Tasers, Airplanes and Health Insurance

[Undertow]

Would I sign a waiver? A waiver to do what? Not sue anyone if Im the one to blow up a plane?

Perhaps. Or at least a waiver saying you understand no one has been screened before boarding the plane.

How many planes have been exploded mid-air in all of history? How many attempts have there been? How effective do you really think all this security is? Perhaps it's effective as a deterrent, but at what cost? When one can easily pull multiple photos on google of children being groped by security guards at airport security checkpoints, I think there's a problem - and it has nothing to do with being safe(r).

Although I can understand the reasoning behind the "gangs, and wannabes" perception in some cities, what I can't understand is this zero-tolerance charade intelligent, reasonable people play. It's a farce. An empty shotgun shell or squirt gun brought to school in the hands of a 4th grader do not warrant suspension and/or expulsion; they do not warrant pat downs, locker checks or metal detectors. That's ridiculous, in fact, it's insane. If a child brings a loaded firearm to school, sure, I can understand a suspension and some counseling, plus further remediation if necessary - but let's go case by case, right?

I do have to agree with you Scotty that there is a relatively low percentage of trouble-kids who intend to do harm to their fellow students. Thus, maybe only a very low percentage of schools should react the way many schools have.

I'm not yet convinced that a child is a hardened criminal who has the cognitive reasoning to fully understand right from wrong. And I'm also not convinced that a mad bomber is lurking in every single airport terminal.

 

[John in Covina]

I live in the Los Angeles area and out this way there is a distinct problems with both gangs and a culture of violence. On the news it is not uncommon to have on the major news venues a weekly episode of school shootings, stabbings and beatings that either take or simply put a life at risk in here the Southern California.

Children are not being socialized and have value systems that most ordinary adults cannot understand. It was in the past not uncommon for some one to get killed over a pair of highly prized brand and model of sneakers or some other "It" item. Then it's gangs or this whole emphasis on being "disrespected" that triggers such animosity. Sadly out out control bullying and the desperate responses to it can often escalate to life ending situations. Perhaps the problem exists because the value of life it not taught by the parents?

A true story for all of you: here in Southern California a friend of my sister in law had a son with a problem with a bully at school. That boy spoke to friend that then shot and killed the bully on the boys behalf! The killer and the son both went to prison on murder charges. I never would have imagined that happening but it is a regular event out this way.

 

[JimWagner]

The essential question to me (and it's not rhetorical) is that if the cycle of parents teaching their children to be responsible adults is no longer happening on a significant scale then what's it going to take to reverse that trend or correct for or supply the missing training?

 

[scottyrocks]

The problems are as multifaceted as they come - parents, culture, media, value systems, economics - they all combine to drive the system in the direction its been heading.

Fear is almost completely misplaced. Airport, and school, security should be applied intelligently. Profiling is not always a bad thing. We ALL do it every day. We just dont think of it as profiling. We evaluate everyone we see, initially based on the visual. Anyone different from us gets profiled and the more different they are, or the more one or more of their 'particulars' triggers our fear sensors, the more intense the profiling. It is only when we get to know individuals that we become comfortable with what we see, but thats not even always a given.

I could give personal observations and experiences, but they are merely anecdotal, and some would go as far as labeling me a racist. But we all do it. Its based on fear, the unknown, and we expect based on what we've seen or heard, some of it hearsay, and some of it fact.

I give everyone I meet the benefit of the doubt. Each person is evaluated for how they are as a person in my presence. Most people are indeed what we would call nice people. Thats why generalizing isnt healthy and why profiling is looked upon as unjust.

Its a tough argument to take sides on. We want to be 'safe,' but how to do it effectively? TSA 'agents' touching our 'junk?' 20+ year flight attendants with artificial breast prosthetics being asked to physically remove them for 'inspection?' A man was asked to remove and hand over his amazingly intricate and expensive computerized artificial limb which a TSA manager said he had to disassemble to check for what - explosives? Who is gonna put this thing back together so the man can get on the plane? This is what we have come to? Then the terrorists have indeed already won.

 

[Wire9Vintage]

Exactly... and this is perhaps off topic, but ... today on the news there was discussion of the lawsuit against McDonald's over the happy meals. Now, I'm no fan of that chain (or any chain), but the argument seems to be along the lines of "this chain is marketing to our children, luring them in with toys, and then feeding them unhealthy food."

Well, the last I knew of, small children cannot drive, do not have much money, and WILL, in fact, eat just about anything (mud, cigarette butts, coins, enough candy to make them sick, etc. etc.). In fact, I do believe it is parents taking their children to this and other chains, buying the stuff on a regular basis, and feeding it to the kids!

Just say NO, folks. It's an easy word to say and hear, isn't confused with many other words, is understood in several languages, and is one of the first words a child can learn and understand. ... at least it used to be.

Back off soapbox...

 

[Diamondback]

As someone with a fair knowledge of security and counterterror, I gotta pitch in a couple cents.

First, almost all of what TSA does is an utter crock of bull--it's "Security Theater" and going for a "placebo effect", on the theory that if the sheeple see a strong "front end" they'll feel safer. The bad guys will just cut through the fence, or have an employee on groundcrew smuggle their cargo through, or mold plastique into flat wearable sheets that won't show up on the scanner... oh BTW, as far as I know those things and the images they create haven't been granted an exemption to "kiddie porn" statutes... just something to think about. And why do they need a full-body grope when the old way about "metal detector wand to localize, then frisk detected area" was just as effective and both faster and not grounds for Sexual Assault charges? I would even take my chances on an airline that allowed passengers with CPL's to carry their sidearms on board, since the Explosive Decompression Myth's been quite thoroughly Busted. And actually, even Israel doesn't use or need backscatter-imaging systems. Oh wait, they use common-sense and profile*, which we can't do... Just like Neil and Buzz found out during the training and prep for Apollo 11 (see A&E's Moonshot), the only ones you can count on are the ones up there in the flying Spam-can with you--and sometimes, not even all of them. This is why I'd rather fly Private/Charter rather than commercial... once you're outside of dealing with Part 135 carriers, you can secure your own plane your way as long as you're legal where you take off from and everywhere you land, and securing MY plane MY way starts with a pair of .45 autoloaders full of Glasers or other frangible ammo (perhaps first half Glasers, second half Hydra-Shoks) on my hips or tucked in my armpits.
*Hey, when they're looking for a serial-killer, nobody gives half a crap about how us 20s-30s-aged, heavyset, intelligent white males feel about being asked for initial interviews because we fit the broadest level of the profile, why should it be any different for anybody else?*snort*

As for schools, that's lawyer-induced bull--the smart thing in a threat scenario is to disperse the potential targets as far and wide as possible, much as SAC used to do with the bomber force at elevated alert levels. But, because parents and shyster Oxygen Thief scumsucking ambulance-chasers have gotten judgments against cases where the exact same risk wasn't forced on everybody...

Healthcare, I'll take my chances--I refuse to comply with the "Individual Mandate"; my primary health-insurance is my PDR, my Doctor's Book of Home Remedies, and squirelling money away in a contingency-fund for unforeseen emergencies--many doctors around here offer some very generous discounts for patients who don't make them deal with insurance-paperwork and the associated wait to be paid.

Sorry, this one struck some nerves both professional and personal--I've tried to keep it fairly toned-down on language while still giving y'all a rough appreciation of what's really on my mind.

 

[John in Covina]

Part of our culture has some interesting ideas that we know are not fair as most would define fairness. As a model for this I will describe how things get handled at school as a model.

We all know that chewing gum in public schools is not allowed. Why? Because
a small portion of kids will dispose of the gum in an irresponsible manner such as throwing it on the floor, sticking it under desks or if maliciously inclined- use it to fill the key holes in locks to make a problem for others.

The percentage that will do so are small compared to those that would not do so and act responsibly with the gum. However, the adults running the school don't want to waste time dealing with the situation of the cleaning and repairs or try to track down and punish the culprits.

What happens is the majority then suffer for the small percentage that are the bad gum chewers.

The fact that it is unfair to the majority looses out in the end as a shift in thought becomes apparent.
The shift goes from unfair to fair this way: if it is unfair to everyone then it is equal for everyone. Therefore the equality of the unfairness become fair because it it equally applied to all, no one person or group gets singled out at any point as the concept then become one of Zero Tolerance.

 

[Diamondback]

I like to say "Zero Tolerance = 100% Intolerance, the ultimate in 'Hate Speech'." Some people just need to grow some skin already... now, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be repercussions when someone steps over the line (be it guidance to help them understand if done unknowingly or some sanction if done willingly), just that there are a whole lotta folks out there who go actively looking for excuses to take offense. (Which explains a long-standing request to the community, that should I offend anyone here by my conduct that you please help me understand where I've gone wrong, how I can make it right and how to avoid whatever the flashpoint was again in the future.)

 

[scottyrocks]

We all know that chewing gum in public schools is not allowed. Why? Because
a small portion of kids will dispose of the gum in an irresponsible manner such as throwing it on the floor, sticking it under desks or if maliciously inclined- use it to fill the key holes in locks to make a problem for others.

I dont like gum chewing in school because it makes most kids who chew it even more unintelligible than they already are.

 

[Undertow]

...We all know that chewing gum in public schools is not allowed. Why? Because a small portion ...

John, I think that's a great analogy! Either for or against, you've painted a good picture.

Diamondback, I'm right there with you sir! And I like the slogan, "Zero Tolerance = 100% Intolerance".

Also, being someone currently on the inside of a certain industry, I can say with authority - some doctors reward patients who don't make them file claims. It's cheaper, easier and ends up working in both parties' favors. The doctors have fee schedules which dictate how much they may bill for a certain service, therefore they will always bill for that amount every time. If you work outside of that system, it's easier to make allowances, and it's easier to retain certain customers.

 

[LizzieMaine]

In the fifteen years I went without insurance, I found that I was always billed the maximum for whatever service I was rendered. The only time I ever got a break was when I went to a private hospital in Canada, which charged me half the going American rate, and just shook their heads at what things cost here.

And if I *ever* caught my doctor referring to me as a " customer," they'd be picking his head out of the autoclave.

 

[Mike in Seattle]

Who of us would prefer to pay a lower premium for less health care coverage? Who would be willing to skip paying health insurance all together, and instead save their money for future calamaties?

The problem is that most will NOT save their money for calamities. It's more important in their lives that they have a 60" 3-D high-def plasma flat-panel TV in every room and a Lexus in the driveway that they can't afford. And then they get injured and need a hospital and people think it's terrible that they're turned away from the hospital because they didn't plan ahead.

But I am for some sort of plan where a set percentage of your income is set aside for either insurance or actual medical bills to be paid from. Once you hit a certain level of coverage and a extra cushion, you don't have to pay in. Kids get out of college and have to start their own plan - you get back the portion of the family fund that was set aside for their health care. When you hit retirement age and Medicare kicks in, you get to withdraw part of what's in your fund.

I think if people actually have to write the check to the doctor (even if it's out of the plan account) and have to really think about what the cost is and perhaps they could save money shopping around, or doing some preventative planning for the next time the same or similar condition might exist, healthcare costs would have to come down to what the market could bare.

I tell my doctor I'm self-insured and I get about a 45-50% discount off what everyone else pays...or more correctly, what their insurance company is billed and eventually pays part of. I do HAVE insurance for real emergencies and catastrophic occurences, but I go to the doctor once or twice a year, mainly for a maintenance prescription to be refilled and annual tests or if I really do have something needing attention. It works out way under my annual deductible anyway - why mess around with all the paperwork? If I had my deductible low enough to get me some annual payback, the cost of the insurance would astronomical. And I've got friends with insurance and a $5 copay that run their kids in everytime they sniffle, skin their knees and the like because "it only costs me five bucks." No, you're paying a few hundred dollars a month for that convenience. Bandaids and Bactine are a lot cheaper!

 

[Undertow]

I think if people actually have to write the check to the doctor (even if it's out of the plan account) and have to really think about what the cost is and perhaps they could save money shopping around, or doing some preventative planning for the next time the same or similar condition might exist, healthcare costs would have to come down to what the market could bare.

This is the upcoming "trend" you will see in health insurance policies - but don't quote me on that. It will be something tested out for the next few years in smaller markets where there's no deductibles anymore, only coinsurance/out-of-pocket maximums for all services. Thus, if you're paying 30% of a doctor's visit every time you run junior to the ER, you're going to quickly learn the benefits of Bag Balm.

You'll also see a "Grouping" methodology emerge where insurance companies will start paying outpatient services based on a single visit - with ancillary services included at no payment, bundled into the major surgical procedure. So when you get that endoscopy, insurance won't pay the doctor $30 for the bandaid and $200 for the towel anymore.

Lizzie, I think customer may have been a poor choice of words on my part. Most doctors refer to people as "patient" or "member" (although they have said customer before. )

 

[Undertow]

So I don't want to slide down a slippery slope - but what's next?

Do you guys think we'll end up in Total Recall body scanners at every port of transportation including subways and buses? Or schools? Or what about running background checks on people purchasing plane tickets?

And although I see the logic in profiling (because there really is logic to it), I'm sure you all know the side effects? We couldn't possibly pull every other brown skinned fellow out of line and march him off for interogation could we? Shouldn't there be a more precise method that doesn't literally discriminate against a broad swathe of the population?

 

[LizzieMaine]

And although I see the logic in profiling (because there really is logic to it), I'm sure you all know the side effects? We couldn't possibly pull every other brown skinned fellow out of line and march him off for interogation could we? Shouldn't there be a more precise method that doesn't literally discriminate against a broad swathe of the population?

I don't think it's necessary to go that far -- undoubtedly there's a database that tells the TSA exactly where people have flown to and where they have arrived from. Any man in his twenties, for example, who has shown repeated flights to and from Pakistan, might well be worth taking a closer look at. A middle-aged woman from Maine, say, who flies to New York a couple times a year on a turboprop commuter plane might require less of the Feds' attention.

 

[Diamondback]

Profiling doesn't just start with the physical--there's a reason the FBI branch specializing in it's called "Behavioral Analysis". Look at their connections, their points of origin and destinations, baggage, solo or travel-partners, their actions... a profile may start with physical characteristics, but that only scratches the surface. And like I said, why waste the money and time on non-effective measures that only accomplish harassment, psychiatric-trauma when done to the young, and lining corrupt ex-politicians' pockets? (Former DHS Sec. Chertoff got a huge kickback since he's now employed by the company producing backscatter scanners.) Oh, wait, it does one more thing... it creates a small army of Fed Up (ex-)Flyers who refuse to travel by "regular" air anymore.

And like I said, nobody gives a Hershey-squirt about how un-PC demographics feel when profiled on the physical alone... (On the other hand, it's never directly happened to me, maybe because the local LEOs have a very accurate profile of me from all the time we've spent shooting together and my picking their brains for my former gig in Executive Protection, and my combat-psych and gunsmithing studies.)

 

[John in Covina]

I don't have any details but I have heard it mentioned that the Israelis have a very good system of selecting those that they are interviewing amongst the visitors coming in to their country.

 

[Diamondback]

My point exactly: we should look to what works for people where their nation's continued existence depends on those measures' effectiveness on a daily basis.

Or, we could just close the skies completely--no more airborne risk then...

 

[dnjan]

Who on here would willingly, even preferably, board an airplane where no one was scanned? Where smoking was allowed?

Interesting that the topic of smoking, included in the original post, has almost entirely been skipped.

I was very glad when smoking was banned on U.S. domestic flights, and also when the ban was extended to international flights.
So, at least for me, there is a case for government intervention in the form of reduction of a freedom (the freedom to smoke) that I have truly appreciated.

 

[John in Covina]

Interesting that the topic of smoking, included in the original post, has almost entirely been skipped. I was very glad when smoking was banned on U.S. domestic flights, and also when the ban was extended to international flights. So, at least for me, there is a case for government intervention in the form of reduction of a freedom (the freedom to smoke) that I have truly appreciated.

As someone that did travel by air when smoking was still allowed on flights, I found it to be very irritating. (It is a drawback to visiting Las Vegas still to this day.) However aircraft mechanics that repaired the airliners have said that they could find pressurized cabin leaks because the smoke lead to nicotine stains on the fuselage indicating the area of the leak!