If you lived in Maine and told the local animal control group that you were concerned about cobras in the area, it would be foolish and a waste of money to begin a program to search for cobras.
If, on the other hand, the local zoo had reported that their snake exhibit had escaped in the middle of summer, you reported seeing a large snake that reared up and displayed a hood, and you had small children playing in the area, then money spent on a program to find and remove cobras in your area of Maine would be a good idea.
This example illustrates how decisions on health care screening should be made, although with more simplicity. If a disease is extremely rare in your area and you have not had symptoms of that disease without another good explanation, it doesn't really make a lot of sense to screen you for that disease.
Remember that any screening test may give a false result. In other words, that polyp they took a biopsy of from your colon may come back with a result of cancer. You may undergo surgery and you may even suffer complications such as infection, or scarring that blocks your intestines, among others. It would then be frustrating to find out that the original biopsy result was incorrect and that you do not have colon cancer.
This might not even be a case of malpractice. Sometimes it is not clear what the result of a test or biopsy is, and an informed "best decision" has to be made, often with the consultation of several experts and hopefully inclusion of the patient. Complications of treatment can occur even when nothing is done wrong. Infections occur. Scarring occurs.
I think that the public reads about disease screening recommendations and fears that health care is being taken away. It is important to understand the difference between routing screening and good health care.
So, if you are young, and colon cancer is rare, screening for it may not be a great idea. On the other hand, even if you are young and it is a rare disease, if you describe symptoms such as a change in bowel habits, blood in your stool and weight loss, then screening would be a good idea, even though you might not fit into the group of people that should receive "routine" screening.
That is called the good practice (or the art) of medicine, not dictated by the base of evidence guidelines, but by the patient's symptoms and the doctor's judgment.
Evidence based guidelines can be helpful to make broad decisions that might save a population money that would otherwise be wasted, and allow it to be used for more fruitful endeavors, but they are not laws. Part of what makes all those years of a physician's training valuable is the ability to think without a rule book, and to use judgment that may go against what is traditionally thought.
Guidelines are just suggestions for groups of patients. I would hope that they are never used to deny care that is proposed by a physician based on a patient's symptoms. Guidelines are not intended to be used as such. This is further reason why it is important that patients have relationships with their physicians and the ability to be seen without a long wait when necessary. A physician who knows you can deliver better care because he or she knows your history and the way you have presented symptoms of disease in the past.
Systems that apply to everyone are not interchangeable. For instance, pain scales are OK for following the course of pain in an individual, but do not give an absolute measure of pain. One patient may have a hangnail and call the pain 8 out of 10. Another patient may have broken a finger and call the pain 3 out of 10. That's because a 10 is the worst pain "imaginable" by that patient and is affected by personality and experience. A physician who knows you is better able to take your personality and experience into account when treating you.
As guidelines for health care screening evolve and recommendations are changed, it is important to remember that all bets are off when a patient has symptoms consistent with a disease. Sometimes adults get "children's" diseases, and children get "adult" diseases. We need to maintain the autonomy of physicians as well as their relationships with patients to provide the best health care, if that's what we want. Otherwise patients will need "health care providers", insurance, and "health care advocates" to help them understand the decisions and make sure the correct ones are made.
In a recent New York Times article Louse B. Russell, a research professor at the Rutgers University Institute of Health who has studied whether prevention necessarily saves money (and found that it does not always do so) said "It's going to take time in part because too many people in this country have had a health insurer say no, and it's not for a good reason. So they're not used to having a group come out and say that we ought to do less, and it's because it's best for you."
Friday, November 20, 2009
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Halloween
Six months ago I was married. Tonight I went trick-or-treating with my ex-wife, her new husband, and our two children. Life changes quickly.
In past years we had Halloween parties that the children still remember although they are only four and six years old. No party this year that I know of. Of the three of us, I was the only adult in costume.
I joined the kids and greeted my ex and her husband pleasantly. The things we'll do for our children. For the rest of the evening I just pretended that my ex and her husband were casual acquaintances, easy to do as I have no feelings of lost love.
I focused on the kids and joined them as they approached each house eagerly. I made small talk with the people who had decorated their homes. My son wanted to give me all of his candy. My ex-wife made sure to call from the curb for the kids to say thank you at each house. I wondered where the Unicef boxes were.
My ex-wife and her husband walked along together and I heard a familiar tone and pattern of conversation that I found artificial and an unpleasant reminder of what I had once bought into. I worried that she doesn't have what it takes to find herself. I worried for the kids.
It was raining hard and my daughter became cold and I gave her my Marlon Brando jacket, part of my biker costume. She looked cute in her fancy dress and too-large motorcycle jacket.
How strange it must be for a child to have two homes. Not uncommon, but strange, especially to someone like me who grew up confident in his family's unity.
As we walked my son mostly stayed with me, his current alliance. My daughter is having a harder time and went back and forth, telling her mom and me both that she loved us. Reciting the mantra, "I love daddy and I also love mommy". A seemingly unnecessary burden for a small child to carry.
We arrived back at my ex-wife's home. I was not invited inside, and I got my jacket back from my daughter and dripped my way to my truck. I drove home in rain blown horizontal by the wind.
I had a feeling of sadness. I wanted to be there to review the loot. To sort out the good candy from the undesirable stuff.
I took a candy bar that my son had given me and ate it. I hope they had fun tonight.
In past years we had Halloween parties that the children still remember although they are only four and six years old. No party this year that I know of. Of the three of us, I was the only adult in costume.
I joined the kids and greeted my ex and her husband pleasantly. The things we'll do for our children. For the rest of the evening I just pretended that my ex and her husband were casual acquaintances, easy to do as I have no feelings of lost love.
I focused on the kids and joined them as they approached each house eagerly. I made small talk with the people who had decorated their homes. My son wanted to give me all of his candy. My ex-wife made sure to call from the curb for the kids to say thank you at each house. I wondered where the Unicef boxes were.
My ex-wife and her husband walked along together and I heard a familiar tone and pattern of conversation that I found artificial and an unpleasant reminder of what I had once bought into. I worried that she doesn't have what it takes to find herself. I worried for the kids.
It was raining hard and my daughter became cold and I gave her my Marlon Brando jacket, part of my biker costume. She looked cute in her fancy dress and too-large motorcycle jacket.
How strange it must be for a child to have two homes. Not uncommon, but strange, especially to someone like me who grew up confident in his family's unity.
As we walked my son mostly stayed with me, his current alliance. My daughter is having a harder time and went back and forth, telling her mom and me both that she loved us. Reciting the mantra, "I love daddy and I also love mommy". A seemingly unnecessary burden for a small child to carry.
We arrived back at my ex-wife's home. I was not invited inside, and I got my jacket back from my daughter and dripped my way to my truck. I drove home in rain blown horizontal by the wind.
I had a feeling of sadness. I wanted to be there to review the loot. To sort out the good candy from the undesirable stuff.
I took a candy bar that my son had given me and ate it. I hope they had fun tonight.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Where did all the friends go?
When one's marriage ends, friendships often end also. People that used to invite me to their homes regularly with my wife and children now don't even answer my e-mails.
Throughout the process of my divorce, one message was incessantly emphasized. Every action was done under the guise of doing "what is best for the children".
Presumably what happens in civil actions represents the beliefs of our society. In other words, our society wants the most important outcome of divorce to be what is best for the children.
This society is made up of the same people who no longer answer my emails or invite me to their homes. It is also made up of my children. My children constantly want reminders that there is still a family that consists of a mommy, a daddy, and the children, even though they know that we live in two homes.
As I have read books about divorce and parenting, the one most important message is to not be negative about the other parent in front of the children, and if possible, be positive about the other parent, no matter how much you resent that person.
For my children this can be very simple. Once I slipped after my daughter said that she loved mommy. I absent-mindedly said "I love mommy too". This brought her so much joy that I didn't even mind that it wasn't true.
Another example is my daughter's desire to have "group hugs". in which my ex-wife, me, and my children all hug together as we once did when we were a single family. Although I have no desire to hug my wife, this is a small price to pay to bring comfort and happiness to children whose worlds have been turned upside down. I don't believe this is lying to them. I think it is doing something kind for them. They still know that my ex-wife and I maintain two separate homes and seldom interact.
It occurred to me that the same society that wants to do what is best for the children could walk the walk instead of just talking the talk. Divorce is like death or cancer. When either one occurs, people tend to stay away as if they could catch it.
My suggestion is that people reach out in these situations where others most need their friendship. Those barbecues that you used to invite us to? Why not still invite us and let us decide whether we are comfortable coming? Certainly our children would delight at the opportunity to be at a barbecue where both parents are present as well as all the children of the other couples we used to socialize with.
It is rare that there is a villain in a divorce. Although each party probably has issues with the other, one person may choose to vilify the other partner and be vocal about it. Seldom is this the whole story. Let's really do what's best for the children and continue to include them in our lives. It's easy to write people off, but it takes a caring person to take a chance and do what's more difficult and more right.
Throughout the process of my divorce, one message was incessantly emphasized. Every action was done under the guise of doing "what is best for the children".
Presumably what happens in civil actions represents the beliefs of our society. In other words, our society wants the most important outcome of divorce to be what is best for the children.
This society is made up of the same people who no longer answer my emails or invite me to their homes. It is also made up of my children. My children constantly want reminders that there is still a family that consists of a mommy, a daddy, and the children, even though they know that we live in two homes.
As I have read books about divorce and parenting, the one most important message is to not be negative about the other parent in front of the children, and if possible, be positive about the other parent, no matter how much you resent that person.
For my children this can be very simple. Once I slipped after my daughter said that she loved mommy. I absent-mindedly said "I love mommy too". This brought her so much joy that I didn't even mind that it wasn't true.
Another example is my daughter's desire to have "group hugs". in which my ex-wife, me, and my children all hug together as we once did when we were a single family. Although I have no desire to hug my wife, this is a small price to pay to bring comfort and happiness to children whose worlds have been turned upside down. I don't believe this is lying to them. I think it is doing something kind for them. They still know that my ex-wife and I maintain two separate homes and seldom interact.
It occurred to me that the same society that wants to do what is best for the children could walk the walk instead of just talking the talk. Divorce is like death or cancer. When either one occurs, people tend to stay away as if they could catch it.
My suggestion is that people reach out in these situations where others most need their friendship. Those barbecues that you used to invite us to? Why not still invite us and let us decide whether we are comfortable coming? Certainly our children would delight at the opportunity to be at a barbecue where both parents are present as well as all the children of the other couples we used to socialize with.
It is rare that there is a villain in a divorce. Although each party probably has issues with the other, one person may choose to vilify the other partner and be vocal about it. Seldom is this the whole story. Let's really do what's best for the children and continue to include them in our lives. It's easy to write people off, but it takes a caring person to take a chance and do what's more difficult and more right.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
On Divorce
Much is said about doing what is in the best interest of the children. I used to like the famous line "it takes a village to raise a family" and still believe it is true to an extent. A village provides the infrastructure that makes raising a family possible. The schools, the libraries, the cub scouts, and book sales. Friends are important for that emergency pickup when you can't make it to get your child from her karate lesson, but it is the nuclear family that raises the children and it takes two people to do that.
There are many instances where a second person is needed. As mundane as washing dishes is, it occupies a parent while the kids are unsupervised. It would be better to have a second parent read to the children or supervise their independent play. All too often the kids get an electronic parent like the television, ipod, or internet to keep them busy while the single parent is busy. At the end of the day, a single parent is exhausted and has had no time to do the things a person needs to do to remain happy, and it should be a right to pursue happiness. When there are two parents, either parent can disappear for some private time, to read a book, take a piano lesson, or mow the lawn. For a single parent, each of these tasks becomes a juggling feat and the children pay for the juggler.
I don't understand opposition to gay couples adopting. Any child would be lucky to have two loving parents, even if they were from another planet. With a 50% divorce rate I don't think it really matters what sex the parents are, but that they stay together.
In her book Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters, Meg Meeker, MD makes several points about what is good for children. She makes it clear that there is good evidence that divorce damages children. Her advice is to stay married if at all possible, that it is better to divorce when the children are 20 than when they are 14. My inference is that divorce is essentially a selfish act when there are children involved. Once you have children, you have committed yourself to their lives, their happiness and not your own. To go chasing something better is not right, unless there is abuse, etc. Marriage is difficult and there is value in making it through the hard times, even if they last years.
Part of my divorce was a required "course" on divorce, in my opinion after the horse was out of the barn, but required nonetheless. It repeatedly mentioned that kids are resilient and do fine after a divorce. I believe this is the wrong message. I think it should be difficult to get a divorce, and perhaps even difficult to get a marriage. I think the course should be given early in the marriage, before there are kids, and should discuss the damage that divorce does to children. Earlier loss of virginity, out of wedlock pregnancy, learning disorders, emotional disabilities, behavior problems, and shorter lives among others.
Our ideas on what is best for kids change over the years, proof that we never did know and probably never will know, what is important in raising healthy, happy, well-adjusted children.
In divorce, it used to be that the mother was felt to be the most important influence, and fathers had to fight hard to maintain time with the children. Usually it was a small number of days and this did not allow the father to feel involved. Many fathers just tossed in the towel and gave up.
Now it is recognized that a father is also important and the courts tend to make sure the father gets significant time with the children, but there are many other variables involved and the court should not pretend it knows the answers to these parenting issues.
A lot of emphasis is placed on maintaining things as they were during the marriage, mostly on "living in the style one has become accustomed to", but a divorce changes the marriage and the lives we had become accustomed to. When a parent decides to leave, there is no reason why they should continue to be supported. The children deserve to be supported and this should be looked at by the court, but the onus need not be on the same person who played the support role in the marriage, since the marriage is now over. A better way to look at it would be as two single parents, each of whom has to make a life for their children without the redundant luxury that a marriage provides.
Just because during the marriage one partner could stay home and enjoy raising children while the other parent worked does not mean this should be the case when a parent has decided to leave. Both parents should be prepared to give up their own needs in order to provide for the kids, even if that means working at Walmart instead of going to school to further oneself. Of course arrangements and deals can be made. "I'll pay for you to go to school since that will provide you a better future". This way you won't have to spend your life working for minimum wage to provide for the kids." This is OK but it should be a deal between the parents, not a court mandated distribution of money. If one parent worked hard to provide money, he/she gave up something precious to do that-time with the children. That parent should be able to keep what they made and the other parent gets to keep the bonds they were allowed to make with the kids while their partner worked.
If anything, there is an incentive for divorce in many cases, from a financial perspective. The above would change that and perhaps make people think more seriously before ending their marriage.
At most, the financial situation should be returned as closely as possible to the pre-marital status. If the father leaves the marriage wealthy and the mother poor, that is only addressing the money. I would gladly have handed over half of my money if I thought I could get half of the time with the kids that I gave up when I slunk out of the house each morning before the sun rose, and before the children were awake.
This deal should be understood when a couple decides to have children. The mother may be giving up a career to raise the children while the father works, but this is a conscious decision made by an adult, and it has repercussions that the mother must live with. That's being an adult. Staying with a marriage that has difficulties (don't they all?) to pursue a happier life should not carry with it the right to live as if one were still married.
Marriage should not be portrayed as a romantic, live happily ever after, fairy tale to our children as long as we live in a country where half of the marriages fail. Anyone planning to get married should have more work to do than picking out the best font for the invitations. They should be required to take a marriage course, just as they will be required to take a divorce course. A more realistic picture of marriage, and a better and earlier preparation for dealing with marital difficulty would help solve our epidemic of failed marriages. A prenuptial agreement should be mandatory, not just to preserve the wealth of one partner, but to have a plan for a reasonable separation made while the partners are still being reasonable with each other. After a divorce, the wedding gifts should go to a thrift shop that serves the community.
There are exceptions for abusive relationships, but the solution really should focus on removing the abuser from the abused and trying to help both people. In these cases people generally come from backgrounds that are abusive and it is the time to stop the cycle.
In a society that worries so much about threats from abroad, I wish we spent more time fixing the problems we create ourselves.
There are many instances where a second person is needed. As mundane as washing dishes is, it occupies a parent while the kids are unsupervised. It would be better to have a second parent read to the children or supervise their independent play. All too often the kids get an electronic parent like the television, ipod, or internet to keep them busy while the single parent is busy. At the end of the day, a single parent is exhausted and has had no time to do the things a person needs to do to remain happy, and it should be a right to pursue happiness. When there are two parents, either parent can disappear for some private time, to read a book, take a piano lesson, or mow the lawn. For a single parent, each of these tasks becomes a juggling feat and the children pay for the juggler.
I don't understand opposition to gay couples adopting. Any child would be lucky to have two loving parents, even if they were from another planet. With a 50% divorce rate I don't think it really matters what sex the parents are, but that they stay together.
In her book Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters, Meg Meeker, MD makes several points about what is good for children. She makes it clear that there is good evidence that divorce damages children. Her advice is to stay married if at all possible, that it is better to divorce when the children are 20 than when they are 14. My inference is that divorce is essentially a selfish act when there are children involved. Once you have children, you have committed yourself to their lives, their happiness and not your own. To go chasing something better is not right, unless there is abuse, etc. Marriage is difficult and there is value in making it through the hard times, even if they last years.
Part of my divorce was a required "course" on divorce, in my opinion after the horse was out of the barn, but required nonetheless. It repeatedly mentioned that kids are resilient and do fine after a divorce. I believe this is the wrong message. I think it should be difficult to get a divorce, and perhaps even difficult to get a marriage. I think the course should be given early in the marriage, before there are kids, and should discuss the damage that divorce does to children. Earlier loss of virginity, out of wedlock pregnancy, learning disorders, emotional disabilities, behavior problems, and shorter lives among others.
Our ideas on what is best for kids change over the years, proof that we never did know and probably never will know, what is important in raising healthy, happy, well-adjusted children.
In divorce, it used to be that the mother was felt to be the most important influence, and fathers had to fight hard to maintain time with the children. Usually it was a small number of days and this did not allow the father to feel involved. Many fathers just tossed in the towel and gave up.
Now it is recognized that a father is also important and the courts tend to make sure the father gets significant time with the children, but there are many other variables involved and the court should not pretend it knows the answers to these parenting issues.
A lot of emphasis is placed on maintaining things as they were during the marriage, mostly on "living in the style one has become accustomed to", but a divorce changes the marriage and the lives we had become accustomed to. When a parent decides to leave, there is no reason why they should continue to be supported. The children deserve to be supported and this should be looked at by the court, but the onus need not be on the same person who played the support role in the marriage, since the marriage is now over. A better way to look at it would be as two single parents, each of whom has to make a life for their children without the redundant luxury that a marriage provides.
Just because during the marriage one partner could stay home and enjoy raising children while the other parent worked does not mean this should be the case when a parent has decided to leave. Both parents should be prepared to give up their own needs in order to provide for the kids, even if that means working at Walmart instead of going to school to further oneself. Of course arrangements and deals can be made. "I'll pay for you to go to school since that will provide you a better future". This way you won't have to spend your life working for minimum wage to provide for the kids." This is OK but it should be a deal between the parents, not a court mandated distribution of money. If one parent worked hard to provide money, he/she gave up something precious to do that-time with the children. That parent should be able to keep what they made and the other parent gets to keep the bonds they were allowed to make with the kids while their partner worked.
If anything, there is an incentive for divorce in many cases, from a financial perspective. The above would change that and perhaps make people think more seriously before ending their marriage.
At most, the financial situation should be returned as closely as possible to the pre-marital status. If the father leaves the marriage wealthy and the mother poor, that is only addressing the money. I would gladly have handed over half of my money if I thought I could get half of the time with the kids that I gave up when I slunk out of the house each morning before the sun rose, and before the children were awake.
This deal should be understood when a couple decides to have children. The mother may be giving up a career to raise the children while the father works, but this is a conscious decision made by an adult, and it has repercussions that the mother must live with. That's being an adult. Staying with a marriage that has difficulties (don't they all?) to pursue a happier life should not carry with it the right to live as if one were still married.
Marriage should not be portrayed as a romantic, live happily ever after, fairy tale to our children as long as we live in a country where half of the marriages fail. Anyone planning to get married should have more work to do than picking out the best font for the invitations. They should be required to take a marriage course, just as they will be required to take a divorce course. A more realistic picture of marriage, and a better and earlier preparation for dealing with marital difficulty would help solve our epidemic of failed marriages. A prenuptial agreement should be mandatory, not just to preserve the wealth of one partner, but to have a plan for a reasonable separation made while the partners are still being reasonable with each other. After a divorce, the wedding gifts should go to a thrift shop that serves the community.
There are exceptions for abusive relationships, but the solution really should focus on removing the abuser from the abused and trying to help both people. In these cases people generally come from backgrounds that are abusive and it is the time to stop the cycle.
In a society that worries so much about threats from abroad, I wish we spent more time fixing the problems we create ourselves.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
egg drop soup
Jesse doesn't like eggs, but he likes egg-drop soup. Today he woke from his nap grumpy. He stalked the house with a scowl on his face, head tilted down, eyes looking up menacingly for a four year old.
I suggested that we go fishing, and the scowl faded away. We went outside to find worms. Each rotting log was a small adventure with all sorts of odd living creatures under it. We scampered from log to log until we had collected a dozen or so worms, got our tackle together, and headed off to the river with a candy bar.
Ever the negotiator, he asked for three junior mints on the five minute drive to the river and finally settled for one. I had three. We walked to our favorite spot and sat down on a rock in the misting rain, not really fishing, but hanging out. We ate our candy bar and caught a ridiculously small fish. Getting restless, we decided to put our rods aside and go exploring in the woods. Jesse is a master mushroom spotter and we went mushroom hunting, enjoying the different shapes and sizes. We threw rocks in the river. After a while we both got hungry and left for home where I got out a can of chicken noodle soup. Jesse suggested that I drop an egg into it. I asked him how I should do that and he said to mix it up first, so I gave him a whisk and a bowl with an egg and he whisked it and then poured it into the soup while I mixed. The picky eater devoured the soup, which also had just the noodles from a packet of ramen.
After lunch the day dragged and Jesse and his sister quarreled. Jesse's bad mood returned. I was saved by a phone call from a new friend with a daughter, Emily, aged between Jesse and Amy. Jesse was jealous, as Emily is a girl from Amy's school, and thus really a friend of Amy's, not Jesse's.
Somehow, even at their young ages, chemistry took over and the three of them played happily together dressing up, exploring the yard, and finally collapsing in front of a movie. Emily didn't want to go home so I prepared dinner for the kids. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches with honey, and chicken noodle egg-drop soup, a la Jesse, who is always full of surprises.
I suggested that we go fishing, and the scowl faded away. We went outside to find worms. Each rotting log was a small adventure with all sorts of odd living creatures under it. We scampered from log to log until we had collected a dozen or so worms, got our tackle together, and headed off to the river with a candy bar.
Ever the negotiator, he asked for three junior mints on the five minute drive to the river and finally settled for one. I had three. We walked to our favorite spot and sat down on a rock in the misting rain, not really fishing, but hanging out. We ate our candy bar and caught a ridiculously small fish. Getting restless, we decided to put our rods aside and go exploring in the woods. Jesse is a master mushroom spotter and we went mushroom hunting, enjoying the different shapes and sizes. We threw rocks in the river. After a while we both got hungry and left for home where I got out a can of chicken noodle soup. Jesse suggested that I drop an egg into it. I asked him how I should do that and he said to mix it up first, so I gave him a whisk and a bowl with an egg and he whisked it and then poured it into the soup while I mixed. The picky eater devoured the soup, which also had just the noodles from a packet of ramen.
After lunch the day dragged and Jesse and his sister quarreled. Jesse's bad mood returned. I was saved by a phone call from a new friend with a daughter, Emily, aged between Jesse and Amy. Jesse was jealous, as Emily is a girl from Amy's school, and thus really a friend of Amy's, not Jesse's.
Somehow, even at their young ages, chemistry took over and the three of them played happily together dressing up, exploring the yard, and finally collapsing in front of a movie. Emily didn't want to go home so I prepared dinner for the kids. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches with honey, and chicken noodle egg-drop soup, a la Jesse, who is always full of surprises.
Car Mechanics
A few years ago I had to get my Subaru inspected for my registration. I was relatively new in town and wasn't familiar with the various service stations. I took my three year old car in to a tire dealership that does inspections and was shocked to find that I did not pass inspection. Apparently there was too much rust on my brake rotors. Since the car was pretty new and the brakes seemed to work fine I chose not to have the expensive work done. I had to pay an inspection fee though.
I took the car to another inspection center where it passed with flying colors.
As I thought about the situation, I began to recognize the unfairness of the position the car-owner is put in. An unethical inspection center can get lots of extra business by finding problems. In my opinion, the center that performs the inspection should not be allowed to do the work they deem to be required, as it provides an incentive for them to invent problems.
One could argue that this might put unsafe vehicles back on the road, but the vehicle was driven to the service center in the first place, so it's not as if it hasn't been on the road.
One could argue that an unsafe car could just be taken from one service center to another until the vehicle passes. One solution to this could be a three strikes and you're out rule, but more effective would be inspection criteria that are objective. It should not be a judgment call as to whether a vehicle passes inspection. The measurements to be made at inspection should be clearly described so that a car gets consistent results from one center to another.
Most owners are not very familiar with their cars. I was ripped off for an unnecessary three hundred dollar rear brake job on my old K5 Blazer back in the 90's. There's nothing more convincing than having a mechanic show you a broken piece from your car, telling you that the part needs to be replaced. The shop that I was taken by was later shut down because they performed unnecessary work.
The rust on my brake rotors that caused me to fail my inspection is apparently a normal finding on a car that sits for a few days, especially if it is humid.
The best solution of all is to report unsavory mechanics to the Better Business Bureau or the state DMV and to establish a relationship with a good mechanic. The Mechanics File on Car Talk is a database of over 16,000 mechanics that are recommended by listeners of the Public Radio show Car Talk.
I took the car to another inspection center where it passed with flying colors.
As I thought about the situation, I began to recognize the unfairness of the position the car-owner is put in. An unethical inspection center can get lots of extra business by finding problems. In my opinion, the center that performs the inspection should not be allowed to do the work they deem to be required, as it provides an incentive for them to invent problems.
One could argue that this might put unsafe vehicles back on the road, but the vehicle was driven to the service center in the first place, so it's not as if it hasn't been on the road.
One could argue that an unsafe car could just be taken from one service center to another until the vehicle passes. One solution to this could be a three strikes and you're out rule, but more effective would be inspection criteria that are objective. It should not be a judgment call as to whether a vehicle passes inspection. The measurements to be made at inspection should be clearly described so that a car gets consistent results from one center to another.
Most owners are not very familiar with their cars. I was ripped off for an unnecessary three hundred dollar rear brake job on my old K5 Blazer back in the 90's. There's nothing more convincing than having a mechanic show you a broken piece from your car, telling you that the part needs to be replaced. The shop that I was taken by was later shut down because they performed unnecessary work.
The rust on my brake rotors that caused me to fail my inspection is apparently a normal finding on a car that sits for a few days, especially if it is humid.
The best solution of all is to report unsavory mechanics to the Better Business Bureau or the state DMV and to establish a relationship with a good mechanic. The Mechanics File on Car Talk is a database of over 16,000 mechanics that are recommended by listeners of the Public Radio show Car Talk.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
My Review of Scientific Anglers Fly Fishing Made Easy Fly Fishing Kit - 4-Piece, 9’ 5/6wt
Originally submitted at Sierra Trading Post
Closeouts . This Scientific Anglers Fly Fishing Made Easy fly fishing kit comes with everything the upstart angler needs for a great day on the water. Includes rod, reel, line, backing, leader and DVD Rod: Performance matched to the fly line Graphite Cork handle Wire snake guides 4...
Considering learning to fly fish?
By deepdrop from New Hampshire on 10/10/2009
I don't ski, I don't like winter. I needed something to keep those winter blues away, so I decided to take up fly fishing. This is a good quality outfit at a good price. It's well suited for trout, bass and I feel I could probably handle a fish up to 10 pounds. The reel does have a drag. It comes with backing, weight forward fly line, one 4x leader, rod and reel. The leader uses Sci Anglers connector that doesn't require a knot, but you can use any leader you want. No flies included. It would have been nice to have a few flies. It does come with a DVD that provides a nice introduction to fly fishing, knot tying, etc.
I was choosing between this one and the Wild Water fly fishing kit and chose this one based on price. The Wild Water comes with a case, which is a nice addition and is probably a little higher quality.
Anyway, this winter I can learn to tie flies while everyone else is on the slopes.
(legalese)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
