Coffee heat rising

“Socialist” health care beats out private insurance

SDXB—after having delivered another long tirade about the evils of health care reform and how we’re all going to pay lots more for lots less, watch our inviolable American liberties slide away, and ride to Hell on a socialist handcart—recommended that I drop by a CVS pharmacy or a Fry’s grocery store to get a flu shot, since The Great Desert University has quit offering employees free flu vaccine.

So, after checking where the flu clinics were scheduled for that day, I dropped by the CVS around the corner.

The “nurse” who was dispensing the shots had gone to lunch, but her sidekick was there, reading a copy of People magazine. I presented my health insurance card, by way of finding out how much I would have to pay for an immunization. She looked at the card and said she’d never heard of it. Then she plowed through a 50- or 60-page guide, searching several 8 1/2- x 11-inch fine-print pages for some clue. She did find that some Beech Street plans cover the Mollen Clinic’s flu and pneumonia shots, but she couldn’t tell whether the State of Arizona’s plan is among them.

So I asked her if the Cigna plan I’m being switched to next month would cover it. With only a week to go, it would probably be worth waiting to save the thirty bucks charged to members of the unwashed public who have no insurance. She repeated her time-consuming, eye-straining search. Again, she couldn’t tell: some Cigna plans were covered, but…now… Get this! Cigna customers were to provide a credit card number, which would be sent to the insurer. Cigna would then decide if and how much they would cover, charging the balance to the card.

I said I didn’t think I’d like to give out my credit card number and carte blanche to charge an unknown amount to it. She agreed that would not be the best of all possible ideas.

Moving on… I decided not to waste any more time waiting for the “nurse” to come back, since another site, a Fry’s grocery store, was on my way to the various errands I had to run.

There I again presented the Beech Street/RANAMN card. Again the customer service assistant had never heard of RAN-AMN. So, not wanting to drive 15 miles out of my way, pay for parking, and hike around trying to find the clinics for downtown state employees, I paid the $30 to get the damn shot. Before getting to that point, though, I had to fill out two legal-sized pages of forms detailing personal information that’s no one’s business.

It was, in short, an expensive hassle. At least it was better than the $86 my doctor “friend” tried to charge me for a flu shot last fall.

On my way out, I mentioned that next year I’ll be on Medicare and asked whether Medigap insurance would cover the shots.

“Oh, no,” she said. “Medicare Part B covers flu shots. They’re free. And you don’t have to fill out the form then—all you have to do is sign this line” (indicates a blank on the two-page form) “and you’re done!”

ohhh brother… that soooooocialist health care system
sure is gunna make our lives rough, eh?

w00t! Festival of Frugality comin’ our way!

Next Tuesday, September 29, Funny about Money hosts the Festival of Frugality. Just checked in at the site—thirty-two submissions are already in the hopper. I’m looking forward to reading them…I love the creativity that these festivals bring together.

Don’t delay! Send your best ideas and reflections on frugal living and thrifty tips through the festival’s handy submission form. Hope to hear from you this week!

Google grabs authors’ works

Wrote it

The other day, what should I come across but the entire text of my book, The Essential Feature, online and available for free through Google Books.

This book is not out of copyright. Though I don’t earn much on it—just a couple hundred bucks a year—it does represent my labor and, given that I’m about to be unemployed, I do happen to need the money. Evidently Google did unto me as it has done unto untold numbers of other authors who absurdly imagine they should be paid for their product: checked the work out of a library and stole every word of it.

Google has entered into a settlement in a lawsuit over this theft. After looking into it, I decided it’s best to do nothing, rather than to agree to the settlement’s terms. If you enter into the agreement, you may (or may not) receive some pittance as a share of the profit Google reaps by selling your works. However, you lose all future rights to any further claims against Google for its future profits on or future infringement of your copyright. So it doesn’t look like an especially advantageous arrangement. Nor does it appear to be worth the sheer hassle factor involved in trying to enter a claim.

RobertSidney
Wrote it

Why bother to write? If someone can come and take your work and profit on it with no more than a polite “screw you very much,” what is the point in existing as a professional writer?

The answer to that, my friends, is “none.” Those of us who enjoy reading books and magazines written on the professional level—as opposed to self-published tomes from amateurs and hobbyists—can say goodbye to that little pleasure. And say hello to another stage in the dumbing-down of America. All you young wannabe writers: shelve that dream and get yourself an MBA.

If you went into a grocery store and stole a head of lettuce or a package of steak, you would be arrested and prosecuted. Same if you went into, say, the Boston Store and lifted a few additions to your wardrobe. Retailers don’t put up with theft. But because the product is words, apparently it’s OK to steal.

Wrote it

Peter Osnos, writing for The Atlantic, concedes that the settlement “provides payment now and procedures for the future that assure the rights of those who create material to benefit from the use of it.” But, he adds,

. . . the accord also—in the view of its critics, led by the Justice Department—gives Google far too much of a role in determining the digital fate of an enormous trove of books; in effect, an immediate virtual monopoly and too much of an advantage going forward. In the year since the agreement was announced, the image of Google as the happy face of all matters digital has turned into something less appealing: a dominant corporate enterprise that has used its collective brilliance in technology and marketing to suppress competition while it prospers as others do not.

So much for “do no harm,” eh?

Packaged it; contributed to it

Meanwhile, the legal wrangling continues. The Department of Justice recently challenged the settlement in view of its significant antitrust implications. As DOJ notes in its filing,

“First, through collective action, the Proposed Settlement appears to give book publishers the power to restrict price competition. Second, as a result of the Proposed Settlement, other digital distributors may be effectively precluded from competing with Google in the sale of digital library products and other derivative products to come.”

Contributed to it

Among other things, anyone who does not opt out of the settlement loses their right to derivative uses of their work. This is  not inconsiderable. The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas, for example, is a spinoff from a magazine article. Because the author of the original piece of journalism retained his copyright in the article, he shared in the profits of the enormously successful book and musical that derived from the first work.

Also at issue are the millions of so-called “orphan works” whose copyright holders no longer exercise their rights. Under the settlement, Google obtains ownership of those rights.

Patent lawyer Gene Quinn eloquently puts the point on this pencil:

To force all those who do not opt out to lose those rights, both with respect to digital distribution and with respect to derivative works is unconscionable. A settlement like this would strip rights away from copyright owners simply because they do not participate in the case or settlement. That would be an enormous taking and redistribution of property rights to a private corporation on an unprecedented level… Make no mistake, the rights are owned and they would be lost through massive redistribution to benefit Google.

Yeah. Like he said!

Truth, the highest thing that man may keep

If you’re here to read “Truth” for FMF’s “March Madness” competition, please remember to vote at Free Money Finance’s site, not in the comments here. 🙂

Why, when we’re confronted, do we tend to blurt out the truth, even when it works to our disadvantage to do so? Chaucer had it right when he said “truth is the highest thing that Man may keep.” Sometimes we should keep it to ourselves.

Asked in the right way, we’ll often reveal private, sensitive information that’s strictly none of anyone’s business, that’s valuable to people trying to manipulate us into buying products and services, and that can be used to pester or even harass us, in some cases handing over Medicare and other personal information to convicted felons. Warranty cards with long lists of personal questions are especially egregious: what about your favorite sporting event and the magazines you read is needed to guarantee a flashlight’s performance? And how often do you give your phone number to companies that have no need to know it?

When my mother was young, back in the Early Pleistocene, she worked for the telephone company. Long-distance phone tolls were a pricey, money-making item, and people would try all sorts of scams to rip off a free call, ranging from disallowing calls they actually made to charging calls to someone else’s phone number. My mother’s job was to investigate claims of fraudulent charges. To get started, she would telephone the number that a customer said didn’t belong on a bill. When someone picked up the receiver, she would say she was calling from Pacific Bell and then quickly ask who called that number on thus-and-such a day at thus-and-such a time.

Incredibly, she said, about 90 percent of people would blurt out the truth. When you’re asked a question you don’t expect, point-blank, you’re likely to answer accurately even if the answer works against you.

In a general way, ethical people tell the truth. On the other hand, those who commit petty larcenies like stealing from the phone company are not ethical…and so why should they, by impulse, speak truthfully? It’s a deep-seated instinct, one that in the marketplace is too often used against us. Information we share for no other reason than that some stranger asks us is routinely sold to other merchandisers.

Yesterday when I went to get a flu shot at a grocery-store clinic, I was asked (among other things) for my e-mail address and telephone number. I left the e-mail address blank, figuring that if they pressed me I’d say I don’t have a computer or give them my junk gmail address. But under the mild stress of having to get another shot (I really do dislike injections of all kinds), I completely spaced the fake phone number I normally use in some circumstances. Well…actually, it occurred to me that if something was wrong with the vaccine they might need to call, so I gave my office number.

I immediately regretted it. The exception to the national Do-Not-Call Law allows companies that you do business with and all their subsidiaries to pester you with phone solicitation. So now I can expect nuisance phone calls not only from Dr. Mollen’s health-care enterprise, but from any other company even vaguely related to it.

Okay, I’m not advocating that we should routinely lie. However, I think when marketers try to extract private information for which they have no use other than to sell it or to sell something to you, you’re well within your rights to refuse to share it. And when pressed, to respond with disinformation. For example, I have a phony telephone number printed on my checks. No law says you have to tell a merchandiser the truth, nor is there any need for a retailer to have your phone number for no other reason than that you paid for a product with a check. If the check bounces, the bank will come after you.

Similarly, my Safeway club card bears my dog’s name and the telephone number of Safeway’s corporate offices.

Some retailers will themselves lie when you ask not to have a phone number used for solicitation. The first time I bought an appliance at Sears, the salesman asked for my number so the installer could call to make an appointment. I specifically stated that I did not wish to receive sales calls, and he specifically stated that my number would not be used for phone solicitation. He said he was entering a do-not-call note in the database. Within days, I was getting nuisance sales pitches from Sears. Requests that they take me off their list were ignored. It took weeks to get them to quit badgering me, and they only quit after I complained to a state consumer protection agency and the Better Business Bureau.

Big Brother is watching you, but unlike Orwell’s nightmare vision, he ain’t the government. Big Brother is the corporate shadow government, the one that follows your every step on video cameras and keeps tabs on every magazine you subscribe to, every prescription you buy, how much you earn and where you earn it, and every deep breath you take. You’re well within your rights to protect your privacy. Remember, with the exception of some financial institutions, the courts, and the IRS, no law requires you to answer a nosy question.

Image: Truth (1896). Olin Warner (completed by Herbert Adams). Left bronze door at main entrance of the Library of Congress Thomas Jefferson Building. Photo by Carol Highsmith. Public Domain.

Why you should become a teacher

Here’s something that just came in from a student I taught a couple of years ago when I was doing a little “noonlighting” at the Great Desert University’s West campus—thought you might all get a smile from it.

I used to say that journalism is more immediately rewarding than teaching because you very quickly have something in your hand about which you can say “I did that!” It can take many years to see what effect, if any, you might have had on a student.

The project the student describes is a proposal. Classmates were asked to write a real-world proposal for a real, doable project, addressed to a living human being or group (not their instructor!) in a position to make it happen, and to argue convincingly why and how it can be done.

Every now and then we make a small difference in the world, eh?

—–Original Message—–
From: Stephanie Estudiante [mailto:hermail@gdu.edu]
Sent: Sun 9/20/2009 8:32 PM
To: Funny about Money
Subject: Proposal

Professor—

I was in your ENG301 class a few semesters ago. I thoroughly enjoyed your class and still work constantly to hone my writing skills. Just a couple of days ago I received a letter that the proposal we wrote (as a project in your class) was a success, and Discount Tire Co. made a very nice donation to the Foundation for Blind Children. While it certainly took some time to move through the system, I was very pleased with the result. I felt especially happy for the Foundation, as I know its needs are great. But I was also quite proud that my work produced a really worthwhile result. So, if ever a student questions whether the skills being taught in your class will be useful in the real world—I would say resoundingly—YES. I just wanted to let you know.

Thanks for a great class!

Stephanie Estudiante

The Foundation for Blind Children’s home page is here.

Would you like to congratulate Discount Tire for this excellent moment of corporate philanthropy? Write to them here:

Discount Tire
Corporate Headquarters
20225 N Scottsdale Rd.
Scottsdale, AZ 85255-6456

“New” car heaves into view

Honda_Civic_SiM’hijito has been driving a decrepit wreck ever since some teenaged brat crashed into his parked Camry in San Francisco, totaling that beautiful car and two other vehicles. The amount her insurance company paid him came nowhere near enough to buy a comparable car, and so he ended up replacing it with a sporty-looking but aged four-banger convertible with a leaky roof and shredding plastic seat covers.

Although the car runs, we suspect that at any time it’s going to fall apart like the Minister’s One-Hoss Shay. Wind whistles in through the splits and cracks in the roof and around  nonfunctioning side windows, which is just as well, because the natural blow-dryer effect helps to dry out the rainwater that seeps in with every light sprinkle.

Recently one of his dad’s partners surfaced with a 2002 Honda Civic that he’d like to unload. It belonged to the man’s son, who has gone off to fight in the Middle East. Despite a a fender-bender in its past, it appears to be in good condition, and the guy is willing to sell it for $5,000. With only 64,000 miles on the odometer, that’s a bargain: the Kelly Blue Book private seller price is over $8,200. And it gets a cheering 30 miles per gallon!

In his heart of hearts, M’hijito craves a Toyota pick-up, the better to fulfill the labor-intensive role of the Happy Homeowner. These babies, however, are pretty pricey even in older models. And they are so beloved by their owners that a decent used Tacoma rarely comes on the market.

The little Civic is such a bargain and such an improvement on the clunk he’s driving around, he’s about decided to buy it. It seems like a smart move. He can always borrow my Sienna when he wants to tote things around or if he wants to go on a road trip or camping expedition. I’d love to drive a 30 m.p.g vehicle for a few days!

😉

Images:
Honda Civic, Public Domain, Wikipedia Commons
Toyota Tacoma, Public Domain, Wikipedia Commons