Thoughts - Part VII

A license to practice does not confer the wisdom to do so. 

A. Attorney General  Eric Holder apparently mislead Congress on his request of subpoenas of members of the press phone and email records.  This is a matter of testimony before Congress.  He has some argument that he didn’t actually do this, that he was really after information leaks from government workers, that he had no intention of prosecution of the press, and on and on.  But his methods are under scrutiny, particularly by the press, his targets of interest.  If his misconstruction of the truth requests and his procurement of subpoenas goes unchallenged, un-reviewed, and unpunished, there will be created a horrific legal precedent.   If nothing happens, if it is dissolved by no press attention,  if no one pays some price, then make no doubt, every Tom, Dick and District Attorney will follow the DOJ (Department of Justice) lead.  This could affect you and me.

B. Judge Shopping.  While AG Holder (see above) needed to appeal to three judges for his subpoenas, the sad case of the Pennsylvania 10 year-old, Sarah, who needs a lung transplant was shopped until a sympathetic judge was found to rule in her favor.  It seems these days that whoever has a cause may judge shop until one is found drops who the hammer (i.e makes a court ruling) in favor of the issue. (See http://definitions.uslegal.com/j/judge-shopping/ for a definition.  Apparently, with a website devoted to this, it is commonplace.)  HHS Secretary Sebelius punted by indicating she referred the evaluation of the rule (12+  for an adult lung, 11- for non-eligibility) to a committee. This could take more than a year for resolution – exceeding by far her expected life.   As has been observed the little girl’s situation is as much or more a medical ethics case as a legal one.  Yet, if she is awarded a lung, this implies someone else on the list will not.  This is the quintessential zero-sum game - though using this term seems to be antiseptic. The fact is this: If Sarah gets a lung and lives, someone else will die.  Moreover, probability indicates for a person her age the survival rate is low.    Would you wish to make this kind of decision?

This is one of those most interesting issues that involve medical ethics, morality, government leadership, legal decisions, and politics.  Difficult it is.

C. Reverse Mortgages.  I am very concerned, since I'm in the age group, about these reverse mortgages.  They seem like a great idea - get some cash now for signing over the deed to your property upon death.  There are restrictions.  (a) You must be 62 or over to qualify, and (b) you should own outright your home.  However, we see the huge corporations hawking them and advertising constantly.  Advertising is not cheap. Someone must pay. This push implies their actuaries reviewing longevity tables show that even still with the advanced age requirement, and even with the continual barrage of advertising, there is profit to be made.  Probably lots of profit will be realized.  Reverse mortgages seem to be a great profit tool for lenders.  It is that simple.  They take advantage of older folks in desperate need of cash.  It assumes those taking the loan have no need or desire to provide for their families or that they have no wish to do so. It implies their families will not or cannot help their parents.  Reverse mortgages seem to be a rather cynical solution to the very unhappy circumstances of old age.

However, some seniors simply cannot make their property taxes on a given year.  It seems clear that if a senior is living on Social Security, the cost of the annual property tax bill may strain resources to the absolute maximum - and clearly beyond.  This implies that cities and states should waive a portion of the tax bill, because this may be exactly the reason many take these options.  

D. The Devil. While idleness may be the devil's playground, weak leadership is the devil's host. 

E. Being articulate does not imply being intelligent.