TSA Making Flying More Miserable(outsidethebeltway.com)
outsidethebeltway.com
TSA Making Flying More Miserable
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/tsa_making_flying_more_miserable/
8 comments
Hm, I live in the former Soviet Union and I can tell you that socialized medicine here was also two-tier: great care for Communist Party officials and crappy care for everyone else. Nowadays, we have private clinics for the rich and public ones for everyone else.
If they public clinics are adequate, the why would this be a problem? Of course rich people are going to spend money on things poor people can get for free. It may or may not be objectively better, but they will feel better about it. It's their money, so who cares?
(You reference the former Soviet Union, so I don't think you want to strip people with wealth of their money. So I am not really sure what you are getting at here.)
(You reference the former Soviet Union, so I don't think you want to strip people with wealth of their money. So I am not really sure what you are getting at here.)
The thing is, they're not. I doubt public health care could ever be "adequate."
Aren't there several examples of it being adequate? It seems like it's just the US that can't figure out how to do it. (We know how to do it, actually, but our elected officials don't want to give up the "donations" from insurance companies. Until we get rid of those, America will never have decent healthcare.)
There are. I'm from Denmark where we have public healthcare, and I've never paid for anything healthcare related, except subsidised medicine that will typically cost me around $5 when I see a doctor and he gives me a subscription.
Interestingly, even though healthcare is universal and completely free total spending per capita on healthcare is less than half that of the US.
So yes it can be done - not only adequately but much better and cheaper.
Interestingly, even though healthcare is universal and completely free total spending per capita on healthcare is less than half that of the US.
So yes it can be done - not only adequately but much better and cheaper.
Hm, I wonder if that is due to socialism in the former Soviet Union. This is what I'm talking about: http://mises.org/story/3650
As for my medical experiences - when I was in public clinics, I had to frequently bribe doctors for service and pay for my own drugs, anaesthesic, etc. Furthermore, the subway is usually full of posters asking for donations for people who have life threatening illnesses that the system won't help cure.
Reply to child poster: I meant that the problems with Soviet health care were caused by the fact that the Soviet Union itself sucked, not because of something inherent in socialism.
Reply to child poster: I meant that the problems with Soviet health care were caused by the fact that the Soviet Union itself sucked, not because of something inherent in socialism.
I don't think so.
Denmark is one of the richest countries in the world, and is the least corrupt country in the world according to transparency international. If you need medical attention you'll get it. Besides Denmark doesn't really have any affiliation with the former Soviet Union - it's always been a member of NATO. So i'm not quite sure what you're implying?
Denmark is one of the richest countries in the world, and is the least corrupt country in the world according to transparency international. If you need medical attention you'll get it. Besides Denmark doesn't really have any affiliation with the former Soviet Union - it's always been a member of NATO. So i'm not quite sure what you're implying?
It's interesting to note that the increasing security measures onboard planes carry the exact same problems that occur with DRM. These new rules will only affect innocent consumers.
Someone planing to launch a terror attack is not going to be swayed because they are told they are not allowed leave their seat. It will only affect innocent people wishing to use the toilet.
Someone planing to launch a terror attack is not going to be swayed because they are told they are not allowed leave their seat. It will only affect innocent people wishing to use the toilet.
The question you have to ask yourself is whether the extra security measures would prevent something like the latest terrorist attempt from occurring in future, and the answer is usually "no". The news reports are claiming that explosives were smuggled onboard in the guy's underwear, so in the near future security checks at airports might be about to become a whole lot more degrading than they already are.
When I visited the US some years ago I went through a machine which looked a bit like the inside of the TARDIS, which was supposed to sniff for explosives. Obviously that mustn't have worked in this case, or perhaps it was all just pure theatre and the machine never really did what it was advertised to do.
When I visited the US some years ago I went through a machine which looked a bit like the inside of the TARDIS, which was supposed to sniff for explosives. Obviously that mustn't have worked in this case, or perhaps it was all just pure theatre and the machine never really did what it was advertised to do.
Those machines (they were made by GE) have been completely removed from all airports. I believe they worked fairly well, but they didn't scale effectively and people were too freaked out by them.
... which was supposed to sniff for explosives. Obviously that mustn't have worked in this case, ...
You're assuming that he had actual explosives. From what little I've read so far they've said that it was some kind of "chemical", which expands the possibilities quite a bit beyond explosives.
Either way, I notice something that might be the beginning of the end of the "air travel safety" spectacle: this whole episode is hardly noticable on the front pages of (Swedish) news papers. That hopefully means that increasing regulations in the area will no longer be a way of publicly showing that "you act against terrorism", which should mean fewer new arbitrary rules. Hopefully.
You're assuming that he had actual explosives. From what little I've read so far they've said that it was some kind of "chemical", which expands the possibilities quite a bit beyond explosives.
Either way, I notice something that might be the beginning of the end of the "air travel safety" spectacle: this whole episode is hardly noticable on the front pages of (Swedish) news papers. That hopefully means that increasing regulations in the area will no longer be a way of publicly showing that "you act against terrorism", which should mean fewer new arbitrary rules. Hopefully.
> A preliminary FBI analysis has found that the device allegedly found attached to Mr Abdulmutallab contained the high explosive PETN, also known as pentaerythritol.
> PETN was used in the device worn by British "shoe bomber" Richard Reid, who is serving a prison sentence for attempting to blow up a Paris-Miami airliner in Christmas week of 2001.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8431470.stm via infowarrior
> PETN was used in the device worn by British "shoe bomber" Richard Reid, who is serving a prison sentence for attempting to blow up a Paris-Miami airliner in Christmas week of 2001.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8431470.stm via infowarrior
Ah, I see. That's apparently something that should have been detected by sniffers.
Also of interest while on the subject of airborne terrorists: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror...
Also of interest while on the subject of airborne terrorists: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror...
I flew ORD-LHR on Saturday morning. "New security rules" were referenced -- they couldn't show the airshow anymore (the thing that counts down to arrival and shows your position; but personal GPS devices were allowed, as always), you "had" to stay in your ticketed cabin (as before, and continually ignored as before), and you weren't allowed to get up to stretch or congregate near your seats. This rule was, of course, completely ignored (just like the fasten-seatbelt sign). The flight attendants are indifferent, and just read from a card. After the meal is served, they usually take over a few rows in the back and watch DVDs. If a terror plot is going to be averted, it's not going to be averted by people being paid barely above minimum wage (who can be "furloughed" at any time), who have to deal with 300 annoying passengers a day. I had a job like a flight attendant once, and it gets tiring telling 100 different people "that's not allowed" every day. So eventually, you just stop doing it. International flights tend to have the most-senior flight attendants, and that means they are burned out from enforcing all the other silly rules.
Basically, these new rules are yet-another-example of the government doing something so they can say they are doing something. Healthcare and airline security are the same in this respect.
(Side-note, I was told at check-in for my return flight that I may not be allowed to fly back to the US today because my passport has a crease in it, and they had to type in the number manually. "Since it's the holidays", they are giving me the privilege of flying back to the US. A great way to treat your top-tear customers who fly 100,000 miles a year and whose creased passport has been accepted by 10 different governments. What's next, exit visas?)
Basically, these new rules are yet-another-example of the government doing something so they can say they are doing something. Healthcare and airline security are the same in this respect.
(Side-note, I was told at check-in for my return flight that I may not be allowed to fly back to the US today because my passport has a crease in it, and they had to type in the number manually. "Since it's the holidays", they are giving me the privilege of flying back to the US. A great way to treat your top-tear customers who fly 100,000 miles a year and whose creased passport has been accepted by 10 different governments. What's next, exit visas?)
I'm negotiating a employment contract at the moment, I think I will remove US and Canada from the geographic zone (I'm European). The legal risk is too high there.
Moreover, some insurances now charge you more if you go there because of the legal fees and the lottery that the legal system is.
Moreover, some insurances now charge you more if you go there because of the legal fees and the lottery that the legal system is.
The UK is much worse than the US. Be sure to write that one out of your contract too.
I don't understand what you are talking about with respect to insurance, though. What kind of insurance are you talking about?
I don't understand what you are talking about with respect to insurance, though. What kind of insurance are you talking about?
civil coverage (damage you cause to third parties) and law expenses coverage.
BTW : when bullet trains are not clogging it (like last week), we have a tunnel to go to the UK.
BTW : when bullet trains are not clogging it (like last week), we have a tunnel to go to the UK.
The legal risk is too high there.
Sorry, but your post sounds a bit too sensationalist. Millions of people from overseas come in to the US to do business, attend meetings, etc. You're taking the 1 case out of 1,000,000 as your data point?
Every country has risks and liabilities associated with traveling to it.
Sorry, but your post sounds a bit too sensationalist. Millions of people from overseas come in to the US to do business, attend meetings, etc. You're taking the 1 case out of 1,000,000 as your data point?
Every country has risks and liabilities associated with traveling to it.
Technology makes individuals more capable, and so makes nutjobs more dangerous. Liberty makes police work harder. How do we convince society that these, our finest values, are more important than tweaking absurdly small risks? Didn't people used to be braver than this shameful display?
Oh great and I'm going to fly to the US with a stopover in Detroit soon :-(.
If only they could lay off the security theater.
If only they could lay off the security theater.
Poor Americans.. I hope we won't have those stupid rules. I love peeing when flying!
Single tier universal health care tends to result in the poorest members of a society ending up with the same health care as the richest - which works out very well for those at the bottom tiers, but not as well for those on the top, who have to lift everyone else up to the levels that they would like. Two-tier health care ends up with some going to the Mayo Clinic, and others getting "Enough to keep you from dying immediately" health care.
I think we'll continue to see segregation of quality of air-travel, with the lower tiers getting "increasing security so we don't see your planes exploding in the newspapers" while those who can afford it will be flying in Gulfstream IVs.