Unintended Consequences - The Case of the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker

NY Times ^ | January 20, 2008 | STEPHEN J. DUBNER and STEVEN D. LEVITT

[neverdem]

Freakonomics

One year from today, a new president moves into the White House. This president will be eager to carry out any number of plans — including, surely, plans to help the segments of society that most need help. Extending a helping hand, after all, is one of the great privileges and responsibilities of the presidency.

But before charging ahead with such plans, the new president might do well to first ask him- or herself the following question: What do a deaf woman in Los Angeles, a first-century Jewish sandal maker and a red-cockaded woodpecker have in common?

A few months ago, a prospective patient called the office of Andrew Brooks, a top-ranked orthopedic surgeon in Los Angeles. She was having serious knee trouble, and she was also deaf. She wanted to know if her deafness posed a problem for Brooks. He had his assistant relay a message: no, of course not; he could easily discuss her situation using knee models, anatomical charts and written notes.

The woman later called again to say she would rather have a sign-language interpreter. Fine, Brooks said, and asked his assistant to make the arrangements. As it turned out, an interpreter would cost $120 an hour, with a two-hour minimum, and the expense wasn’t covered by insurance. Brooks didn’t think it made sense for him to pay. That would mean laying out $240 to conduct an exam for which the woman’s insurance company would pay him $58 — a loss of more than $180 even before accounting for taxes and overhead.

So Brooks suggested to the patient that they make do without the interpreter. That’s when she told him that the Americans With Disabilities Act (A.D.A.) allowed a patient to choose the mode of interpretation, at the physician’s expense. Brooks, flabbergasted, researched...

[Old North State]

I think the woodpecker situation is a metaphor for what always happens to collectivist governments that refuse to recognize that people act in their own self interest. Individuals have always been unwilling accept unequal economic burdens and loss for ‘common goods’. It remains the genius of Capitalism to recognize self interest and make it work for society.

[papasmurf]

I see it as that, also. Thanks.

[T-Bird45]

Let’s not get too far down the thread before remembering that the ADA was signed into law by GHW Bush and there lies the lesson — an R after a candidate’s name has little to do with overall political philosophy. Just something to think about during this political season that is filled with R-Nannystate candidates of all stripes.

[Elsie]

“They all said, ‘If I ever get a call from someone like that, I’ll never see her,’ ” he says.

Taxation without representation comes to mind.

People WILL find a way to avoid unreasonable demands put upon them!

[Balding_Eagle]

Thank you, I was thinking the same thing.

[ForGod'sSake]

I'm almost speechless. Heads will roll at the Times™! Or maybe it's been seven years since the Times™ last reported a common sense article and the editors are/were on sabbatical??? Or maybe they thought their hit counter was stuck and wanted to give it a proper test.

Apologies for duplicate pings.

[GOPJ]

The New York Times ??? OMG it looks like a liberal brain has trumped liberal "feelings". Is it possible?

If a liberal can understand unintended consequences, surely pigs are flying.

[GOPJ]

Thanks for the ping.

[ForGod'sSake]

Pleasure.

[GOPJ]

bttt

[null and void]

Rush-is-talking-about-this-now bump...

[GOPJ]

As true today as it was when printed... is this the last good article to come out of the New York Times?