Error 404

Computer engineers in the Bay Area have been on alert today.  Back in February, tweets by the online non-collective Anonymous proposed a plot to launch a massive "Distributed Denial of Service" attack on the internet today, March 31--the idea being to effectively "shut down" the internet.  While most experts doubted the validity of the threat--or the ability of Anonymous to pull it off--people are taking no chances.

Well, folks, I am here to put your minds at ease. I have spoken to the leaders of the leaderless "Anonymous," and they have assured me that there will, in fact be no attempt to shut down the interne-----------


sdkgbzcnb,vcvn,mcbcc,;,. . . .

. . . . .

. . .

.

How Stupid Do They Think I Am?

Today, as I drove on the freeway, an ambulance came up behind me.  I knew it was an ambulance because I looked in my rearview mirror, and I could read "AMBULANCE" clearly stencilled across the vehicle's hood.  I took a moment to say a silent thanks to whoever first came up with the idea of printing the word "AMBULANCE" backwards on the hood.  Because if a giant white truck came up behind me, sirens blazing, and I saw "ECNALUBMA," I would have NO idea what to do!

Here's to Your Health (Continued)

"The lawyer, Edwin S. Kneedler, said the court should not strike down the mandate. If it does and decides to engage in judicial editing, he said, only two other provisions — one forbidding insurers from turning away applicants and the other barring them from taking account of pre-existing conditions — would also have to fall." (On Day 3, Justices Weigh What-Ifs of Health Ruling)

Many commentators say that, if the Supreme Court does find the individual mandate unconstitutional but does NOT strike down the entire healthcare reform law, then it must at least invalidate the provision requiring insurers to cover anyone without regard to pre-existing conditions.

My question: Why?

Just musing here, but what would happen if the justices DON'T eliminate those requirements?  The short answer, I suppose, is that Congress would tweak the law; if Republicans win the White House and/or Senate, they will try to repeal the whole law, anyway.  But let's just imagine that the provisions requiring insurers to cover anyone somehow remain, despite the elimination of the mandate.

The reason, of course, that everyone says those provisions would have to be struck down is that, if there is no requirement for everyone--including the relatively healthy--to buy into the pool,  then insuring everyone--particularly those expensive folks with chronic illnesses--would become prohibitively expensive.  As a result, insurers would presumably raise their rates and premiums to the point that they rise beyond the reach of any but the most affluent customer.  Employers that provide insurance coverage would raise their rates and copays or just eliminate that perq altogether.  As more and more people are priced out of the market for health insurance, I imagine that the big insurance companies would ultimately start to lose money as well

How long would it be before big insurers, joined by their fellow corporate titans who can no longer afford to offer insurance to their employees, begin clamoring for Congress to help them out--perhaps by devising some sort of. . .  individual mandate?  If the Chamber of Commerce Republicans truly want to look out for their own interests, shouldn't this be a no-brainer?

Just a thought.

Just Another Day at Solipsist Central

WOS: What IS arena football?

SOLIPSIST: Well, it's, uh, it's football that's. . .uh. . . that's . . .

WOS: That's played in an arena, I figured that much.  But what's the difference between arena football and regular football?

SOL: Well, I know that it's played on a smaller field. . . and it's a lot more high-scoring usually. . .and I think there are no real sidelines. . .or punting. . .

WOS: OK.

SOL: And I think the players have to bounce the ball. . .

WOS: What?

SOL: And fans are not allowed to do "the wave."  Umm. . . and, and, and, uh. . .

WOS: OK!

SOL: And the cheerleaders are all Danish.

WOS: Yeah, OK, I'm sorry I asked OK?

(Pause)

SOL: You know what arena football players love?

WOS: What?

SOL: When people go up to them and say, "Do you know any REAL football players?"

WOS: "Are you going to be a football player when you grow up?"

SOL: "Do you play arena football because they won't let you play the real game?"

WOS: Heh.

SOL: I think arena football is to football as the Special Olympics are to the Olympics!

WOS: OK, that's enough.

SOL: Did I take it too far again?

WOS: Yeah, kinda.

Here's to Your Health--Update

Let's simplify the debate currently before the Supreme Court over whether or not the individual health insurance mandate included as part of "Obamacare" is unconstitutional.  Essentially, those on the right claim the mandate violates the Constitution by requiring people to participate in economic activity (i.e., buy health insurance) whether they want to or not.  Many legal scholars find this argument  flawed, but, given the current right-leaning make-up of the Supreme Court, the individual mandate might indeed be struck down and, along with it, the entire edifice of healthcare reform: If people are not required to purchase health insurance, then the economics of the rest of the legislation--such as a requirement that insurers cover everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions--fall apart.

While I don't agree with their principles, I acknowledge that libertarian types who claim the individual mandate is unconstitutional might have a point.  When put in highly emotional terms--"The government is forcing you to buy something whether you want it or not"--the argument resonates.  But let's ask another question: Should people who cannot afford or choose not to buy health insurance be turned away from hospitals--even in case of emergency--because of an inability to pay?  If an old lady collapses on the sidewalk from a heart attack, should she be whisked to the nearest ER and treated, or should EMTs and other medical professionals withhold treatment until it can be determined that she has the means to pay for any necessary treatment?

All but the most extreme libertarians will agree that the woman should be treated.  I suspect that, if asked, a solid majority of people would be in favor of retaining current laws that require hospitals to treat everyone.  But if the law requires hospitals to treat everyone, then it seems eminently reasonable to require "everyone" to pay for these services.  In effect, "everyone" already does, whether through taxes or simply through higher co-pays or other costs for medical services.  All the individual mandate does is simplify this payment plan and spread it out among as many people as possible.

In short, unless you are the most passionate Tea Partier, you already support socialized medicine--at least in terms of the provision of services.  The individual mandate simply socializes the cost.

Anchor Embryos

Ellie Lavi, an American native living in Israel, was told that her children, who were conceived via in vitro fertilization, did not automatically qualify for American citizenship unless she could confirm that either the egg and/or sperm used to conceive the girls was that of an American citizen.

In a bizarre, bureaucratic way, this makes sense.  I have to admit, though, I had never thought of sperm as possessing a nationality.  You realize what this means?  Every time an American man masturbates overseas, he facilitates a massive (albeit short-lived) invasion.  Don't let the strident anti-immigrant lobby get ahold of this information: Customs agents will be strapping non-removal condoms onto every arriving international male passenger, lest "anchor-semen" start crusting up the bedspreads at America's finest hotels.

Sorry.

Sunday in the Parking Lot with Gorge (Rising)

Among the many things I hate--the Tea Party, country music, Brussels sprouts--parking vultures figure right up there.  These are folks who hover around a car when the owner (or thief) has just gotten in and then wait for the car to leave so that they can swoop into the space.  While I sympathize with the desire to grab a choice parking spot, I resent the disruptions caused to the flow of traffic, of which I am inevitably a part.

The worst parking vultures scavenge in parking garages: While waiting for a space, they completely block anyone behind them.  At my doctor's office, there is one such parking garage, and I have literally been made late for appointments--for which I would otherwise have been on time--because someone was waiting for a parking space, rather than just continuing up the ramp to find another spot just slightly farther away from the entrance.  It takes great will-power to resist the urge to get out of my car, walk up to the vulture, and cough up a lungful of whatever has brought me TO the doctor into his inconsiderate face.

It has honestly never occurred to me to blame the person occupying the parking space.  Apparently, that was short-sighted.  According to an article in today's Times, cases of "parking rage" are on the rise in parking-scarce areas, as vultures find themselves forced to wait for parking spaces when, instead of pulling out immediately, drivers sit in parked cars to make phone calls, check or send e-mail, or update Facebook statuses.  As much as I hate to agree with the vultures, I understand their frustration.

Those occupying the parking spaces respond that they are actually doing the responsible thing: conducting conversations while safely parked rather than endangering others by texting while driving.  Since only a churl would point out that their communications are probably not THAT important, I will say that they make a sound argument--and then point out that their communications are probably not THAT important.  I would also point out that, rather than make the vultures think they are about to leave their parking spots, these parkers could actually conduct their cell-phone enabled communiques before they get into their cars.  After all, that's what Starbucks is for.