Contact your Congressional representatives

 We communicated as follows recently to our Senators, both of whom are Republican:

Support Ukraine

We hope that Presidents Trump and Biden agreed that Biden would increase pressure on Russia so Trump could come in and tell Putin "You'll get even more pressure, if you don't negotiate favorably."  Trump's tough stand against Hamas is working and he should do the same against Russia in Ukraine.  His strong stance in Ukraine will undermine Russian advances in Africa and deter Iran and China.  He does not want to start his second term  showing international weakness like Biden did in Afghanistan.

Earlier we wrote:

We have your back if you choose to oppose some of President Trump's nominations.  Our primary concern is Tulsi Gabbard.  We don't object to her being in the government, but she is not a good candidate for Director of National Intelligence.

For our Democratic Congresswoman we wrote:

Support Ukraine

We hope that Presidents Biden and Trump agreed that President Biden would increase pressure on Russia so Trump could come in and tell Putin "You'll get even more pressure, if you don't negotiate favorably."  Trump's tough stand against Hamas is working and he should do the same against Russia in Ukraine.  His strong stance in Ukraine will undermine Russian advances in Africa and deter Iran and China.  He does not want to start his second term  showing international weakness.

Declined Claims and Insurance Fraud

I was disappointed by Dana & Parks’ (local KMBZ radio show) one-sided diatribe against health insurers.  They asked to hear from various people, but pointedly left out those who might defend/explain insurance industry practices.  (It is hard to get comments to them, I had to cut this into 5 separate comments).

Clearly it is appropriate to highlight wrongfully-denied claims.  But we have a lot of insurance fraud; our costs reduce if insurers deny fraudulent claims.  The Anthem BCBS plan to limit anesthesiologist payments was the result of overbilling, which Dana & Parks failed to report.  As noted in #2, you should criticize insurers for paying improper claims as well as declining proper claims.  This would be a more unique contribution, as it is an example of the “tragedy of the commons” (I can explain that principle if you are unfamiliar with it).  Here are examples I have experienced:

1. My insurance covered 80% of dental cost.  When I wasn’t billed for my 20%, I contacted the dentist’s office to pay my share.  They told me it wasn’t necessary.  They had raised their prices 25%.  When my insurer paid 80% of their inflated bill, it covered the dentist’s full intended charge.  Thus, the insurer inappropriately paid my share.  I imagine the dentist had good repeat clientele due to their practice although I never went back again.
2. I drove a person home from a car accident.  He assured me he was fine.  I watched him sprightly walk to his house (his entrance was very recessed from the curb).  I later learned he sued for severe neck damage and was told the insurer knew it was a bogus claim, but he was represented by a known shyster lawyer, and it was cheaper for the insurer to pay the claim than to incur legal costs fighting it.  Insurers’ failure to deny such claim fosters fraud should be exposed..
3. My heart doctor was explaining that my heart test was fine, when we were suddenly interrupted so he could speak with his partner.  Suddenly, I needed a heart monitor installed.  I was dubious; in several years since, my heart monitor has detected no abnormalities.  Doctors prescribe unnecessary treatment to protect against our flawed malpractice lawsuits.
4. I locked my key inside my company car.  An attendant at the garage offered to get into my car.  I agreed to save my wife from having to bring my spare key.  When he jimmied into my car, he broke the lock on the passenger door.  I asked our insurance agency where I might get this problem fixed inexpensively.  They told me to send in the bill.  When I responded that I was going to pay for the repair because I had caused the damage, the person repeatedly urged me to “just send the bill to us”.  It concerned me that he was causing premiums to rise.  I did not send the bill.

How Matching Grant Offers Have Gone Awry

I was an early advocate of matching grants.  However, most matching grant programs now are unethical, deceptively telling prospective donors that their donation will have much more impact than is the case.

Non-profits continually send out appeals such as: “Generous donors will match our [Giving Tuesday] donations [5-to-1], up to a total of [$500,000]!  So, each $1 you give now will go [five] times as far!”

However, in most cases, that $500,000 has been fully committed.  The non-profit will get that $500,000 even if no one responds to the solicitation.  If you donate $1, the non-profit gets only $1 more, not $5 more.

Not only have non-profits falsely re-characterized donations as a “matching grant” so they can mislead donors into donating more money, some non-profits have brazenly solicited funds to be pooled into a false matching grant fund.

In an open-ended true matching grant program, if there is 1-to-1 match, the non-profit gets $2 for every $1 you donate.  If there is a 5-to-1 match, the non-profit gets $5 for each $1 you donate.  The higher the multiple, the better for the non-profit.

If a true matching grant program is going to be fully-subscribed, it is better for the non-profit if the match is a lower multiple.  That is, if the full $500,000 is going to be used:

·       With a 1-to-1 match, it will take $500,000 of donations to secure the $500,000 match, so the non-profit will end up with $1,000,000.

·       With a 5-to-1 match, it will take only $100,000 of donations to secure the $500,000 match, so the non-profit will end up with only $600,000.

The 5-to-1 true match is better only if there is no cap or the cap is not reached.

With a false matching program, a higher multiple attracts more donations but the deal for the non-profit is worse.

·        If donors contributed $500,000 for a fund to do “1-to-1” matching that is fully subscribed, the charity leverages that $500,000 into $1,000,000. 

·        If donors contributed $500,000 for a fund to do “2-to-1” matching that is fully subscribed, the charity leverages that $500,000 into $750,000.  That is, $250,000 were “matched” 2-to-1, resulting in a $500,000 “match”.

·        If donors contributed $500,000 for a fund to do “10-to-1” matching that is fully subscribed, the charity leverages that $500,000 into $550,000, as $50,000 soaks up the full $500,000 “match”.

The incentive is to create as high a ratio as people are likely to believe, which exposes that the messaging is intentionally misleading.  It would be honest to say that they've received a "challenge grant" hoping that people will complement that donation.  Donors who think their donation is being leveraged by a false match are being deceived.  

If a for-profit organization used such misleading messaging, these non-profit executives would think it is horrible, even if the for-profit company is seeking a cure for cancer!

Why would non-profit executives resort to such unethical approaches?  Probably because their mindset is that they are just trying to help people.  Therefore, anything is justified if it helps them raise more funds so they can do more good.  “Ends justify the means” is a slippery slope.  

You might want to question non-profits which offer such "matching gift" programs.  You might even want to reduce your annual contribution or defer it to encourage them to be honest.