Monday, July 30, 2007

Random Musings about Billing

In this morning's reading: Trusted Advisor points out this article from the Wall Street Journal law blog:
Study Suggests Significant Billing Abuse:William G. Ross, a professor at Samford University’s Cumberland School of Law…polled 5,000 attorneys from various walks of life throughout the country, and 251 responded…


Two-thirds said they had “specific knowledge” of bill padding ─ a finding virtually identical to one reached by Ross in a 1995 billing survey. Also, 54.6% of the respondents (as compared with 40.3% in 1995) admitted that they had sometimes performed unnecessary tasks just to bump up their billable output.
Ross says that bill padding involves invoicing a client for work never performed — or exaggerating the amount of time spent on a matter—- while unnecessary work is that which “exceeds any marginal utility” to a client.
\
Oh the one hand, I saw this often in the business world. My favorite: charging .2 (18 minutes) minimum for everything - including reading a letter of two lines, which probably took all of ten seconds real time. I guess they're in remedial classes.

Myself, I find the opposite problem. Case in point: last week I was trying to fashion a comprehensive letter to a client who basically has one last chance to get her kid back or they're going to file a termination. A how-to-parent guide intended to spark her into doing what I know she's quite capable of, if she'd only, to quote Nike, just do it. So I write one draft. I read it over - it's too long, and too preachy. It will likely inspire her to tell me to go to hell more than anything else. So I revise it, taking out the preachiness and ramping up the cheerleading factor, and read it again. More positive, but still too convoluted. And have I taken out too much of the bite - will she not get the fact that if she fails, she may loose all rights to her child forever? Again with the rewrite. By this time, three hours has gone by. Three hours to write a letter? The state public defender's office, the office which pays out when you take court-appointed juvenile cases, won't even bother laughing as the slash the time down to half an hour or so.

Finally, I get a draft that's somewhat close. It's still wrong, but I can't take any more time on it, I've got about twenty other things I need to get done before I can call it a day. So, now the big question: what time to bill? I decide to put an hour, and denote in the explanation that it was an extremely comprehensive letter outlining the case to date and plan of action. We'll see if I get paid.

Come to think of it, could some of the bill-padding cited be an attempt to make up for this kind of thing? Though I haven't thought of it that way, I guess I could see where an attorney might feel justified in trying to recoup their time by adding a few .1's onto other tasks.

Nah, I'm probably being too sympathetic.

Friday, July 27, 2007

Okay, A Full-Blown Legal Post

The article from the Register I blogged on yesterday is bothering me enough I have to do a full-blown legal post on it. I'm combining this post with yesterday's, so you don't have to keep going back and forth between the two to understand what I'm talking about. From yesterday:
So on Sunday I'm perusing the Register's headlines and Irun across it's expose of long-term care insurance in Iowa:

Marge Bode is an Iowa farm wife who helped raise five children and made sure every one of them got at least one college degree.

She and her late husband bought long-term-care insurance to help pay the bills for nursing-home care in case either of them ever needed it.

Now 89, she has been diagnosed with dementia and narrowing of the arteries that supply blood to the part of the brain that affects her memory. She can't prepare her own food, work a toaster, operate a microwave, towel herself off completely after a shower, do her own laundry or work a remote control.

So she moved to an assisted-living facility in Algona last October.

She occasionally wants to take a long bath in the tub, but that would require extra help from the staff. Each soak in the tub would cost an extra $10.

"She can't afford it," said daughter Jan Christensen.

That's in part because the family was already paying more than $2,300 a month for the assisted-living facility. From October to June, Bode's long-term-care insurer, Conseco Senior Health Insurance Co., repeatedly refused to help pay the bill for Bode's care. The insurance company contended Bode wasn't sufficiently infirm to meet the eligibility terms in her policy. The benefit is only $50 a day, or about $1,500 a month, but it would have helped pay the bills.

It might be considered that Bode's story has a happy ending. Last month, after The Des Moines Register made inquiries with Conseco about Bode's case and the family decided to file a lawsuit, Conseco paid part of the money owed.

After reading this, I glance down to see what grounds they've sued on, as a) I am a lawyer and b) I used to work for an insurance company, before I started doing my own thing, taking court-appointed cases in juvenile court to help out kids in crisis from low-income families. I find the grounds at the bottom of the page:
So, just like the letter suggested, the family sought legal counsel. Roxanne Conlin, a Des Moines attorney, took the case.

Conlin filed suit against Conseco in early June, accusing the company of everything from not returning the family's phone calls; to placing family members on hold for so long they finally hung up; to sending form letters instead of answering specific questions; to refusing to send correspondence to family members, even though Bode suffers from dementia.
. . .

Conlin's suit accuses Conseco of bad faith and fraud.

Absolutely correct, I thought to myself, if they've been as horrific as this article makes out they deserve a bad faith judgment. Let me explain: normally insurance law is contract law. You get what the terms of the contract say you get. If a company denies you coverage from a reasonable mistake or a general dispute on some of the facts (like if you claim your rear-ender accident caused you to become pregnant or something off the wall like that) the remedy if the company was wrong is usually limited to performance of the contract, and any reasonable expenses you incur in enforcing it. Also, because the contract is written up by the company and you have no choice but to either accept it as written or go elsewhere, every term in that contract is interpreted in your favor. So if part of a sentence could reasonaly be seen to provide coverage, even if it is a stretch and most people really wouldn't read it that way, the courts will give it to you. Bad faith, however, is a different issue. In those claims, the allegation is that the company knew coverage should have been given but didn't anyway. That means that you can sue for more than just the coverage you were promised, but also punitive damages to punish the company for it's wrongdoing. This generally results in multi-million dollar verdicts - the type of thing to strongly discourage companies for improper behavior. See, for example the State Farm case in which, at the close of the evidence, the jury awarded the Campbells $2.6 million in compensatory damages and $145 million in punitive damages. This for it's outrageous treatment of the Campbells when they had a serious accident with only a $25,000 policy. The United States Supreme Court steppid in on that case and indicated that this award was a bit much, even under the circumstances:
An application of the Gore guideposts to the facts of this case, especially in light of the substantial compensatory damages awarded (a portion of which contained a punitive element), likely would justify a punitive damages award at or near the amount of compensatory damages. The punitive award of $145 million, therefore, was neither reasonable nor proportionate to the wrong committed, and it was an irrational and arbitrary deprivation of the property of the defendant. The proper calculation of punitive damages under the principles we have discussed should be resolved, in the first instance, by the Utah courts.
So if my memory serves me correctly, the Campbells got $9 million in punitives plus the $2.5 million in compensatory, to come out with $11.5 million. Given the usual fees for plaintiff's attorneys, they'd probably take home a little over half that, and the lawyers would get the rest.

Yes, I know. But it isn't totally unfair - most plaintiff's attorneys on these cases have a contract with their clients in which the clients pay nothing up front, and the attorneys take 1/3 of any settlement, or about 40% if you have to go through trial and a verdict. Advantages to the injured plaintiff are that they don't have to have the money up front to sue (litigation is freaking expensive), and they get a lawyer who has a vested interest in maximizing the money they receive. Advantages to the lawyer are that while you take a risk in trusting that the case will be as good as the client is telling you, and you could get nothing, in the end you will generally get a lot more in fees than if you'd simply been paid hourly. Right now, I'm a little too low on savings to take anything like this on, but I'd love to do some in the future because the payout would be definitely worth it. The only thing you have to watch is that you don't get on a case where someone is trying to make a false claim, or thinks a sprained wrist and no bad faith should be worth billions of dollars. Refer those straight on to someone else, thanks.

That all said, imagine my puzzlement when I read this morning's article in the Register:
. . . Robert Zieser found Ray Johnson. Robert's wife, Mary, is in a "memory care" lockdown unit for Alzheimer's, but the couple's long-term-care insurance company won't pay the bills. Robert Zieser has tried everything to get the company to pay. Now Johnson is reviewing the case.

"He clearly thought he had purchased protection. He thought he was getting coverage for this exact situation," Johnson said.

Johnson wouldn't think twice about taking on Zieser's case and others like it if Iowa had what's called a "private right of action."

Iowa doesn't.

It's the only state in the country that doesn't allow individual consumers to hire private attorneys and sue under the Consumer Fraud Act. Iowa's attorney general can sue under the act, but not individual Iowans.

So if Iowans think they have been victimized by unfair or deceptive practices, they have to scrape together the money to hire an attorney. That attorney would have to prove what's called "common-law fraud," a difficult case to prove. Also, under common-law fraud, there is no provision to recoup attorney fees, a step almost all states allow.

"How are you going to pay an attorney?" asked Johnson. Iowa law needs to provide a mechanism so a client's attorney "can recover fees from who caused the client harm."

Um, excuse me???? Mr. Zeizer? How long have you been doing this type of work? If you can't figure out how to get paid, you might want to check with Ms. Conlin, she seems to be doing quite nicely.

Snarkiness aside, what he wants is to be able to do the consumer protection class-action type of suit in these cases. You know, the ones where you get something in the mail and it says (I paraphrase), "There's a settlement with x-and-such company and it has been determined that you are one of the people who have been totally screwed by them. If you sign up now, you will get a coupon for $5 off your next purchase. The total award is $2 million to the named plaintiff, a $600 million fund to give the rest of you schmucks your $5 coupons, and another $200 million to the lawyers in attorney's fees."

Yep, just what we need in Iowa.

You might read that last bit of snarkiness and ask yourself: Well, okay, I know those class actions can suck for the non-named plaintiff, but why not support a private cause of action under the Consumer Fraud Act anyway? I mean, with the reduced standard of proof, it will be a powerful tool for people who are wronged - they can simply add a count onto their petition alleging this as well as common-law fraud and have just that more leverage, right? Why even presume it will lead to class-actions in the first place? So I'll explain:

I don't disagree that defrauded consumers should have every ability to protect their rights. But if you look at the differences between common law fraud actions and the ability for people other than the Attorney General to sue under the Consumer Fraud Act, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Under Iowa law, the elements of fraud are: (1) representation, (2) falsity, (3) materiality, (4) scienter, (5) intent to deceive, (6) reliance, and (7) resulting injury and damage. First Security Bank and Trust v. King,(Iowa Ct. App. 2007).

So, if you think you’ve been harmed by a company you need to prove each of these things – they made some sort of representation to you, that it was false, that it was material to your purchase/agreement/contract (not lying about whether you look good in that skirt), that they intended to deceive you, you relied on the statement, and you had an injury or damages. One could argue the intent to deceive is a tad tricky to prove, but it’s inferable by the totality of the circumstances surrounding the deception.

By contrast, the Consumer Fraud Act is found under Iowa law in Section 714.16. The most apparently relevant section is a general prohibition against consumer fraud in 2.a.:
The act, use or employment by a person of an unfair practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, or misrepresentation, or the concealment, suppression, or omission of a material fact with intent that others rely upon the concealment, suppression, or omission, in connection with the lease, sale, or advertisement of any merchandise or the solicitation of contributions for charitable purposes, whether or not a person has in fact been misled, deceived, or damaged, is an unlawful practice.

The necessary elements to prove a violation are, therefore: 1) Misrepresentation, concealment, deception, false promise, etc.; 2) Intent for others to rely; 3) In connection with the sale of merchandise.

Note the differences: First, you don’t have to prove an intent to deceive, just that you knew there was a false representation and that consumers were intended to rely upon it. A bit of semantics, but it is different. However, I don’t think that’s the crux of the argument. Note the one big thing that’s present in a common law fraud action but missing in the Consumer Fraud Act – an injury to an actual customer. Why would lawyers be interested in this? Take this Illinois example from Overlawyered:
The Chicago law firm of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC has some wonderful news for you:
We are looking for electronically generated credit / debit card receipts which show either (a) the card expiration date or (b) any digits of the credit/ debit card number other than the last five.
In order to protect consumers against identity theft, an amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act with a final effective date of December 4, 2006 requires merchants who accept credit/ debit cards and issue electronic receipts to program their machines to not show either the expiration date or more than the last 5 digits of the credit/ debit card number. The expiration date is important because a thief can use it together with the last four or five digits of the number to reconstruct the entire card number.
It is a violation to show either the expiration date or more than the last 5 digits of the card number. (We have seen some receipts where 4 or 5 other digits are shown, and that is a violation.) It is not necessary that any identity theft have actually occurred. Damages for a willful violation are $100 to $1,000 per receipt. The class representative may be able to obtain some additional compensation.
We have a number of pending cases alleging this violation and are interested in other merchants who are violating the law.
What do the lawyers get out of it? To quote the Register article:
So if Iowans think they have been victimized by unfair or deceptive practices, they have to scrape together the money to hire an attorney. That attorney would have to prove what's called "common-law fraud," a difficult case to prove. Also, under common-law fraud, there is no provision to recoup attorney fees, a step almost all states allow.
In other words, the attorneys can keep an eye out for potential violations of the law, troll for "clients" - it's immaterial whether or not you've been actually harmed by the violation - and then bring a big-*ss class action suit, the kind where the consumers each get a buck or two and the lawyers make millions. Think I'm exaggerating? Try this one, also from Overlawyered:
If you see Birmingham, Alabama lawyer Darrell L. Cartwright walking down the street, you might want to see if you can find some spare change in your pockets to give to him. He obviously must be hard up for money, because how else to explain the lawsuit he filed a couple of weeks ago?

On Monday, May 21, 2007, XM Satellite Radio suffered a satellite problem that caused partial or total service outages for parts of two days, lasting about 24 hours total. By late Tuesday, the problem was resolved, and XM announced that it would offer a two-day credit, worth about 87¢ -- yes, 87¢ -- to any customer who requested it. Problem solved. Everything right with the world, no?

No. You've forgotten about poor Mr. Cartwright. On Wednesday, May 23 -- the day after XM promised a refund to all its customers -- Mr. Cartwright found two neighbors of his who had subscribed to XM radio, slapped their names on a lawsuit, called it a class action suit, and demanded damages sustained by all its customers, in an unspecified amount of at least $5 million. (Via the Consumerist, which helpfully posted a copy of the complaint, which from the looks of things, took about 7 1/2 minutes of time to draft, typos and all: PDF.)

Now, you may wonder what benefit consumers get from this litigation, but to be fair, the lawsuit also demanded that the court issue an injunction to prohibit XM from suffering from technical problems in the future.

Or this one:
We mentioned the lawsuit over the absence of Nutrasweet in fountain versions of Diet Coke in 2004. In a typical "harm-less" class action, plaintiff Carol Oshana did not see any advertising for Nutrasweet in Diet Coke, knew that fountain Diet Coke tasted different than bottled Diet Coke, and continued to buy fountain Diet Coke after she learned it had saccharin, but demanded to be the representative of a class of all Diet Coke purchasers in Illinois on a "consumer fraud" claim. Via Howard Bashman, the Seventh Circuit affirmed federal jurisdiction and the district court's refusal to certify a class. Oshana did get a $650 nuisance settlement, which would buy 1000 liters of Diet Coke at my local grocer.

Spotting a trend here? Finally, to revisit my point on bad faith, consumers of long-term care insurance, like the Bode family, who have been wrongfully denied benefits have a powerful tool to work to collect not only their damages incurred as a result of that wrongful denial, but also to collect punitive damages - of which the attorneys get a 33 - 44% cut in exchange for taking the case for no fees up front. The elements of a first-party bad faith claim are reviewed in Walter v. Grinnell Mutual, (Iowa Ct. App. 2007):
[T]he elements to establish bad faith: (1) the insurer “had no reasonable basis for denying the plaintiff’s claim or for refusing to consent to settlement, and (2) the defendant knew or had reason to know that its denial or refusal was without reasonable basis.” The first element is objective; the second is subjective.

To recap, what bothers me about the Register article is that it implies that consumers who are wrongfully denied benefits by insurance companies must at present scrape together the money to hire a lawyer, and will have a difficult time finding one to represent them (according to Johnson) because it's so tough to prove fraud without the private right to sue under the Consumer Fraud Act. He'd love to take on these cases . . . but he just can't afford them. We should demand the right to sue, dammit! It's all for the public good, right? Besides, every other state allows this kind of suit. Iowans should demand their rights. Yep. Unless you know what he's actually talking about, it sounds very, very good. It's only when you dig a bit deeper that you figure out what's really going on. Consumers would gain a bit of an edge - the difference between proving an intent to deceive vs. proving a deception with the intent that you relied upon it. Lawyers, on the other hand, would gain a huge cash cow. Seems fair.

(Side note: I'll probably be excoriated by my fellow members of the bar for this one, which is one of the reasons I keep the blog anonymous!)


UPDATE
I've received a few emails from a member of the Bode family regarding their case, including a copy of the petition. I won't share it without permission, but I do want to reiterate that I feel for their situation and that I think their case is in good hands. Any hesitations I have about Mr. Johnson's piggy-backing his plea for a lawyer cash cow onto the back of this issue do NOT reflect on the Bode's case.

Template Down

Apparently I screwed something up with the template yesterday. Sorry about the outage.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Somewhat Legal Post

So on Sunday I'm perusing the Register's headlines and Irun across it's expose of long-term care insurance in Iowa:

Marge Bode is an Iowa farm wife who helped raise five children and made sure every one of them got at least one college degree.

She and her late husband bought long-term-care insurance to help pay the bills for nursing-home care in case either of them ever needed it.

Now 89, she has been diagnosed with dementia and narrowing of the arteries that supply blood to the part of the brain that affects her memory. She can't prepare her own food, work a toaster, operate a microwave, towel herself off completely after a shower, do her own laundry or work a remote control.

So she moved to an assisted-living facility in Algona last October.

She occasionally wants to take a long bath in the tub, but that would require extra help from the staff. Each soak in the tub would cost an extra $10.

"She can't afford it," said daughter Jan Christensen.

That's in part because the family was already paying more than $2,300 a month for the assisted-living facility. From October to June, Bode's long-term-care insurer, Conseco Senior Health Insurance Co., repeatedly refused to help pay the bill for Bode's care. The insurance company contended Bode wasn't sufficiently infirm to meet the eligibility terms in her policy. The benefit is only $50 a day, or about $1,500 a month, but it would have helped pay the bills.

It might be considered that Bode's story has a happy ending. Last month, after The Des Moines Register made inquiries with Conseco about Bode's case and the family decided to file a lawsuit, Conseco paid part of the money owed.

I glance down to see what grounds they've sued on, as a) I am a lawyer and b) I used to work for an insurance company, before I started doing my own thing, taking court-appointed cases in juvenile court to help out kids in crisis from low-income families. I find the grounds at the bottom of the page:
So, just like the letter suggested, the family sought legal counsel. Roxanne Conlin, a Des Moines attorney, took the case.

Conlin filed suit against Conseco in early June, accusing the company of everything from not returning the family's phone calls; to placing family members on hold for so long they finally hung up; to sending form letters instead of answering specific questions; to refusing to send correspondence to family members, even though Bode suffers from dementia.
. . .

Conlin's suit accuses Conseco of bad faith and fraud.

Absolutely correct, I thought to myself, if they've been as horrific as this article makes out they deserve a bad faith judgment. Let me explain: normally insurance law is contract law. You get what the terms of the contract say you get. If a company denies you coverage from a reasonable mistake or a general dispute on some of the facts (like if you claim your rear-ender accident caused you to become pregnant or something off the wall like that) the remedy if the company was wrong is usually limited to performance of the contract, and any reasonable expenses you incur in enforcing it. Also, because the contract is written up by the company and you have no choice but to either accept it as written or go elsewhere, every term in that contract is interpreted in your favor. So if part of a sentence could reasonaly be seen to provide coverage, even if it is a stretch and most people really wouldn't read it that way, the courts will give it to you. Bad faith, however, is a different issue. In those claims, the allegation is that the company knew coverage should have been given but didn't anyway. That means that you can sue for more than just the coverage you were promised, but also punitive damages to punish the company for it's wrongdoing. This generally results in multi-million dollar verdicts - the type of thing to strongly discourage companies for improper behavior. See, for example the State Farm case in which, at the close of the evidence, the jury awarded the Campbells $2.6 million in compensatory damages and $145 million in punitive damages. This for it's outrageous treatment of the Campbells when they had a serious accident with only a $25,000 policy. The United States Supreme Court steppid in on that case and indicated that this award was a bit much, even under the circumstances:
An application of the Gore guideposts to the facts of this case, especially in light of the substantial compensatory damages awarded (a portion of which contained a punitive element), likely would justify a punitive damages award at or near the amount of compensatory damages. The punitive award of $145 million, therefore, was neither reasonable nor proportionate to the wrong committed, and it was an irrational and arbitrary deprivation of the property of the defendant. The proper calculation of punitive damages under the principles we have discussed should be resolved, in the first instance, by the Utah courts.
So if my memory serves me correctly, the Campbells got $9 million in punitives plus the $2.5 million in compensatory, to come out with $11.5 million. Given the usual fees for plaintiff's attorneys, they'd probably take home a little over half that, and the lawyers would get the rest.

Yes, I know. But it isn't totally unfair - most plaintiff's attorneys on these cases have a contract with their clients in which the clients pay nothing up front, and the attorneys take 1/3 of any settlement, or about 40% if you have to go through trial and a verdict. Advantages to the injured plaintiff are that they don't have to have the money up front to sue (litigation is freaking expensive), and they get a lawyer who has a vested interest in maximizing the money they receive. Advantages to the lawyer are that while you take a risk in trusting that the case will be as good as the client is telling you, and you could get nothing, in the end you will generally get a lot more in fees than if you'd simply been paid hourly. Right now, I'm a little too low on savings to take anything like this on, but I'd love to do some in the future because the payout would be definitely worth it. The only thing you have to watch is that you don't get on a case where someone is trying to make a false claim, or thinks a sprained wrist and no bad faith should be worth billions of dollars. Refer those straight on to someone else, thanks.

That all said, imagine my puzzlement when I read this morning's article in the Register:
. . . Robert Zieser found Ray Johnson. Robert's wife, Mary, is in a "memory care" lockdown unit for Alzheimer's, but the couple's long-term-care insurance company won't pay the bills. Robert Zieser has tried everything to get the company to pay. Now Johnson is reviewing the case.

"He clearly thought he had purchased protection. He thought he was getting coverage for this exact situation," Johnson said.

Johnson wouldn't think twice about taking on Zieser's case and others like it if Iowa had what's called a "private right of action."

Iowa doesn't.

It's the only state in the country that doesn't allow individual consumers to hire private attorneys and sue under the Consumer Fraud Act. Iowa's attorney general can sue under the act, but not individual Iowans.

So if Iowans think they have been victimized by unfair or deceptive practices, they have to scrape together the money to hire an attorney. That attorney would have to prove what's called "common-law fraud," a difficult case to prove. Also, under common-law fraud, there is no provision to recoup attorney fees, a step almost all states allow.

"How are you going to pay an attorney?" asked Johnson. Iowa law needs to provide a mechanism so a client's attorney "can recover fees from who caused the client harm."

Um, excuse me???? Mr. Zeizer? How long have you been doing this type of work? If you can't figure out how to get paid, you might want to check with Ms. Conlin, she seems to be doing quite nicely.

Snarkiness aside, what he wants is to be able to do the consumer protection class-action type of suit in these cases. You know, the ones where you get something in the mail and it says (I paraphrase), "There's a settlement with x-and-such company and it has been determined that you are one of the people who have been totally screwed by them. If you sign up now, you will get a coupon for $5 off your next purchase. The total award is $2 million to the named plaintiff, a $600 million fund to give the rest of you schmucks your $5 coupons, and another $200 million to the lawyers in attorney's fees."

Yep, just what we need in Iowa.

UPDATE
I realize the connection between class action suits and Consumer Fraud Act private causes of action needs a tad more explaining, so I've put a full-blown legal post up today.

UPDATE UPDATE
This same article is on Professor Nicholas Johnson's blog, From DC 2 Iowa, quoted in support of a universal health care system, given that insurance lobbyists have kept out this cause of action.

While, on the one hand, I'm not opposed to a practical system of universal health, I'd do it for other reasons. To me, the method of suing insurance companies in Iowa is not particularly flawed. For the most part, I think the verdicts are fair and the cause of action sufficient, pretty much because Iowa jurors usually have enough common sense to tell a real claim from an overinflated one, and fraud from normal claims practices, and to ding whichever party brought the unsupported cause.

No, my bigger issue is the premiums. With the reserves requirements on the companies (how much they have to keep in savings/investments to cover the chances of a catastrophe), and the differential in pricing between what medical facilities charge medicare (very cheap) vs. insurance (as much as they can) vs. private individuals (even more than insurance companies), and the legal cost in defending lawsuits when they are frivolous, premiums are astronomical. It is impossible for anyone below a middle class bracket to afford insurance unless they get it through work, and nearly impossible even for those solidly in the middle class. The system is clearly broken and needs to be fixed.

I mean, let's face it - we're going to have to do something. Have you checked out what you'd pay for COBRA or your own insurance these days? For me, it would be higher than my share of rent. When your "just in case" policy is actually higher than your housing costs, there's something seriously wrong. Which is why, for the moment, you can rank me in the category of the uninsured. It's precisely for that reason that health care has become inextricably tied to employment benefits - employers with large groups of employees are the only people with enough bargaining power to actually cut the rates down to where it becomes a vaguely reasonable monthly payment.

I'm not expert enough on economics to know if universal health care is the most effective solution. From what I can tell, it works fine in some countries that have economies geared toward the trade-off of high taxes and large government benefits. I'm not sure if it would work as well here, since most of the rest of our economy seems geared toward privatization and keeping taxes low. But I think it's one option that should be seriously discussed.

ELECTION CANDIDATES PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

I am starting to see an alarming trend in my inbox. Considering the "to" line included several other Iowa bloggers, I know where they got my "name".

What makes candidates think that because I have a blog, and occasionally analyze the bullsh*t that comes along with political elections, I must really, really want to read their election campaign spam mail?

Hint: bloggers are opinionated people. I've been known to get bitchy snarky when annoyed. I might just even be tempted to fisk it online. Given the general half-truths usually involved with campaign mail, that might be considered counterproductive to your campaign efforts.

Monday, July 23, 2007

FYI

Free Online Dating
Apparently because I mention the word "murder" 51 times and "gun" 11 times, etc., in the course of discussing crimlaw cases. Oh, and the word "crap" once. (Aaaaugh! I said crap again!) Wouldn't that mean the nightly news is breaking all kinds of rating laws?

BTW, test your Holy Grail knowledge here.

Saturday, July 21, 2007

The Man Behind the Mask

I Was an eBay Voldemort.

I’ve already seen a few snippy pieces in the press about the eBay sale. That’s fine, people can say whatever they want. There’s no law against scalping books, and as far as moral issues, I don’t feel any guilt.

"Here We Go Again" and Other Random Thoughts

After two weeks of packing Dad's, I'm off to pack the rest of my house for the move. A stop back up at the end of the month to do a couple of hearings and round up Nelle (and possible Kmacis) and then we head down to pack the truck. In August. In Arkansas. I'm soooo looking forward to hauling around boxes and furniture in that heat. (Not). Last night, after I finished up the last bit of legal work I had to do before leaving town, I went out to the car with a very odd feeling. Took me a minute, but I figured out that this was the first time since July 4th that I didn't have something important I needed to be doing right now. After that dawned on me, I realized I could go get dinner - a real dinner - anywhere I wanted, instead of just grabbing something at the store and scarfing it in the car. I went to change, and actually put on makeup. And jewelry. And I went about it with the same feeling I'd had earlier in the week excavating memory boxes in my mom's basement: "Oh, yeah. I remember this." How odd. Mental note: must remember to try to take some time to take care of myself in all this.

Although the move is going to be harsh, I do have some fun break time reading material. Matt is kindly letting me stop by this morning to pick up the script for That Day in September, so I can start memorizing, since I'll have to skip the first read-through. Yep, I'm not even in town yet and I've already started on another show, which is going to be awesome, BTW. Hey, I've been off stage almost a year now. . . and it's just the one. . . I can quit anytime I want to. . . Incidentally, with Matt directing and Nelle also in the cast, it's going to be a rather blogger-heavy show. As always, I'll keep you posted.

When I brought up reading material, I bet you thought I was talking the P-word. Gotcha! Not so much. 1) I did go to the release briefly last night, just to see it, but left around 11. I managed to get out with only one book. Not bad for me. (See the "I can quit anytime I want to" speech above). 2) I am buying the book today. 3) Tomorrow morning, I'll start by rereading book 6 and by tomorrow night sometime, finish book 7. Once I start Deathly Hallows, I will be incapable of putting it down to do mundane tasks like packing - unless I peek at the end first. I don't want to do that, so I've arranged a 12-15 hour window for me to finish the series. I'm not sure if it's because I'm spoiled from generally being able to finish a book in one sitting (I read fast), or that I'm incapable of delayed gratification, but if I really like a book I will not put it down until I know how it turns out. If I have to be in court and I'm in the middle of a novel, I'll either ramp it up to warp speed, or peek at the end. Either way, I will go back and read it again, to savor the details. But at the time, I don't care about the nuances. I just want to know what happened.

Well, I've got to get started - must leave town by 11 for that 8-hour drive.

PS - Oh, and as my blog reading is about as sporadic as my posting, I'd like to express a great big WTF about the Register's silly email that apparently prompted State 29 to pull the plug again. Dammit.

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Interesting

All-time box office hits, adjusted for ticket price inflation. The top ten:

1 Gone with the Wind (MGM) $1,329,453,600 / $198,676,459 - 1939
2 Star Wars (Fox) $1,172,026,900 / $460,998,007 - 1977
3 The Sound of Music (Fox) $937,093,200 / $158,671,368 - 1965
4 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (Uni.) $933,401,500 / $435,110,554 - 1982
5 The Ten Commandments (Par.) $861,980,000 / $65,500,000 - 1956
6 Titanic (Par.) $844,515,900 / $600,788,188 - 1997
7 Jaws (Uni.) $842,758,600 / $260,000,000 - 1975
8 Doctor Zhivago (MGM) $816,811,300 / $111,721,910 - 1965
9 The Exorcist (WB) $727,541,800 / $232,671,011 - 1973
10 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (Dis.) $717,220,000 / $184,925,486 - 1937

Moving, Moving, Moving

The entire month of July is going to be a wash for me.

First, I'm boxing up to make yet another move - the third since I sold the house last year. Fortunately, this one will be far more permanent and will be in the Iowa City vicinity - hence the increased interest in theater-doings in the area. D-day is August 3rd or so, and it's going to be tight.

Second, my father's sold the "family homestead" and we need to get everything out by July 20th, both his stuff and anything we've stored there over the years. My mother was a pack-rat, so we have tons of boxes of old school papers and reciepts to go through as well. There's too much work to be done and too few people to do it - my sister is moving to Waterloo, and both brothers are also moving, so everything is really happening at once. Upshot: I'm pretty much going to be covered in dirt and moving stuff for the next twenty days.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Auditions Reminders

(Alphabetically)

From City Circle:

Well

written by Lisa Kron

directed by Pauline Tyer


September 7-9 & 14-16, 2007
Fri/Sat at 8 pm, Sun at 2:30

Award-winning playwright Lisa Kron was nominated for two Tony Awards for her outrageous comedy Well, the semi-autobiographical story about her mother’s ability to help her neighborhood survive changing times while lacking that ability to heal her own illness. The New York Times calls Well Kron’s “richest achievement…a deeply affecting play.”

Auditions

July 15, 2-4 pm

July 16, 7-9 pm

Community of Christ Church
Southridge Dr, Coralville

____________________________________________


From Dreamwell:

Dreamwell Theatre announces open auditions for "That Day in September" by Artie Van Why, directed by Matthew Falduto.

Auditions will be held Saturday, July 14 and Sunday, July 15 from 2-5pm at the Iowa City Public Library.

Roles are available for a diverse cast of eight actors, ages 18 to 80, men and women. Copies of the script are available at the ICPL.

Based on the author's own experiences in witnessing the collapse of the World Trade Center firsthand, Artie Van Why takes us through one man's life before and after the attacks on Sept. 11.

Originally presented as a one man show, the play has subsequently been performed by multiple actors. "That Day in September" will run for two weekends on September 7, 8, 14, and 15.

Contact 319-541-0140 or email brian@dreamwell.com with any questions.

____________________________________________

and from Iowa City Community Theatre:

Crimes of the Heart

By Beth Henley
Directed by Rich Riggleman (r.riggleman@mchsi.com)
September 14-23, 2007

Auditions will be held at the Iowa City Public Library
Friday, July 27, from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm
Saturday, July 28, from 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm

As their Granddaddy lies dying in the hospital, the Magrath sisters must cope with the latest series of events in their dysfunctional family. The play is a heartwarming and humorous tale of how the family moves through the numerous crises in their lives.

There are roles for 4 women and 2 men ranging in age from late 20’s to early 30’s.
Performances are September 14-16 and 21-23.

Scripts are on reserve at the Iowa City Public Library Reference Desk.

____________________________________________


Meanwhile, Catalyst announces the cast for Sister Rosenweig:

Sisters Rosensweig
by Wendy Wasserstein

Cast
Sarah Goode -- Mary Haaf
Pfeni Rosensweig -- Vicki Krajewski
Gorgeous Teitelbaum -- Chris Hunt
Geoffrey Duncan -- Patrick Ashcraft
Mervyn Kant -- Dennis Aska
Nicholas Pym -- Chris Carpenter
Tess Goode - Alisa Rosenthal
Tom Valiunus -- Queue Jeffers

Sorry I missed those, Jeff, but I wasn't in town and didn't think it would work for special auditions 'cause I've now got to move not only my house but my Dad's as well (and my brother's, technically). However, I should be in town to see the performance - at the Wesley Center August 17th-19th.

As for the others: three plays, all directly conflicting, so we've got to balance it all out. Maybe a joint cast party is in order the weekend of September 14?!? Could be fun.

My blog critic doesn't think we could pull off the joint cast party thing. I'm thinking that's a challenge. We'll see. . .

One Good Quiz Deserves Another



Actually, this one's way cooler. And for grownups.

I Had to Know



Which Disney Princess Are You?

Belle is as lovely as her name implies but her natural unaffected beauty is far more than skin deep. An intelligent and avid reader Belle yearns for faraway places and exciting adventures. She is a loyal, loving daughter and when the beast finally wins her trust she gives him all her kindness and patience and then realizes she has also given him her heart. With her inner strength and outward beauty, Belle is a young woman who can and does make things happen.

PS - there are much better pics of Belle out there, I know. But this is the only one I can find with a book in her hand (did no one think to post anything but ball gowns and roses?) and therefore really the most appropriate.

via Iowa Geek

Some Helpful Tips

If you're trying to avoid jury duty, do try to be a little subtle about it.

For the zoologists among us: Playing with polar bear cubs is apparently highly stressful work leading to burnout after only six months. Apparently, tarantula hiking is a far more relaxed field.

Apparently the traditional, junior-high "I Heart So-And-So" written in marker on school property is now considered the functional equivalent of an assault, but not quite as bad as a sexual assault. No word yet on the felonious level achieved if you actually carve your initials into a tree. Presumably the use of a knife would bump it into the felony-murder category.

Bouncing a check to the cops = not a good idea.

Memo to airline security: when inspecting a suitcase containing bomb parts and a water bottle, don't confiscate the water and leave the bomb. I know water bottles are the thing these days, but there's a limit. Side note to travelers: apparently you can retrieve your confiscated water bottle out of the trash and proceed onto the airplane, if you don't mind stashing it in your pants. Though this probably will get you funny looks if you're female. Hey, a ton of work went into that Fiji water.

Thursday, July 05, 2007

Interesting

I just received this and am mulling it over:

9 WORDS WOMEN USE TRANSLATED.

1. Fine
This is the word women use to end an argument when they are right and you need to shut up now. Proceed at your own risk. Alternate meaning: You’re on very dangerous ground and are completely clueless, so you need to stop before you get hurt. If she has to explain it to you, she will loose her tightly controlled temper all hell will break loose. Just shut up.

2. Five Minutes
If she is getting dressed, this means a half an hour. Five minutes is only five minutes if you have just been given five more minutes to watch the game before helping around the house.

3. Nothing.
This is the calm before the storm. This means “something,” and you should be on your toes. Arguments that begin with “nothing” usually end in “fine.”

4. Go Ahead.
Many times, this is a dare, not permission. Often said when you’re contemplating emptying out the savings account to buy a motorcycle, obtaining a lap dance at a stip club, or having dinner with your ex. Just say no.

5. Loud Sigh.
This is actually a word, but is a non-verbal statement often misunderstood by men. A loud sigh means she thinks you are an idiot and wonders why she is wasting her time standing here and arguing with you about nothing. (Refer back to #3 for the meaning of nothing.)

6. That's Okay.
This is one of the most dangerous statements a women can make to a man. “That's okay” means she wants to think long and hard before deciding how and when you will pay for your mistake. Alternate meaning: You’re clueless, and can’t possibly apologize enough, so give it up. For now.

7. Thanks.
A woman is actually thanking you - do not question it!

8. Whatever.
A woman's way of saying F@!K YOU!

9. Don't worry about it, I got it.
Another dangerous statement, meaning this is something that a woman has told a man to do several times, but is now doing it herself instead. This will later result in a man asking "What's wrong?" For the woman's response refer to #3.

There's a few nuances I'd quibble with but it's an interesting translation.