Despite all of our expertise and experience, we live in a world where entropy appears to be the norm and there is no real assurance that our endeavors will lead to success. Without bloviating or waxing poetic regarding our collective attempts to manipulate and control chaos, Murphy’s Law simply states, “Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.”
Murphy’s Law, while widely attributed to an Edward Murphy who developed measurement devices for the Air Force in the 1940s and 1950s, has most likely been lurking in the human subconscious since the beginning of time without name or definition. This simple adage has no doubt been the cause of uncertainty and fear throughout the ages.
Some variations on the theme include Finagle’s Law, which states, “If anything can go even worse, it will go even worse.” Or, refining this aphorism just a little more pessimistically, “Whatever can go wrong will go wrong, and at the worst possible time, in the worst possible way.” Taking it to another level of depressing is Flanagan’s Precept, which comments on Murphy’s Law and states that, “Nothing is that predictable.” Flanagan’s cynical interpretation of Murphy’s Law is superseded only by the paradoxical, “If Murphy’s Law can go wrong, it will.” Or, “If a series of events can go wrong, they will do so in the worst possible sequence.”
The Fear of Disaster
There are no guarantees in life, and this fear of disaster is why we are so easily lured by insurance agents to spend excessive amounts of money on policies that we may never need, or on warranties that expire on the very day we need them. Anything and everything can be and has been insured for the right price. Keith Richards insures his hands; Bruce Springsteen and Rod Stewart insure their gravelly voices; Rianna, along with Mariah Carey and Tina Turner, insure their legs; Dolly Parton insures her boobs and Tom Jones even insures his chest hair. For the right amount of money an insurance company will issue a policy for anything, but rest assured that the insurance companies are not in business to protect the elite or the masses from entropy.
The insurance companies are in it for the money, and this is the reason why each policy is issued with a deductible and a long list of reasons why — in case of a claim — they would not have to pay the insured. This long list is otherwise known as “small print” and comes in very handy for the insurance company when a claim is made. Typically, if one should file a claim that is paid by the insurance company, then the cost of that person’s monthly premium would most likely go up. The surge in that person’s rate would stay on that premium for about three years, or until the insurance company is reimbursed at a profit.
Insurance is a gamble against the odds, and it is most likely that if one should live in the Mojave dessert and wants to insure their home against flood the cost would be considerably less than if they wanted to insure against drought. Conversely, if one lives in New Orleans it would be assumed that a high premium would be required to have a company insure against flooding. That being the case, about two thirds of the homeowners in New Orleans went without flood insurance because they relied on FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) to cover them in case of disaster. It is interesting to note that FEMA, after 911, was brought under the umbrella of The Homeland Security Agency, another agency created to provide insurance against disaster. Ironically, FEMA’s attention to terrorism may have led to its lack of resources for disaster response when faced with a catastrophe such as Katrina.
Rants and Scare Tactics
Be that as it may, my point here is in regard to insurance and, most notably of late, the topic in the news has been health insurance, or lack thereof. Most likely you’ve seen the proposal for President Obama’s universal health plan, but, more likely, there is a better chance that you have seen and heard sound bytes on the news with angry people shouting about America and freedom. Maybe it’s Sarah Palin decrying that Obama’s plan is evil and that it supports euthanasia. Possibly you’ve seen an advertisement by a group called Clubforgrowth.com that states — and I quote — “$22,750. In England, government health officials decided that’s how much six months of life is worth. Under their socialized system, if a medical treatment costs more, you’re out of luck. Now President Obama and Congressional Democratic leaders want to bring socialized health care to America. That’s wrong for America.”
Let me point out that I am not a fan of the proposed plan, but not because it will socialize America’s health or because of any other rhetoric that certain political party members or leaders profess. The mudslingers who try to make the Obama health plan look like the revamping of Mao Zedong’s People’s Republic are dealing in scare tactics. Socialism in itself is not a political system any more than capitalism is a political system. Instead, they are both economic systems which, strangely enough, function side by side.
Our police departments and fire departments, which are funded by taxpayer money, are, in essence, socialistic entities, as are, in theory, FEMA, HUD, Health and Human Resource, Homeland Security and a slew of other taxpayer-supported agencies. Of course, it is only in a perfect world that I could make these outrageous claims, because we all know that we the people do not manage any of these agencies any more than we the people have control of our healthcare program. Therefore, these agencies are not socialist, but rather taxpayer supported and managed by the government —not unlike the Obama plan. The conversation regarding smaller or larger government is for another time, but let it be said that we already have a control group of non-medical personnel dictating medical treatment and pricing — they are called HMOs. That’s right, insurance companies are telling doctors what procedures are necessary based upon nothing more than turning a profit.
Sitting Docs
Doctors, especially those in high risk professions such as obstetrics and gynecology or cardiology, are sitting ducks for the lawyers and a supposed jury of peers. The insurance companies prefer to settle large claims rather than fight them and lose more money. Not that one can quantify another person’s pain and suffering, but many lawsuits are frivolous, and somewhere along the line, tort reform is needed.
Often, juries are medically uninformed, but have the power to award millions of dollars based upon an emotional predication rather than an educated understanding. This then leads to the insurance company raising the doctor’s malpractice insurance.
Since most doctors are employed by a hospital, it then requires the hospital to pay more to employ the doctor. This doesn’t bode well for the patients since most hospitals are run “for profit” by a corporation and, as it has been proven, this leads to cuts in service and care. Fearing a lawsuit creates an atmosphere where the physician has to practice defensive medicine, which leads to more testing and more expense, which is exactly what the HMOs try to cut. As one can see entropy is neatly built into the system.
Premiums and Co-Pays
Sixteen percent of Americans are without a health insurance plan. As a freelance engineer or tech in the entertainment business, there is a good possibility that you are not provided with health insurance, but if you do have a plan — even if it’s through a union or steady employer — you are probably still paying a hefty fee to be insured. Not only do you pay a large chunk of cash on a yearly basis to be insured, but you also pay a co-pay for every visit to the doctor.
If you are not wealthy enough to pay a huge fee for a private doctor of your choice, then you are relegated to seeing only the doctors on your plan. I have a fairly good idea regarding what most of us in the audio profession earn, and I can say that if we get sick or need long term care, we may find ourselves in dire straits.
“isms” Aren’t the Answer
I haven’t even touched upon the pharmaceutical companies and the high cost of medication, but let me say that my objection to the president’s plan is not based upon fear of one “ism” or another, but instead founded in the fact that I do not think the plan goes deep enough or far enough in the correct direction. I do think that everyone should have healthcare, but raising the taxes of a few to help the less fortunate get insurance is not what I call change. Maybe the answer is a flat tax for everyone, which then goes into a-not for profit- health fund accompanied by tort reform…or not, but this is an issue which concerns us all and should not be confused or tainted by political mudslinging. Groups such as Clubforgrowth.com should know that we already have a faction of people dictating treatments and cost, they are called insurance companies. With chaos a mere blink away, let’s cut the rhetoric and move forward so that we can at least have an intelligent conversation regarding the issues before we enact Murphy’s Law.
