrichen a few at the expenses of the masses.

The thing is… there is a ton that could be done in regards to cutting, apart from just cutting taxes, that could have a huge impact. Overhead cuts, anti-competitive regulation cuts, and re-prioritization of services could make a huge difference… but sadly, folks want the status quo, of more and more and more government, rather than to say “hey, wait a minute, this is stupid, and has to go”.

Overhead is often a killer. Just look at the massive layers in education…. case in point, actual classroom expenses, ie teacher + classroom + supplies are dwarfed by overhead. Or in other cases, some cities are finding its cheaper to use private contractors. In the future, I would guess many of these contractors will likely employ the same folks who used to do the same job as a government employee for a fraction of the cost.

MN is averse in anti-competitive and barriers to entry regulation. Politicians seem deathly afraid of a new entity coming in and doing the same work for 20% less for fear that it might cut into old entrenched businesses, the jobs such businesses create, and of course the resulting political contributions as well. They also seem to fear progress too… horrors that buggy whips might evolve, and something totally new replace them. I almost wonder had MN been more startup friendly, on all fronts, perhaps we wouldn’t have had the mass technical exodus post the CDC glory days.

Re-prioritization could be a huge deal too… Its like the Federal MMS on a small scale, or a Van Halen concert on a large scale. Writing up BS stuff for light bulbs being out, or improperly labeled buckets on the Deepwater Horizon, all the while major process issues go along unchecked and unregulated is a huge mistake. Granted, anyone can count light bulbs, and bucket labels or sort Van Halen’s M&M’s… it does take skill and expertise to understand the drilling process, or the rigging of a stage.

Trivial BS checksum methods (bucket inspectors)are mostly cross checks for attention to detail… with the philosophy that if attention is given to minor things, the feeling is that the major items are subject to the same attention, if not more so. The problem is… both on the fed, and state level… making sure that the bowl of M&M’s doesnt have any brown ones has become the greater priority, than the integrity of the stage rigging and floor.

Excessive overhead, the anticompetitive stance, and the prevalence of bucket inspectors are firmly entrenched… Its going to take a whole ton of folks crying uncle before any of that changes. We could cut our way to greatness… but instead, we talk about cutting key services, and cutting taxes, rather than cutting policies and procedures that could likely cut both taxes, and improve/expand valuable services to the citizens of MN.

A facebook friend posted a comment on the stimulus bill that each job which was created cost $260,000. Assuming the math is correct, that seems appalling… for sure it seems if the folks whose jobs were created were given $260,000 each rather than a job, we’d be a lot further along… or would we.

Beginning consultants often are enticed to pick up contracts via job shops and or recruiters, rather than totally running their own show. Yet, they often get a major wakeup call when they find out, they are billed out at $100/hr, yet only get $35 in their pocket… with the recruiting/marketing firm skimming a huge amount off the top. Many have remarked, “this is greed to the max, but what do I do, I cant be out selling if I’m working….”

Obviously overhead and profit have to be covered or a firm would go out of business, but getting 65% cut off right from the get go bugs the new guy a lot… until of course they do run their own show at some point, and find out that there is a lot of overhead that someone has to pay.

Its the same deal when a govt contract comes up which will employ say 100 people… the bid is going to be for a whole lot more than just the salary paid to those hundred people. The question then becomes, what is reasonable… beyond the salary, especially when the taxpayers money is at stake.

As such, I decided to take a look at a few different firms to see what they had as far as revenue per employee. Its quite interesting.

• Halliburton $285,000
• IBM $241,000
• Microsoft $640,000
• Starbucks $74,000

All of a sudden, the $260,000 cost per job doesnt seem so bad…

A recurrent problem with the response to the oil spill is that no one wants to fess up. Apart from the legal aspects, the incredibly low science literacy both in the media, as well as the general public pretty much makes much of this deal as a “You can’t handle the truth” scenario.

The truth

The ultimate truth is the following. There are no easy answers, and there are 50 kazillion unknowns. There are tons of theories, and thousands of people working on answers and there are still kazillions of unknowns, and answers are going to take time, and some may never be known. In addition, solutions are going to require widespread failures and massive numbers of iterations. No matter how the legal, the managerial, the political, the agendized folks want to spin it… the laws of nature are immovable, and they reign supreme.

Human Fear

Then add in the fact that fear is running rampant, whether it be those who see the writing on the wall that everything will change as the spill is right in front of them, and others, who see that things might change, and their current lifestyle may no longer be sustainable, even if the oil spill is thousands of miles away.

I also think there is a synergistic multiplier effect between fear and uncertainty, combined with failure after failure leading to despair and resignation which will likely have profound and long lasting effects on society at large.

As a tech guy… Its easy to discount this fear aspect, but I think such will play out in technical and political judgment calls for many years to come… and that then plays back into the technical realm. Case in point, nuclear paranoia is incredibly strong post three mile island. Industrial contamination is a much greater danger, but short of highly localized arenas, most consider it a non-issue, and economics/finance/jobs are more important. It leads to a question of where will petro end up in 10 years.

Vested Interests Abound on all Sides

Then to add insult to injury, there are those with vested financial and political interests of one type, who wish to down play any and all downsides. Likewise, there are those with different ideological, and political interests, who wish to play up any and all downsides. Lastly, there are those who see such the spill as being so distant, it will have no effect on them whatsoever, and is nothing to be excited about.

If one chooses to play down potential issues, or ignore them completely, the obvious danger is if they are wrong the costs could be extreme, ie death and destruction. By the same token, over playing such could create un-necessary fear (already on top of the current fears), it shoots holes in future credibility of the messenger, and it runs the risk of potential economic hardship.

Such vested interests often end up muddying the waters from a technical solution point of view. Even from a political point of view, its really muddy… just look at the FCC, more lawyers than engineers… and they are to address technical issues? Go figure

The solution?

The next generation will have a much clearer view and armchair quarterbacking likely will present a multitude of solutions. In the short term… some of the next gen is already here, in grade school. Dead animals, dead beaches and the like will start to color their thought processes in short order. No matter how much they are sheltered or are attempted to be led one way or another… images engrained early on will play a huge role in the development of their thought processes, their morality, and their hope. In other words, these youngsters will see through the BS, the spin, the garbage of today. They likely will see the truth long before the rest of us.

Desire and Finance always win out over safety, even when it comes to regulation… well, unless of course those on the safety side of things have more money or desire at stake. It doesnt seem to matter whether its oil, bio, transportation, or even ones own personal choices, desire is an incredible motivator. It may be time, it may be money, power, jobs, politics… but desire wins. Well, at least it wins over safety in the short term; statistics and physics are always the ultimate winners.

This plays out in nearly every risk/benefit decision made, whether it be the purchase of a family car. Ie do you buy a clone of Cadillac One or a used Hyundai? Obviously the chances of an encountering an IED, or a sniper in a family car are low, so armor plating and bulletproof glass would be overkill. Yet, an encounter with an out of control semi is much much greater in the Hyundai than Cadillac One, or even spinning out of control on ice, but such events are virtually never considered when it comes to car buying.

It plays out in the regulatory arena too…. case in point, the experience requirements for being an airline pilot make great financial sense, from a hiring perspective. However, when the chips are down…. not so well, case in point Colgan 3407, where in both pilots had thousands of hours, said hours were not of the quality needed to prevent the tragic loss of life.

A similar deal in oil regulation, ie if multiple relief wells were required for deep water drilling, oil companies would make less money, there would be less profit, less taxes to government, and ultimately higher consumer costs and fewer jobs. On the other hand, we (the taxpayers) will likely have $50billion+ to pay in cleanup costs, society will have untold amounts of human suffering, and the environment in some areas may take generations to recover, due to extended time needed to drill them now. Even now… one relief well is being drilled, one is on hold… and what if both fail? We then start on well #3 in September?

Future blog posts, which will be hotlinked as I get to them

Justification due to Operating in Deficiency Mode

Money is Almost Always Available After the Fact

Changes in Safety are Usually Short Lived

Second Guessing will Haunt many for Years

Can anything be done?

some background bits
from http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6524#comment-633217

Judgement calls

from Rockman

IF I suddenly thought I could use the RW BOP to deal with the leak and IF I felt the other RW was doing OK I would delatch and move to the blow out. And my two prime motives: to do the BOP move as fast as possible and to pinch pennies. I’m VP Operations and there are times when I make such decisions on an almost daily basis. And sometimes I make decisions based on a minimal (but never zero) risk vs. costs. I don’t always take the most expensive route to minimize risk. So yes, there are times when I accept a certain risk to the environment, the rig and the lives of the hands working for me as well as myself. As yes, I’m still on crutches after my double knee surgery so I would always be the last one to get away from a rig if something goes wrong. It’s a judgment call. No different than when everyone here bought his or her last car. Did you spend the most money possible for the safest car available? No in most cases. Then you must value your money more than your life or the lives of your loved ones. Right? More than 30 years ago I had to help the company carry off the body of a dead floor hand in a tarp. As I said once before I can still easy remember how that tarp felt in my hands. I’ve never made a decision that hurt a hand let alone killed one. Right now I’ve the ultimate authority in my drilling ops…anything goes wrong…someone gets hurt or killed…it’s on me…no one else. So I make those judgment calls. And monetary considerations will always be a factor. But when I make those calls I literally always ask myself that one question last: is saving money going to cause any “real” increased risk? Each one of has to decide how we define “real”.

Scale of Consequences

from greenish

In choosing a car for one’s family, one weighs risks and costs. When choosing a car for the president, likewise. That’s why I have a beat-up Hyundai Accent and the president travels in a car-shaped tank within a convoy with traffic shut down. Because the scale of consequence is different.

from Rockman

greenish — A little friendly picking on you: so the life of the president is more important than that of you and your loved ones? So you’re willing to save a little money to not maximize their safety?

There really isn’t a proper answer to my question. But those decisions are made every day. Do you cancel every flight out of NYC because there’s a bad thunder storm predicted? I would offer that killing 300 folks in an airplane crash is as significant, if not more so, as the POTUS being killed in an auto accident. Heck… that’s why we have vice-presidents.

It’s all about choices. A bad choice is always a bad choice even if it doesn’t cause an accident. It appears the folks at BP made a bad choice and it bit them hard. But sometimes the proper choice can kill you too. But do you base your choices on the magnitude of a worse case scenario? I fully understand your “scale of consequence”. Killing your baby in a car accident would be considered a rather significant conseqence of scale by most IMHO.

What I offered earlier wasn’t as much a justification for anyone’s judgment calls. Just laying out how it works in the oil patch (as well as the rest of life IMHO).

Real Moral Hazard

from pbnj

One issue though that petroleum industry (and any industry that could mess up the environment) must deal with that my industry doesn’t have to.. is moral hazard. If I misjudge risk, it messes up my customers and my own company. If Petroleum industry misjudges risk and screws up (or nuke, or coal, or chemical or etc) then the mistake messes up OUR world and our raw natural resources. This places petroleum industry in a position not well suited to corporations because they must be stewards of shared resources as well as for-profit corporations. Some of that stewardship may be offloaded to government agencies, but regardless, the performer (the oil industry) still must work in good faith with the agencies. That is a tough position that I am glad that I am not in. Unfortunately the government (enforcer of stewardship) only really has one or two hammers against a misbehaving actor. Nationalization (nuclear option) and regulation/fines. So I ask you (in this philosophical discussion) do you think that the “corporation” concept is appropriate for an organization that has such a high moral hazard?

MN finally has a budget… its sort of balanced too, at least within the bounds of the state constitution, thus holding off on the nuclear option, ie mandated property tax increases. The thing is… $2 billion dollars magically appeared by simply not paying what was agreed to.

Granted, such occurs daily, whether it be an average Joe who defaults on loans, or a big business that puts the squeeze on their creditors and/or vendors. Strategically, if your business has the bank or vendor by a hangman’s noose, it can make sense to do so. Ie, if you squeeze their cashflow to the point that get concerned whether they will remain a going concern, almost always they will re-negotiate for better terms (better for you, not so good for them). This is not rocket science, its just negotiation 101. By the same token, if you dont have your vendors or creditors in a noose… then will put the screws on you to try and collect.

Thus, the state has the schools by the noose… and as a result, many schools are going to have to take out loans to cover their operations, which then proceeds to put the schools in a worse financial bind. On the other hand, Pawlenty wins via no new taxes, and the DFL wins because they didnt have to make massive cuts. The banks win, as they get to write new loans. And of course, the taxpayer looses, as they will have to pay interest on such loans… and yet,few if any see any problems with this.

Some yahoos have told me to run for office… lol, its not going to happen. However if I did, I’d propose legislation to end this BS of accounting gamesmanship. Few legislators like paygo, or tabor, as they hamstring the ability to play games (both parties), limit lobbyist influence, and they often force all the cards on the table. Despite the dangers of such, I think MN is in much greater danger with the status quo of doing the same thing over and over, all the while hoping the budget miraculously fixes itself.

Its been a few years since I left the Republican party… but the same BS continues. The political words continue on forever, say no to tax increases, say no to bigger goverment, say no to encroaching on liberty… and then do just the opposite via gamesmanship.

Case in point… Republican Gov Candidates Dual over Tax Votes

“I voted to fill the hole. I didn’t do any new spending. Nothing,” Emmer said. “Our city stayed right where it was. Whether you want to say they were paying it into the state and then hoping to get it back, or they were paying it into the city to pay for those services. I made the vote to keep our budget right where it was, because it was very lean at the time.”

and

“Is Marty suggesting that somehow his signing a tax pledge, breaking a tax pledge, vowing he’ll never sign a tax pledge and then signing a tax pledge again, and my saying, ‘Look, I give you my word that we don’t have to raise taxes on a state level,’ which is what I said consistently,” Emmer said.

Instead… they might want to think of the following… my arms length summary of what I think the tea party folks would like to see.

Look, we wont raise taxes on a state level, nor will we play accounting games to shift tax increases to the local level, nor will we shift them into the future, nor will we shift them around via delaying payments here or there. We will not increase our debt ceiling. If we dont have the revenue, and we are at our debt ceiling… we WILL shrink government as needed. If federal funds are used, and they require state increased state spending, we WILL shrink government as needed, or we WILL decline said federal funds. The only exception to the above is voter referendum, and potentially an index to inflation, both positive and negative.

In effect, such a stance would be an integration of paygo, and TABOR… it would truly result in smaller less intrusive government, greater liberty, and static, or perhaps even future tax reductions depending upon economic growth. On the other hand, such a stance would be political suicide, and might not even be feasible, since so much of state government spending is far beyond the control of current state government to do much of anything about…. But it most certainly would put at least some action behind BS rhetoric, trivial arguments, and weasel words.

Lots of folks are grabbing onto the freedom and liberty bandwagon after passage of #HCR. In many ways its quite justifiable. All one has to do is look at current and past US govt meddling in healthcare, and the fears are not unfounded. Recent case in point was a 9yr old being killed by county human services… that should never have happened, but with the medicaid eligibility tier being raised, only a totally clueless person would suggest that wont happen again, much less that such needless deaths wont increase in frequency.

Liberals say greater government involvement will prevent such… they are right, if we really had full universal coverage for anyone, even non-citizens, there would be no way a young child would be denied life saving meds over a software/data entry/whacked social worker bug etc. Conservatives say government meddling is dangerous as its often misguided at best, and corrupt at worst. I think they are correct as well… Idealism alone doesnt prevent loss of life, and in government, compromise with lobbyists is the name of the game.

By the same token, having your insurance cancelled when you finally need it, or being locked into an abusive marriage due to the inavailability of health insurance on ones own, or even being denied careers in some sectors is not freedom either. Most certainly the issues of insurance company recision practices, pre-existing condition exclusions due to job changes or family status infringe substantially on individual freedom and liberty. The problem is, the former are idealistically easy, but the costs are insanity cubed. Thus, the insurance companies needed to be bought off, and todays stock market performance most certainly shows a causal effect. They will come out ahead.

Medicare part D donut holes are not a problem for folks with a $5 million dollar war chest upon retirement… The problem is few seniors have that size of a war chest, and thus the donut hole puts far too many in the food vs med decision matrix. Our seniors deserve better… but the last medicare payroll tax hike occurred on President Reagan’s watch. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the problems of increasing costs of care, and inflationary pressures, combined with a static source of revenue to predict a problem. Is food vs meds freedom, or is it better to be politically unpopular and raise revenue to provide some level of freedom for all the folks who paid into medicare for years, only to find out life saving meds are not available when they need them. HCR addresses this, albeit over a ten year period for the donut hole fix, and still for most folks, the medicare payroll tax will not increase for them. Ultimately, pharma had to pay for the donut fixes, and again in looking at todays stock market, a 12 year exclusion deal on biosimilars sets them up to more than make up for their costs in the donut hole.

The individual and state mandates… yep, freedom is decreased. But then again, just ask any state government how many bills currently up for vote take freedom away, and if they are honest, pretty much they all do. Every state has become a nanny state it seems…. where did small govt go, Dems get blamed, but Reps seemingly are just as much into nanny statism as the Dems. Does the state of MN really need to regulate the automotive window tinting business??? Esp with the current state budget scenario??? Does every state need boards of this that and the other sort of thing to protect the individual (all the while, the real intent is to protecting the current corps from competition). At least freedom does exist in part, albeit at a cost. Individuals can pay a fine and walk away from insurance companies, just as states can refuse medicaid funding. On the other hand, using unlicensed,examined or other state regulated firms/individuals can put a consumer in a jam, even if such might provide better value.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to personal experience, and whose freedoms are being impinged upon. Getting rid of recision practices will cause insurance rates to rise… Thats a loss of economic freedom, that is until one needs to use their insurance. Only a few fussed over the patriot act, and by far it did way more damage to the constitution, freedom, and liberty, than even going to a fully universal healthcare system would do. The thing is, unlawful search and seizure doesn’t affect 99.99% of folks, nor does recision, nor “junk health insurance”,where as the increased costs involved do affect many.

And perhaps thats the thing, the cost of freedom… my friend Angela presents the following.

Here’s what I want to tell folks who claim to be speaking for freedom, for limited government, for constitutional government:

AFTER we’re free of a census that asks us to tell the government our “race”,
AFTER we don’t have standing armies all over the world,
AFTER we aren’t in a permanent state of war against a vague enemy,
AFTER we aren’t in a “drug war” that results in a higher percentage of Americans being in prison than citizens of any other major country and kills zillions of people each year,
AFTER corporations aren’t treated as people while being protected from the consequences of their actions,
AFTER we no longer have an IRS that’s above the law and ruins lives,
AFTER the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act is seen as a horrible, tragic mistake we once made, and could never make again…

AFTER all those things, and after we’ve solved the problem of human beings experiencing horrible suffering for lack of health care while we stand by and do nothing, let’s sit down over a nice cup of coffee and see if we can come up with an even better solution that honors that beautiful thing called liberty.

My comment on Angela’s writing… the above are all about greed and money, even public safety policy is monetarily driven, despite the best of intentions.

My friend Brian had some of the best ideas ever as to how to solve the healthcare mess on his facebook page, but sadly, no way no how would the real freedoms he proposes ever come to pass. There are just too many lobby leeches dependent upon favorable government regs to upend the status quo in insurance, torts, employment / corp law, and medical scope of practice, at least not until market conditions force them to do so. On the other hand, the current HCR bill is just a bandaid on a gushing wound… it may well be the patient will have to finally cry uncle, but at least the HCR bill provides at least a few more years for him to do so.

The US needs health insurers, no matter their looter functionality, as they are typically the first in a chain of looters, with the chain encompassing Wall Street, Uncle Sam, and hospital administration, all the way to the receptionist at the local insurance agents office. Not one of the looter functions is productive in regards to health, although to be sure, each part of the chain does have productive people… but all on the backs of the sick person, and the physician/health staff actually treating them.

Most certainly moving to single payer by removing a large chunk of the looter infrastructure would be a massive boost in health care efficiency, if nothing else by forcing a greater percentage of health care costs into the productivity arena. The thing is… what happens too all the people, investors, government programs, who are highly vested in the looting arena. (do be aware, while I think single payer is a good step forward, it is far from an ideal solution, and has a multitude of unintended consequences)

On the other hand… the health insurance industry appears to be going the way of the buggy whip. Their business models dont seems to be sustainable on a micro level, and as health care costs continue to consume  a larger and larger percentage of gdp, sooner or later more than just a few are going to cry uncle on a macro level. Currently we have consumers upset, ie they get dropped when they get sick, or as soon as they need coverage. In time, investors are going to be upset because the insurance companies ROI is not sustainable, and thus once they start bailing, well… it will get interesting. Uncle Sam currently serves as a dumping ground for many, once insurance companies cast injured or seriously ill folks aside. Hospitals and physicians, the actual providers also serve as a dumping ground, in that they absorb the bill when no one can pay (as yes, someone does have to pay at some point). Or perhaps, more appropriately, the looters (ins companies, government, and have stacked the deck against the producers (the docs/health providers) such that they, the looters dont have to pay… all the while somewhat appearing willing to do so. Michael Hiltzik’s column in the LA times last week really hit home on this aspect with an article entitled What do we need health insurers for anyway.

So, whats the solution? Do we need them? As an idealistic far left liberal, I say no, we absolutely don’t need them….  plus they are going the way of the buggy whip. The business model is not sustainable, and they are already whining to congress. Its not rocket science to predict the collision path we are on in the healthcare / insurance /economics /govt arena.

As a pragmatist, yep, I think we need them, just as history shows we needed the tobacco companies, and farm subsidies… well up until very recently that is. The question is, will there be an event to start progress down the road to change, just as the lawsuits in the 90′s did for tobacco, or will there be whacked and misguided approaches to prop up failed business models to delay the inevitable as long as possible? And if such is the course of action chosen, what can be done to minimize collateral damage along the way?

Government is likely not going to be the answer… just look at the proposed health care reform bills on both sides… its the same repeated deal over and over again, enrich a connected few over the looses of many… its merely a question of which few are enrichened, not necessarily what is the best for the country, or even the average citizen.  Ultimately, its not the availability of insurance, its the availability of healthcare,and thats a question that far too few are willing to address.