Never a Year Like '09

Gift Card Confusion

Earlier this week, I received a gift card from Banana Republic from a family member for Christmas. Since there is a Banana Republic outlet near where I'm staying in Austin, I decided to go see how much I could get for my money there. Prior to paying for my items I noticed on the back of the card that the gift card entitles me to an extra 10% discount if it is spent between January 6-31.

There's a lot of interesting writing on the economics of gift cards, but this particular promotion is particularly perplexing. For one thing, it's inviting people to spend their money sooner rather than later. According to a 2007 Reuters survey, 27% of people receiving gift cards during the Holiday season had not used at least one of them one year later. As The Atlantic article (linked above) discusses, the longer somebody goes without spending, the more likely they are not to spend at all.

Perhaps this particular company is banking on the fact that consumers of their brand will overuse the card, causing them to actually purchase more than they normally would have. This theory is rattled though by the strange window between December 26-January 5. What is the company trying to do during this time? Are they trying to bifurcate/extend the post-Holiday rush of returns and cashing-in of gift cards? Are they trying to prevent people from returning clothes, getting a store credit and then repurchasing those items at a 10% discount (under the theory that they won't wait until January 6th to do this)? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Douthat on The Obama Way

Ross Douthat notes in his New York Times column this morning that even one year into it, nobody can quite manage to put a label on the Obama Presidency: "He’s a bipartisan bridge-builder — unless he’s a polarizing ideologue. He’s a crypto-Marxist radical — except when he’s a pawn of corporate interests. He’s a post-American utopian — or else he’s a willing tool of the national security state."

Douthat calls him an ideologue who prefers to work within existing structures rather than tear those structures down. Not bad, though I do disagree with Douthat's later assessment that "Obama promised exactly the opposite approach while running for the presidency. He campaigned as a postpartisan healer who would change the cynical ways of Washington — as a foe of both back-room deals and ideology-as-usual. But he’s governed as a conventional liberal who believes in the existing system, knows how to work it and accepts the limitations it imposes on him."

It's not that I'm questioning Douthat's observations about what President Obama campaigned on, but that what we're seeing is necessarily the opposite. I'm biased but I really think The Ayes Have It nailed it in their endorsement of President Obama last November:

See, I believe the junior Senator from Illinois sees himself as a transformational figure who will be hailed by history as one of our nation’s great leaders -- one who moved the country past great barriers and differences; one who brought people together; and one who was respected and adored by all Americans. This sort of end cannot be achieved by towing party line orthodoxy. If Mr. Obama wishes to achieve this level of greatness he will have to be pragmatic and enlist the assistance of the best and brightest America has to offer, regardless of their ideological or party bona fides. In short, results matter and Mr. Obama will likely govern with an eye on those results.

To repeat, bipartisanship (or post partisanship, as it may be) does not mean rolling over and agreeing with the other side half the time. It does not mean both sides going to the extremes and then splitting the difference 100% of the time. It means understanding the basic duty our elected officials have to the public and demanding that. We often won't agree with our leaders, but we need to be able to believe that they seek to protect our interests the same way a corporate director is supposed protect his shareholders' interests or lawyer protects his clients' interests. The public may be divided over whether they like President Obama's conclusions, but I (as a conservative) cannot honestly say I believe he has done anything other than put bright people around him, thoroughly examined the issues before him, and sought to diligently protect the interests of Americans. I'd like to have somebody in office who agrees with me more often, but one year out, I still consider what we have better than the alternative that was offered.

Brooks' Favorite Long-Form Magazine Articles for 2009

As part of a yearly tradition, David Brooks names his favorite long-form magazine articles for 2009. Among his favorites is one from The Atlantic and another from The New Yorker, both of which I found highly interesting and instructive as to the situation. Add another from the National Journal wherein Jonathan Rouch describes what the experience of purchasing an airline ticket would be like if that industry were run the same way as the healthcare industry.

Rouch really understands a lot of the factors driving up the costs - go give it a read.

An Open Letter to Ambulance Service, re: Bill for Service on 5/15/09

The following is a letter drafted to the ambulance service that sent me a $650 bill for an ambulance ride I took in May after passing out during a doctor's visit. I later found out the ambulance ride was around the parking lot of the building. I consider this to be the type of medical service that, until stopped, will render efforts to reform healthcare very difficult.

December 24, 2009

Dear Ambulance Service,

Attached is my payment for $657 for your ambulance service rendered on May 15, 2009. While I am paying this bill in full, please do not in any way mistake this gesture for an agreement with the charges. It’s particularly interesting to me that during this time of public dialogue over affordable healthcare in this country that you would so eagerly participate in the type of behavior that perpetuates increasingly unaffordable medical services that will eventually lead to major crisis.

Allow me to explain. On the morning of May 15, 2009 I went to the office of a Gastroenterologist who practices in one of the office buildings attached to a hospital in St. Louis County, Missouri. During the course of the visit, I became ill and briefly passed out on the floor of the office. Paramedics were called, but by the time of their arrival I had regained consciousness and was sitting upright in a chair rehydrating. I was completely alert and able to answer all questions about the time/date, my location, and my identity. It was generally decided that it would be best for me to go to the Emergency Room to run some tests and make sure everything was alright. I agreed to this and told them that if they’d let me know where I needed to go I would be happy to drive myself. Taken back they told me there was no way they could let me do that and that they would need to transport me by ambulance to the ER. I insisted once more that such a drastic measure really was not necessary, but they again insisted that I needed to go with them in the ambulance. Finally relenting, I agreed and went with them. After having several tests run at the ER, I asked if somebody would call a cab for me to get back to my car. After telling them where I had come from, they chuckled and noted that the best way to get back to my original location was to walk through the building as I had just come from a different wing of the hospital. Why was it necessary to ride in an ambulance around the building when I could have gone through the building? Why was this 10 minute ride $650 (your $3900 hourly rate is the envy of all in my profession!)? And how in the world do you justify $7 in milage to cruise around the parking lot?

On the very day the United States Senate passed legislation attempting to make healthcare more affordable for Americans, is it not obvious that the type of behavior in which you engaged is much of the problem and if continued will render efforts at reform meaningless? Is it not obvious that you cast an extremely negative light on those in the medical community who work night and day to provide the highest level of care and choose the correct course of care because it’s in the best interests of their patients, not because it is in their financial interests to do so. Can you not see that as long as you continue this behavior the problem cannot be solved and we’re destined for significant crisis?

Of course, I’m part of the problem too. I am, albeit begrudgingly, paying your bill. The truth is that it really does not matter to me, it’s not my money, at least not directly. Sure, I pay into a complex pool of risk, the cost of which being a part of will increase from this, but my efforts to fight back will have virtually no effect on my premiums costs, so I’m going to just pay the bill. You know this will be my response, so you continue to do it. You also know that I’m not going to shop around for a better option, so you continue to do it. Finally, you know that I have an almost completely elastic demand curve for medical services so you can continue to do it. A perfect scenario of incentives has coalesced in your favor, and you’ve cashed in big time. If we were dealing with the sale of iPhones or cookies, I’d tip my hat to you for your ingenuity; you’re dealing with people’s health though, and your behavior is disgusting given the systematic ramifications.

Before you respond with excuses about legal liability, I should let you know that as a civil defense attorney, I’m on your side. That said, I am not willing to buy such a response when in too many instances it is a guise for rendering completely unnecessary care that is creating instability in the system. You artificially raise costs and you make it more difficult for members of the medical community who are doing great work on behalf of their patients to do so. You make me and our country (more) sick.

Merry Christmas!

Matt

What I'm Reading Today: December 11, 2009

Scientific War on Science by Michael Gerson [Washington Post]

Health Care Help From The Rookies by David Broder [Washington Post]

War and Peace by Eugene Robinson [Washington Post]

Bernanke's Unfinished Business by Paul Krugman

The Hanukkah Story by David Brooks

Obama Moves Toward Center Stage by Peggy Noonan

The New I-64

On Sunday the St. Louis Track Club hosted a 5k run on the new I-64 (which MoDot seems to be pushing very hard that we call it rather than Highway 40). It was fun to join what seemed to be about 1500 other brave souls willing to run 3 miles early in the morning in 30 degree temperatures. Since that time, I have had the chance to drive on it a couple times and am pleased to report back that MoDot did an excellent job.

The exit ramps and exchanges make much more sense than prior to the construction. For example, Hampton previously had two exits (one north and one south) from both the Eastbound and Westbound lanes. It now features one exit in each direction and does away with the ridiculously sharp turns on the ramps. The 170 interchange also make a lot more sense and should significantly ease congestion in that area of town.

I know I can be fairly critical at times, but everything about the way this highway was designed seems right. The two years without a convenient artery through town was a hassle, but it seems that the wait was worth it (and I got to know some parts of town I would not have otherwise). Aptly named the Jack Buck Highway, I say "That's a Winner!"

What I'm Reading Today: December 4, 2009

Obama Redeclares War by Peggy Noonan [Wall Street Journal]: Noonan finds interesting both that President Obama, after carefully examining the Afghanistan issue, reached exactly the same conclusion as his predecessor and that he goes to war without a base of support, placing him in a unique position. She analyzes the speech from Tuesday night and gives the President some tips -- mainly to give his speaking an “i-ectomy.”

A Plan in Need of Clarity by Senator Jim Webb [Washington Post]: Senator Webb expresses reservations about the Administration’s plans for Afghanistan and says he plans to push them on declaring their intentions with regard to: (1) the fragility of the Afghan government; (2) whether building a national army of considerable scale is achievable; (3) whether an increased U.S. military presence will ultimately have a positive effect in the country, or whether we will be seen as an occupying force; and (4) the linkage of events in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the coming weeks I intend to examine the administration's plan to see how it addresses these criteria and how it will affect our troops.

Obama’s Case to Make by Michael Gerson [Washington Post]: President Obama’s decision on Afghanistan pleased the generals and displeased his political base. Gerson concludes from this that, “There is no credible explanation for these actions except a commitment to the national interest. It is time to rally around the president.” There certain are obstacles, governmental corrpuption being the greatest, but Obama must move forward now and continue to define in detail his plan as this is only the beginning.

Reform or Else by Paul Krugman [New York Times]: Krugman responds to the Senators who assert fiscal responsibility in response to the proposed healthcare bill, saying, “But if they’re really concerned with fiscal responsibility, they shouldn’t be worried about what would happen if health reform passes. They should, instead, be worried about what would happen if it doesn’t pass. For America can’t get control of its budget without controlling health care costs — and this is our last, best chance to deal with these costs in a rational way.”

The Analytic Mode by David Brooks [New York Times]: Brooks makes the case that Obama’s recent detached nature is more in line with his leadership strengths. He further argues that the difference between his Administration and campaign are based on four fictions: (1) government is a contest between truth and error. (2) to support a policy is to make it happen. (3) we can begin the world anew. (4) leaders know the path ahead.

Restaurant Review: NOLA

In what is sure to become a regular stop during trips to New Orleans, I made my second visit to Emerrill's NOLA Restaurant last night. NOLA is a quick walk from Bourbon Street on Rue St. Louis right in the heart of the French Quarter. The entrance greets you with a bar on the left, featuring an extensive wine list, and the hostess station on the right. Upon arrival I checked in around 8:15 for my 8:30 reservation (I tried to get a 7:30 reservation on this Thursday night but was told my options were 6 or 8:30). Seemingly some kind of old warehouse, NOLA features three floors of seating surrounded by bare brick walls, creating a really impressive casual fine dining atmosphere.

While waiting for the table, I went over to the bar and had a bottle of the Abita Amber Ale. Abita is a local microbrewery in Abita Springs, Louisiana that has seven flagship brews and a variety of other types of beer (including root beer). After about ten minutes, my name was called and I was escorted to my table. As I mentioned earlier, the restaurant features three floors of dining space; taking patrons to the second and third floor is a glass elevator running up through the middle of the restaurant. Upon being seated, white cloth napkins were swapped out in favor of black ones for those wearing dark pants. Before I knew it, jalepeno cornbread and french bread rolls were brought out with butter and the feast was underway.

For an appetizer, the Miss Hay's Stuffed Chicken Wings with Homemade Hoisin Dipping sauce was excellent. As for the entree I asked several of the servers around what they recommended -- the duck seemed to be the overwhelming favorite. Great choice. While not overly greasy, it was both moist and full of the flavor. The hickory smoking seems to be the key to it's flavor, but there's definitely more to it than just the meat itself. Served on a bed of cornbread pudding and fire roasted corn salad this dish is perfectly topped with a whiskey-carmel glaze that should have me in the gym most of this weekend.

While NOLA is a "must go" for the New Orleans visitor, I get the sense from talking to people that there are plenty of local residents eating here as well. At $50 for the entree and appetizer this is a great value if you're looking for a fun evening in New Orleans. I certainly plan to return.

5 Stars.

Restaurant Review: Bourbon House New Orleans

I went to the Bourbon House New Orleans last night after arriving in New Orleans. I arrived around 8 p.m. and watched the University of Illinois complete a 23 point second half comeback against Clemson. After a wait of about 30 minutes, I was seated in the bar area (though I had requested to be seated in the dining room). Having gone to Dickie Brennan's Steakhouse my last time in New Orleans, I assumed his seafood restaurant would be every bit as good. It was not.

Emboldened by the luck I've had during this swing through Louisiana with asking the waiter/waitress for their recommendation, I decided to do the same here and ordered the Redfish on a half shell (not to be confused with the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, who were "Turtles in a Halfshell"). Served with red potatoes and caramelized onions, the dish was of a substantial portion that certainly did not leave me hungry. I went ahead and splurged for the crab meat as well. While it was the best part of the dish, the sprinkling of this flavor hardly justified a $10 surcharge. Perhaps it's my own fault, but the half shell feature of the dish was difficult to eat around and really detracted from the experience.

The meal was about $60 for the entree, a spinach salad, and a glass of pinot noir. At this price, I have a tough time recommending this place (especially after being seated in the bar area), though a more careful ordering might increase the value.

3.5/5 Stars