Livin' in the Future

This is not a column about Bruce Springsteen. It is not a review of his soon to be released album, “Magic,” or an endorsement thereof. Indeed, I have never been a Springsteen fan. It’s not that I dislike the man or his music; I just never understood the hype.

Perhaps I wasn’t listening close enough.

Springsteen and the entire E Street Band performed on NBC’s Today Show this morning, “on the plaza,” like so many other performers who are promoting… something. A new album or a tour usually, but sometimes it is something more. As big as the Today Show gig is, Springsteen certainly doesn’t need NBC’s help selling records or tickets.

Among the characteristics many associate with Springsteen, patriotism has to be right up there. He is as American as apple pie and Chevrolet. Although he has made political statements in his music in the past, this album takes the gloves off. When introducing “Livin’ in the Future,” a track from his new album, Springsteen makes the following statement while the E Street Band plays a soft prelude:

“This is a song called ‘Livin’ in the Future,’ but it’s really about what’s happening now. Right now! The things that we love about America like cheeseburgers and french fries... the Bill of Rights, V-twin motorcycles... trans fats, the Jersey shore… We love all those things. However, in the past six years, we’ve had to add to the American picture: Rendition; illegal wiretapping; voter suppression; no habeas corpus; neglect of our great city New Orleans and her people; an attack on the Constitution and the loss of our best young men and women in a tragic war.”

More than just a list of gripes, Springsteen goes on with his own call to action.

“This is a song about things that shouldn't happen here happening here. Right now we plan to do something about it. We plan to sing about it. I know it’s early, but it’s late. So come and join us.”

It is interesting that his last album with the E Street Band, “The Rising," was released in 2002 - just before the junior Bush’s war in Iraq. It is probably safe to say Springsteen doesn’t need the money and equally safe to say that he did not need to produce a new album to sell out a tour. No, it is clear there is something else he needed to do. He needed to exercise his first amendment right to freedom of speech - before it too has been swallowed up by a fear-mongering, power-hungry and arrogant administration. More than a right, it is likely that Springsteen views it as a responsibility.

The chorus from “Livin’ in the Future” warns, “We're livin' in the future. And none of this has happened yet.” It’s an ominous message and a thread that runs throughout the entire album.

So often the arts have been the conduit for political change. So many artists have been the victims of suppression, exile and and many have paid for their activism with their lives. In America our right to vocalize our disagreement or even our disenchantment with the government is guaranteed by the Constitution - but as Springsteen points out, so too are so many other rights that are slowly being eroded by our government.

They call him the “Boss,” a moniker I have always taken issue with - my reply always, “He’s not my boss.” But in this case at least, I’ll take heed of his message. His values, when it comes to nationalism… to constitutionalism, are absolutely mine.

He asks some very pointed questions. Today, I am listening.

Buy a Car, Get a Check

Robert B. McCurry, Jr., former vice president of sales and marketing for Chrysler died almost a year ago.

So what?
Never heard of him?

Perhaps not directly, but because of a marketing ploy he developed more than 30 years ago, retail advertising has never been the same.

McCurry holds the dubious distinction of inventing the factory (or manufacturer’s) rebate.

The gimmick was originally introduced in a half-time TV commercial during Super Bowl IX. Former professional baseball player turned sports commentator turned advertisement pitchman Joe Garagiola announced that those who purchased a brand new Plymouth Duster or Dodge Dart would receive a $200 check directly from Chrysler.

“Buy a car, get a check,” Garagiola said, without one single wardrobe malfunction. It proved to be pure genius. Sales rocketed the very next day as Ford and GM scrambled to catch up.

Today that pesky rebate has inundated every area of consumer and retail life.

Googling the term “rebate” returns no less than 36 million hits. There are sites dedicated to tracking rebates, finding the most attractive rebates and even locating those products that are “free” after the rebate. There are rebates for electronic gadgets, garage door openers, laundry detergent and pharmaceuticals, just to name a few. Some products even carry multiple rebates - a combination of offers by the manufacturer, the distributor, the retailer and others. It’s enough to drive even the most conscientious shopper insane.

Surely if McCurry knew how his creation has evolved, he would be rolling over in his grave.

According to data collected by Brian Grow for a November 2005 article in BusinessWeek, fully 40 percent of all rebates are never collected. The data, supplied by the market research firm Vericours, Inc., goes on to conclude that roughly $2 billion in extra revenue remains with the manufacturers and retailers every year. And that was in 2005.

It’s no wonder the rebate is such an appealing marketing strategy. The customer is sold the product based on the advertised “after rebate” price, but 40 percent of those customers never realize their discount - they have actually paid the full price. And even those who are able to navigate the exceedingly narrow path to redemption, often they are so thrilled to have won the prize that they have forgotten who paid the sales tax on their rebate. Furthermore, they fail to realize who has been earning interest on their money during the weeks and months spent waiting for the check to arrive.

I avoid rebates. The labyrinth set up between me and my money most often renders the victory hollow. Occasionally the rebate is sufficiently large or perhaps it is offered through a retailer or manufacturer that I know and trust. Sometimes it’s worth the risk, but as a general rule they only serve to make me take my business elsewhere. Once in a while, just for grins, I’ll go through the motions and jump through the hoops for the $5 or $10 rebate. Sometimes they actually come, but so long after the fact that I can’t even remember sending off for it. Like finding a five spot in a parking lot - I feel as though fortune has smiled upon me. There is no telling, however, how many checks are still languishing in rebate purgatory.

California Assembly Bill 1673 is currently sitting on Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk. The bill is an attempt to make retailers truthfully advertise the price of merchandise with rebates. The bill would give them two choices: Either emphasize the full, un-rebated price or process the rebate instantly - at the time of purchase. Of course, those on the business end of the continuum say the fine print is clear enough and that consumers are aware of how rebates work while those representing consumer interests say the rebate claims process has become so convoluted that advertising the “after rebate” price with the details in the fine print amounts to false advertising.

This bill goes a long way to reeling in the rebate monster. The manufacturers and retailers can still offer their rebates, but the price featured in bold print will have to be the full retail price. Or, if they really want to advertise the discounted price prominently, they would have to assure that the customer actually pays the advertised price by giving the rebate at the point of sale.

Maybe then McCurry could rest in peace.

Misplaced Loyalty

Our Constitution leaves to the individual states those powers not specifically designated to the federal government. Although hierarchical supremacy always goes to federal law, there are certain limitations on federal authority that is supposed to be left to the states. However, through a number of means - typically by holding money over the states’ heads - the federal government does influence state law.

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act is an attempt to control the educational curriculum that has been historically decided at the state level. Although the feds cannot mandate anything regarding curriculum, it can coerce financially strapped state educational institutions with the lure of cash. There is something inherently disingenuous about the federal government collecting taxes from the residents of the various states, ostensibly to be used to run the federal government, only to give it back to the states with strings attached. Unfortunately, this is not at all uncommon in this day and age.

Perhaps if the money were to be used to forward legitimate scholastic goals only, the ends might, perhaps, justify the means. And let us assume that NCLB was created and born of the purest of motives and, further, that the procedures are universally agreed upon and accepted as the best curriculum for all students nationwide. Yes, let’s just suspend all skepticism and grant that such a universal standard actually exists and that the feds have stumbled upon it. And just to add the icing to this unbelievably utopian cake, let us presume that the act has been fully funded and supported by those who championed it. Let’s just say that NCLB has been all it could be…

Then what about section 9528? The section’s heading reads:

ARMED FORCES RECRUITER ACCESS TO STUDENTS AND STUDENT RECRUITING INFORMATION.

The following 297 words buried within the 670-page document codify exactly what its title says. Apparently, NCLB would have our kids be all they can be as well. No access to the students’ names and numbers - no money. Although there is an “opt out” clause, often parents find recruiters have their children’s information only after it is too late, if they find out at all. The recruiter calls in the afternoon, after school is out but before many parents are usually home from work. I am not, however, “many” parents.

I was home when the calls came for my 17 year-old son. The caller ID said “private number,” but when anyone calls on a phone that I pay the bill on, I ask who is calling. There was only one place the information could have come from, but I asked the recruiters anyway just to confirm my suspicion. As it turns out, they were more forthcoming and better informed than the San Juan Unified School District was. Eventually, after many calls, the district’s legal department informed me that they were merely complying with federal law - as though they had no choice. Although it is true that NCLB is a federal law, it is misleading to imply that the district somehow has no choice.

On page 45 of the 2007-2008 Parent Handbook, there is a short paragraph that states federal law permits the access to this information and that parents may opt out - in writing - to Pupil Personnel Services. There is no contact name, no department phone number or address listed. Had I not been home when the recruiters called, I would have never known. The district contends there is a federal law it must comply with - it doesn’t. In fact, although there are certain procedures that must be followed or else the money is yanked, there are no provisions in case the feds renege on their deal; they want compliance even when they won’t fully fund the act.

It is understandable that schools are after every dollar they can get and it is no surprise that the feds would try to regulate - through creative means - anything they can, but it is dismaying that the district would roll over so easily. NCLB offers an opt-out clause, but it doesn’t say how loudly it is to be announced. The San Juan Unified School District chose to burry the information in a place that parents are not likely to find it.

The district has perhaps forgotten where its loyalty lies - and where the vast majority of its money comes from. The opt-out provision of NCLB should be made a priority. It should be a proactive announcement and not a few words buried in a slew of parental reading passed out at the beginning of the year. The recruitment provision goes well beyond any legitimate educational goal and in practice it circumvents the influence a parent has on molding his or her child’s future. The district has a responsibility to give the parent back the first word - and it can do it without risking any NCLB money.

The Lion's Den

A friend was recently laid off her job after nine years of employment. These things happen even in a good economy and even to good employees; it’s life. She filed for unemployment, is looking for a new job, enrolled for classes at the local junior college and is otherwise proactively dealing with this major upheaval in her life. She is 38, she’s healthy and her husband is self-employed. Since she received her family’s health insurance through her employer, they are now in need of their own plan.

She was turned down due to a pre-existing condition. Allergies. Yes, allergies. Nothing exotic, mind you. No lethal food allergies; she doesn’t have to avoid peanuts or shellfish. She is not going to go into anaphylactic shock over some esoteric medication - no, we’re talking about plain old hay fever. A dangerous pre-existing condition if there ever was one. It is only but a symptom of the general meltdown in our health-care system.

Although there are far too many issues, both global and specific, to enumerate here, there is an overarching unfairness to how the alliances fall out. There are essentially three players in the game: The caregivers (doctors, hospitals, etc.), the insurance company and the patient. Although there is an almost sacred relationship between the doctor and patient and certainly an economic relationship between the insurance company and its customer, these alliances both crumble when it comes to who is legally responsible for paying the bill.

Stories circulate about how doctors and other caregivers are bound by the insurance companies in what they can and cannot do. They would have us believe that the three-piece suits dwelling in glass towers dictate their every move. Conversely, the insurance industry tells of the sky-rocketing cost of medical care and that they will surely go broke if they can’t somehow control their costs. Neither the caregiver nor the insurance company wants us to know that they enjoy a symbiotic relationship; that they are on the same side; it is really these two powerhouses versus the patient.

Blue Cross of California recently settled a class action lawsuit because it was refusing, without cause, to pay the claims of its customers. It is one of many lawsuits against insurance companies. Blue Cross had no trouble paying it. They still won. Even after the legal expenses and after the payouts to their “customers,” Blue Cross is still doing just fine, thank you very much. They’re holding all the cards, along with the doctors and hospitals and the supporting cast, this alliance is in the business of collecting money - from you. And they are good at it.

Because the patient holds the ultimate legal responsibility to pay for his or her medical bills regardless of whatever insurance coverage is in effect, the insurance company can afford to drag it’s feet when it comes to paying; the bill collectors are not coming after them. Someone pays the caregivers eventually - insurance (after two, three or more billings), the patient who can afford it (often paying what the insurance company should have but didn’t), by inflating the costs to everyone else and finally by the taxpayers. The insurance industry collects premiums from you and then actively avoids - successfully - ever paying for your care. And these two players are playing the game all day every day.

The “responsible” party is the newcomer. The patient comes in as prey. Wandering into the lion’s den often already wounded by a catastrophic accident or illness, the patient does not know the rules or even that there is a game. He or she is expecting the insurance company to uphold its contract and the doctors to provide the best possible care no matter what the cost. Foolish patient! The ultimate responsibility is theirs and often the cold hard reality comes far too late. As long as the responsibility party is the weakest player in the game, the patient will continue to lose.

Born to be Mild

There is something undeniably American about the idea of having the sun upon one’s face, the wind in one’s hair and the wide-open spaces in which to experience it. The thought instantly conjures up images of sailing the high-seas, racing through the old west on horseback, barnstorming in a vintage biplane… or riding a motorcycle on ribbons of endless asphalt into the sunset. It is the definitive vision of liberty and freedom that so many Americans hold close.

Except, that is, when said activity might be “dangerous.” Picture that sailor, cowboy or pilot wearing a Department of Transportation (DOT) approved helmet and the vision of freedom quickly comes apart. Yet in 47 states, some sort of motorcycle helmet law robs America’s two wheeled enthusiasts of this iconic American experience.

We live in a country where liberty is among our stated “unalienable rights.” This “self-evident” truth is so important that it is specifically enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. Boiled down, it is an idea that allows us to do as we please so long as it doesn’t harm anyone else.

Of course, the interaction between government, society and politics is rarely that simple, but there are some cases when it is. Enter the motorcycle helmet law.

Many motorcycle enthusiasts are opposed to these laws on the grounds that helmets are actually an impediment to safety or because the statistics are wrong or somehow misleading. However, the data from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and other organizations is pretty overwhelming - helmets do save their wearers from serious injury and/or death. Granted.

But shouldn’t we be able to determine the level of risk acceptable for each of us?

Those advocating for helmet laws say there is financial harm done to others who had no part in the decision-making process. It is a form of involuntary social welfare granted to those who choose not to take precautions and suffer serious injury as a result. Without adequate medical insurance, society as a whole picks up the tab. It is a valid argument, although hardly unique to motorcycle riders.

The do-gooders who have lobbied for these laws are hiding behind the tried and true “it’s not fair that I should have to pay for your carelessness,” or, let’s just say what they mean, stupidity. But there are a host of dangerous activities that are not regulated - far more than are. Although this is an inconsistent and somewhat myopic argument, it is still true enough. This is a problem when people engage in “risky” activities without adequate insurance - someone has to pay.

Unlike some other “dangerous” hobbies, however, there is a simple and relatively painless way to address the financial cost of those wishing ride without a helmet. Simply add a small surcharge to all motorcycle registrations or licenses to fund an account that pays for those wishing to take the risk. Because all motorcycle riding could be defined as risky, motorcycle riders should not mind funding an account to cover their collective butts - or heads. If it was about money, there is a solution.

But, alas, it is not about money… it is about control and the idea that we, or at least some of us, don’t know what is good for us. There is a not-so-hidden agenda at work here. Those who are absolutely convinced that anyone who would decide to ride without a helmet must surely be insane and as such, must be unable to make rational decisions for themselves. Therefore, it's the government's job to step in and save us from our own stupidity.

The idea is one that extends well beyond two wheels and a motor; it is about who decides what is best for us. Has the government evolved into some kind of nanny that tells us when to wipe our nose and what time to go to bed? Is that what we really want?