Thirteen Tuesdays: $7,823,264

Almost eight million dollars.

That's the total of the 311 health care-related filed judgments, satisfied judgments, and bankruptcies from the last thirteen Tuesdays, going back to January 1, 2013.

Add that to the 24-week totals from the my tracking last year, and you have 859 families and $19,482,613 of financial pain and suffering.

As I pointed out last year, this is not even 'close-enough-for-government-work' accounting.  That level of accuracy would require me to pay attention to who the specific people are, and I don't want to get into that level of detail.  There could be duplicates here - the same amount appearing in the 'filed' section one week and the 'satisfied' section another. But even in the face of that - pretend it's 50% duplication -- it's still well over $9.7 million dollars, just in our Central New York area, in about nine months. 

In my earlier post, I pointed out that

I don't know the circumstances that landed these folks in this section of the paper. I don't have the faintest idea whether they had jobs, if they had health insurance through their employers, if their insurance company denied the claims, if they were hanging by a thread in any of the safety net programs that are available to folks in New York, or if they made a conscientious choice not to pay their bills, in which case their landing in this particular section of the paper could have been avoided.

I do know that the vast majority of the filings were from our three local hospitals, and that according to their websites, all of the facilities - St Joseph's Hospital Health Center, Crouse Hospital, and SUNY Upstate Medical University - offer some kind of financial assistance, ranging from helping get patients into insurance programs to reduced payments or payment plans.

In addition to efforts by the facilities themselves, those of us who have insurance, and our insurance companies, and many of our health care providers, contribute to indigent care programs through surcharges tacked on to certain medical bills; and all of us support safety net programs through the taxes we pay. So basically, everyone's trying, here - whether by choice or by default - to help get medical bills paid. The hope is that between private health insurance, government safety net programs, and other funding arrangements, we'll continue to have access to quality care when we need it.

And now, thirteen weeks later? Three hundred eleven more families. Almost eight million dollars more.

On March 23rd, the anniversary of the signing of the Affordable Care Act, President Obama noted that

In the wealthiest country on earth, no one should go broke just because they got sick.

Will the tide shift over the next quarter?  Stay tuned.

Tuesday's Number: $1,766,483

Tuesday is the day my local paper, the Syracuse Post-Standard, publishes the weekly business section. In addition to special features, tips from stock experts, budgeting advice and the like, we get the judgment and bankruptcy listings.  

As I did for much of last year, I will be tracking health care related filings. I include anything that is clearly a debt owed to a hospital, nursing home, physician or physician group, medical supplier, and so on; I do not include filings by insurance companies, many of which are so diversified it would not be a fair assumption that the filing is related to medical care or health insurance.  Note that the paper only publishes accounts of at least $5,000.

We have a milestone today -- it's the first time this year the weekly total has reached seven figures. Not much cause for celebration, really, but a milestone none-the-less.

This week, thirty-five people were listed with new judgments totaling $1,586,421 to hospitals, doctors, or other medical providers.  This is more than double the previous high week for this year, and a couple hundred thousand dollars higher than the highest total during the 24 weeks I tracked these figures last year.

This week, two people were listed as having satisfied judgments totaling $49,908 to a hospital, doctor, or other medical provider.  

And finally, this week there were two health-care related bankruptcies listed, totaling $130,148, easily the highest bankruptcy figure we've had in many weeks; in fact, this week's total is greater than the previous twelve weeks combined. 

Are You Alarmed? I Am

My Sweet Baboo and I disagree on the recent proposal from the City of Syracuse to assess a $50 annual fee for homeowners and businesses with alarm systems.  He's against it, and I'm perfectly OK with it, because I believe we need to start being reasonable if we're to make a dent in solving our city's problems.

The alarm proposal, if passed, would mean that something like 10,000 people and businesses with alarms would have to pay the fee, after exemptions for over those over 65 or disabled. As proposed, the $50 would be charged to the 86 alarm companies that have systems in Syracuse, who would pass the charge on to folks like us..

Our home is in The Valley - North Valley, or NoSen (north of Seneca Turnpike) to be precise.  My Baboo bought the house back in the late 80's. The neighborhood is fine - we're near Meacham Field, there's a Christian school just down the block, single family homes on both sides of the street, and we've got two awesome ice cream places and a few restaurants within walking distance. 

Ten years ago, when we got together, I asked if we could have an alarm installed, not because "the police don't do their jobs" as some people have suggested on discussion forums, but for the peace of mind that having the system brings. In that time, we had one incident of someone taking stuff out of unlocked cars (we were dumb and it cost us $16), and the time when an idiot threw a small rock through our front door, in a clear case of mistaken address identity.

Shortly after having the alarm system installed, I was at work and received a call from ADT telling me that the alarm was going off at the house and that the police had been dispatched.  I raced home  to find everything locked, just as we left it. Two or three days later, the same thing -- call from alarm company, race home, no issues.   I started feeling a little antsy that the Syracuse Police Department would not think highly of us if this continued.  We had ADT come back out, make some tweaks, and we were fine for quite a while. 

I think there may have been one other random false alarm tied to the front door (as the first two were) over the years, and then a situation last year, when we were at dinner and got a call from ADT that the alarm was triggered on the back door; again, the police were sent and fortunately nothing was wrong.

So, over the course of 10 years, we've had four false alarms at our house, all of which resulted in police being dispatched to wander around the house, find everything secure, and leave. And therein lies the issue; take a look at the most recent data: 

• In 2011, Syracuse police responded to 2,635 residential alarms, of which 83% (2,183) were false alarms.
• On the business alarm side of things, there were 7,088 calls, only 14%  (995) were false alarms.

Is a dollar a week too 'alarming' an insurance policy for potentially taking the police away from more important things to come and check out my house, which is almost always going to be a false alarm? I don't think so, and that's what I told my Baboo.

Here's what does alarm me, however: Syracuse has had an alarm fee law on the books for years -- since the mid-1990s  -- and has never implemented it.  Why?  Because they couldn't figure out how to, or because they didn't have the courage to enforce it.

Syracuse has had a law on the books since 1995 requiring alarm owners to pay $30 a year. The 1995 law has never been enforced, city officials said. If it had, the city would have collected roughly $4.5 million over the past 18 years, The Post-Standard estimates, based on a 1995 projection made by city officials... City hall officials can’t say with certainty why the 1995 law was never enforced. But they surmise that the city never established an efficient mechanism for collecting the fees, which were supposed to be paid by residents and businesses.

It boggles my mind why Syracuse doesn't collect the money they're allowed to collect.  We are a city with a huge financial issue, and yet we leave millions on the table every year, through lackadaisical enforcement (as with the parking scofflaw program), through a lack of creativity or efficiency in enforcing laws that get passed, which is apparently the case here, or because of a lack of courage on the part of the people we elect to manage the city. 

On the alarm fee proposal, I'd keep it in place for residences, but would not charge businesses unless the false alarm rate exceeds a certain percentage, because statistically the vast majority of those are 'real' calls, not wastes of law enforcement time and effort.

And, as to the issue of efficiently collecting the fee, why not try billing people for it on their tax bills. The City Finance Department knows how to send those out, right? Have a programmer add a line for 'residential alarm insurance' and call it a day.

Again, we need to be reasonable if we're going to keep our city afloat financially.

We can start by having the Common Council get over their fear of upsetting anyone, by having the city enforce laws on the books, and by having city residents pay our fair share of reasonable fees -- in this case, about a dollar a week -- so that less reasonable fees don't end up on the books.

What Color is the Stripe in YOUR Wallet?

You may have heard that North Carolina has dropped plans to include a pink stripe on driver's licenses issued to illegal immigrants who have temporary status under the federal  'Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals' program.

If you're unfamiliar, DACA allows kids who were brought to America illegally to stay for a limited period of time without the risk of being deported.  The program allows Homeland Security efforts to be placed on removing more dangerous illegal immigrants.  There are a number of eligibility requirements, including age, arrival date, length of continuous residency, education requirements (in school, GED or diploma), prior honorable military service, and a generally clean criminal record with no felony convictions and three or fewer misdemeanors.   If the immigrant's application is accepted, 'legal presence' is granted, but not 'lawful status', that being reserved for citizens and legal immigrants.

North Carolina, which has other stripey driver's licenses, wanted to put a pink stripe on the licenses granted to DACA applicants, because that would be consistent with federal work permits, but mostly because it would make the roads of the Tar Heel State safer. Honest. Here's what Transportation Secretary Tony Tata had to say:

This program is about accountability and safety, making our roads safer for all North Carolinians.We have strong support from the North Carolina Sheriff’s Association. Those approved through the DACA process will take driver exams and road tests, as well as provide proof of auto insurance prior to receiving a license.

However, pressure from lawyers, immigrant groups, and civil rights groups was quick and powerful, particularly the voice of NC Jewish groups. Durham Rabbi John Friedman noted

I don't think these licenses have anything to do with the Holocaust and I'm not saying anyone is a Nazi. But it cannot help remind Jews of the yellow star.

Those sentiments were echoed by Raleigh's Rabbi Eric Solomon, who stated

Our efforts do not end when major discrimination turns into minor discrimination. It ends when we are 100 percent positive that discriminatory policies will not go into effect in our state.

In the end, NCDMV went with a standardized format that meets the letter of their law, which states that temporary licenses need to be clearly marked. And I'm fine with that.

But in the interest of transparency, and on the whole safety issue, wouldn't it be helpful to have lots of colored license stripes? For example a different color for, say,

• people convicted of DWI/DUI/DWAI (or people who cop a plea to a lesser charge)?
• people convicted of 'distracted driving', such as texting, emailing, messing around with their on-board computer, putting on mascara, or yelling at their kids in the back seat?
• people convicted of a drug offense?
• people who are carrying a concealed handgun?
• sex offenders?
• people who have had car accidents?
• other random felons?
• people who don't have a high school education?
• people who served but were dishonorably discharged from the military?

Wouldn't folks with those stripes potentially be more dangerous for the police who stop them, or potentially make the rest of the people on the road in North Carolina less safe than someone who actually goes through the process of obtaining DACA status?

Amnesty? Shamnesty!

The Syracuse Common Council, long referred to as "Syracuse's greatest deliberative body" by the late Post-Standard columnist Bob Haggart, could have voted this week on whether to hire a company to boot the cars of parking scofflaws. But they didn't.

Some history: Syracuse started booting cars back in 2008; to receive the yellow boot, a person has to have three delinquent parking tickets, each at least 90 days old.  In 2008, there were 12,819 boot-eligible vehicles, owing $4,800,000; by 2012, there were 19,457 vehicles owing $7,900,000, according to a published report.

Here's a story from July of 2008, touting the benefits of the new booting program:

Since Syracuse's booting law took effect Jan. 1, the city has taken in $2,186,000 in parking tickets, surcharges and late fees, said Richard Scheutzow, director of the city's Parking Violations Bureau. The city is on track to top $4 million this year, more than twice the amount collected in any year during the past decade...  The bulk of the revenue comes from people paying their tickets voluntarily or through a collection agency, Scheutzow said... It's clear that fear of the boot is driving scofflaws to haul themselves in to the parking bureau before they are caught, Scheutzow said. The increase in parking payments started in October, when the impending booting law was announced, and it has held steady since then. Scheutzow and city police agree that the booting effort has increased compliance with parking laws and payment of parking tickets. "It's working out fantastic," said police Lt. Joe Sweeny, who oversees the booting program.

Since 2008, revenues from the booting program have fallen significantly. Part of  that was because having police officers cruising parking lots looking for boot-able cars was not an effective use of their time; it became even a less effective use of taxpayer dollars when the Police Department starting having officers handle the scofflaw cruises primarily on overtime. Mayor Stephanie Miner ended the overtime booting in 2011.

So now Pay Lock, the company that has provided the boots from the beginning, wants to take over the whole program, including the scofflaw cruises, for 28% of the take. They'd have people on the streets seven hours a day, five days a week, and the city would not be on the hook for salaries and benefits. And, with the increased effort, the city would see an additional $630,000 more than is being collected today.  Seems hard not to like this idea, doesn't it?

But then, there must be delieration, because it is the Common Council after all.  Deliberation including discussion on whether we need to have an amnesty period before changing the program. 1st District Councilor Jake Barrett offered this:

Maybe there's a fairness issue. We're changing the system. Let's give them a chance to pay.

Um, the people who need to get the boot have ignored at least three parking tickets for at least 90 days each.  They've been notified. They owe the city almost $8,000,000. The city is in dire financial straits.  Do we really need to consider an amnesty program because we're "changing the system" and being more aggressive in collecting the millions of dollars that these folks owe? 

And on the subject of amnesty, let's go back again to July 2008; here's one last comment from the article on the booting program.

Scheutzow  said that, given the success of the program, the city will never again need to offer a parking amnesty program to violators. The last amnesty in 2003 forgave late fees and penalties and brought in more than $1 million.

We don't need to, and cannot afford to, forgive a few million bucks to be kind to scofflaws.  What we do need to do is get back to the aggressive enforcement and revenue collection. 

Here's hoping the Common Council votes to approve the contract with Pay Lock at the earliest opportunity, April Fool's Day, and that Pay Lock gets to work as soon as possible.

Fools they would be if they do otherwise.

In Praise of Government Transparency

Yesterday we received a postcard from the Syracuse Board of Zoning Appeals, advising us of a hearing taking place next Thursday. The hearing is to "consider in full, or in part" an application for a waiver on the uses permitted on a property around the corner from us. 

Apparently, the owners of the house, which is in a quiet, unassuming residential area, are interested in opening an umbrella factory. Yep -- an umbrella factory.

Frankly, I'm kind of surprised we got the notification. We cannot see the house from here, it's on a parallel street and behind the houses across the street from us.  The city thinks we're within 400 feet of the proposed factory location, but that'd take some pretty impressive crow-flying; for all practical purposes, it's closer to a 300 or 400 yards away than 400 feet, if I were to guess. That being said, I appreciate getting the notice and having the opportunity to inspect the full proposal at the Zoning Office, or to attend the hearing if we want.

I don't think it's going to end up being anything like what you see in the photo I've included here; I can't imagine my neighbor is going to hire a bunch of immigrants or illegals and put in a sweat shop,  which is what the picture seems to show. And even if they did hire some folks, I can't imagine there being a whole lot of impact to us, except perhaps a longer ice cream line at the Arctic Island this summer.

Not sure this is worth taking time off from work, but I may submit my questions in writing.  Here are the things I'm wondering about:

1. What kind of umbrellas will be manufactured there?  If it's the little ones that go in drinks, I think it would probably be OK.
2. What are the risks to neighborhood if they start opening all the umbrellas indoors?  Will we be swept by a swarm of locusts, or by a string of bad luck?
3. If they're going to be making patio umbrellas, would we be able to participate in the quality control process by setting a couple of them up in the garden, sitting a spell, maybe enjoying a glass of wine?
4. Will neighbors get a discounted price on purchases?

In all seriousness, I think it's great that the City of Syracuse takes the trouble to notify us of these things. I think they could make the process a little better by providing a link where we could review the zoning request online, rather than having to stop by their office during business hours, but any effort at neighborhood outreach is appreciated.

If this gets approved, I'll let you know what kind of umbrellas they're going to make.  If we get lucky, maybe we'll have a party!

Tuesday's Number: $503,633

Tuesday is the day my local paper, the Syracuse Post-Standard, publishes the weekly business section. In addition to special features, tips from stock experts, budgeting advice and the like, we get the judgment and bankruptcy listings. 

As I did for much of last year, I will be tracking health care related filings. I include anything that is clearly a debt owed to a hospital, nursing home, physician or physician group, medical supplier, and so on; I do not include filings by insurance companies, many of which are so diversified it would not be a fair assumption that the filing is related to medical care or health insurance. 

This week, nineteen people were listed with new judgments totaling $456,976 to hospitals, doctors, or other medical providers.  

This week, two people were listed as having satisfied judgments totaling $17,002 to a hospital, doctor, or other medical provider.  

And this week, there were three health-care related bankruptcies listed, totaling $29,655.  

The paper published only those accounts of at least $5,000.

Marriage Equality as Speech

Last night I heard about Senator Rob Portman changing his mind on same-sex marriage.  Portman, the Ohio Republican who was one of the contenders to be Mitt Romney's running mate, offered his support for same-sex marriage in a thoughtful editorial in the Columbia Dispatch.

Portman was a cosponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman and which also prevents states from having to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. His change of heart comes after learning two years ago that his son is gay.  I suspect this happens in families fairly frequently; opinions often change as lives change, as reality crashes in where beliefs once stood fast.

One of the things that Portman came to realize was that there is a way to bring together his religious upbringing, his conservatives values, and marriage rights.  He notes in his comments that

British Prime Minister David Cameron has said he supports allowing gay couples to marry because he is a conservative, not in spite of it. I feel the same way. We conservatives believe in personal liberty and minimal government interference in people’s lives. We also consider the family unit to be the fundamental building block of society. We should encourage people to make long-term commitments to each other and build families, so as to foster strong, stable communities and promote personal responsibility.

House Speaker John Boehner, also an Ohio Republican, was asked by ABC's Martha Raddatz (in an interview to be aired Sunday) if he could foresee a time or situation when his views on this issue would change, such as if a child or loved one was gay.  Here's his answer.

Rob’s a great friend and a long-time ally. And I appreciate that he’s decided to change his views on this. I believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. … It’s what I grew up with. It’s what I believe. It’s what my church teaches me. And I can’t imagine that position would ever change.

Boehner's views may not change (and he is not alone), but many Republicans are shifting towards equality for all couples who wish to marry, to share the benefits granted by our government to those in approved unions, which are not granted to those in civil unions. And isn't that kind of an oxymoron? What's 'civil' about legalized discrimination? 

The shift is not without risk, however. Take the case of Richard Hanna, a moderate Republican from Central New York. Hanna was one of two Congressional Republicans who signed an amicus brief urging the US Supreme Court to strike down the California initiative that banned marriage equality there.   He faced a primary last year, then went on to win his seat - handily - in spite of the fact that he didn't get the Conservative Party endorsement. But now, he's apparently enraged the National Organization for Marriage with his decision to get on board the equality train. Here's what Brian Brown, president of NOM, had to say about Rep. Hanna's chances next time around.

There's absolutely no doubt that we are going be involved in the next election for Richard Hanna's seat. What folks don't understand is that we have Republicans and Democrats who support us, but if a Republican betrays the party platform, betrays his constituents, and does what Richard Hanna does, you can bet we're going to primary him. And if a Democrat wins in the end, so be it. 

Hanna won't be alone in this. Others who cross the line and support marriage equality are apt to face similar primary challenges (or at the very least benign neglect) in their next race.

In the end, what we have here is people exercising their right to speak freely, their right to make public statements in support of equal rights for all, facing significant pressure from other people exercising their right to freely speak a differing opinion.  And while I'm not a fan of the threat-laced political atmosphere in which we find ourselves, whether the discussion is on marriage equality, gun rights, taxes, or entitlements, I appreciate and support each side being able to express their opinion.

Here's Senator Portman again; I think he gets it exactly right:

As we strive as a nation to form a more perfect union, I believe all of our sons and daughters ought to have the same opportunity to experience the joy and stability of marriage.

But what I don't get is, why is it that the same conservatively principled people who brought us corporations are people too are not able to understand that gay people are people too, and deserve the same rights as everyone else.  Not different rights, or better rights, just the same ones. My Sweet Baboo and I can get married if we choose to, at any time.  We have that right simply because we're an opposite sex couple?  I think that's ridiculous, but it got me thinking.

If my Baboo and I were to get married, it would be a public and legal declaration of our  commitment to each other, that we were partners in the truest sense of the word, until death do us part.  If we got married, it would be for love, security, protection -- to have the full rights afforded people who take the plunge, who make the statement "I am married."

And then it hit me: isn't marriage -- the act, the declaration -- constitutionally protected speech?

And shouldn't it therefore be championed by those who favor limited government?  Who favor freedom for people to make their own way in the world, to succeed or fail, with a husband or wife steadfastly by their side? Who believe in our inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? And wouldn't marriage eguality then be as worthy of defense as say, the right to bear arms?

Hmm...
 

Tuesday's Number: $104,916

Tuesday is the day my local paper, the Syracuse Post-Standard, publishes the weekly business section. In addition to special features, tips from stock experts, budgeting advice and the like, we get the judgment and bankruptcy listings.  

As I did for much of last year, I will be tracking health care related filings. I include anything that is clearly a debt owed to a hospital, nursing home, physician or physician group, medical supplier, and so on; I do not include filings by insurance companies, many of which are so diversified it would not be a fair assumption that the filing is related to medical care or health insurance.  

This week, nine people were listed with new judgments totaling $66,204 to hospitals, doctors, or other medical providers. 

This week, two people were listed as having satisfied judgments totaling $18,791 to a hospital, doctor, or other medical provider.   

And this week, there were two health-care related bankruptcies listed, totaling $19,921.  

The paper published only those accounts of at least $5,000.

Today's Quiz

Say your company's job is to publish a newspaper. You have some kind of problem with your presses, and you’re not able to deliver the entire paper to your customers. 

Your carriers deliver what they can, all of the things that are printed on Saturday, to as many customers as possible. Meanwhile, you work to resolve the issue, get the rest of the paper printed, and in the hands of your carriers as early as possible, so it can be delivered to homes and retail outlets.

To keep your subscribers informed and up-to-date, do you:

A.   Put an article on your online website a good two hours after you would normally have delivered your newspaper advising that the paper will be late, tell your customers they don't need to call, and extend your Customer Service lines just in case people didn’t listen to you?

B.   Update the online article only once during the day?

C.   Have your president provide updates, embedded in the comments of the un-updated article?

D.   Have your president tweet under his little-used personal account, rather than the newspaper’s account, ten hours after the paper should have been delivered, with a link to an apology?

E.   Fail to respond to tweets from readers who are expressing frustration?

F.   Not email your subscribers (even once) to keep them informed?

If you’re the Syracuse Media Group, you did all of the above today.  

Tuesday's Number: $601,817

Tuesday is the day my local paper, the Syracuse Post-Standard, publishes the weekly business section. In addition to special features, tips from stock experts, budgeting advice and the like, we get the judgment and bankruptcy listings.

As I did for much of last year, I will be tracking health care related filings. I include anything that is clearly a debt owed to a hospital, nursing home, physician or physician group, medical supplier, and so on; I do not include filings by insurance companies, many of which are so diversified it would not be a fair assumption that the filing is related to medical care or health insurance. 

This week, twenty-one people were listed with new judgments totaling $592,028 to hospitals, doctors, or other medical providers.  

This week, one person was listed as having satisfied a judgment totaling $9,789 to a hospital, doctor, or other medical provider.  

Again this week, there were no health-care related bankruptcies listed.  

The paper published only those accounts of at least $5,000.

The story you're about to read is true.

I’m sitting in the living room, reading the paper and listing to the Blue Moon Cafe, having a great morning. Put up a silly post on Facebook about all the things I’m going to get done today. Finish reading the paper, reach for my coffee mug, almost empty and completely cold.

Pick up the mug, head off to the kitchen through the plantetarium, where I notice some dead leaves hanging off an Easter cactus. Put mug down, pull off the leaves, and head towards the kitchen to throw the leaves away. Stop in the dining room, as one of the cats has knocked a pile of mail onto the floor.

I pick up the mail with one hand, putting it back on the dining room table. I notice one of my favorite plant catalogs in the pile, so sit down and start leafing through it, realizing that I still have a handful of dead leaves. 

Go to the kitchen, throw the leaves away, see the coffee pot and remember I was heading out to get another cuppa.  Retrace steps, find my coffee mug, head back to kitchen, pour coffee, and take a sip. Cold. Sigh. Walk over to the microwave, and step on cat treats that My Sweet Baboo put on the floor for the kids but the kids didn’t want. Put coffee mug in microwave, then turn to get the broom.

Broom in hand, sweep up the cat treats, then some plant debris from the cactus hanging in the kitchen window. Grab one of the brownies I made last night, thinking about nothing, then realize that the plant catalog I was glancing at in the dining room  may be a duplicate to one I have upstairs, in the pile I’ve been marking up for ordering.

I head upstairs, look through the catalogs, find the duplicate, and yep, already marked up.  Good!  I grab it and head downstairs. I get the other catalog, exactly the same, so that one can be recycled. Look to where the bag for recycling newspapers and junk mail should be, it’s a pile only, no bag. Head to back porch, get a paper grocery bag, go back into the dining room and take care of the recycling.

Go back into the kitchen, can’t remember for sure why.  I look towards the coffee pot, remember that I put my coffee in the microwave; take out coffee, take a sip. Cold. Sigh.  Put the mug back into the microwave, turn it on this time, and wait. Notice the brownies, but (fortunately) remember I just had one a few minutes ago, and resist the urge.  Waiting for coffee now, notice out of the corner of my eye there’s some laundry I need to take upstairs. 

Remembering that I told the world in my silly Facebook post that I was going to do laundry, I run upstairs to get some and bring it back down.  Get it into the washing machine, and realize the plants in the laundry room need to be watered. Take care of that, head back into kitchen, walking past the sweatshirts I had planned on taking upstairs. 

Go back, get the sweatshirts, bring them upstairs, sit down and get the laptop fired up. Get a message indicating I need to update Java. 

Crap. I left my coffee downstairs.

The One in which We Agree...

As I mentioned the other day, a friend and I have carried on a lengthy conversation on gun control, some of which was admittedly emotional and reckless, some of which was argumentative and challenging. 

To be sure, we did not agree on everything -- there were many sticking points, among them whether or not we even need to do anything.  In the post which sparked our conversation, I tried to get my head around some of the key points raised by folks who do not support additional gun control legislation, including what Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's spokesman, put on the table after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings. 

I admitted that I'm not a gun lover, but also affirmed my belief that gun ownership is a right, albeit one that I believe can be reasonably 'controlled', just as our right to free speech is 'controlled' by legislation designed to protect me and others from irresponsible speech.

Here are a few of the areas where we struggled, at least initially:

• whether there's a need to respond to 'outliers' such as Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, VA Tech, Columbine and the like, given that they account for such a small percentage of gun crimes and deaths.
• what to call the weapon of choice in these mass shootings. I conceded the term 'assault weapon' was misunderstood, poorly defined in legislation, and inflammatory. I declared my preference for the term 'the gun that an evil sick bastard just used to kill a bunch of innocent people' which admittedly is more inflammatory but also more to the point and not as open to confusion.
• whether it was logical to include things such as death by high school sports injury, death by drowning, death by poisoning, etc. as more dangerous than guns because more people are killed by them each year. I thought this was silly; he thought it pointed out the need for a discussion on where we apply our limited resources.
• whether any legislation would have an impact on criminals, who ultimately are the ones who use guns for the wrong purpose. 
• whether it would be reasonable to put any restrictions on the news media, relative to how they report on crimes of this nature.  
• whether or not we could collectively rise to the challenge, assuming that agreement could be reached that something needed to be done.

In the end, we ended up agreeing, in large part, on a number of things that seem reasonable, not overly burdensome on current and prospective gun owners, and which might be achievable:

1. People choosing to exercise their right to bear arms need criminal and mental health clearance. Yes, this is background checks, and yes, it's intrusive to a certain degree, but it doesn't feel unreasonable to me. 
2. Registration of all gun purchases on a federal gun license. I'm okay with a federal license; I appreciate states having different tolerances for gun legislation and ownership, but certainly in the case of concealed carry permits, we need one law, not many.
3. Mandatory safety training for each type of firearm purchased. This is so simplistic it's ridiculous, and I'm not sure whether it's already the law of the land, but if not it certainly should be.
4. Yearly renewal of the federal gun license, including proficiency testing.  Again, not rocket science. He suggested not only proficiency, but also moral simulation, to gauge a person's decision-making ability, such as when to fire vs. when to de-escalate, which I think is a fascinating approach. 
5. Reducing the price of ammunition, thereby making it more readily available so people can practice with their weapons. I had a hard time with this one, but coupled with all of the other things we'd change, and a couple of qualifiers, I decided I could live with it. My qualifiers? Eliminating Internet ammunition purchasing and adding mandatory reporting of large volume ammo purchases, similar to how banks are required to report large cash deposits.
6. We agreed we need to eliminate black market gun sales, but neither of us offered anything here. I'm not sure how to do it, other than good old fashioned police work, finding out who's selling guns illegally and stopping them. It'll take quite a bit of effort, but coupled with other changes, it may be possible to make a dent.

I'll add a few other things to the list:

1. Require states to submit all necessary information into the background check system, so that it's truly viable and prevents criminals from getting guns.
2. Enforce gun laws already on the books, including prosecuting people who attempt to buy guns when they know they legally can't, and prosecuting people who have other people purchase their guns for them, regardless of the reason.
3. If a gun - handgun, rifle, 'gun that an evil sick bastard just used to kill a bunch of innocent people' or anything in between - is used during the commission of a crime, there needs to be a minimum mandatory sentence for using the gun.  And, that sentence gets served first, before the consecutive (not concurrent) sentence for the other crime. We need to make the criminal use of a gun very unattractive.
4. Gun legislation cannot have anything unrelated added to it. Politicians cannot attach a jobs bill or welfare benefit or unemployment changes or tax cuts or anything else to gun legislation. Period. If they try to do it, charge them with bribery.
5. People with family members with mental health problems should not be allowed to legally posses guns. If you buy into the theory that the reason Adam Lanza did what he did was because he had mental health issues, and his mother knew about them, you should be furious that she not only kept guns in the house, but taught him how to use them.

Reasonable? Unreasonable? Let me know what you think.