The Danger of "Sex and the City"

I understand the wild popularity of the HBO series “Sex and the City” among women, although I myself have never been a fan. Presumably, when the movie came out, vast majority of the audience in the movie theaters were women – there may have been a few men in the theater, who were dragged into it by their spouses or girlfriends. While I have only seen bits and pieces of just a few episodes of the HBO series, I did watch the DVD of the movie.

I have wanted to write down my impression of this “Sex and the City” phenomenon for a while, but I have struggled on how to crystallize my thoughts. Generally, there is no point analyzing the reason behind the popularity of any shows, because entertainment does not need justification. It is only when some pretentious critics decided to elevate a TV show to the level of a “phenomenon” and make statements on how it portrays the modern women and what it means for modern women that I feel like saying something.

Simply put – “Sex and the City” is just a modern-day rendition of the same old Cinderella story, dressed in designer clothes, polished with pseudo-intellectual remarks, and staged in a nice neighborhood in Manhattan. At first glance, it may seem that these women are different from the Cinderella types – they are all educated, accomplished, and even, “independent”. But when we take a closer look, we realize that these women exist for the sole purpose of catching men.

It is a fantasy story just like the Cinderella story – in that die-hard female fans of “Sex and the City” perhaps wish or dream that they could be like one of the characters in the show, or at least live like them and look like them. Hardly anyone above the age of 15 would dream of being a Cinderella, because it is not “real”. But to be like one of the women in “Sex and the City”? – That may be (just may be) within the realm of possibilities. In a nutshell, “Sex and the City” reaffirms women’s subordinate roles in the society, while masquerading that by showcasing these women as witty, strong, and often difficult and bitchy. – Somehow, if a woman is portrayed with an attitude or a temper, as opposed to behaving docilely as women from the Victorian era did, she must have been an “independent” woman, and therefore labeled as a modern independent woman. Looking closer, however, we see the fallacy of this argument. Their sole mission is to find the “ideal” man, and throwing temper tantrums is one way to sort out or identify the “ideal man”. Clearly, if a man cannot pamper them or indulge their temper tantrums, he cannot be the ideal one. Therefore, “Sex and the City” might as well be called a modern rendition of “finding good husbands and keeping them” or “getting rid of bad husbands sooner than later”.

I am by no means a fan of the opposite of the “Sex and the City” culture, which would be the extreme and radical branch of the feminist movement, calling women to act like men and forget about their looks. Perhaps Candace Bushnell was rebelling against that branch of feminist movement in her writing by going to the other excessive extreme – these women seem to be living for the clothes, the shoes and their own sizes. Just as I do not see the harm of the Cinderella story, I do not see the harm of “Sex and the City” if it is honest about its theme being as much of a fantasy as Cinderella. The danger lies in a fantasy story being delivered as if it were plausible, so that people get the wrong idea planted in their heads.

Michael pointed out that one of the most popular Hollywood films “Forrest Gump” was partly responsible for the anti-intellectual movement that dominated American culture for the past decade. Our politicians were terrified of being seen as smart or intellectual, because the American people seemed to believe that the “right” heart with no brain would work out just fine – Just look at how successful Forrest Gump was! Now, that was a fantasy story, but the filmmakers did not put a disclaimer on it.

Likewise, had the makers of “Sex and the City” put a disclaimer on it as a modern rendition of Cinderella, people would still be able to enjoy this frivolous show. There is nothing wrong with frivolous fun, but let’s not make it larger than it is, as if it were more cerebral or profound than silly shows like “Friends”. By the way, I loved “Friends” – it is completely light and forgettable, but that’s what it was meant to be.

Living the "Southern Californian" Way

This past Saturday, I went to Irvine to give a talk at a conference organized by a non-profit organization. Since my cousin lives in Orange County, Michael and I decided to have dinner with them after my conference is over.

It was a very beautiful and sunny day on Saturday. It seemed that too many people were going to the numerous beaches along the coast of San Diego – otherwise, how does one explain the near-stand-still traffic on Interstate 5 all the way to Carlsbad? We even tried to take local roads to avoid the freeway jam, only to realize that the local roads were even worse! Michael commented, “There seems to be no recession in these places, as all the restaurants have long lines waiting outside!”

When we finally got past Oceanside, the traffic lightened up. It had been almost 2 years since I last went up to Orange County. The neighborhoods around UC Irvine reminded me of that movie “The Truman Show”. Everything was new, clean, beautiful and carefully planned. There were hardly any people on campus. The residential communities nearby also looked completely dormant, as if no one lived there. The whole area gave me the impression that no germ or virus could grow there, because the whole area is scrubbed clean constantly!


After my talk, we drove to my cousin’s house, which was in a more lively residential area. All the houses in that area are at least 2500 square feet with at least 4 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms, and they are all in pristine condition. This contrasts sharply with the houses I have seen in the past year or two in San Francisco Bay Area – old houses that are small and dark but still cost a great fortune. It turned out that a couple of houses were for sale, and we went and picked up a flyer. Such a modern beautiful mansion with 5 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms is now asking for only $699,000, whereas a house like that even in medium-priced Bay Area cities such as San Mateo, Belmont or Foster City will be asking for twice as much, not to mention better areas like Palo Alto, Portola Valley or Hillsborough!

Redwood City (San Mateo County): 2 BR, 2 Ba, 990 sf, built 1940, high school API score 774, $645k

Foothill Ranch (Orange County): 6 BR, 3 Ba, 2600 sf, built 1993, high school API score 814, $675k

My cousin’s two sons had grown a lot since I last saw them. I have a hypothesis that people become much more acutely of their own aging, when they see how fast the kids grow. His older son played “Fur Elise” on the piano, and played chess with Michael. The younger one is a bit shy, so he did not want to perform anything. As a result, his mother showed me some paintings he did in his room. My cousin of course has got another new car – cars are one of his passions. He and Michael went out for a drive in this new sports car, while his wife and I stayed behind and chatted. When we talked about our upcoming move to Bay Area, they both commented on how million-dollar homes in Bay Area often are not even livable because of the shabby condition, the small size or the bad neighborhood.

On the way back home, Michael commented that my cousin’s family are now more “Southern Californian” than even a lot of indigenous southern Californians. They used to live in New Hampshire when Michael and I lived in Boston area. In just a matter of a few years, they have got used to the way of life in Orange County – now, they can’t imagine living in a house with less than 2700 square feet or fewer than 5 bedrooms; they can’t imagine staying in low-budget motels while vacationing; they can’t imagine driving average Japanese cars anymore; etc.

The current recession has prompted a lot of public debates on how the Americans have over-extended themselves, and lived above their means these past few years. Now a lot of people are learning a good lesson in the importance of fiscal discipline at home, which incidentally has been severely lacking in the corporate world as well!

My cousin’s family actually has never lived beyond their means. But I suppose in the eyes of the super-cautious, or in the eyes of the Europeans, they, as well as most Southern Californians (Michael and myself included) would be perceived as living wastefully. But they do enjoy their big and modern home and their nice cars. If money can buy some happiness and you can afford it, why not?

A recent article I read mentioned that opposite to the extravagant and careless spenders there are a lot of people who now save even more fanatically than before, due to the recession, which in itself deprives them of a lot of pleasure in life that they can easily afford. But life is too short. For those of us who don’t believe or at least doubt the possibility of an afterlife or another life, this life is it. It does not mean, however, we should live irresponsibly and wait for others to save us or bail us out when we run into deep debt. It simply means that as with most things in life, moderation or balance is the key. Extremes are rarely the right approaches. However, we human beings have a habit of over-correcting ourselves. It is perhaps futile to hope that we human beings as a species will evolve to develop a perspective that allows us to remain cautious when times are great, and to retain our zest for life when times are tough.

No wonder there was a huge traffic jam on the freeway on Saturday – beaches in San Diego are free.

Inspired by the Jellyfish

On a recent spring day, a friend and I decided to leave work early so that we could enjoy the afternoon outdoors. We first went to Filoli Garden in Woodside. I had been to Filoli just once before in May, and did love the flower gardens. I especially love the origin of the name Filoli – “Fight for a just cause, Love your fellow men, and Live a good life”. A great motto to live by for sure.

To our disappointment, it was not open that day. Faced with the choices between going back to work and trying another place, the two of us truants decided on the latter. We drove all the way to Golden Gate Park to visit California Academy of Sciences.
There is nothing in common between National Academy of Sciences and this “California Academy of Sciences”. The former is a true academic body with elected members and its own austere journal. The latter is actually an aquarium, a greenhouse and a natural history museum housed in one building. My friend knows all about the plants, the fish and the butterflies, and was busy taking photos. Being a city girl myself, I know none of the names of the plants or the fish, so I simply observed, appreciated, and listened.

In terms of size and varieties of fish, this aquarium is much smaller than the one in Monterey, California. In terms of activities and shows, it cannot compare with the San Diego Sea World. Nevertheless, I enjoyed it thoroughly, perhaps partly because it was the afternoon of a week day, when I am usually still in the office. When I got to the jellyfish exhibit, I found myself transfixed in front of the tank. There was something elegant and artistic about the way the jellyfish were moving, turning and twisting, as if they were dancing. It was completely quiet and musical at the same time. While they moved in complete silence, I felt that I could almost hear the soothing music to which the jellyfish danced – a melody like Enya’s. The translucent and soft whiteness of the jellyfish did resemble the flowing sleeves of classical dancers. The whole spectacle was absolutely poetic. I had a feeling of serenity and intoxication – intoxicated by this peaceful happiness brought on by the jellyfish. Just watching the jellyfish made me realize at that precise moment, what happiness is all about.

Happiness has always been profound and trivial at the same time. It is being able to enjoy a beautiful spring afternoon when we are normally supposed to be tied up in mundane mind-numbing tasks at work. There is indeed so much beauty in life, if only we care to pay attention. While my friend and I did not get to visit Filoli that afternoon, I felt that we did practice the last two letters of Filoli – to live a good life includes appreciating the ethereal beauty of the jellyfish on a spring afternoon...

Dylan Thomas and Sylvia Plath

A fan of the exuberant actress Keira Knightley, I have been paying attention to upcoming films of hers. Since I do not live in a big city like New York or Los Angeles, it looks like that I will have to wait until it gets onto DVD to see her in the independent film “The Edge of Love”, in which she plays one of the two feisty and free-spirited women united by the brilliant poet Dylan Thomas, who loved them both. With Sienna Miller playing Dylan Thomas’ wife Caitlin McNamara, Keira Knightley played his lover Vera Phillips. It is well-known that Dylan Thomas was an alcoholic, and may have drunk himself to death at the early age of 39.

Just earlier this week, I read about the tragic suicide of Nicholas Hughes, the son of the American poet Sylvia Plath with her husband, the former Poet Laureate of England, Ted Hughes. The tumultuous marriage between Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes has been discussed for decades, and even made into a movie. – I must add that that movie has remained one of the few in which the actors were actually less attractive than the real-life characters they played. Daniel Craig as Ted Hughes looked rather “small” that one would wonder how he could have seduced all these women in his life, and Gwyneth Paltrow was so vapid that one could hardly reconcile such a bland character with the violent and visceral poetry written by Sylvia Plath.

Sylvia Plath committed suicide at the age of 30 by putting her head in a gas oven, after Ted Hughes left her for another woman Assia Wevill. After her death, the feminist movement made her a martyr and portrayed her exclusively as a victim of Ted Hughes’, ignoring the fact that Sylvia Plath did suffer from depression periodically all her life. Six years after Plath’s suicide, Assia Wevill committed suicide by gassing herself as well. The only difference is that she not only killed herself, she also killed the four-year old daughter she had with Ted Hughes. A poet that drove two women to their suicide certainly could not have been normal himself, but at least until his death, Ted Hughes never had any mental breakdowns. Perhaps his insanity lay in the very fact that he remained unfazed and unchanged on the surface, even though ordinary men in his position would have been rendered distraught by the dramatic actions taken by these women.

We all have heard the theory that there may be a link between manic depression and genius. After all, even in business, we say that a very fine line exists between vision and lunacy! Historically, so many artists, writers, musicians and poets were known to have suffered from depression. Perhaps it is true that unless one can feel orders of magnitude stronger than average people, he/she will not be able to command the imagination for the right words, the right image or the right melody to express the intensity of that feeling. Genius is by definition out of the norm, and to reach an extreme, I suppose one must be at an extreme. Nicholas Hughes’ suicide perhaps serves as a rebuttal to the ultra-feminists. Although Ted Hughes did play a significant role in Sylvia Plath’s and Assia Wevill’s suicides by abandoning them and cheating on them, Sylvia Plath was first and foremost a victim of the mental illness which killed her mortally, but immortalized her as well through her powerful, violent and unique poetry.

Likewise, Dylan Thomas’ alcohol addiction probably killed him prematurely, but who knows whether he could have been able to write such profound poetry were he completely sober and sane, like the rest of us ordinary people, who spend most of our time thinking practically and logically about jobs, kids, houses and mortgages? We are never compelled to contemplate the eternal continuity of life in nature, as he did in one of his most famous poems –

“And death shall have no dominion.
Dead men naked they shall be one
With the man in the wind and the west moon;
When their bones are picked clean and the clean bones gone,
They shall have stars at elbow and foot;
Though they go mad they shall be sane,
Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again
Though lovers be lost love shall not;
And death shall have no dominion.”

There is no question that one career path I will discourage my son from pursuing is that of a poet – it seems that one is either an awful poet, or a dead poet.

Penelope Cruz in "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" vs. "Volver"

I inherited my mother’s love of movies, although I hardly ever like the same movies as she does. Mentally I always keep a list of favorite movies and favorite actors. Undoubtedly Woody Allen is among my favorite filmmakers. To this day, I have yet to find someone else except for my husband who matches me in my preference for Woody Allen’s films.

It is therefore no surprise that I went to the theater to see “Vicky Cristina Barcelona” when it came out – Michael and I were among the few people in the theater, as Woody Allen’s films never attract big audiences. It is therefore also no surprise that I was absolutely delighted that this movie won Penelope Cruz an Oscar award as best supporting actress. I totally loved the movie, especially since I was in Barcelona not too long ago as a tourist. Although I was sick from a cold the whole trip (obviously induced by the enormous stress of finding out at the San Diego airport that Michael’s passport expired, which delayed our trip by three days), which did dampen my enthusiasm for Spain, I was still delighted to see the familiar sights of Barcelona in the movie. Written by Woody Allen, it was positively delightful and funny, and of course crazy at the same time. Penelope Cruz played a neurotic avant-garde Spanish artist, quite convincingly.

Penelope Cruz in "Vicky Cristina Barcelona"

Thrilled as I was at Penelope Cruz winning the award for her great performance in this movie, I could not help remembering her best performance so far – the lovable and earthy Raimunda in Pedro Almodovar’s “Volver”. In “Vicky Cristina Barcelona”, Cruz spoke a mixture of English and Spanish, and was directed by an American director. The performance was strong and funny, but in no way does it match the power of her performance as a quintessentially Spanish woman, speaking Spanish, acting Spanish and exuding her Spanishness thoroughly in the Spanish movie directed by the most acclaimed Spanish director. Maybe there is something about acting in a Spanish film that brings out that most vivacious and enlivening essence of Cruz’s persona. In “Volver”, she did not only give a great performance, she lived and breathed as Raimunda, as if she were Raimunda all her life.

There are of course many reasons why foreign actors never seem to be at their best when they act in American films. For one thing, American films are often rather bland and formulaic, leaving little room for talented actors to shine. But I do believe that the culture in which these actors grew up has affected them so profoundly that only by acting in their native tongue can they do something truly extraordinary. To some extent, it is almost as if they cannot feel their characters by speaking English, irrespective of their English proficiency. It is as if the naked feelings need to be expressed directly by their native tongues, in order to maintain the freshness, the urgency and the authenticity. Much is lost in translation when they act in English-speaking films, as was the case with Penelope Cruz in her many Hollywood films, Zhang Ziyi in the much-anticipated but ultimately disappointing “Memoirs of a Geisha”, and Juliette Binoche in “The English Patient”, which won her an Academy Award but felt extremely flat to me.

Come to think of it, the best can only be brought out of us, when we are in our own element. That abstract-sounding “element” could be a cultural context in which we feel completely at home, or an emotional milieu in which we feel viscerally alive or expressive, or an intellectual exchange in which we are inspired to demonstrate, however transiently, a flash of wisdom or insight that astounds even ourselves.

A Fresh Look at John Adams

History could be rather dull, if you have learned it in school in China as I did, because it was simply a long litany of facts, dates and names. It only becomes fascinating when we see it repeating, or when we discover a new interpretation of historical events that defies the conventional wisdom. And that is how I feel about the HBO movie which claimed several Golden Globe awards “John Adams”, with superb acting from Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney as John and Abigail Adams.

Those of us who are not very well-versed in American history still know about John Adams, but surely his name stands behind his contemporaries such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. From what I learned previously in school, I had an impression that the American Revolution was spearheaded by a group of lofty-minded intellectuals, and everything went perfectly according to plan. That version was neither interesting nor educational.

With this HBO movie, I do not profess to know the veracity of all the details, but I find it very fascinating and believable – and more importantly, much more enlightening than the previous version I learned.

John Adams was a short and stocky man, without the regal gravitas of George Washington, the worldly persona of Benjamin Franklin, or the sophisticated charm of Thomas Jefferson. Without height and charisma to aid him, his rise to fame was purely based on his intellect, hard work and integrity. When he argued passionately for standing up to the regime of England against the wimpy representatives from southern states, he did not get support from others who even shared his opinion, including Franklin and Jefferson. It turned out that Franklin and Jefferson were more politicians than idealists, whereas John Adams was more idealist than politician. In private, they told John Adams how they supported his position, but that they did not want to make enemies. They only came to his side when the tide turned more in that direction and it was politically savvy and safe to do so.

When Adams went to France to enlist the help of the French, he wanted to go straight to see the king, whereas Benjamin Franklin told him that it’s more important to first live like the French, and then to try to talk. That includes taking up the French habits, including having a mistress. Of course, the puritan in Adams made it impossible for him to do that, and he really WAS passionate about the cause. So he tried to push, and sure enough, the French were not keen about serious conversations, and found him too serious. He found no audience for his cause, and his earnestness was not reciprocated. With Benjamin Franklin portraying him as a loose cannon in letters back home, he was effectively demoted and sent off to Holland. He got sick, and was terribly homesick, but still tried heroically to get the Dutch to lent money to the independence movement, without success until after the British surrendered.

Later on, when he became the president, with Jefferson as his VP, he tried to pursue what he believed the right agenda for the country, which means having neither Andrew Hamilton or Thomas Jefferson in his camp. He resisted going to war with France (thereby alienating Andrew Hamilton), because he was right in saying that the young United States could not afford to get into an unnecessary war. But he also resisted Jefferson’s push on the other side to become too close to France and Jefferson’s belief in having a very weak federal government (thereby alienating Thomas Jefferson). His whole life was dedicated to the ideals of independence, democracy and justice, whereas other politicians were much more practical and human – they too, fought for those ideals, but they thought of personal positioning a lot more.

His son, John Quincy Adams, become a president as well. Heavily influenced by his father (or one could say a carbon copy of his father), John Quincy Adams was too saintly to stay in the president’s office for more than one term. He was so pure that instead of inspiring others, he enlisted fewer friends, because most people were not that pure. A devout Christian, he was the only president that put his hand on a book of laws when he was sworn into office, as opposed to a Bible, to demonstrate his commitment to the separation of church and state. Knowing how certain policies would be unpopular, he chose to implement them anyways, instead of worrying about his re-election. As a matter of principle, he did not assemble a cabinet of his own, but rather kept most of the cabinet members from the previous administration to demonstrate that he would rely on merit as opposed to personal loyalty for his political appointments. As a result, all presidents after him decided to assemble their own cabinets, for obvious reasons. Even after John Quincy Adams lost the re-election, he chose to be a congressman and served in the House of Representatives until his death during a house debate, because he said that “there is no greater honor than serving your country”.

Rep. John Quincy Adams, 1848

This movie did not turn John Adams into a hero. He was passionate, earnest and honest, but he could often be emotional, impetuous and obtuse. While he chose to do the right thing for the country at huge political costs to himself, he was bitter about it, as opposed to philosophical or graceful about it.

There are perhaps two major lessons to learn from this movie, or this rendition of the history. One is that each revolution or bold endeavor requires idealists, but rarely could idealists emerge as the winners, even if the revolution turns out to be a success. Two is that in order to accomplish anything that involves human beings, one has to not only accept the numerous flaws of other human beings, but also adopt a fair number of them himself.

In a way, these two lessons are probably tied to each other. An idealist would not do things that are obviously wrong to accomplish an interim goal or to stay alive so that he could accomplish something bigger in the future, but a pragmatist would. A pragmatist still needs idealists in the mix to push certain things forward, although he himself would never want to be an idealist or serve as a martyr. What is theoretically good and right often cannot be done because human beings go by feelings and emotions rather than theory most of the time.

History does repeat itself. The Chinese communist revolution, which happened centuries later, had its own share of idealists and pragmatists, with the idealists paving the way for the pragmatists to claim victory.


So what is the relevance of these lessons to us? – It would seem that idealists should wake up and become pragmatists. But I think we as human beings should not be so harsh with ourselves. After all, when we force ourselves to change in a certain direction that does not fit our temperament, we might lose what makes us special or good to start with. We are what we are. If we are naturally pragmatists, we should find some visionary idealists to work together to accomplish something great. If we are by nature idealists, we should bear in mind that we will be at best John Adams as opposed to Thomas Jeffersons or George Washingtons, and at worst “lunatic losers”, and we ought not to be bitter about it, because what we are determines the role we will play.

Venting on the Healthcare System

Prior to my pregnancy, I hardly ever had to see a doctor, except for the annual physical exam. Therefore, I never realized how awful the healthcare system was in this country – no wonder all the presidential candidates would have “healthcare reform” as an agenda item. Now that I have had some experience with both the providers (doctors and hospitals and diagnostic labs) and the payers (insurance companies), I realize that this system is like a huge tumor on a vital organ – sure, it’s best to surgically remove it, but you will probably die as a result. Therefore, we continue with various forms of healthcare reforms, which are more or less like palliative care that only superficially reduces the worst symptoms.

First of all, why is it that there seems to be a shortage of doctors everywhere? Usually when we see a supply/demand situation that’s continuously off, it is because someone is holding up supply arbitrarily. Since Michael is an MD as well, he knows more about the medical profession than I do. He said that the shortage of doctors is created by the doctors themselves, so that they can charge a lot. – Most medical schools run hospitals and most medical faculty members are practicing physicians themselves. Indeed if they allow more people to enter medical school, there will be more doctors, especially in general medicine and primary care. With doctors paying more attention to their patients, short-term problems will get fixed instead of worsening into long-term problems that would cost the healthcare system millions if not billions. If it’s not that difficult to get an appointment, most people will probably stay healthy for longer. After all, the United States is known for the superior dental health of its population. A simple explanation is that my dentist would call me to schedule the next cleaning, whereas when it comes to doctors, the responsibility is all mine to find a good doctor that has openings.

Second, why is it that while there seems to be armies of staff at doctor’s offices and insurance companies, we as patients still have to waste a ton of time sorting out missing paperwork, wrongly charged items, referral letters that should have been sent but were never sent, tests that were sent to the wrong places, etc? A snobbish explanation I have heard frequently is that if these people were smart and competent, they would not be working in those jobs. I got a bill from Quest Diagnostics for $799 for a test ordered by my doctor, which was denied by my primary insurance company, which is a PPO. Since Quest does not accept any HMO (which is my secondary insurance), I made the decision that I would ask the doctor to send my tests to be done at a place accepted by my HMO as well. The office staff simply could not understand this simple request, saying that they would always send patients whose insurance is PPO to Quest. I asked, “just pretend that I only have HMO. Where would you send my tests?” – They looked at me as if I were stupid, and said, “but you have PPO as well.” I changed the question slightly, “For a patient that only has HMO, where would you send her tests?” They said, “ the hospital.” – I said, “Okay, that’s where I want my tests to be sent as well.” – So they put a note into my folder. Guess what happened next time the doctor ordered a blood test? – They sent me to Quest again!

On that $799 bill from Quest that was denied by my PPO, I paid for it first because I just could not stand the idea of having outstanding bills. Then a friend of mine said that I ought to call and check, as these companies make mistakes all the time. I called PPO, and sure enough, after many people’s involvement in checking on this one bill, they realized that they should have paid for it. So they told me to wait for a few weeks. A few weeks later, I got a statement from the PPO stating that it’s been paid and Quest would refund me. Now two months later, I still have not received the refund. So I called Quest twice – the first time, I got hold of someone who could hardly speak English and categorically denied that it was paid. The second time, I got hold of someone who has a normal IQ, and she said, “Thanks for calling us about it. Now that you have brought it to our attention, we will initiate the refund process, which is going to take another 30 to 60 days.” – I thought to myself, “ had I not called, they would never have activated this process!” Basically, they are just relying on people getting lazy or fed up to not have to pay!

Besides, the pricing scheme seems to be a scam. A bill from Quest could be as high as $799, but the PPO would claim to have a saving of $600, and pay just $150 of it. That means the test really cost at most $199, if at all. So why do the diagnostic labs charge so much? Or in general, why do doctors and hospitals charge so much? – From talking to friends, I have come to realize that because many people do not pay at all, and they don’t care if their bills get into collection agencies, those of us who can pay will have to shoulder their share of the burden. Those of us who do not have the patience to spend hours on the phone will certainly have to shoulder even more of the burden than others!

So why are there so many people who get “expensive” medical services that they either cannot pay or refuse to pay? – Maybe in a way, the complete lack of respect for a subject like health economics is the root of the problem in this country. There is no price associated with one’s life, so the doctors and hospitals have to treat those who cannot pay at all. And for those people covered by insurance, 90% of the cost is incurred by at most 10% of the most sick patients. In a way, an insurance system that receives contribution from members should probably set its mission somewhat differently in that it should emphasize preventative care, basic care and emergency care, and leave the super-expensive cancer treatments that would prolong one’s life by at most 3 months to individuals’ discretion. Our own lives are indeed invaluable to us, but not to others. Health economics should not be portrayed as a heartless subject. On the contrary, the practice of health economics will result in much more conscientious decisions, and will reduce the blatant abuse of this healthcare system by irresponsible lifestyles (like overeating), or uncaring doctors (who prescribe a lot of unnecessary tests since there is no downside to them anyways).

A friend of mine who works at a health insurance company once told me that the system was so inefficient and broken that she did not see the reason for the payor sector to exist at all! – On the other hand, now that we have been living with this system, I am rather pessimistic about seeing any real changes happen in this country. Often, it is harder to change or reform a broken system than to start something from scratch.

I talked about changing doctors forever – my doctor and her office staff have awful reviews on the web, for very good reasons. But just the idea of having these incompetent staff handling transferring files has made me wonder if I might get myself into new troubles.

The healthcare system is about the closest thing to an absolute monopoly that does not answer to any external feedback or pressure. We may be fed up with it, but we have no other choice either.