Yodelling Llama

I need to find another pharmacy. Or else I need to stop having medical insurance. Or perhaps I need to find a more cost-sensitive dermatologist.

Went to Fred Meyer last week to fill a prescription. Antibiotic. Was told they needed some sort of approval before they could fill the prescription. Had to contact my doctor. Come back in a few days.

So I went back a few days later. By now, I’d run out of the free samples. Was told, well, that the medication is pretty expensive, and apparently my insurance didn’t cover it, so the doctor gave me a coupon of some sort. And I didn’t have the coupon with me. So I should probably come back.

A few days later, I go back. Different pharmacy tech.

“Can I help you?”

“Yeah. I have a prescription to pick up.”

“Name and date of birth?”

Provided.

“Ah. There’s a problem. We need prior authorization.”

“So you didn’t get the prescription order from the doctor?”

“No, we got that. We need authorization from the insurance company.”

“No, you see the prescription isn’t covered by insurance.”

“Are you sure? It’s really expensive. And usually covered.”

“I spoke with the doctor about this. She said it isn’t covered.”

“Isn’t she even going to try?”

“No.”

“Oh, it says here you have a coupon.”

“I do.” I hand it to her.

“It says here that you can’t use this coupon if you don’t have medical insurance.”

“I have medical insurance. It just doesn’t cover this medication. If it did cover this medication, I wouldn’t need the coupon, now would it?”

“Perhaps I could prescribe you a different medication that does the same thing but is covered by your insurance.”

“Wait, you’re a doctor?”

“No. Just a pharmacy technician. What I meant was you could ask your doctor to prescribe something different. After all, this particular medicine is very expensive.”

“So you said. Just how expensive?”

“I can’t tell you. You should go talk to your doctor again about your insurance covering this medication. Or perhaps a different medicine.”

At this point, I walk away. Before I start throwing things at this person, or setting fire to the grocery store.

Question: who is at fault? Is this my fault, for being so meek? The pharmacist’s fault, for being so stupid? The doctor’s fault, for prescribing an expensive medicine that my insurance doesn’t cover? Or the insurance company’s fault for bloating beyond the insurance industry into medical rationing?

Let’s assume for the moment that Obama actually issued a no capture order when it came to Osama bin Laden. In other words, even if the guy gave up without a fight, he still gets shot in the head. Making it a straightforward assassination.

A lot of the chatter I’ve been hearing has had to do with whether no capture orders comport with international and domestic law, and whether–given how bad bin Laden was–an exception to the usual “no assassination” rule should be allowed.

Here’s the question I have, though: isn’t assassination, for all its fucked-upedness, better than war? Because isn’t war simply assassination by proxy, multiplied by fuck all?

Perhaps consider direct enemy combat. Obama vs. Osama in a cage match. Would that be moral?

And if each person hired stand-ins for the purposes of the match, is that less moral?

What if one person hired a stand-in (or several dozen), but the other didn’t. Is that our problem with assassination?

But what if each person hired thousands of stand-ins to go battle things out in a location and under circumstances where the original enemies have no real danger. Isn’t that more problematic? Or are we giving it a moral bye because anyone stupid enough to act as a proxy in a lethal dispute deserves to die? [Although that does nothing to provide comfort to the victims of collateral damage.]

Perhaps the fundamental question is this: if we don’t consider a person’s willingness to kill at the urging of another person a character flaw worthy of indefinite incarceration, why are we really objecting to assassination in general? Shouldn’t we embrace it, sort of like we embrace scalpels over chainsaws in the operating room?

Discovered by old neighborhood in Kenmore is actually quite nice. Or has become quite nice. Surprisingly true of much of the Buffalo area. Notwithstanding its adventures in un- and underemployment, very little of Buffalo seemed dangerous in the boarded-up-and-actively-on-fire-sense. Contrast with parts of Washington D.C., Cleveland, and Detroit. Indeed, I didn’t even get that strong a “businesses are failing left and right” vibe. Vacancies seemed about on par with Olympia, frankly. Makes me wonder what I’m missing. Why are the housing prices more-or-less a quarter of those in the Puget Sound region? Why is a gym membership a third?

Are strategic allies in the Middle East so important that we’re willing to support brutal dictatorships against obvious democratic popular uprisings? Let’s hope not. Although after continually referring to Hamas and Hezbollah in unmistakably marginalizing terms–notwithstanding elections–I’m skeptical.

What with all the hullabaloo over WikiLeaks, I started thinking again about the events surrounding U.S. v. Reynolds. The military aircraft crash. The civilian observers on board died in the crash. The families sued. The military claimed privilege to avoid turning over reports about the crash. The courts upheld the military’s claim of privilege because there was “a reasonable possibility that military secrets were involved.” Then when the documents were declassified years later, it became clear that no military secrets were involved.

Which makes me wonder about the references to Julian Assange as a terrorist by people, such as Mitch McConnell and Newt Gingrich, who are not straightforwardly insane. Yes, there’s an anarchist component to WikiLeaks mission. There’s also the whole sunlight as disinfectant anti-corruption thing. And the well-informed people as a precursor to a functioning, non-tyrannical republic angle. Much of what WikiLeaks does is laudable. That said, I think I’d have more sympathy for the whole “endangering us by letting fly with the classified documents” concept if “classified” wasn’t such a suspect concept. That is, if the government could be trusted to restrict access to documents only when necessary, I’d be a lot more inclined to be sympathetic toward those suggesting Assange and his ilk are doing something wrong. But by classifying everything in sight, it’s hard to take seriously any claims of danger. And we all know how the story of the boy who cried wolf turned out. Which places at least some of the blame, should something ever happen, squarely on the heads of the secrecy nuts.

Initiative Measure No. 1098 concerns imposing an income tax on high income earners. The closest things I’ve heard of by way of objection are that (1) income taxes, or at least State income taxes, are inherently bad, and (2) although we may want to soak the rich with an income tax, we can assume this will result in everyone having to pay an income tax at some point. To which I say, so what? Income tax is less regressive than the sales tax, which is our primary funder. Perhaps I should just move to Oregon. But for now, I’m going to vote yes.

Initiative Measures No. 1100 and 1105 both concern doing away with the state-run liquor stores. Both go farther, however, impacting the state-run distribution monopoly and dictating to one degree or another what would replace it. Both assume the legislature is going to have to have some say in the replacement, especially when it comes to imposing liquor taxes to replace the “retail markup” that would be killed. The libertarian impatient and cost-conscious whiskey drinker in me of course wants the state-run liquor stores to go away immediately. When asked to choose between the two initiatives, I’m not sure I care that much. I suppose I prefer 1105, because it’s a cleaner break that allows the legislature to be more conscious and deliberate in building back up the liquor regulatory and tax scheme. But I don’t want to vote against 1100, for fear that others might find it more attractive, and I’m frankly fine with either option. So, yes and yes. Of course, we may run into problems if everyone votes that way, but at least we’ll be on the road to sanity. I mean, Jesus…what the fuck kind of government gets involved in liquor sales in the first place?

Received my official ballot for the general election in the mail yesterday. Nate Silver had some interesting things to say about the vote-by-mail Washington and Oregon have, and how that might affect polling data. One aspect of voting by mail is that some people–myself included–tend to vote early, and are thus unable to respond to any last minute changes in the landscape. Why don’t I wait? Because it’s just so exciting, filling in those little bubbles on the form.

Washington has an awful lot of Initiatives, Referenda, and Constitutional Amendments this go around. [A word about nomenclature: An "Inititive" is brought by the citizenry, at least in theory, by gathering sufficient votes to get ballot access. A "Referendum" is also brought by the citizenry, but deals with up-or-down on recent legislation, as opposed to a novel citizen-written issue. And an Amendment, of course, deals with changing the State Constitution.]

Initiative Measure No. 1053 is another Tim Eyman product. Years ago, the Washington electorate, by initiative, approved a two-thirds majority rule regarding tax increases by the legislature. The legislature was able to change the rule after a black out period. When the period ended, the legislature changed the rule, and went back to the standard majority voting. I-1053 reinstates the two-thirds rule. The problem I have with the rule is it applies to everything, including minor fee increases. Given the state of the State’s finances, I’m skeptical that tying the legislatures’ hands about every little thing is a good idea. If the initiative was limited to large dollar tax increases, I might be more sympathetic. But this just seems silly. No.

Initiative Measure No. 1082 allows employers to purchase worker’s compensation insurance from private insurance companies instead of the State. As much as I hate insurance companies, I also hate unnecessary government monopolies. And my hatred of insurance companies stems primarily from things like “health insurance,” which isn’t primarily an insurance issue. [Aside: Insurance is supposed to involve a small payment that results in a large pay-out in the event of an unlikely event. Life insurance for the young. Homeowners' insurance. Directors and officers' insurance. Even automobile insurance, or catastrophic health. But when most people are, through "premiums," essentially pre-paying for health expenses, that ain't insurance. And it shouldn't be treated as "insurance;" it's more like retirement savings, for which payouts aren't denied as a matter of course.] Because worker’s comp is real insurance, I’m leaning against the government monopoly on this one. At least until I can hear a good reason why Washington is such a leader in finding people permanently disabled. Get back to work, hippie! Yes.