More information please

1. Are the G20 costs high relative to costs of similar things? A billion dollars sounds like a fuck-ton of money. Media have pointed out how many hungry people it would feed or how much subway it would buy, but how much security can it buy in other situations? Galloping Beaver points out that it can buy a year of Canadian Forces operations in Afghanistan. See, that's informative! And that means we are owed an explanation of why protecting Toronto costs 100 times as much per day.

I saw an article presenting as outrageous the fact that $100,000 was spent on a gazebo. Is that a lot for a gazebo? I don't actually know. I have no frame of reference. While building a fake lake within sight of the real lake is inherently ridiculous, is $2 million $57,000 a lot of money for the thing that they are building? I have no clue. They could be getting gouged, or it could be outstandingly good value on par with the 4 drinking glasses I just got for $2.50 at Kitchen Stuff Plus. I have no frame of reference.

I really want media coverage to contextualize this systematically. It's very easy to see a large number, clutch your pearls, and get outraged. I can do that myself without media help. What I do need journalism for is to help me contextualize it. And if there is room for outrage, then we'll go in well-informed, so politicos can't pat us on the head and tell us that it's complicated and we don't understand.

2. Are people really over-using medical care? A recurring idea is that there should be an out-of-pocket fee to for medical appointments to stop people from making frivolous medical appointments. But do people really make frivolous medical appointments? If anything, I'd say our culture encourages more medical appointments than people are inclined to make for themselves. Advice columns are always sending people to the doctor at the slightest provocation. The fashion magazines I read as a kid always said that your doctor can help with your zit emergencies. My university even required a doctor's note if you wanted to bring your own bed to res rather than using the one provided. This one guy who was seven feet tall had to get a note from a doctor asserting that the normal bed is too small for him, when he could have proven it in 10 seconds by lying down on the bed! I see lots of people being told they should go to the doctor, but I don't ever see real people actually going to the doctor frivolously.

It is true that the patient might go to the doctor out of ignorance, but that isn't something that will be helped by charging people money. Going to the doctor out of ignorance needs to be addressed by educating patients, by giving them the tools to triage themselves. This is accomplished with Telehealth and with decision trees like these. If the patient genuinely doesn't know that this isn't something they need to see a doctor for, they still do need some kind of health care to teach them how to tell whether or not they need to see the doctor.

(At the very least, if the charge is really intended to be a disincentive to frivolous doctor's appointments, it should be waived if you were referred by Telehealth or a medical professional, or for doctor-recommended preventive care. And organizations that require a doctor's note should be responsible for paying the charge. Although even that's imperfect - for example, I know when I have strep throat - I got it every year in childhood and get it frequently enough in adulthood to recognize it. If I had to pay a fee or get referred by Telehealth, I'd just be cluttering up Telehealth.)

3. What happens to inmates' money? Recently in the news was a move to prohibit people who are in jail from receiving OAS and other government benefits to which they'd normally be entitled in their capacity as citizens. This makes me wonder: what normally happens to inmates' money? Obviously they can't spend it freely while in prison, because that would rather defeat the purpose of prison. But what does happen to their money? Can it still be used to maintain ongoing expenses (i.e. can they keep paying your rent with whatever savings they might have)? Can their spouse/dependents access it?

My gut reaction is to oppose taking pensions and other benefits away from prisoners, because I feel like that opens the door to taking them away from other people that the government deems unworthy for whatever reason. (Not sure how legally valid that is, it's just my gut reaction.)

But it also occurs to me that it might ultimately lead to recidivism. This whole thing started with serial Clifford Olsen, who isn't getting out of jail, but most inmates ultimately are going to be released at some point. It seems to me that if they have been rehabilitated (and if they haven't been rehabilitated that's a correctional system problem, not a social safety net problem), having a bit of a nest egg will make it easier for them to peacefully reintegrate into society, whereas if they are desperate for money they'd be more likely to return to crime.

It also occurs to me that, if inmates' families are able to access the inmates' assets, then disqualifying inmates for pensions is simply punishing innocents. It isn't the families' - especially not the dependents' - fault the criminal is a criminal. It's possible the criminal has still contributed to the household, either by earning income or even just by being someone who can kill spiders and help flip the mattress, and the household suffers for his absence. It's also possible that criminals who are released from prison after the age of 65 may never be able to reintegrate into the job market, and their spouse and/or children will end up support them for the rest of their lives. So why should this be made even more burdensome?

Clifford Olsen is an extreme case. I wish we had more information on how this affects more common cases.