City Parking

I've been having several discussions with people regarding the saving of parking spots lately. Personally, I stand firmly in the "Don't save spots" camp, along with, from my crappy guess based on the friends and co-workers I've talked to, about 60% of people. Many, including myself, seem to be pretty fervent about their believes on the matter one way or the other.

It was all academic until the end of this week when I unwisely got myself into a mini battle-by-note with a spot saver who claimed a spot that I had been using, *after* I started using it.

I could try and explain the whole saga, but instead I'll just mention that there was a note flame war in which I was called a jerk, and which I hope to end with the following letter:

I'm sorry that you are offended at where I chose to park. My note the other day was probably more inflammatory than it should have been. I had a frustrating day earlier.

However, I will be clear in saying that claiming public spots is illegitimate, the big reason for this is that makes the parking situation in the city worse than it would otherwise be.

Despite this, as a gesture, and not as a duty, I intended to avoid the (only) spot that had been shoveled out (the one I previously parked in has not been shoveled), except that there was a car in the space I had been taking, and I had been blocked from several other parking spaces by tractor trailers at the same time that I was required at work at a specific time for a meeting. But this is not meant as an apology nor do I feel bad for parking there.

Let me explain: I too live in the city, and I too have cleared away spaces to park on more than one occasion these past two weeks (as have many, many people). The difference is that in each instance that I have cleared snow to park, I have never attempted to save that spot for myself. The reason is that city parking only works because of the principle of "hot racking". People move around inside the city. When they do they have to find parking at their end points. If people were to save spots (regardless of the weather) at 2 end points (home and work) it would double the number of spots necessary to allow those people to park. For this reason saving spaces is always a problem unless there is an overabundance of parking (which there is not). When parking is reduced for whatever reason (unmanageably large piles of snow from snow plows and surrounding shoveled out spots) it becomes even more of a problem. You may have spent a lot of time clearing a spot, but most of us have had to do the same. The snow came down on all of us we all had to dig our selves out. But each one of us who saved a spot reduced the number of available spots in the city by one made the "hot rack" parking situation worse.

Yes, not saving a spot may mean that occasionally you will have to drive around for a few minutes and possibly park a few blocks away, but you will always be able to find a spot as long as they have not been claimed by people who are not using them. This is precisely because, with few exceptions, everyone had to dig themselves out at some point and because people have different schedules. Me, living in the Southside, I can almost guarantee you that this happens to me way more often than you, regardless of the weather. It's just an annoyance of city living.

I must also mention as a point of order that the space that I parked in on Mon, Tues, Wed and Thursday was never cleared, and in fact I had to shovel it a bit to get my car in and out each day. The spot in front of it wasn't cleared until wednesday, and on Monday neither spot even had markers attempting to save it.

So I hope you don't consider me a jerk, and I apologize for being rude in my first note. But I do not apologize for taking the spot, and I hope you understand why.

Now this letter is overkill for such a small matter, but it lets me get out my frustration and thoughts about the idea in general.

Anyone have a rebuttal?

Public Health Care

This is actually a response I wrote in a discussion about health care, but I spent enough time writing it that I figured I should post it. (there are several edits from the original, and may be a few more)

So for me it's mostly a practical matter, which is why I am on the fence (but leaning toward supporting some form of public coverage). For me the question is too polarized in that it's mostly just yes or no. The difference between the possible public options is more important to me than the public(and private) vs private question.

There are so many aspects to cover it's difficult to know where to start. But I suppose I would start with the growth of options. As far as I can tell the exploding growth in costs is coming from nothing other than exploding options.

For almost everyone health is near the top of the list on things that are important. For many people it is THE top. So if there is an option, you want it. From the perspective of an investor this is GREAT. It's like selling crack, but legal.

In the past there were fewer options. If you had heart problems you went on a diet that was it. The most you could be responsible for paying was a doctor's visit and hospital stays if you had an attack.

Then came along blood pressure medications. It's your life on the line, so add that cost. Then came along MRI's; add that. Then blood thinners to get by clogs. Add that. Then cholesterol lowering medication. Add that. Do you think there won't be more options soon?

The point is that for most of the issues, these are treatments and not cures (which is another issue completely) so we'll keep buying them. There is hardly a point at which we would refuse treatment, especially if it were free. And the pace of treatment developments is going up, and progress will probably continue to for the next century at least if not forever. As such, health-care being the legal version of crack, demand will continue and so costs will go up. Therefore if we have a public option, it *must* be rationed and an equal standard for care *cannot* exist (without outlawing private health-care). I'm ok with the rationing and un-equal standard of care, but I would be willing to be that many are not.

A related factor that keeps the costs from staying in check is the "tragedy of the commons" issue that comes from all you can eat style health care.

The problem is that we are detached from the costs. There is no deterrent from selecting the most expensive option regardless of the effectiveness. Let me give you an example. Since I am an engineer, I have "good" coverage that has a fixed co-pay. In the past I had some problem with heart-burn. Now I went to the doctor, told them the problem, and he prescribed me some prescription medicine(PPI) that was the most effective on the market. Now as a patient that pays the same no matter what, that's exactly what I want. So I go to the pharmacy, pass the $20 month's supply of Prolisec OTC and head to the counter to pick up my $15 co-pay PPI. From my perspective that's great. I payed less for a more effective drug. Now if I look closely on the paper work I can find out that my prescription PPI actually costs $200 for a months supply! 10 x the OTC option. It's supposedly better, but 10x better? From the perspective of the drug company, this is GREAT. They just got someone to pay 10x for some thing that is only marginally better. But I was disgusted. So the next time I just bought the OTC option even though it was more expensive in the short run. And you know what? It worked just fine. I don't think I need to elaborate the implications of this. This is not an isolated anecdote. You can extrapolate on your own. It's a *huge* problem.

Another big problem is that health "insurance" is not insurance. If it were, half of our problems would suddenly disappear. You get a $1MM policy on let's say cancer. And if you get cancer, boom: it pays out, and there is no question as to what can and can't be covered. This could be offered to everyone who cannot afford other coverage and the costs would be well defined, and we would be incentivized to use the money wisely. But it's not. If an insurance company(especially smaller one) has someone covered who gets a blood cancer there are *millions* of dollars worth of treatment available, and the worst thing is, is that it still probably wont prevent the cancer from killing them. I know it's a harsh thing to say, but a life is *not* priceless. The spending has to stop somewhere.

But that's the point. This country is spending more than 15%[1] of it's GDP on health care and that is *not* acceptable. We can say that spending gave our grandmothers a few years and those few years were precious, but that spending also prevented our nephews and nieces from having a world-class competitive education. For me this is where the public option comes in. The research I have read says we are WAY overpaying for health-care, and the market is failing us here. (The market failures in regards to health care are an entirely discussion apart, but) If that is correct and if we can do it as well, publicly, as the next worst country out there, we are saving GDP (%50 of current HC expenditure) to spend on other things such as education, research, and infrastructure. Also private health insurance cripples our companies, especially small businesses, while other governments are effectively subsidizing theirs to our detriment. Not having public health-care is bad for the economy from what I can tell.

Finally there is the whole aging population thing which may be the biggest issue of all. All of the preceding issues are multipliers for this issue. Much of our current expenditures are on the oldest of our population. It seems humane, but when you look at it, it's obscene how much we are spending on the last few years of our population's lives. At some point we have to accept death. We cannot use every last option to squeak out a few more years months or days, or we will spend ourselves to death as a country and culture, but if it is in our or our family's power to do so, how can we not?

I guess my conclusion is that I think that a universal coverage option would be acceptable and desirable if: It clearly set out limits to coverage, it can be done as well or better than the next worst country out there, and patients are incentivized to chose cheaper options.

As a side note, I think the government should incentivize non-fixed cost health coverage plans in an attempt to eliminate all-you-can-eat plans, and tax private health insurance above the median. We should also invest in cure (and not treatment) research.

I will say that tort reform is important in that defensive medicine is a multiplier for the exploding options problem in that doctors will use many unnecessary test and treatment options to cover their asses to avoid being sued.

The only squishy opinion I have about health coverage is that I do believe that universal coverage is step towards more civilized culture though I don't mean that in a weak sense. I think that not worrying about health coverage allows people to live very different lives, being less concerned about the basics of survival. Being a person who doesn't like being boxed into the uninterrupted resume stream of life, this is very attractive to me, and I think it allows for more "freedom" and allows our civilization to take the next step. But this is probably much less important than any of the practical issues.


1.http://titania.sourceoecd.org/vl=5233072/cl=23/nw=1/rpsv/factbook2009/10/02/01/10-02-01-g1.htm
2.http://titania.sourceoecd.org/vl=5233072/cl=23/nw=1/rpsv/factbook2009/10/02/01/index.htm
3.http://www.federalbudget.com/

Conversion Via Conscientiousness

Over the past few years I have noticed myself moving a bit to the "left" (I hate the terms left/right) which, consequently, puts me squarely in the middle. While I was growing up, my parents effectively instilled in me a broad-minded moderate conservatism. And even after I shed my religious belief during my early teens, most of the conservative arguments were sound enough for me to maintain as I aged.

Now I'm one of those people who can see many sides to an argument, maybe less so then than now, but still, I was, at the time, aware of the valid parts of most of the other side's arguments. It was just that I saw my side's as being more valid than the other's. I saw the other side's arguments as being emotional and irrational: trying to do the right thing emotionally, while doing the wrong thing rationally, and I still do to some extent.

So the question is: How have I been moved towards the left? Well, I've always thought "Ad hominem" arguments to be more valid than the standard argument model allows (with caveats of course). You see, the validity of most real arguments is not trivial to determine. There are endless combinations of assumptions and presumptions hidden in most complex issues in our national political stage. And so knowing someone's background and motives is at the very least a very useful tool when trying to determine the validity of their argument, and maybe where to look for strengths and weaknesses, tricks and truth.

To put it simply, I have come to have little faith in the arguments I have seen come out of the conservative movement. They seem to be glib, shallow, and conspicuously un-critical. And I have seen what seems to be (more)honest and conscientious arguments coming from the left. While the republicans seem to be working on Machiavellian coercion; appeal to nationalism, religion, and alarmism, the left seems to be doing less of that, and more intellectual attempt at persuasion, at least to the extent that I have seen on the internet.

So the result is that I'm being persuaded. I read. I have an information addiction. I am not afraid of intellectualism. And so the constant barrage of conscientious, mostly honest editorials has over time had an effect on me. I can see the weakness in some of these arguments, but each at least has it's portion of truth. Meanwhile, the right has been so busy with it's populist bullshit afraid of being seen as elitist or intellectual that they have forfeit their chance to offer a counter argument. (Or perhaps they just haven't figured out this series of tubes well enough to get their arguments in front of me.) In the end the effect is a trial argued without defense.

Should that cause me to question the foundation of my shift? I'm not sure. I think it should cause me to resist a bit, but overall I think not. Every movement needs a significant coalition to bring it into effect. I am not willing to put the responsibility of power into the hands of those who can't even be effective and honest with their arguments. The validity of their tenants is moot if they cant convince the public while maintaining enough fidelity to bring those tenants into reality without massive amounts of corruption, dis-honesty, and special interest power/baggage that they use to make up for what they lack. (I'm not saying the left has none of this, but perhaps that it hasn't passed the same unfortunate threshold)

I don't want a government who campaigns on small government, gets elected, then does the opposite, all while we get no benefit of that spending. If I'm going to have a big spending government, I might as well vote in those whose excessive spending will at least offer some benefit to the country.

So, conservative movement, if you want young people like me back, listen up: Stop hiding behind the cheap tricks and invest in all the things you complained about in Obama. All of those aspects that you stupidly derided as intellectualism and elitism, I've come to see as one of the most important things to see in a government or leader: conscientiousness.