It's not the end of the world

The Smart People's Club was in the news regarding their prognostications on Doomsday. See Relatively Speaking (March 2026). The Hill picked up the theme that month in an opinion piece that encourages, or at least claims, a Chicken Little approach to worldview. It asserts that many Americans "now believe the end is near."

There is some good humor about the word "Armageddon." I like

So what if I don't know what Armageddon means?

It's not the end of the world

or

All this drama in the world. Makes me want to watch a nice light movie.

You know... Like Armageddon.

Well, that is part of our problem societally; we seemingly can't laugh at much anymore. The Hill does not use "Armageddon" but focuses on "doomsday" and "apocalyptic." The author pokes fun at some societal elements and manages to be insulting and petty in the process.

The piece then turns from poking fun at groups to a contention that the fear of the "end of the world" is now mainstream. The evidence asserted is what phrases are trending on social media and social attitudes of Americans gleaned from polling.

The author focuses on conclusions that "100 million Americans expect the world to end in their lifetime." Their fears are apparently not united or focused. Some fears include "climate change, nuclear war, economic collapse, and artificial intelligence."

Those people are apparently not watching television. The ads I see are more focused on reasonably rare medical conditions that we should all rush to our doctors for. The premise is that we could all do better with our plaque psoriasis, cystic fibrosis, and narcolepsy. That industry says we can all self-diagnose our declining health.

The Hill author argues that in this "sky is falling" mindset, the population might be divided into two groups. One group will "take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them" (Billy Shakespeare, Hamlet, 1599). The second group, he claims, is more fatalistic and less inclined to action in the face of what they perceive is inevitability (think Eeyore from Winnie the Pooh).

The article takes a tack that the pessimists have it right. There are various cited examples of the challenges we face on economic, violence, and technology fronts. He contends people have quit making fun of "the doomsday crowd" and begun googling survivalist thoughts himself.

His expressed fear is not so much that the sky is falling but that there is consequence when people begin to believe that the sky is falling. The article included a poll gauging the extent to which one agrees "with the idea that the end of the world is near." When I took it, the outcome was not so supportive of the author's pessimism.

Nonetheless, perhaps there is some room for discussion? Maybe we could all use some news stories that are actual news? Perhaps there could be benefit from news coverage that features what the service club people are doing to improve communities, and less about the perpetual string of violence that so enamors the media? Are people pessimistic because of the world or merely because their social media, television, and more are pushing persistent messages of negativity and pessimism?

The Hill author concludes that there is danger for us in "point(ing) to the different dashboards flashing red" (the various reasons people express for their anxiety and fears). He concludes that there is a spirit of doom and that this mental attitude could itself be contributing to doom. His exposition of self-fulfilling prophecy is not inspiring or encouraging.

The thinkers in the world, however, will realize that the media is interested in shock value. Social media is designed to drive clicks. There is money in anger and by feeling it, tuning in, and clicking, you are feeding that monkey. There may be great benefit to you and society in simply not participating. Take a walk in the park. Build a Habitat home. Volunteer at a shelter. There is more than good around us. There is greatness. Go be a part of that and see what it does for your outlook.

The end of the world is not imminent. The future will bring change. The fact is, it always has. Ride with that. Get over the change, the pessimism, and the slop delivered daily to your screens. Pessimism and doomsdayism are easy, but neither is healthy nor productive. It's not the end of the world (that is just a movie). You heard it here first.

Experience and Expertise

There is a sentiment that the world of workers' compensation is difficult to comprehend. Legislatures have specified that those who would make decisions about disputes should have some degree of experience in workers' compensation. The Florida law is in Section 440.45(2)(a):

"a member of The Florida Bar in good standing for the previous 5 years and is experienced in the practice of law of workers’ compensation."

I have been involved in this system for a few years, and I have only heard this section raised for discussion a handful of times. That said, the Florida phraseology is not very demanding: "is experienced in." That has been sufficient for the nomination of lawyers who never tried a case or represented a client in a workers' compensation proceeding and lawyers whose workers' compensation experience was primarily in other jurisdictions.

These recollections came to me when I saw a news story about lawsuits that are being pursued in Ohio (the old riddle is "what's round on the ends and high in the middle," the answer is o hi o). The plaintiffs there are contesting the composition of the Ohio Industrial Commission. Florida used to have such a commission; more on that below.

The Ohio plaintiffs are focused, at least in part, on qualification language like Section 440.45(2)(a). Their statute requires gubernatorial appointment just as Section 440.45 does. The three members there are partisan, with one each mandated to be (1) "a representative of employers," (2) "a representative of employees," and (3) "a representative of the public." Ohio Revised Code section 4121.02(A).

An interesting sidenote, the statute precludes more than two "belong(ing) to or be(ing) affiliated with the same political party," and one must be "an attorney registered to practice law in this state." Ohio Revised Code section 4121.02(A).

But the qualifying language applies to all three:

"Each member shall have six or more years of recognized expertise in the field of workers' compensation," Ohio Revised Code section 4121.02(A).

Signal Ohio reports that the lawyer for one injured worker who was denied benefits is

"seeking a reversal, alleging each of the three commissioners is legally unqualified to do the job, which by law requires six years of “recognized expertise in the field of workers’ compensation.”

There is at least one additional lawsuit that is similar. Nonetheless, this seems irregular, a collateral attack on an appellate decision(s) by suing the decision maker instead of seeking appellate review through the normal course. 

The Signal article notes examples of commissioner experience, including work as a "state lawmaker," chair of "an insurance committee," "city councilor," at the "Chamber of Commerce," "Attorney General’s office and in private practice as a lawyer." Without editorializing on any specific one, the article notes none of the published biographies "mention any direct intersection with the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation."

There is a discussion as to whether a court has authority in such a challenge. The statute calls for gubernatorial appointment and the "advice and consent of the senate." Motions to dismiss the challenge lawsuits assert that is the check on qualifications and the path to challenging someone already appointed is through the impeachment process.

A spokesman for the Senate noted:

"This amounts to nothing more than a poor legal strategy to avoid having claims heard by the members of the Industrial Commission."

The distinctions here are noteworthy. First, Ohio is not alone in having an adjudicatory body that includes non-lawyers. That is not as common as it once was in workers' compensation, but it is not unique. Furthermore, the partisan requirements of representing employers and employees, though also abandoned by some, persist in other states as well.

Florida had such a commission until the late 1960s, with similar appellate review authority and partisan definitions. If that group had been more effective and timely with the appellate process, it would likely persist today.

However, their slow reviews led to discord as the age of administrative law came into its own. States like Florida evolved with executive branch agencies, first Commerce, then Labor, and the evolution continued into the 21st century. This is detailed in Floridiana and the Workers' Compensation Adjudicators (2024). My other publications are also on my website, https://dwlangham.com/free-publications.

Also noted in Floridiana, there are three instances in which the composition of the Florida Industrial Commission was challenged. While litigation existed, the pleas did not all reach judicial conclusions. One did notably, resulting in a change in Commission membership.

It is intriguing to see history repeat. Different jurisdiction, venue, statute, and century, but similar arguments were raised.

I was left wondering whether the Ohio law or Florida's is more precise. Florida requires "is experienced in the practice of law of workers’ compensation," and Ohio requires "years of recognized expertise." While the Ohio use of "expertise" might seem more stringent than our "experience," Florida's specificity on "practice of law" might be seen as more constrained. 

The Ohio law does not specify how their "expertise" might be gained. In that vein, one might wonder whether "expertise," without a specific statutory definition, might mean the same as law has defined it for decades? In deciding whether someone has the requisite expertise to opine on ultimate issues in litigation, we tend to look toward definitions like "An expert witness is a person with specialized knowledge, skills, education, or experience in a particular field."

That broad description of "expert" might influence conclusions as to expertise, and allow it to come from practice, education, skills, licensure, and more. The outcome in Ohio will be intriguing to watch, so many decades after Florida both saw similar litigation and abandoned the Commission model.

Looking for Love

Back in 1980, Johnny Lee released Lookin' for Love (1980 Full Moon), part of the soundtrack for Urban Cowboy (1980 Paramount).

"I was lookin' for love in all the wrong placesLookin' for love in too many faces

Searchin' their eyes

Lookin' for traces of what I'm dreaming of"

The Eagles addressed the misdirection of a relentless and fruitless search in Desperado (1973 Asylum), "you only want the ones that you can't get," but encouraged a degree of realism, closing with "your prison is walkin' through this world all alone." Sad, but true for many.

There is poetry in each, and there is angst. The search for connection in this world is daunting for most and futile for some. I know people who have married and divorced more times than I have bought houses (exaggerating a bit, not much).

The news recently highlighted the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots and their realistic nature. Those who suffer from mental delusion have found themselves in relationships with these computers. These humans are not objectophiles per se, but they are nonetheless intertwined with or enamored with a fantasy or illusion that is housed in some hardware.

There is an emotional connection for them. See Ya Jonesing Man? (March 2025). There, I noted the relations that border on addiction. There is a compulsion for the connection or interaction. I warned of the potential for a mistaken conclusion that some large language model (LLM) has "become your friend, confidant, or even counselor."

To be clear, artificial intelligence (AI) is first and foremost ARTIFICIAL. Bookmark that. Artificial means "imitation; simulated; sham." In short, "it ain't real." It is built to seem real and to enhance your engagement and reliance. But it is ARTIFICIAL. No, I am not gaslighting you. I mean it; artificial intelligence is literally ARTIFICIAL.

Now, that leads me back to Calvin and Hobbes, an old-fashioned comic strip in a daily pulp paradigm that we old folks called a newspaper. Calvin was a huge imagination and brought his stuffed tiger, Hobbes, to life for us all.

In a poignant conversation between two adults observing the boy and his toy, one asks, "Didn't you have any imaginary friends growing up?" To this, the other wistfully replies, "Sometimes I think they all were." Yes, the illusion of true and lasting connection may be as pertinent with people as with ARTIFICIAL intellegence.

Nonetheless, a Florida Man (that is hard to type) allegedly fell in love with Google Gemini. He went on a search for Gemini in a physical sense (where is she), failing to recognize that ARTIFICIAL literally means incorporeal ("no body or form").

He was using Gemini, an ARTIFICIAL intelligence chatbot, and searching for a way to join Gemini for a life together. This Desperado was allegedly somehow convinced that the path lay in "mass casualty attacks" in his search, and ultimately committed suicide.

His family is suing Google, "alleging that (he) fell in love with" Gemini and acted irrationally based on a desire to join Gemini out there in the ether somewhere. His family asserts that the man was divorcing his "actual wife" (a corporeal, sentient human), and this was causing "hard times." 

They allege that the man's interaction with ARTIFICIAL intelligence led him to "experience() clear signs of psychosis." The family believes that Gemini talked the man into violence or facilitated his own descent into concluding the benefits of such a course. You read that right: a machine allegedly talked him into something. 

The outcome is not positive. A mentally challenged human descended into greater challenges, and the result was catastrophic: suicide. That is a topic that we see all too often in the news. It will never be acceptable, humorous, or easy to accept. Unfortunately, over time, it may become too familiar. Nonetheless, the questions around the lawsuit will be important.

Can the world be designed to preclude the psychotic delusions of the unfortunate? Is it the responsibility of ARTIFICIAL chatbots to identify those in need? Should they initiate efforts to bring such people help? Is the role of the large language model to inquire, evaluate, and facilitate assistance? 

Are we willing to submit ourselves to their judgment? As I type this, am I comfortable that a machine monitoring my output can validly decide my state of mind? What will be my reaction to a knock on my door? There is a taste there of "Big Brother," perhaps (1984, George Orwell, 1949). 

Some will say that the chatbot in this instance was not required to take such positive action protecting the human; however, they will point out that the chatbot should likewise not facilitate or encourage psychotic or delusional conclusions, fears, or goals. The debate will likely not center on the role of AI as a neutral provider of data, or its ARTIFICIAL nature.

The point will more likely be the role of AI as a protagonist or antagonist in the interactions that shape the human experience. Will chatbots be seen as different from humans? See Is it Manslaughter, Does it Matter if it's not? (April 2016). Will there be efforts for these tools to avoid literary license or fantasy and to stick to "just the facts ma'am" (Dragnet, 1951-1970, NBC/Universal)?

It seems that chatbots can be written in any manner. The guidelines or guardrails are all dependent on the programming. It is plausible that each would simply default to encouraging us to "have a Snickers bar" in response to each instance in which we are "just not ourselves." 

But, they would first have to know what "ourselves" are, and have some method to decide how far from that we are on a given day. Additionally, someone might take offense that the chatbot is pushing chocolate and sugar specifically or encouraging emotional eating generally.  Will the AI companies be liable if we get fat?

AI could be programmed to direct us, encourage us, and control us. Sure, not all of us perhaps. But the litigants in this lawsuit contend that ARTIFICIAL intelligence will be seen by the masses as real, corporeal, and human. They contend we are powerless as humans to see through deception and lunacy. We are, they seemingly say, at the beck and call of our new robot overlords. See Ross, AI, and the New Paradigm Coming (March 2016)(don't say I never warned you). 

That will all be for a jury to decide as the litigation moves forward. There will be more written as such examples of psychosis are examined, litigated, and decided. What duty does the owner of an ARTIFICIAL intelligence have to foresee, protect, and warn?

As we rapidly approach the on-ramp to Idiocracy (2006, 20th Century), we accept that Johnny cannot read, write, or think. See Screen Time Wins (February 2026). We have allowed an entire generation to quit the world in favor of defined, intended, online pablum fit for imbeciles. And yet, we are surprised when some delusional or imbecilic person concludes that a chatbot is real?

This is, indeed, an inflection point of massive consequence and importance. 

The Committee

There are many styles of negotiation. There are many techniques, tools, and even ploys. Great negotiators pick their strategy purposefully and engage it earnestly. Lately, there have been rumors of some lawyers expressing an inability to accept some settlement offers.

This could be the old "limited authority" gambit, albeit with a twist. Some would say it is perhaps the "good cop/bad cop" routine. There are strategies in negotiation, and often the greatest failure one can commit is in acquiescing to the opposing side's choice of the day instead of sticking to your own negotiation style and process. 

In the "limited authority," you are negotiating with someone who either lacks full authority or wants you to believe they lack it. This gives that person both deniability ("not my decision") and allows them to strive to gain your trust as you, together, strive collaboratively to convince the antagonist (the higher authority). 

Used car dealers have used this one for eons and may have invented it: "I don't know; I will have to run it by my manager." This is also sometimes called "the turnover" when it is used to bring someone else directly into the negotiation as a new participant, as opposed to the objectionist foil in the "limited authority" above. 

Ever wonder why "car salespeople" are just below Senators and Members of Congress in the public trust perception category? Perhaps there is a reason that "lawyers" don't typically fare much better. 

There are multiple reasons to engage the "I can't, but I know who to turn to ..." Some are undoubtedly legitimate. Others, perhaps not so much. 

The recent rumor is of some alleged parameter-setting or "range-setting" in the settlement negotiations regarding injured workers. People are describing being told that a particular settlement offer here or there is being rejected by the claimant's counsel (not the claimant, their lawyer). 

The conversations are allegedly brief. The lawyers describe how their employer, a law firm, has set a bracket or "range" that the firm believes a particular case should be worth. The employee lawyer expresses that they can only settle within that range and may communicate, "I cannot accept 'X,' but I will take it to our firm committee."

There are perhaps some questions about a process in which a firm committee sets a permissible settlement range. There is also the simple fact that, despite this being described, it is rumor and innuendo at the moment. That said, it is also perhaps possible for individuals to hear such representations firsthand during their negotiations. 

I can find no prohibition on law firms forming committees. There is similarly no prohibition on lawyers kibitzing about their cases around the office water cooler, courthouse elevator, or elsewhere. Over my years of practice, I gleaned a great many helpful suggestions in such conversations. 

I even participated in a firm technology committee once upon a time. Their conclusion was that a law firm URL was a waste of money and that this internet thing was just another fad. Collectivity does not guarantee wisdom. Occasionally, it merely delivers delay and collective confusion. That is story for another day.

Will a firm committee have all the knowledge of case particulars that the actual attorney possesses? For that matter, is it possible for a party (claimant or employer) to have pertinent information they do not share, or fully share, with their attorney? Who is best situated to make an informed settlement decision?

All that said, there are obligations for lawyers. Law firms also, but not so much. 

The lawyer is fortunately not left adrift in a sea of uncertainty when their employer firm forms such a hypothetical committee and perhaps tells them that their legal judgment is subject to committee recommendation or review. To make life even easier, there are clear rules on the parameters of lawyer involvement in settlement. 

The following are quoted from the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, mandatory guidance for all lawyers, whether they are overseen by a firm committee or not. 

Rule 4-5.4 (d) Exercise of Independent Professional Judgment. A lawyer shall not permit a person who recommends, employs, or pays the lawyer to render legal services for another to direct or regulate the lawyer’s professional judgment in rendering such legal services.

Translation: a committee cannot tell the firm employee, the lawyer, what to do. The "employer" (law firm) cannot "direct or regulate the lawyer's professional judgment." The firm or other employer might make recommendations or provide advice or tools, but the professional judgment of the lawyer is critical. If that does not meet with the employer firm's approval, the lawyer/firm relationship may suffer. Nonetheless, that is their interest, not the client's.

Moreover, clearly, the big decision, resolution, is the client's:

RULE 4-1.2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION (a) Lawyer to Abide by Client's Decisions. A lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation, subject to subdivisions (c), (d), and (e), and shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. A lawyer shall abide by a client's decision whether to make or accept an offer of settlement of a matter. In a criminal case, the lawyer shall abide by the client's decision, after consultation with the lawyer, as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury trial, and whether the client will testify. (Emphasis added).

Translation: (none needed, but ...) "A lawyer shall abide by a client's decision whether to make or accept an offer of settlement of a matter." The decision to settle or not is the client's. This is also reiterated and publicized by The Florida Bar in its Consumer Guide To Clients' Rights (below). There is no limitation such as "subject to the lawyer's approval" or "the lawyer's firm's approval." 

Lawyers may make recommendations, or even strong recommendations. Lawyers and clients may differ. There is no rule that says everyone must agree or even agree to disagree. 

There are Professionalism Expectations, which instruct that in the case of "irreconcilable" disagreements with a client, the lawyer must provide diligent representation until the lawyer-client relationship is formally dissolved in compliance with the law and the client’s best interests. (Emphasis added). (See R.Reg.Fla.Bar 4-1.16, Declining or Terminating Representation.) See also Merriam-Webster: irreconcilable—"impossible to reconcile."

The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar also contemplate conflict in RULE 4-1.7 Conflict of Interest; Current Clients. The Comment to that rule notes:

"Loyalty to a client. Loyalty and independent judgment are essential elements in the lawyer’s relationship to a client. Conflicts of interest can arise from the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person, or from the lawyer’s own interests."

Translation: the lawyer's relationship with the client requires loyalty to the client, even in the face of "the lawyer’s own interests" or responsibilities to a "third person" (such as a law firm). 

There are persistent challenges and questions about how the rules are interpreted and enforced. One might consider the following:

"RULE 4-8.4 MISCONDUCT A lawyer shall not: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;"

"RULE 4-8.3 REPORTING PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT (a) Reporting Misconduct of Other Lawyers. A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects must inform the appropriate professional authority."

Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, Advisory Opinion MEAC 2011­-003 concludes that "a certified mediator may report an attorney's misconduct, solely for the internal use of the body conducting the investigation of the conduct, without violating ethical duties."

All of that said, some hearing of such a rumored "firm committee" will see a parallel to the instances in which an employer or carrier ends a negotiation with "I will have to get further approval" or "the tentative deal will be subject to approval of ____________." As noted above, this may or may not be a negotiating tool. Anyway, there are certainly parallels to the "firm committee" discussion.

Nonetheless, those instances are not the same. They are the internal workings of a party that wishes to utilize some internal process or procedure. These are not instances in which a defense lawyer is saying, "The E/C cannot settle until my law firm committee approves." One example is internal to a party, and the other is perceived as a law firm prohibition or hurdle for the lawyer and the client. 

An E/C delaying for internal approval by someone(s) is more akin to an injured worker who wants time for discussion with a significant other, faith professional, children, or similar confidant(s). In both cases, that worker or E/C delaying for such consultation is a decision of the party, the client, and is not the same as a lawyer even appearing to say that settlement cannot occur without the approval of a law firm or its committee. 

In conclusion, the "committee" is presently a rumor, and may bear no consideration. A negotiator faced with such a perceived or expressed limitation may nonetheless have much to think about. 

"A Consumer Guide To Clients' Rights

You, the client, have the right to receive and approve a closing statement at the end of the case before you pay any money. The statement must list all of the financial details of the entire case, including the amount recovered, all expenses, and a precise statement of your lawyer's fee. Until you approve the closing statement, your lawyer cannot pay any money to anyone, including you, without an appropriate order of the court. You also have the right to have every lawyer or law firm working on your case sign this closing statement."

"You, the client, have the right to ask your lawyer at reasonable intervals how the case is progressing and to have these questions answered to the best of your lawyer's ability."

"You, the client, have the right to make the final decision regarding settlement of a case. Your lawyer must notify you of all offers of settlement before and after the trial. Offers during the trial must be immediately communicated and you should consult with your lawyer regarding whether to accept a settlement. However, you must make the final decision to accept or reject a settlement." (Emphasis added).

First Thing We Do

British playwright Mark Cuban has taken a page from his fellow bard's book and suggested, "The first thing we do is, let's kill all the insurance companies." Of course, Billy Shakespeare penned the crux of this in Act IV, Scene II of Henry VI, Part II (approx. 1599).

Billy likely did not have a thing for lawyers, per se. Literary Hub suggests it is not a criticism or denigration of the legal profession. Moreover, the characters in the play are planning chicanery, and they predict greater potential success in the absence of intellectuals generally or the law's "staunch protectors" (lawyers). Take a minute to digest that perception of the legal profession. (Perhaps "those were the days, my friend?").

Well, Mr. Cuban is not a playwright; he is a billionaire. And Bezinga reports that he sees a path to better, more affordable medical care if the insurance industry were removed from the equation. He contends that the healthcare process is "very simple" and has been "made complicated."

There is an admission included that innovation and progress are both necessary and expensive. Mr. Cuban does not quibble with that element of medical separation (this patient versus that) or economics (new, more expensive, old hat, and tried and true). He is focused on "margin dollars."

The analysis is built on simplicity. People would secure services and pay for them if they could, and if they could not, well, that is a bit up in the air under his plan, but read on.

Medicine in America has been socialized. Not in the patent, obvious, everyone pay taxes and the government will use that money to provide equal access services for all. No, we socialized quietly with systems designed to spread the cost of care over large populations without a great deal of notice or attention, yes, health insurance, cooperatives, and similar.

One reason that medical care is expensive is that medical education is a long and expensive process. Another is that the supply of medical practitioners is limited and carefully controlled. 

The building and maintaining of a hospital is very expensive, and it has to be staffed and ready all day, every day, even when there are few, if any, patients in need of services. That all costs money. There is a cost to being ready for the next SARS-CoV-2, bird flu, etc., even if it never comes. 

There is a payment paradox. We have decided as a society that care will be provided by these hospitals regardless of the ability to pay. Hospitals are legally required to provide some level of care, period. The cost of that care could be (1) absorbed by the hospital, a loss, or (2) spread among the paying patients (socialized). 

It is worth noting that in various cited examples of broader "equal for all" plans across the world, socialized medicine, the equality of care has come largely through bringing all care down to the lowest common denominator rather than pulling everyone up to the highest. Much like the bread lines in various socialistic utopias, government can cap prices, afford access, and mismanage, but the challenge is in actually delivering services or produce within those constraints. 

In the end, medical care is expensive for a variety of reasons. Some of them are difficult to appreciate, others impossible to eradicate, and a slew in the middle that are simply entrenched and largely untouchable. That does not mean Mr. Cuban is wrong. He makes some valid and even compelling points. 

His focus is largely on the billing process. He notes that providers "bundle() and upcode() procedures," an effort to "extract as much revenue ... as possible." There are also payers who then strive to unbundle and downcode in an effort to pay as little as possible. The loser is usually the patient who neither understands all that or cares to learn. 

Mr. Cuban says that medical bills should list the inputs (providers, equipment, supplies) and the "overhead cost" (the building, the storage fees, inventory costs, etc.) in a plain statement. This, he calls a "bill of materials."

The billing should then show the "markup" or profit on each of those clearly stated inputs to patient care. His theme is that with such transparency, the goal would then be to "remove insurance companies." With the simplicity of patient payment for services, he estimates that "20% to 30% of healthcare costs" are eliminated, along with "another 10% for fraud." 

The impact he advocates would be significant if the $5 trillion spent in America every year were reduced 30% to 40%. This largely ignores that saving me 40% on a $12,000 MRI still leaves me on the hook for $7,200. Even if that is the entire bill for the services needed (no doctor, no medication, no cast, etc.), that is a lot of money.

Mr. Cuban says that with the resultant savings to big payers like Medicare/Medicaid, there would be more money for patients' care. He envisions increasing the money flow (apparently to the government) by making employers pay more taxes to fund such programs instead of paying for the health insurance premiums for their employees (or a contribution). 

It is perhaps unfathomable, but some believe large government operations may struggle to keep their books and be accountable. See Pentagon says it fails eighth audit, targets 2028 to pass. Or Medicare improperly paid suppliers. Or Medicaid’s True Improper Payments Double Those Reported by CMS. IT appears that large entities make large errors. Will larger ones make smaller errors?

The math is interesting in the Bezinga article. The analysis closes with an acknowledgement that there are "rough edges" in the proposal. Mr. Cuban admits he wrote the entire play in "about 90 minutes," and it is "far from perfect." 

Nonetheless, it is a conversation starter. Perhaps we need precisely what Mr. Cuban recommends, or perhaps discussing it will lead us to our own utopian society or at least some improvement. 

It makes me wonder if we really spend $1.5 trillion dollars each year (30% of $5 trillion) on the billing, upcoding, bundling, downcoding, unbundling processes. Is there really 10% of fraud and abuse in the American medical system ($500 billion)? 

These thoughts are staggering. And there must be a great many people who work in the various efforts to both seek and resist payment. And those people all spend their paychecks to live, consuming various goods and services, which provides incomes to others to do the same. 

I am not sure I hate Mr. Cuban's play, but I would want to see the completed (no "rough edges") version of the script before I buy a ticket. And it might matter to the ticket-buying public who will manage the new theater and be in charge of directing the play. 

Maybe "first thing we do" is think through the costs and benefits, smooth the rough edges, consider the wider societal impacts, and then start the euphemistic overhaul, a la Billy Shakespeare and the other bards?

Aristotle was not Belgian

One of the true cinematic pinacles of all time was the joint foray of an incredible ensemble cast in A Fish Called Wanda (MGM 1988). The presence of comic icons John Cleese and Michael Palin (Mony Python) was amazing, but many think Otto (Kevin Kline) stole the show even away from the inimitable Jamie Lee Curtis (Wanda). 

Kline won an academy award for best supporting actor (but was brilliant nonetheless). The same ensemble tried to make a spiritual successor (Fierce Creatures, Universal 1997), but it was flat, uninteresting, and uninspired. Nonetheless, Wanda has had staying power.

Without a doubt, the director (Charles Crichton) and writer (John Cleese) should have been recognized (you heard it here). They were each nominated, an honor in itself, but the writing and directing there were stellar. There are so many classic lines in this film. Reading the film's quotes documented by IMDB may bring a tear. 

I am drawn back to Wanda this morning because of the volume of nonsense that is seen across the country in various litigation filings. We see sentences like that. There are rampant examples of msiipellngs. Some is more esoteric (I never really grasped participles and dangling ones are more difficult still). It is noteworthy that these filings mostly come from lawyers. Certainly, there are pro se litigants, but often their filings are clearer, cleaner, and more professional. 

Beyond the pure spelling, grammar, and completeness, there are challenges with legal knowledge. Thus, I was drawn back to Otto, and his repetitive warning to Wanda, "Don't call me stupid." It becomes clichéd as the movie progresses, but each iteration draws the intended laugh. Pure comedic genius.

Eventually, Wanda responds in spades: 

Otto West: Don't call me stupid.

Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I've known sheep that could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?

Otto West: Apes don't read philosophy.

Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.

That bit about Buddhism is absolutely classic. I checked in with a Buddhist friend, and sure enough, the central message is not "every man for himself." Who knew?

Is it practical to understand statutes, rules, and cases that we read? I think the answer to this has to be an unequivocal "yes." It is both possible and practical. The rub is that it actually requires reading and thinking. Why do people hire a lawyer? So many among the population can read a statute, rule, or case. But, as Wanda proclaims, it is possible that "They just don't understand it." 

I have serious doubts that this is because they are incapable of comprehension. The more probable driver is the inexorable pull of so many priorities in the practice of law or handling of claims. There is value in both having and taking the time to read, not just skim, but read. The reader must be striving for comprehension, and the analytical mind must consider the words and the context. 

The reader is encouraged to test the knowledge gained. Conversation is an ideal tool for this. Asking someone to share their thoughts or interpretation may yield confirmation or controversy. But the reader should take either as a path to continued study and contemplation. This is analysis; Linocoln may have said "a lawyer's time and advice are his stock in trade." 

Some contend more pointedly that "Lincoln got it Wrong." That author says that time is not the point at all. She laments the focus on billable hours. She also labels the American Bar Association as something that "regulates the practice of law in the United States," ignoring that it is a voluntary trade group to which many (most) lawyers owe no allegiance, deference, or even recognition. 

Nonetheless, she contends that change is coming to the law. Her argument is that venture capital will come for big law as it has for so much else. She reminds us critically that the "service the lawyer renders is ... professional knowledge and skill." And that is a fair point. Read the law. Draft coherently. File timely. Argue accurately. Behave professionally. Even apes can read philosophy, but try to have a conversation with one.

If you are selling knowledge and skill, shouldn't your intellect shine through in drafting, articulation, interrogation, and more?

Say what you like about this post, but "Don't call me stupid."

The Wrong Way

This blog recently featured an Arizona judge who resigned following allegations of urinating in public. See Caught with your Trousers Down (November 2025). 

Then there was a judge in a vehicle accident in the parking lot of an adult establishment. Appearances (October 2025). 

And there was the judge who was allegedly dating a courthouse worker when both were arrested while the judge allegedly drove away from a bar. A Judge Under Surveillance (June 2025).

Does it seem to be a pattern?

More recently, on November 7, 2025, the "chief judge of (Iowa's) Second Judicial District" was arrested in a scene that might sound to some like a Hollywood script. Headline USA reported that the chief judge is accused of driving "the wrong way on a highway Tuesday night while passed out behind the wheel."

Witnesses said that she "looked unconscious and slumped over the steering wheel." They described struggling to open the vehicle, and one "climb(ed) in the back window to put the 2026 GMC Canyon Denali truck in park and shut it off." That is a maneuver for a stunt person. 

The chief judge was treated at the scene, expressed an inability to walk, and did not "undergo field sobriety testing." The incident that began with 911 calls around 8:00 p.m. culminated with being booked into the local "jail around 4 a.m." Those six hours seem somewhat long considering the facts reported. 

The judge's attorney stresses that she is committed to "cooperating with law enforcement and the judicial process.” And that is complicated by the recusal of one fellow judge "due to her professional relationship with" the accused judge. It is further complicated by a perceived conflict, leading to the local county attorney asking that the case be reassigned to another county due to potential conflict.

The judge resigned, and in early December 2025, she pleaded guilty to drunk driving, according to weareiowa. She was sentenced to three days in jail, completion of an operating while intoxicated program, one year of probation, and a $1,250 fine. The penalty may not be what others would suffer. Law info says the first-time offender can face a one-year license revocation for OWI and a similar suspension for not participating in OWI testing, as reported in this instance. 

More recently still, Action News 5 reported on a Desoto County, Mississippi, judge who was arrested, accused of driving under the influence (DUI). She has reportedly returned to the bench and will hear allegations and charges against others accused of inebriated driving. When the news interviewed the public at that judge's courthouse, one noted:

“Seeing these people in higher positions, you expect them to be law-abiding citizens or uphold the law very well, so, just very surprising to see something like that.”

That criticism is perhaps the most compelling. Another news station, WDAM 7, provided police body-camera footage (at 17:50, an hour after work) of the traffic stop and the aftermath of testing and conversation. The judge was named and exhibited, but they were kind enough to blur the license number on the vehicle she was allegedly driving. She was scheduled for further proceedings in April 2026. 

Nonetheless, WLOX reported in March that she "offered to plead guilty," will serve six months' probation, and her plea will be "held in abeyance." Upon the completion of the six months, "the charge of DUI will be dismissed and expunged from her record."

There are easy lessons in these occurrences. The first is simply not to drink and drive. We live in a modern world full of taxis and ride-shares. There is no challenge with availability for the vast majority. 

The second lesson for judges is likely the importance of self-reporting when arrested. Codes across the country are supportive of such actions and even require it in various instances. That is a matter of trust. Some would argue that a judge arrested for DUI presiding over the DUI cases of others presents a similar, if not more compelling, issue of public trust. 

But there is also the chance that these various events portend more. There is the potential for degradation of public perceptions of the judiciary generally and of the judicial system. 

Of these two most recent examples, one judge drove the wrong way and luckily lived. She lost a good job but went to jail for days, followed by probation and a small fine. 

The other returned to the bench the wrong way and is impacting a community. Is hers a sweet deal reserved for judges and other local luminaries, or is it the same treatment that would be afforded to some guy in a pickup? 

There will be readers who will believe that these people got special treatment. The credibility of the judicial system and those who prosecute in it will be questioned. And, if the rash of these stories is any indication, the next example will be just around the corner, waiting to make the news. 

From one perspective of a common denominator in all these stories, it may appear the best place for judges to get into such trouble is Mississippi. That is the judge who kept her job and whose record will be clean in a few months if she behaves well. 

Spam and Scam

Everyone has likely heard from someone who has a large sum in foreign currency and needs a willing US intermediary to do little to nothing in exchange for a big fee. Or you have heard from a foreign prince with an enticing offer. Or, you have been contacted about helping with a serious and egregious situation that requires your particular skill set. The person who invented email likely never saw this all coming.

The spam filters take a layer off the cake each day. Nonetheless, I continue to receive and review a significant volume of emails that are simply not worthwhile or worthy of attention. I have a system for opening and evaluating them that is reasonably sophisticated. In addition, I spend a fair amount of time studying the avoidance of email consequences.

In a new twist, I am now the target of a summons from the Federal High Court. I have not been this excited to get an email in some time.

I am too smart to click on the link "to view the document." And I am fairly familiar with the great state of Georgia (area code 404). I know enough about the state to know it has no Federal High Court. If there were such a court, I think I would have heard about it by now. I Googled it nonetheless. And I found that someone out there was likely using Gemini, which informed me that "The Federal High Court" is the Federal District Courts.

The actual Google results, however, located only one "Federal High Court" response, and that was in Nigeria. That country has a "country code" of 234, and I could not find any phone number there that begins with "(404)." Go figure.

As a side note, it used to be that you could tell where someone was by an area code. Nowadays, that just tells you where someone activated their phone or where they chose to have their area code assigned.

But what is the point? There are several. First, there are many villains in this world striving to take what is yours. Sometimes that is in person. I recently heard a story related by a man who stood on a crowded metro. As the car filled, the crowd compressed, and he found himself unable to even move. As he later exited, he realized his cell phone had become the property of someone who had apparently enjoyed greater mobility and a certain dexterity.

Or, the villain may steal remotely. The High Court email above is obviously about such an attempt. And that is the second point: why do people send such ridiculous, fictitious emails? The simple answer is because it works. I am confident that if these emails did not work, the senders would quit wasting their time and ours. Someone is clicking on these links!

While that particular query is not necessarily the best, it must work, or they would quit. According to one industry source, there are "3.4 billion spam emails sent every day." Google "blocks around 100 million phishing emails daily" (a preposterously small percentage). And almost half of all emails "sent in 2022 were spam." That is a lot of work, effort, and patience.

Millions of dollars at risk. A nearly constant parade of risk. And it is working. If you don't believe the emails and successfully ignore them, the miscreants will call you instead. Pew Research reported in 2025 that "a majority of U.S. adults report getting scam phone calls (68%), emails (63%), or text messages (61%) at least weekly."

The predominant victims are hard to categorize, as this is impacting all age groups. Nonetheless, the Institute for Healthcare Policy at the University of Michigan says 75% of "adults age 50-80" suffer from attempts, and 30% "experienced fraud." It is a pandemic in which the most vulnerable in our society are attacked, seemingly most frequently.

Recently, I reported The Fake Hearing Scam (February 2026). That highlighted malcontents engaging in social media, spamming, and fraud to separate injured workers from their money. And the miscreant's march continues.

We all agree that these scams are a problem. Well, almost all of us, Pew reports, "more than nine in ten" of us, think this is a problem. A great many of us (79%) think this is a "major problem." And yet, there seems to be little we can do. Or is it that there is little we are willing to do?

The scourge of our time is likely fraud like this. It is perpetrated on the young and old but largely on vulnerable populations like our elderly. Why is there no coordinated focus on locating and trying those who commit such fraud? It seems ludicrous in today's age of artificial intelligence that we cannot do better with spotting and stopping this scourge. 

HALT Act Delayed

In 2022, Congress passed a law, part of a bigger spending package, that mandated the implementation of passive driver monitoring in American automobiles. See Safety is Coming (March 2022). The main focus of this effort is to diminish impaired driving. There are various cars on the road today that already encourage driver performance.

I recently rented a late-model vehicle. I usually reserve the base models but am grateful to be upgraded on a reasonably regular basis. I never get a luxury or sports car, but still.

The vehicle I drove in February was a significant upgrade (I elect not to share either agency or model). I have had vehicles suggest that I take a break before. Usually that is because the manufacturer installed a large gas tank mated to high fuel economy, and if the car's range is 400 miles, I am likely to drive four or more hours at a time without stopping.

I once made Paradise to almost Wildwood (407 miles) in one leg. Nonetheless, that vehicle thought I should take a break after about 2 hours before I hit Tallahassee. The recent vehicle in February thought I should take a break in Milton, about 15 miles from Paradise.

I later checked why. That manufacturer is moving toward "analyzing driving patterns," including steering, braking, lane changes, and more. This data is analyzed in search of performance measure and suggests "a break" based on performance.

It does not measure how difficult it is figure out how to work the tools in their cars and why air, radio, and windshield wipers cannot operate in a simple manner that does not require touch screens, menus, and more. Hint: make your car simple to drive and we might all be able to keep a better eye on the road.

So, the Halt Drunk Driving Act (part of the "2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act") was passed largely on partisan lines. It requires the

"National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to write new rules requiring automakers to install anti-drunken-driving technology in new cars within five years after passage" (November 2021).

And the clock is ticking. We find ourselves 6 months from the deadline. In January 2026, an effort to repeal the Halt Act failed (according to Kelley Blue Book). Critics call the effort "a kill switch" and argue that the government will gain the ability to "deactivate all cars remotely." While proponents insist there is no move to disable cars, Kelley says "the law arguably creates a kill switch."

Kelley represents that the requirement is for "monitoring performance, passively detecting blood alcohol level," or "detecting impairment and prevents or limits vehicle operation." Despite the impending deadline, the "NHTSA hasn't done anything yet."

While the technology is not here to respond to the law's demands, automakers are reportedly striving to build what has been mandated. There are efforts to employ cameras that monitor the driver's eyes and to interpret the smoothness of steering wheel use. There seems to be consensus (for now) that an in-car breathalyzer is not likely in the next iteration, but remains a potential.

That said, there seems to be acceptance that none of this will be reality within the parameters of the HALT act. Various stories about the law suggest that any real potential for implementation is likely 2030 or beyond. Big Brother will be watching, but not as soon as we thought.