When is it time to cut the parental purse-strings? It seems
these days that's happening later and later - or never, at least among some of the
people I know. Maybe it's because our parents' generation earned more or saved
more wisely than my own, but I seem to be part of a subset that's (at least
partially) subsidized by loving, doting parents.
One friend I know uses her mother as her mortgage holder.
Others accept help putting their kids through private school. I myself have
been the recipient of my family's largess too often to enumerate. It's been an
enormous help.
But is it wrong?
Dental plans are the
worst, aren't they? Some of you may remember my
worst-date story in which I also described an accident that resulted in a mouthful of broken teeth - after paying more than half those costs out-of-pocket, I feel traumatized simply walking past a dentist's office.
So I must admit there's a part of me that's a bit jealous of this dilemma - apparently a New York City dental office is overcharging insurance companies so that the patients will not have to pay their deductible or share. Case in point, the patient who passed along this dilemma had two cavities filled but discovered the office charged the insurance company for
four fillings so that she would end up paying nothing. When she questioned the discrepancy, the receptionist admitted that the doctor did it "as a courtesy to patients" and it could be removed if she wanted.
Wow. A kindly dentist...or, a conniving cheat?
What should she do? After all, she's not the one committing the...fraud? (Not quite sure of the legalities) However, she
is the one benefiting from it. Does the ball now lie in her court to correct the deception?
What would you do? Count your lucky stars for finding a guardian angel of a dentist? Or simply kiss those dollar bills goodbye in the name of honesty?
Happy Moral Monday! This morning I wanted to share a story that warmed my heart when I read about it on NPR last week -- a homeless man leaving millions to several non-profits, including NPR.
When NPR's Richard Siegel heard his station listing a funding credit in the name of Richard Walter's estate, he was curious who this mystery man was. Naturally, he Googled him. What he found was a surprising story; Walter's (who died two years ago) had been an engineer from AlliedSignal Corp.; an honors graduate of Purdue with a master's degree; and a Marine. But when he retired, he gave up more than a career, he gave up all his material possessions -- he became homeless. He slept on the grounds of a senior center and ate at a hospital.
Walters didn't become an aimless, shell of a man we so often imagine homeless people to be. He was involved in investing, and paid his income taxes. He had friends -- good friends such as Rita Belle, a nurse he met at a senior center and who eventually became the executer of his estate.
And at the end of this material-free life, he split his $4 million between different causes. NPR received $400,000, as did several other non-profits, including the Catholic mission in Phoenix where Rita Belle works (Belle also received a bequest).
Growing up, I would read Hindu
stories about shedding one's earthly confinements to reach Moksha, the final
release from one's worldly conception of self. That sounds great, I would think,
but what about those you leave behind? Wasn't it ultimately selfish to shed your responsibilities in order to achieve something
solely for yourself?
That's a complicated question of an ancient philosophy, but for me, this is a story about a man who shed his earthly attachments without forgetting to care
for the world he left behind.
Of course, since Walters was a self-professed atheist,
I doubt he would appreciate the religious meaning I take from his actions.
Still, I consider him well-worth a mention on Moral Monday.
I came across an interesting argument today by way of a friend, who sent me a link to an article in
Fast Company magazine. I thought I'd share it because it asks an important question: are we ethical for logical reasons, or emotional ones?
The authors come to a surprising conclusion: the gut is more ethical than the brain.
The article (it
is in Fast Company, after all) draws an interesting parallel to our current financial woes, and to predatory lending practices and sub-prime mortgages. The suggestion is that lenders and investors knew in their guts they were making unethical choices, while their heads were telling them to keep taking extraordinary risks. Take a
read through the article and share your thoughts!
And here we see the financial implications of ethics -- Sarah Palin says that she is more than $500,000 in debt due to "frivolous" ethics complaints brought against her by her fellow Alaskans. No doubt some of these charges are...
There's a lot of chatter on the 'net today about the lottery. Seems someone from South Dakota just won the Florida lottery, to the tune of 222 million dollars.Nice going. I'm sure that unnamed person will suddenly have a lot of...
So I'm sitting at home watching President Obama's Town Hall speech about credit card debt. Having just spent half the morning on the phone dealing with my credit card company, trying to get my card information straightened out, I'm fed...