Ontario, CA police Sgt. Jeff Quon sued the city for what he considers a violation of his Fourth Amendment Rights, the Right of Privacy, when his boss (the Chief of Police) gained access to his text messages. Quon is a member of the elite SWAT unit and along with all the other communication devices and equipment that each officer utilizes to enhance their ability for rapid deployment in an emergency situation, a pager is the latest additional to their arsenal of crime-fighting tools. Although pagers are not covered in the departments “written policy,” still, all the officers, including Quon, were given sufficient warning that the pagers were covered in the policy as well. Also, Sgt. Quon has signed a letter acknowledging agreement with the city policy pertaining to the fact that there were no “privacy rights” regarding the use of city computers and communication equipment.
Although one could argue that ‘pagers’ aren’t specifically mentioned in the policy but it can be thought of as “implicitly” stated in the draft just as if were mentioned verbatim. This case has made it all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States on a “Writ of Certiorari” and the Justices have weighed the evidence and listened to the oral arguments from legal counsel delivered by both the Plaintiffs and Defendants. The ruling by a majority of the Justices could very well establish legal precedent regarding the broader issue of ‘Privacy’ in general in light of growing technology which seem to blur the otherwise well established line between the public and private domain; especially when it comes to the accumulation, assimilation, and sharing of information, and perhaps more importantly, who is entitled to have access to it. Since the Fourth Amendment is cited as the main “witness” for the Defendant (Sgt. Quon) and counsel Dieter Dammier, it is therefore prudent to examine what this Constitutional provision states.
The Fourth Amendment guarantees that a person shall be protected from “unreasonable” searches and seizures by the Federal and State Government without probable cause, and that any Warrant or Oath authorizing such action must particularly describe the (1) place to be searched, the (2) person searched or the (3) things to be seized. In effect, because of the aforementioned stipulations the individual can feel secure in their person, houses, papers, and personal effects against illegal search [personal, private property or residence], and against forfeiture, seizure, confiscation of anything that a person owns or controls. This statute does appear to protect the “right of privacy” is a rather limited way but it certainly DOES NOT pertain to the matter that the Supreme Court Justices have deliberated on. The thing is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals erred when it overturned the Trial Court’s verdict which agreed with the city of Ontario, and the original petition filed by counsel for Sgt. Quon [City of Ontario v. Quon, No. 08-1332] should have been dismissed because it was without ‘merit.’ The Supreme Court should remand the case back to the Appellate Court and order them to reverse their previous ruling.
The problem is because of the complexity of modern society, some activist Judges have tried to legislate from the Bench instead of applying the Law as it is written, taking into account that not all judicial decisions are forward-looking and changing circumstances may require fresh reinterpretation based upon the values and social experiences of people in present times. That being said, one cannot rationally apply a statute that protects personal property and domicile to a situation outside the home and in possession of and using non-personal equipment issued by an employer. Not only that, but the case fails the “reasonableness” requirement by a ‘tryer of fact’ [Judge or jury] because would a ‘reasonable’ person have an expectation of a “right of privacy” using a company-issued pager, cell phone, computer, telephone, copier, video camera, walkie-talkie, etc.? There are a few legal experts who seem to think that the Ninth Amendment applies to this case as well; and it says: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers did not enumerate what these rights are at this place, but some of the ones that they might have had in mind could be the ones mentioned in THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENCE, second paragraph: We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed with their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these [not the complete list] are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed [Tenth Amendment??], that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
There is another issue which receive brief mention from a few of the Justices, but which has largely gone under the radar, but which is vitally important, namely, the “right of privacy” of those to whom Officer Quon sent and received text messages. It is of little consequence about the ‘content’ of the messages shared between adults, although according to some reports, some of the content has been described as ‘racy,’ which is just another way of saying that some of it was “sexually explicit.” Texting between individuals, whether thru a cell phone, pager, or computer could be viewed as privileged communication and protected under the First Amendment as Freedom of Speech. No agency or employer should have the right to listen to or have a transcript of an electronic conversation between persons, which is tantamount to eavesdropping or wiretapping unless the information is pertinent in some kind of probable cause scenario where there is at least circumstantial evidence or credible information of a criminal conspiracy to act illegally or after the commission of such an act.
It is a little unnerving to think that someone’s personal and intimate expressions have no guarantee of confidentiality and can be available to anyone, even if it is used, just as in this pending case for disciplinary action of the other party. It doesn’t stop with the city and its policy, but what about the responsibility or rather liability of the service provider for the pagers because they were the ones who turned over the information to the police department in the first place? The ruling from the Highest Court in the land will doubtless impact millions of workers in America who use company-issued cell phones, Blackberries, etc., and depending upon the verdict, might just opt out on using devices that they feel might just compromise their right to have what they say or text to remain private; to be shared only just between them and their recipient.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
April 20, 2010
pbks@hotmail.com
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Why does the thought of "Holy War" have us almost scared to death?
Ever since September 11, 2001, many if not most Americans have become increasingly jittery and paranoid when hearing words such as ‘jihad,’ terrorists, and al-Qaida; which have been added to our social and political Lexicon, but should this really be the case? It seems that many of us have a short attention span and selected memory when it pertains to the Historical and Biblical narratives. To the colonial settlers on the American frontier, the British “Red Coats” might have seemed like they were the ‘terrorists,’ and to the Royal troops these upstart, disloyal and traitorous brigands were waging some sort of guerilla or urban warfare against them.
The American Civil War, WWI, WWII, Spanish-American War, Korean Conflict, Viet-Nam, etc., all have one thing in common, namely: At least one side in the conflict believes that what they are doing is “God’s Will” or that their justification to participate in such horrific acts has some sort of ‘Divine’ sanction or “Higher Purpose.” During the 1970’s, Folk Singer Bob Dylan had a song entitled, “God is on our Side.” Indeed, even that old “Rail Splitter,” “Honest Abe,” President Abraham Lincoln, penned the immemorial words about it is not so much a concern as to whether or not we are on God’s side but rather if God is on our side. This overarching ‘TRUTH’ [religious sanction] is behind just about all the Wars that have ever been waged on planet Earth since people started to make weapons and use these instruments to kill; especially beyond that point used for just mere survival.
It is of special concern for those who study the TANAKH (Christian Old Testament Bible), because clearly, an undeniable “fact” emerges, and that is, Holy War [jihad] is throughout its many pages, and just as startling, namely, that “it is of God;” and not just something made up in recent times by religiously zealous Muslim and Arab fighters from predominately the Middle East countries.
The progenitor of the Israelites, the Patriarch Jacob, and his family grew into a mixed multitude of approximately one and one-half to two million people, doubtless an amalgamation of indigenous Egyptians and other slave laborers, after leaving Egypt became a confederation of 12 uniquely distinctive clans united under a single leader; each with their own clan or tribal loyalties. The one single thing which would unite these disparate groups and their leading families is embracing a common set of rules or conduct [RELIGION] to which everyone pledged loyalty and mutual protection. Under this agreement is belief in the God and His Torah [Law] as revealed to Moses and now these people were given the command to go out and conquer the inhabitants of Canaan and possess the land that God promised to the Patriarchs.
So, this ‘jihad’ or “Holy War” against other peoples (“infidels”) was not really so much different then than it is today. These acts of armed conflict and destruction aren’t so much about a philosophical difference or morality, but rather faithful obedience to one’s God and victory over another people and their god(s). That being said, the one mistake that America makes when trying to understand the seeming inconsistency between Islam [“Peace”] or a Muslim [“submission” to the will of God/Allah] is viewing the religion or the Anti-American rhetoric spewed in the Madrasas by the Imams through the lens of Western cultural values. The warfare against America isn’t retaliation from past Imperialist exploitation by the Western powers nor is it even personal, and it may not even seem rational, but one thing is certain: Muslim zealots take this mandate very seriously and one they are willing to give their very lives for, and in the words of Lao-Tzu in “The Art of War,” WAR IS FOREVER.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
April 19, 2010
pbks@hotmail.com
The American Civil War, WWI, WWII, Spanish-American War, Korean Conflict, Viet-Nam, etc., all have one thing in common, namely: At least one side in the conflict believes that what they are doing is “God’s Will” or that their justification to participate in such horrific acts has some sort of ‘Divine’ sanction or “Higher Purpose.” During the 1970’s, Folk Singer Bob Dylan had a song entitled, “God is on our Side.” Indeed, even that old “Rail Splitter,” “Honest Abe,” President Abraham Lincoln, penned the immemorial words about it is not so much a concern as to whether or not we are on God’s side but rather if God is on our side. This overarching ‘TRUTH’ [religious sanction] is behind just about all the Wars that have ever been waged on planet Earth since people started to make weapons and use these instruments to kill; especially beyond that point used for just mere survival.
It is of special concern for those who study the TANAKH (Christian Old Testament Bible), because clearly, an undeniable “fact” emerges, and that is, Holy War [jihad] is throughout its many pages, and just as startling, namely, that “it is of God;” and not just something made up in recent times by religiously zealous Muslim and Arab fighters from predominately the Middle East countries.
The progenitor of the Israelites, the Patriarch Jacob, and his family grew into a mixed multitude of approximately one and one-half to two million people, doubtless an amalgamation of indigenous Egyptians and other slave laborers, after leaving Egypt became a confederation of 12 uniquely distinctive clans united under a single leader; each with their own clan or tribal loyalties. The one single thing which would unite these disparate groups and their leading families is embracing a common set of rules or conduct [RELIGION] to which everyone pledged loyalty and mutual protection. Under this agreement is belief in the God and His Torah [Law] as revealed to Moses and now these people were given the command to go out and conquer the inhabitants of Canaan and possess the land that God promised to the Patriarchs.
So, this ‘jihad’ or “Holy War” against other peoples (“infidels”) was not really so much different then than it is today. These acts of armed conflict and destruction aren’t so much about a philosophical difference or morality, but rather faithful obedience to one’s God and victory over another people and their god(s). That being said, the one mistake that America makes when trying to understand the seeming inconsistency between Islam [“Peace”] or a Muslim [“submission” to the will of God/Allah] is viewing the religion or the Anti-American rhetoric spewed in the Madrasas by the Imams through the lens of Western cultural values. The warfare against America isn’t retaliation from past Imperialist exploitation by the Western powers nor is it even personal, and it may not even seem rational, but one thing is certain: Muslim zealots take this mandate very seriously and one they are willing to give their very lives for, and in the words of Lao-Tzu in “The Art of War,” WAR IS FOREVER.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
April 19, 2010
pbks@hotmail.com
Monday, April 19, 2010
President Obama and the Members of Congress may need to reread "The Constitution."
One of the things that most Americans can reasonably agree on is their distrust of “Big government,” and according to the latest poll numbers from the Pew Research Institute, that seems to be just about right. In survey after survey, whether it is one conducted by MSNBC or some independent research firm, there is growing animosity among citizens as to the role, or rather, intrusion of government into the public and private sector of American society. With a stagnant economy, high unemployment, record foreclosures and unprecedented personal and business bankruptcies, along with the difficulty in obtaining a bank loan and families who cannot afford to pay for Healthcare or medical prescriptions, its no wonder people feel the way they do; but what is the “solution” to the confusion? The first thing just might be for the legislators in Washington, D.C. to take a refresher course in CONSTITUTION 101.
One of the things that almost prevented the US Constitution from finally being adopted and ratified was the very real concern about the growing power and influence of the federal government (“Federalism”). The statutes under the Articles of Confederation, which protected and upheld State Rights to be independent and autonomous from federal intrusion was championed because it was deemed that the individual State governments [in the South, particularly] were in a better position to address the needs of their citizens [people] than a national legislature in Philadelphia or elsewhere. The thing is, with all the proposals that President Barack Obama has made, and of which a few have passed into Law, with Congress [The Hose of Representatives and U.S. Senate], seemingly acting like the little kitten that plays with a ball of yarn only to become entangled in it, only does the bidding of America’s CEO [Czar Executive Officer-in-Chief] through Democratic partisanship and majority representation in both Legislative Houses.
Be that as it may, a quick review of ARTICLE 1, Section 8. says: Congress [NOT the President] shall have power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. Congress [NOT the President] shall have power To establish uniform Laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States. Congress [NOT the President] shall have power To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.
ARTICLE 1, Section 7 & Section 8 says: All Bills for raising Revenue [taxes] shall originate in the House of Representatives [NOT the Oval Office]; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequences of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money [taxes??] shall be published from time to time.
It is all about fiscal responsibility and when the President of the United States has his heavy hand in the financial markets and Commerce (Wall Street, The Big Three Automakers bankruptcy filings, Fortune 500 CEO compensation, The Banking Industry Mortgage foreclosure crisis, NASA exploits to land on an asteroid, mandating Federal or State-run Healthcare Insurance holding company coverage on individual Americans, Clean-Energy initiatives, etc.), this is a little troubling; to say the least. Also, the term “Commerce” is very broad and includes all business, trade, industry, transportation, manufacturing, goods, and services. This is not to indict President Obama as having some sort of Dr. Jekyl/Mr. Hyde alter-ego nor accusing him of succumbing to the adage, “Absolute Power corrupts absolutely,” because considering the ineptitude of Congress nowadays, what he is attempting is more than they are doing; which is to say all these Legislators seem to care about are being wined and dined by lobbyists and voting to give themselves a big raise at the next session of Congress. And, although President Obama may have good intentions during this present economic downturn, but as the old saying goes, “The road to HELL is paved with good intentions.”
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
April 19, 2010
pbks@hotmail.com
One of the things that almost prevented the US Constitution from finally being adopted and ratified was the very real concern about the growing power and influence of the federal government (“Federalism”). The statutes under the Articles of Confederation, which protected and upheld State Rights to be independent and autonomous from federal intrusion was championed because it was deemed that the individual State governments [in the South, particularly] were in a better position to address the needs of their citizens [people] than a national legislature in Philadelphia or elsewhere. The thing is, with all the proposals that President Barack Obama has made, and of which a few have passed into Law, with Congress [The Hose of Representatives and U.S. Senate], seemingly acting like the little kitten that plays with a ball of yarn only to become entangled in it, only does the bidding of America’s CEO [Czar Executive Officer-in-Chief] through Democratic partisanship and majority representation in both Legislative Houses.
Be that as it may, a quick review of ARTICLE 1, Section 8. says: Congress [NOT the President] shall have power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. Congress [NOT the President] shall have power To establish uniform Laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States. Congress [NOT the President] shall have power To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.
ARTICLE 1, Section 7 & Section 8 says: All Bills for raising Revenue [taxes] shall originate in the House of Representatives [NOT the Oval Office]; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequences of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money [taxes??] shall be published from time to time.
It is all about fiscal responsibility and when the President of the United States has his heavy hand in the financial markets and Commerce (Wall Street, The Big Three Automakers bankruptcy filings, Fortune 500 CEO compensation, The Banking Industry Mortgage foreclosure crisis, NASA exploits to land on an asteroid, mandating Federal or State-run Healthcare Insurance holding company coverage on individual Americans, Clean-Energy initiatives, etc.), this is a little troubling; to say the least. Also, the term “Commerce” is very broad and includes all business, trade, industry, transportation, manufacturing, goods, and services. This is not to indict President Obama as having some sort of Dr. Jekyl/Mr. Hyde alter-ego nor accusing him of succumbing to the adage, “Absolute Power corrupts absolutely,” because considering the ineptitude of Congress nowadays, what he is attempting is more than they are doing; which is to say all these Legislators seem to care about are being wined and dined by lobbyists and voting to give themselves a big raise at the next session of Congress. And, although President Obama may have good intentions during this present economic downturn, but as the old saying goes, “The road to HELL is paved with good intentions.”
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
April 19, 2010
pbks@hotmail.com
Saturday, April 17, 2010
The Tea Party: Serious grassroots Movement or just a Flash-in-the-pan?
Not since the colonial days in which protestors dumped bags of tea overboard in Boston harbor to protest the high taxation from the King of England (The Redcoats or British) and the East India Company on this commodity, eventually leading up to the American Revolution, Tea Baggers haven’t been part of the Lexicon. It seems that once again, people are fed up with Government, but this time it is the one on America’s very shoreline, and not in a far away European Monarch. What will determine whether these public gatherings of citizens who want a redress of grievances will transform into a potent and formidable force in America’s political discourse depends entirely on how committed they are towards real “CHANGE” as opposed to what former Texas Republican Senator Phil Gramm calls, “A bunch of Whiners.”
Along with that, having former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as ‘Poster Girl’ for the movement is hardly encouraging. Although Sarah basks in the limelight of her celebrity-like status, coincidentally, the same thing that she, as Vice-Presidential nominee mercilessly criticized Barack Obama, which she now enjoys with gleeful abandon. Not only can Sarah Palin draw a crowd but recent polls indicate that she is still quite popular with her loyal base of supporters and constituency. Also, one should not dismiss some of her memorable one-liner zingers like: “I’ll keep my guns, freedom and money; You can keep the ‘CHANGE,’" specifically aimed at President Obama, so as to momentarily distract him and get him off his game a little.
Be that as it may, the bigger question is whether the Tea Party has enough of a clear message that will redirect peoples' anger in more productive ways instead of just heaping up more and more criticism of government; which is neither constructive nor helpful. The one thing that Tea Party organizers need to do is to “speak truth to power,” and not just come up with these misleading and outright false sound bites laced with such diatribe as “Death panels for seniors” and President Obama is trying to promote “Socialism” with his agenda. If these "true” Americans want to save the Republic, then they need to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric, sharpen their pencils and wits, do their homework or research, and present in a clear and concise manner their better plan. In this way they will become, if not a “third rail” in American political theatre, but rather an amalgamation of a disenchanted, heterogeneous electorate who become energized enough and with their vote and pocketbook become the ‘CHANGE’ themselves that they were looking instead, to come from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
April 16, 2010
pbks@hotmail.com
Along with that, having former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as ‘Poster Girl’ for the movement is hardly encouraging. Although Sarah basks in the limelight of her celebrity-like status, coincidentally, the same thing that she, as Vice-Presidential nominee mercilessly criticized Barack Obama, which she now enjoys with gleeful abandon. Not only can Sarah Palin draw a crowd but recent polls indicate that she is still quite popular with her loyal base of supporters and constituency. Also, one should not dismiss some of her memorable one-liner zingers like: “I’ll keep my guns, freedom and money; You can keep the ‘CHANGE,’" specifically aimed at President Obama, so as to momentarily distract him and get him off his game a little.
Be that as it may, the bigger question is whether the Tea Party has enough of a clear message that will redirect peoples' anger in more productive ways instead of just heaping up more and more criticism of government; which is neither constructive nor helpful. The one thing that Tea Party organizers need to do is to “speak truth to power,” and not just come up with these misleading and outright false sound bites laced with such diatribe as “Death panels for seniors” and President Obama is trying to promote “Socialism” with his agenda. If these "true” Americans want to save the Republic, then they need to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric, sharpen their pencils and wits, do their homework or research, and present in a clear and concise manner their better plan. In this way they will become, if not a “third rail” in American political theatre, but rather an amalgamation of a disenchanted, heterogeneous electorate who become energized enough and with their vote and pocketbook become the ‘CHANGE’ themselves that they were looking instead, to come from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
April 16, 2010
pbks@hotmail.com
Board Game causes protest from Native Americans
The game is called “King Philip’s War” and according to AP reporter Eric Tucker, the Massachusetts Wampanoag tribe is all up in arms about it. The game is based upon a battle between 17th century New England colonists and Native Americans in the area. The game, although designed initially to be an educational tool of an actual historic event, although the objective of the game is to defeat as many Indians as possible, it perpetuates the usual stereotype of them as bloodthirsty, uncivilized savages. Instead of bringing to light the scant attention this little ‘war’ has been ignored in most textbooks and is beneath the public radar, still, it has for a growing number of Indian tribes been a source of irritation and racial insensitivity. The game’s designer, John Poniske, a Middle School Social Studies and English teacher in Hagerstown, MD said that he was surprised that this “incident” was not better known.
This is not the first time controversy has been generated in association with a game because several years ago “Ghettopoly” developer David Chang caused outrage among many African-Americans and the NAACP because of the negative depictions of drugs, guns, 40 oz. beer, buying stolen goods, prostitution and pimping, crack houses, getting car jacked, etc., contained in it. No matter what the intention of the inventor or creator of a product is, its success depends upon how well it is received by the public-at-large and it all comes down to “ethnic branding.” How would Jews feel about a board game depicting the ‘HOLOCAUST’ from the perspective of a former German Nazi soldier or what about a Civil War game from the perspective of a former rebel soldier from the South; better still, from the perspective of a slave living below the Mason-Dickson Line?
It must be remembered in politically-correct American society that traditional values or appropriateness are not so clearly defined and it is prudent to consider how someone else might perceive differently the thing that you take for granted.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
April 16, 2010
pbks@hotmail.com
This is not the first time controversy has been generated in association with a game because several years ago “Ghettopoly” developer David Chang caused outrage among many African-Americans and the NAACP because of the negative depictions of drugs, guns, 40 oz. beer, buying stolen goods, prostitution and pimping, crack houses, getting car jacked, etc., contained in it. No matter what the intention of the inventor or creator of a product is, its success depends upon how well it is received by the public-at-large and it all comes down to “ethnic branding.” How would Jews feel about a board game depicting the ‘HOLOCAUST’ from the perspective of a former German Nazi soldier or what about a Civil War game from the perspective of a former rebel soldier from the South; better still, from the perspective of a slave living below the Mason-Dickson Line?
It must be remembered in politically-correct American society that traditional values or appropriateness are not so clearly defined and it is prudent to consider how someone else might perceive differently the thing that you take for granted.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
April 16, 2010
pbks@hotmail.com
Monday, April 12, 2010
What’s the real issue in the Health Insurance debate?
When the Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution of the United States and in THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, penned these words: “. . . that they [Men] are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. . .” Now, these great statesmen and intellectuals did not mention anything about the right of every American to affordable Health Insurance, but rather continued allegiance the King of England and the tyranny imposed upon the colonial settlers by him. Somehow, there are many voices in and out of the political arena today who seem to think that surely this august document written nearly 234 years ago must have had them in mind. The thing is, very few individuals have read and understand all the nearly 2,000 pages of the Health Care Bill, and doubtless, because it was drafted by politicians who included some of their own personal pet projects “pork” among the usually confusing ‘legalese’ (lawyer script); much like the prescriptions written in Latin by medical doctors. Perhaps the first thing that needs to be understood and accepted is that any company which offers ‘Insurance” of any type is underwriting “risk” and like any business, the objective is to make a profit. There is no legal mandate, either at the federal or state level in America that compels any of these organizations to offer this benefit; which by the way, is NOT a ‘Right’ that someone is entitled to.
Before going even further into this matter, it may be a good idea to look at this term called “risk” again. Essentially, it is all about statistical analysis, mortuary tables, age, race, lifestyle, and other demographics, etc. When a policy is issued to an individual/family for a particular coverage of benefits, this same “umbrella” insures or manages ‘risk’ for others who fall into the same category. When a claim is filed, deductibles satisfied, and payments made for medical treatment, premiums paid by the insured are already calculated into the payments because statistically, the chances of a significant number of the insured filing benefit claims at the same time that you do, albeit for different medical treatment, are relatively low. The deductibles that you pay are your part in assuming part of the risk for going to the doctor or dentist. If a statistically high cluster of claims are filed, adjustments have to made; either in the form of increased premiums or a reduction in benefits. Several decades ago, there used to be a much simpler coverage plan: (PLAN A) for a single employee and (PLAN B) for the employee’s family with 90% or in some cases 100% for all medical expenses. Insurers were prone to favor single individuals who didn’t have children because maternity claims were very expensive, especially as more and more females had C-sections (Caesarean births).
Also, if a husband and wife both worked for an employer with health benefits, both of them and their family were covered as Primary beneficiaries; meaning, for any medical or dental claim submitted by either party, both companies would pay as the Primary insurer. Since the insurer paid the claim check to the employee and left it up to him/her to pay their physician, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that they made some money in the deal because more often than not, both checks were an overpayment and was more than the doctor’s charges. Add to that, most of the time when someone made an appointment to see the doctor, one of the ‘first’ questions that was asked by the receptionist or office staff is “Do You Have Insurance?” before they even mention your name or ask who you were. Even on the “New Patient” intake form that you complete, it is not just to list your symptoms but rather as a screening process to see if you have any pre-existing medical conditions or the potential to develop something down the road.
All this fact-finding just adds to the amount on your bill and after-all, as they used to say, you don’t have to worry about it because, “YOU HAVE INSURANCE.” Many of the insurance companies were usually based on the East coast and the rates that were paid out in benefits were calculated based upon the medical charges in this region as opposed to states in the South, Midwest, or in WA and OR. Eventually, the insurance companies caught on to this over-billing scheme, sometimes by hiring medical professionals into their own organizations who are knowledgeable as to what certain costs for services rendered should or should not be. The insurance companies started billing the medical service provider directly instead of remitting a check to the patient and let him/her be responsible for paying off the cost of their treatment for services rendered. Not only that, but these insurers placed a lower maximum ceiling on how much they would pay for any type of treatment, irregardless of circumstances or need; and they transitioned from the “STANDARD/UNIVERSAL” coverage model to the more familiar “CAFETERIA-STYLE” where you pick your own benefits among a sliding scale of reduced coverage and premiums. Usually, the amount of coverage that a person or family may need they cannot afford to pay for nowadays.
PANDORA’S BOX has been opened now, and no one can back all the little gremlins of greed and selfishness; besides all of that, somebody has to pay for all those shiny, new high-tech and life-saving medical devices. So what’s the answer, then? The first thing is: “Don’t Believe the Hype.” Don’t take as the Gospel what you hear from TALK RADIO (AM Radio), ABC/CBS/NBC NEWS, women of “The VIEW,” political pundits, Think Tank spin-meisters, members of Congress, or even President Barack Obama. The best thing to do is find some clear-thinking person who is articulate and can make sense out of this ‘ball-of-confusion.’
Here is a radical idea: instead of trying to insure everyone on a macro level, perhaps it is best to see if there is a plan where people are adequately insured at affordable rates and use this example as a model to be implemented state by state until almost everyone who wants and can afford to pay for insurance coverage will have access to quality medical care. There are already laws in every state where no hospital or clinic can refuse to treat someone who has a medical emergency just because they don’t have insurance; so a lot of this anger, threats of violence, as well as acts of violence is irrational and dangerous. To reiterate: Health Insurance coverage is a privileged benefit that is offered by companies who are in the business of risk management, with the objective to make a profit. It is offered as a service to the millions of individuals who cannot afford to pay for the unexpected circumstances in life when a medical takes them by surprise (in most cases) and they have incurred sizeable financial liability to which they must now pay the costs; but it is in no sense of the word a “RIGHT” to which any Federal, State, City, Township, privately or publicly held company/organization is obligated to provide, and as some “inalienable [‘divine’] right” to which someone is entitled.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
April 10, 2010
pbks@hotmail.com
Before going even further into this matter, it may be a good idea to look at this term called “risk” again. Essentially, it is all about statistical analysis, mortuary tables, age, race, lifestyle, and other demographics, etc. When a policy is issued to an individual/family for a particular coverage of benefits, this same “umbrella” insures or manages ‘risk’ for others who fall into the same category. When a claim is filed, deductibles satisfied, and payments made for medical treatment, premiums paid by the insured are already calculated into the payments because statistically, the chances of a significant number of the insured filing benefit claims at the same time that you do, albeit for different medical treatment, are relatively low. The deductibles that you pay are your part in assuming part of the risk for going to the doctor or dentist. If a statistically high cluster of claims are filed, adjustments have to made; either in the form of increased premiums or a reduction in benefits. Several decades ago, there used to be a much simpler coverage plan: (PLAN A) for a single employee and (PLAN B) for the employee’s family with 90% or in some cases 100% for all medical expenses. Insurers were prone to favor single individuals who didn’t have children because maternity claims were very expensive, especially as more and more females had C-sections (Caesarean births).
Also, if a husband and wife both worked for an employer with health benefits, both of them and their family were covered as Primary beneficiaries; meaning, for any medical or dental claim submitted by either party, both companies would pay as the Primary insurer. Since the insurer paid the claim check to the employee and left it up to him/her to pay their physician, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that they made some money in the deal because more often than not, both checks were an overpayment and was more than the doctor’s charges. Add to that, most of the time when someone made an appointment to see the doctor, one of the ‘first’ questions that was asked by the receptionist or office staff is “Do You Have Insurance?” before they even mention your name or ask who you were. Even on the “New Patient” intake form that you complete, it is not just to list your symptoms but rather as a screening process to see if you have any pre-existing medical conditions or the potential to develop something down the road.
All this fact-finding just adds to the amount on your bill and after-all, as they used to say, you don’t have to worry about it because, “YOU HAVE INSURANCE.” Many of the insurance companies were usually based on the East coast and the rates that were paid out in benefits were calculated based upon the medical charges in this region as opposed to states in the South, Midwest, or in WA and OR. Eventually, the insurance companies caught on to this over-billing scheme, sometimes by hiring medical professionals into their own organizations who are knowledgeable as to what certain costs for services rendered should or should not be. The insurance companies started billing the medical service provider directly instead of remitting a check to the patient and let him/her be responsible for paying off the cost of their treatment for services rendered. Not only that, but these insurers placed a lower maximum ceiling on how much they would pay for any type of treatment, irregardless of circumstances or need; and they transitioned from the “STANDARD/UNIVERSAL” coverage model to the more familiar “CAFETERIA-STYLE” where you pick your own benefits among a sliding scale of reduced coverage and premiums. Usually, the amount of coverage that a person or family may need they cannot afford to pay for nowadays.
PANDORA’S BOX has been opened now, and no one can back all the little gremlins of greed and selfishness; besides all of that, somebody has to pay for all those shiny, new high-tech and life-saving medical devices. So what’s the answer, then? The first thing is: “Don’t Believe the Hype.” Don’t take as the Gospel what you hear from TALK RADIO (AM Radio), ABC/CBS/NBC NEWS, women of “The VIEW,” political pundits, Think Tank spin-meisters, members of Congress, or even President Barack Obama. The best thing to do is find some clear-thinking person who is articulate and can make sense out of this ‘ball-of-confusion.’
Here is a radical idea: instead of trying to insure everyone on a macro level, perhaps it is best to see if there is a plan where people are adequately insured at affordable rates and use this example as a model to be implemented state by state until almost everyone who wants and can afford to pay for insurance coverage will have access to quality medical care. There are already laws in every state where no hospital or clinic can refuse to treat someone who has a medical emergency just because they don’t have insurance; so a lot of this anger, threats of violence, as well as acts of violence is irrational and dangerous. To reiterate: Health Insurance coverage is a privileged benefit that is offered by companies who are in the business of risk management, with the objective to make a profit. It is offered as a service to the millions of individuals who cannot afford to pay for the unexpected circumstances in life when a medical takes them by surprise (in most cases) and they have incurred sizeable financial liability to which they must now pay the costs; but it is in no sense of the word a “RIGHT” to which any Federal, State, City, Township, privately or publicly held company/organization is obligated to provide, and as some “inalienable [‘divine’] right” to which someone is entitled.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
April 10, 2010
pbks@hotmail.com
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
TESORO Refinery fire in Anacortes, WA
It is tragic that such an event happened at the Tesoro refinery in Anacortes, WA which resulted in the tragic deaths of at last five people and two other workers received severe burns over fifty percent of their body. The thing that probably goes unnoticed is that many of the nation's refineries and chemical plants are at least thirty years old and could present an ever-present danger to some sort of incident that happened here. All of these facilities have to keep up with the ever-growing demand to increase output and meet the latest stringent environmental regulations. There aren't enough inspectors within the Federal and State EPA, OSHA, or DOE to adequately monitor and check the safety of hundreds of plants.
These facilities contain thousands of gallons of highly volatile and reactive chemical components (hydrocarbons) and although reasonable measures are in place to prevent a major catastrophe from happening, it does occur from time to time; with deadly results. Although "SAFETY FIRST" is the mantra of these companies, when it comes down to expenditures for retrofitting old equipment for increased production as opposed to the cost for purchasing newer equipment, as well meeting governmental regulations to reduce pollution of the environment, safety is sometimes compromised.
Of course, it is also true that accidents do happen, and when it does it usually results in significant harm to persons and property. Not all sensors and monitors are calibrated on a regular basis or frequently enough, and some equipment does not always respond the way it should during an emergency. Even workers at these plants know the inherent dangers associated with their workplace and in the industry that they are in, but are willing to take the risk because of earning the big bucks with lots of overtime and other benefits like pension, sick leave, personal days off, etc.
As long as society craves the hundreds of by-products that can be derived from refining or cooking crude oil at high temperatures and pressure, then demand will drive these plants to perhaps take short cuts on safety to meet production goals. This does not rule out human error or lack of adequate training which can result in an industrial accident, but the verdict is out regarding whom to blame.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
April 6, 2010
253-382-4092
pbks@hotmail.com
These facilities contain thousands of gallons of highly volatile and reactive chemical components (hydrocarbons) and although reasonable measures are in place to prevent a major catastrophe from happening, it does occur from time to time; with deadly results. Although "SAFETY FIRST" is the mantra of these companies, when it comes down to expenditures for retrofitting old equipment for increased production as opposed to the cost for purchasing newer equipment, as well meeting governmental regulations to reduce pollution of the environment, safety is sometimes compromised.
Of course, it is also true that accidents do happen, and when it does it usually results in significant harm to persons and property. Not all sensors and monitors are calibrated on a regular basis or frequently enough, and some equipment does not always respond the way it should during an emergency. Even workers at these plants know the inherent dangers associated with their workplace and in the industry that they are in, but are willing to take the risk because of earning the big bucks with lots of overtime and other benefits like pension, sick leave, personal days off, etc.
As long as society craves the hundreds of by-products that can be derived from refining or cooking crude oil at high temperatures and pressure, then demand will drive these plants to perhaps take short cuts on safety to meet production goals. This does not rule out human error or lack of adequate training which can result in an industrial accident, but the verdict is out regarding whom to blame.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
April 6, 2010
253-382-4092
pbks@hotmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)