Although I generally agree with the frustrations espoused by Tea Party advocates, I believe the group's vitriolic tone undermines its ability to appeal to more people than it does (me for example). But when I recently learned about the juvenile tactics being employed in the Senate, I wanted to find a huge audience and scream! Maybe the Tea Party will take up the cause on our behalf!
It's hard for me to believe that two people working in tandem can bring our government to a screeching halt. I'm not saying that this is limited to two specific people, but ANY two senators, at any time, can stop any legislation in its tracks, and they can do so indefinitely. In this 111th Congress 70% of all bills that have passed through the House, many of which earned strong bipartisan support and are important (IMHO), have been halted in the Senate by two or more (dare I say Republican) senators. I'd divulge their identities, but here's the real tragedy in this idiotic drama, not only can two senators hold our government hostage, but they can do it anonymously!
James Warren's Business Week article, Why the Senate is Sitting on 309 Bills explains the ugly details, and NPR has numerous articles on the subject. What surprises me is why this isn't headline news at CNN, Yahoo, and other mainstream news sources. And what's up with the democrats! Don't they have the gonads to make a mainstream stink out of this treatment?
Though these senate "holds" are an abuse of the system, it would be easier to stomach if the identities of these senators were made public. Of course, if the democrats didn't sidestep the rules and force Obamacare through the system using a rule technicality, it would be a lot easier for them to cry foul and claim the high ground. Unfortunately, our government isn't working on behalf of the people--the fools on each side of the isle are acting like imbeciles, and rectifying this lunacy seems like an unachievable objective.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Barack Obama: Unfulfilled Hope
Every political election is marked by promises that can't be kept. But almost every candidate, even the one's I don't support, have something to say that I agree with. In the last Presidential election, I had different hopes and fears for each of the candidates, based on promises that I believed they had control over. The best case scenario is when the winning candidate lives up to your hopes, and proves your fears to be unfounded.
In President Obama's case, I hoped that he would bring more transparency to government, and feared that he would successfully live up to three little words he accidentally slipped out during the campaign, "redistribute the wealth". It is very disappointing to see him succeed and fail in the wrong areas.
Obama has failed the transparency hope in two ways.
His ability to organize a grass-roots campaign, and to collect unprecedented campaign funds using the Internet earned him high-tech accolades from the media. After his victory, I hoped he would use his Internet prowess to create the new interactive government, giving a voice to those of us who are not actively asking the government for a handout. We are the voices that are not being heard. Not only has President Obama been silent on this front, but it is now clear that he did not deserve credit for the workings of his cash machine, and probably understood little about it.
He also failed the transparency hope when managing the Wall Street bailout mess. From what I could tell at the time, powerful Wall Street execs had a seat at the table in back-room deals between Wall Street and Washington. It's clear to me, from the outcome, that deals were cut to benefit the players at the table. Evidence of "change" from the past are nowhere to be found.
Obama's government randomly chose which companies lived and died--they were unable to explain why Lehman's could die, but others were too big to fail. They not only kept some banks alive, but they did it so poorly that executives who over-leveraged their firms were allowed to keep their jobs AND their bonuses, and they were able to protect the bonuses of hundreds (probably thousands) of others who had some culpability in the mayhem. This is like making a long-shot bet at the horse track where winners keep the profits when they're right, and losers get their money back courtesy of tax payers.
Leading up to the meltdown, banks made huge bets against each other. When losers didn't have the cash to payoff their bets, we the tax payers made the bets whole...explain that to me! We gave one bank our hard earned money so it could pay another bank for its gambling losses. Is there a form for that? Next time I'm in Vegas I'll probably want to submit one.
My biggest disappointment, however, is that Obama has proven my fears to be well-founded. While I have no problem with Health Care Reform, I do have a problem when the resulting legislation is a mess, doesn't effectively and dramatically reduce costs, and will be very difficult for everyone to navigate. I have no confidence whatsoever that the federal government is capable of implementing this program effectively, or that the stated assumptions will be realized. Our national debt will skyrocket, and our tax rates will have to follow.
Obama clearly believes that government can solve our problems, despite little empirical evidence to support this belief. I don't know what would have happened if the government didn't bailout the banks, but I do know that its interference has thrown off an inherent market force. For the first time in our history, it is unclear to big banks exactly who bears the risk of failure, even if they (the banks) are responsible for catastrophic misjudgment.
As a result, we now "need" massive new legislation to prevent the banks from failing again. If Obama had let them fail the first time, opportunists would likely have stepped in to recreate the financial system, or to fill gaps made available in the current system; incompetent banking executives would be gone instead of receiving continued bonuses from us; a lot of risk-takers would have lost their bets and their money; and it would be dead-clear who bears the risk of incompetence and misjudgment. In addition, oversight legislation could either be eliminated or dramatically reduced in scope.
I clearly misjudged Obama's strengths. I was duped into believing he would make inroads toward a more participative, and more transparent government--an objective that was well within his control. I hoped that he was more pragmatic in his view of governments role and in the tax consequences of his proposals. Sadly, I couldn't have been more wrong.
In President Obama's case, I hoped that he would bring more transparency to government, and feared that he would successfully live up to three little words he accidentally slipped out during the campaign, "redistribute the wealth". It is very disappointing to see him succeed and fail in the wrong areas.
Obama has failed the transparency hope in two ways.
His ability to organize a grass-roots campaign, and to collect unprecedented campaign funds using the Internet earned him high-tech accolades from the media. After his victory, I hoped he would use his Internet prowess to create the new interactive government, giving a voice to those of us who are not actively asking the government for a handout. We are the voices that are not being heard. Not only has President Obama been silent on this front, but it is now clear that he did not deserve credit for the workings of his cash machine, and probably understood little about it.
He also failed the transparency hope when managing the Wall Street bailout mess. From what I could tell at the time, powerful Wall Street execs had a seat at the table in back-room deals between Wall Street and Washington. It's clear to me, from the outcome, that deals were cut to benefit the players at the table. Evidence of "change" from the past are nowhere to be found.
Obama's government randomly chose which companies lived and died--they were unable to explain why Lehman's could die, but others were too big to fail. They not only kept some banks alive, but they did it so poorly that executives who over-leveraged their firms were allowed to keep their jobs AND their bonuses, and they were able to protect the bonuses of hundreds (probably thousands) of others who had some culpability in the mayhem. This is like making a long-shot bet at the horse track where winners keep the profits when they're right, and losers get their money back courtesy of tax payers.
Leading up to the meltdown, banks made huge bets against each other. When losers didn't have the cash to payoff their bets, we the tax payers made the bets whole...explain that to me! We gave one bank our hard earned money so it could pay another bank for its gambling losses. Is there a form for that? Next time I'm in Vegas I'll probably want to submit one.
My biggest disappointment, however, is that Obama has proven my fears to be well-founded. While I have no problem with Health Care Reform, I do have a problem when the resulting legislation is a mess, doesn't effectively and dramatically reduce costs, and will be very difficult for everyone to navigate. I have no confidence whatsoever that the federal government is capable of implementing this program effectively, or that the stated assumptions will be realized. Our national debt will skyrocket, and our tax rates will have to follow.
Obama clearly believes that government can solve our problems, despite little empirical evidence to support this belief. I don't know what would have happened if the government didn't bailout the banks, but I do know that its interference has thrown off an inherent market force. For the first time in our history, it is unclear to big banks exactly who bears the risk of failure, even if they (the banks) are responsible for catastrophic misjudgment.
As a result, we now "need" massive new legislation to prevent the banks from failing again. If Obama had let them fail the first time, opportunists would likely have stepped in to recreate the financial system, or to fill gaps made available in the current system; incompetent banking executives would be gone instead of receiving continued bonuses from us; a lot of risk-takers would have lost their bets and their money; and it would be dead-clear who bears the risk of incompetence and misjudgment. In addition, oversight legislation could either be eliminated or dramatically reduced in scope.
I clearly misjudged Obama's strengths. I was duped into believing he would make inroads toward a more participative, and more transparent government--an objective that was well within his control. I hoped that he was more pragmatic in his view of governments role and in the tax consequences of his proposals. Sadly, I couldn't have been more wrong.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Kudos to the RNC for a Masterful Conference
Dear RNC,
Congratulations for your successful Southern Republican Leadership Conference. We know it's important not to show your cards to the democrats too far in advance, so we commend you for masterfully concealing your 2012 strategic plan. That will certainly keep your opponents on their toes, and excite the GOP base as they anticipate your clever moves that lie ahead. With conservatives fired up and health care reform weakening Obama's support among independent's, the GOP will finally be able to return common sense to the White House. We don't mind waiting to hear how you plan to get there, because we know the GOP is the party on the right side of the issues.
It's always great to see Sarah, we all love her you know. We love it when she says stuff like "time to reload", and "yucca mountain is a perfectly safe place to store nuclear waste", and "snake oil science stuff that is based on this global warming, Gore-gate stuff", because we know she's just firing up the base--but admittedly, we're a little concerned that some folks might actually think she's serious. All in all though, she did an excellent job of entertaining the media and filling time. In a long conference, we know it's hard to keep everyone's attention when you can't really talk about your plan--it's just too early for that.
And coaxing the attendees to vote for Romney in the straw poll--that was a classic! Putting Romney at the center of attention was a perfect way to obfuscate the party's intent. The dems are going to spend all their time preparing to defend Obamacare against Romneycare, and they won't be ready for the bait-and-switch that is undoubtedly coming later. Simply masterful! We know there's no way you guys are going to consider fixing health care again, but what a fabulous distraction.
As Sarah lovers, we really hope you have a plan for getting her in and out of the 2012 race without tarnishing her reputation. We certainly need her to get the various nut-Party's teed up, but please help her gracefully exit before the GOP primary debates. Not only would she steal the limelight from your candidates of choice, the left wing media might make them say things about Sarah that are disrespectful, and she doesn't deserve that!
So again, thanks for the entertainment and we look forward to a grand slam victory in 2012!
Sincerely,
The RNC Raw Raw Team
Congratulations for your successful Southern Republican Leadership Conference. We know it's important not to show your cards to the democrats too far in advance, so we commend you for masterfully concealing your 2012 strategic plan. That will certainly keep your opponents on their toes, and excite the GOP base as they anticipate your clever moves that lie ahead. With conservatives fired up and health care reform weakening Obama's support among independent's, the GOP will finally be able to return common sense to the White House. We don't mind waiting to hear how you plan to get there, because we know the GOP is the party on the right side of the issues.
It's always great to see Sarah, we all love her you know. We love it when she says stuff like "time to reload", and "yucca mountain is a perfectly safe place to store nuclear waste", and "snake oil science stuff that is based on this global warming, Gore-gate stuff", because we know she's just firing up the base--but admittedly, we're a little concerned that some folks might actually think she's serious. All in all though, she did an excellent job of entertaining the media and filling time. In a long conference, we know it's hard to keep everyone's attention when you can't really talk about your plan--it's just too early for that.
And coaxing the attendees to vote for Romney in the straw poll--that was a classic! Putting Romney at the center of attention was a perfect way to obfuscate the party's intent. The dems are going to spend all their time preparing to defend Obamacare against Romneycare, and they won't be ready for the bait-and-switch that is undoubtedly coming later. Simply masterful! We know there's no way you guys are going to consider fixing health care again, but what a fabulous distraction.
As Sarah lovers, we really hope you have a plan for getting her in and out of the 2012 race without tarnishing her reputation. We certainly need her to get the various nut-Party's teed up, but please help her gracefully exit before the GOP primary debates. Not only would she steal the limelight from your candidates of choice, the left wing media might make them say things about Sarah that are disrespectful, and she doesn't deserve that!
So again, thanks for the entertainment and we look forward to a grand slam victory in 2012!
Sincerely,
The RNC Raw Raw Team
Friday, April 9, 2010
Social Heath Care Inevitable: Don't Blame Obama
Many Americans believe Obamacare is the precursor to socialized health care. Though it probably is, the end is likely to be the same, with or without it.
Our current, federal entitlement programs are going broke (Medicare and Social Security are at the top of the list). Demand for these resources will spike over then next 3 decades as tens of millions of baby boomer's reach retirement age. Health insurance is rising rapidly, to the point that employers have to seriously consider this cost as they decide whether or not to hire an employee. Our national debt is skyrocketing, and tax increases are in quick pursuit. Our domestic economy is waning, unemployment is high, we are clearly losing ground (and clout) as a world economic power, and there isn't a clearly defined path back to our pre-recession comfort zone.
Health care demand and costs are on a scary trajectory.
The number of retirees will increase rapidly over the next 10-30 years. In 2030, it's estimated that we will have 58 million seniors between ages 66 and 84.
The top five causes of death (in year 2002) in people 65 and over are:
Are boomer's prepared to pay for this expensive health care? Is Medicare able to absorb these costs?
The answer appears to be NO, and NO. We've heard time and again that we aren't saving enough for retirement. John Cunniff in ABC News lays it out clearly: When we can't afford to maintain both our lifestyle and savings, we choose lifestyle, hoping that it will all work out in the end.
As for Medicare and Social Security--forget it.
So, not too many years from now millions of people are going to need expensive health care and won't be able to afford it! What are we going to do? Some will say screw 'em, it's their own fault. But as a compassionate society, we're not good at letting people suffer.
Unless a major shift in our lifestyles is forthcoming, and we start saving adequately for retirement prior to buying iPads, iPhones, recreational vehicles, and expensive cars, we'll keep digging ourselves into debt until something breaks and reality finally trumps dreams and politics. Since near term change is unlikely, I can't see how public health services can be avoided.
Our current, federal entitlement programs are going broke (Medicare and Social Security are at the top of the list). Demand for these resources will spike over then next 3 decades as tens of millions of baby boomer's reach retirement age. Health insurance is rising rapidly, to the point that employers have to seriously consider this cost as they decide whether or not to hire an employee. Our national debt is skyrocketing, and tax increases are in quick pursuit. Our domestic economy is waning, unemployment is high, we are clearly losing ground (and clout) as a world economic power, and there isn't a clearly defined path back to our pre-recession comfort zone.
Health care demand and costs are on a scary trajectory.
The number of retirees will increase rapidly over the next 10-30 years. In 2030, it's estimated that we will have 58 million seniors between ages 66 and 84.
The top five causes of death (in year 2002) in people 65 and over are:
- Heart Disease (32%)
- Chronic lower respiratory disease (6%)
- Cancer (21%)
- Stroke (8%)
- Diabetes (3%)
Most of these diseases eventually kill, but only after very long and expensive treatments.
Arthritis and conditions related to arthritis are the leading cause of disability. Currently, 21% (or 46 million) Americans suffer from arthritis, and by 2030, "40 percent of American adults will suffer from some form of arthritic disease".
Are boomer's prepared to pay for this expensive health care? Is Medicare able to absorb these costs?
The answer appears to be NO, and NO. We've heard time and again that we aren't saving enough for retirement. John Cunniff in ABC News lays it out clearly: When we can't afford to maintain both our lifestyle and savings, we choose lifestyle, hoping that it will all work out in the end.
As for Medicare and Social Security--forget it.
So, not too many years from now millions of people are going to need expensive health care and won't be able to afford it! What are we going to do? Some will say screw 'em, it's their own fault. But as a compassionate society, we're not good at letting people suffer.
Unless a major shift in our lifestyles is forthcoming, and we start saving adequately for retirement prior to buying iPads, iPhones, recreational vehicles, and expensive cars, we'll keep digging ourselves into debt until something breaks and reality finally trumps dreams and politics. Since near term change is unlikely, I can't see how public health services can be avoided.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Game Change Motivates Scorecard Adjustments
For anyone interested in politics, Game Change is a must read. Not because it mesmerizes with brilliance, but because it provides the detail needed to either validate or invalidate perceptions of each candidate during the 2008 Presidential election.
I was curious to know if I would have supported a different candidate if I knew all the gory details about each of them. During the campaign I had a mental scorecard for each; a completely subjective measure of their strengths and weaknesses, and an overall ranking. So with that in mind, and with Game Change in hand, I set out to test my intuition.
John Edwards lost every point I had graciously awarded him. Even with the stupidity of the affair, I assumed he was in general, a good man with a big ego gone astray. Though I didn't believe he was Presidential material, I didn't think he was an idiot who was completely out of touch with reality. Now I do.
Elizabeth Edwards lost pretty much all of her points as well. She wasn't a candidate, but she was very much in the public eye and had earned accolades and empathy from the press. She and John deserved each other.
Barack Obama is about where I had him. A generally upstanding guy; is willing to play dirty but within limits; sometimes presses the boundary of those limits; very strong ego though he attempts to conceal it; a very good manager and problem solver.
Hillary is the only one who gained points. The book humanized her. She is more thoughtful and genuine than I had believed; her perspective of the competing candidates is probably shared by a lot of people; while she clearly wanted to break the glass ceiling for women, she very much believed she was the most qualified person for the job. On the minus side, she poorly managed her campaign and her husband--that's not a confidence builder considering the position she was seeking. She clearly has faults, but overall she came out ahead.
John McCain lost points. Whether or not it was intended by the authors, my takeaway is that he was unequivocally unqualified for the job. His decision to add Palin to his ticket was flat out reckless. He was willing to throw a hail Mary, and add her to his ticket knowing that his Vice Presidential pick was likely to be unqualified, and certainly had not been vetted. This is NOT a quality I want in a President. There were other pluses and minuses, but overall I was very disappointed by this man.
Sarah Palin lived up to my intuitive expectations.
As for my scorecard: If I had the advantage of knowing the gory details inside each campaign at the time, the scorecard would have been a little different, and I'd like to think I would have supported a different candidate. And as for your scorecard? Well, you'll have to read the book.
I was curious to know if I would have supported a different candidate if I knew all the gory details about each of them. During the campaign I had a mental scorecard for each; a completely subjective measure of their strengths and weaknesses, and an overall ranking. So with that in mind, and with Game Change in hand, I set out to test my intuition.
John Edwards lost every point I had graciously awarded him. Even with the stupidity of the affair, I assumed he was in general, a good man with a big ego gone astray. Though I didn't believe he was Presidential material, I didn't think he was an idiot who was completely out of touch with reality. Now I do.
Elizabeth Edwards lost pretty much all of her points as well. She wasn't a candidate, but she was very much in the public eye and had earned accolades and empathy from the press. She and John deserved each other.
Barack Obama is about where I had him. A generally upstanding guy; is willing to play dirty but within limits; sometimes presses the boundary of those limits; very strong ego though he attempts to conceal it; a very good manager and problem solver.
Hillary is the only one who gained points. The book humanized her. She is more thoughtful and genuine than I had believed; her perspective of the competing candidates is probably shared by a lot of people; while she clearly wanted to break the glass ceiling for women, she very much believed she was the most qualified person for the job. On the minus side, she poorly managed her campaign and her husband--that's not a confidence builder considering the position she was seeking. She clearly has faults, but overall she came out ahead.
John McCain lost points. Whether or not it was intended by the authors, my takeaway is that he was unequivocally unqualified for the job. His decision to add Palin to his ticket was flat out reckless. He was willing to throw a hail Mary, and add her to his ticket knowing that his Vice Presidential pick was likely to be unqualified, and certainly had not been vetted. This is NOT a quality I want in a President. There were other pluses and minuses, but overall I was very disappointed by this man.
Sarah Palin lived up to my intuitive expectations.
As for my scorecard: If I had the advantage of knowing the gory details inside each campaign at the time, the scorecard would have been a little different, and I'd like to think I would have supported a different candidate. And as for your scorecard? Well, you'll have to read the book.
Monday, March 29, 2010
The Tea Party is in the Wrong Game
You gotta love the Tea Party. Not the group itself, mind you, but the blood bath they are trying to incite. Washington D.C. needs a jolt, the Tea Party is hoping to give it to them, and the rest of us are in it both for the entertainment value, and to reap any benefits they might sew. If the Tea Party succeeds, it will have measurable influence in shaping the 112th congress (in 2012) and the country will be well on its way to perfection. But that's a big IF, and perfection is in the eye of the beholder.
The Tea Party, as I see it, is a group of political mercenaries. They might be able to bloody the playing field (a good thing), and might even be credited for a short list of casualties, but after the next election cycle, I think the party will be over. Oh sure, some will try to keep it alive, but it's only a matter of time before no one will care anymore.
The Tea Party itself (as of today anyway) is too radical, shallow, and immature to survive. They behave like they're at war with the establishment, but they'll soon learn that they're in a world-class game of chess instead. It's the amateurs against the professionals...the NBA against Guatemala at the Olympics! The board is already setup, and some of the pawns are on the move. More and more incumbents are expressing compassion for the angry electorate, and you can bet their messaging machines will be hard at work to calm the storms. So while the Tea Party is firing off empty one-liners, the establishment will be moving forward with proven strategies for winning hearts and minds.
The real test for the Tea Party is its ability to endorse winning candidates. Assuming it survives this test, what specifically does the movement expect from these candidates? Will anyone be able to live up to undefined (or maligned) expectations? If the candidates endorsed by the Party become election casualties, as is speculated, the party will be over. Why? Because the group doesn't offer anything new to the political system. They don't bring a new ideology, new principles from which to govern, or new solutions. If they can't impose real influence, the movement will decay into dry leaves blowing in the wind.
What is this movement about anyway?
From what I can tell the Tea Party is against taxes; against health care reform; believes we need to bring "common sense" back to governance; the federal governments role should be limited, and of course, it believes that we need to kick the bums out of office (i.e. in their minds the democrats). Well, it's pretty hard to argue with any of that, so what's my problem? It's not new, and it's hyperbole! What specifically are they proposing to do in order to solve [any of] our complex problems? Is the government supposed to do nothing? Is that their answer? Just say screw it, not my problem! Even incumbent Republicans can do better than that.
How did the movement get this far?
The only reason their rhetoric has gained a following is because we have an angry segment of the populace who want to be heard, and the Tea Party is riding this wave of anger. This is an important point. The Tea Party isn't leading a movement with a message people can believe in, it simply ceased an opportunity to coral a wave of anger and discontent. In other words, it's following the anger, not leading with better solutions. Combine this with self-indulgent media coverage (Category="Entertainment", Subcategory="News"). The media loves a good cock fight, so they give it good coverage, egg it on, and voila, it looks like the Tea Party is a real force. The media savors the juicy content and milks it until the cow gives no more. Everyone's a winner!
What's next?
I'm angry, and I want to be heard too. But I also know that ears don't work very well when someone is screaming at them. Sometimes it takes some noise to get attention, but once ears are focused in your direction, it behooves you to say something that matters. Either the Tea Party doesn't get this point, or they don't have anything substantive to say; either way, if they don't figure this out soon, it will be check, and mate!
The Tea Party, as I see it, is a group of political mercenaries. They might be able to bloody the playing field (a good thing), and might even be credited for a short list of casualties, but after the next election cycle, I think the party will be over. Oh sure, some will try to keep it alive, but it's only a matter of time before no one will care anymore.
The Tea Party itself (as of today anyway) is too radical, shallow, and immature to survive. They behave like they're at war with the establishment, but they'll soon learn that they're in a world-class game of chess instead. It's the amateurs against the professionals...the NBA against Guatemala at the Olympics! The board is already setup, and some of the pawns are on the move. More and more incumbents are expressing compassion for the angry electorate, and you can bet their messaging machines will be hard at work to calm the storms. So while the Tea Party is firing off empty one-liners, the establishment will be moving forward with proven strategies for winning hearts and minds.
The real test for the Tea Party is its ability to endorse winning candidates. Assuming it survives this test, what specifically does the movement expect from these candidates? Will anyone be able to live up to undefined (or maligned) expectations? If the candidates endorsed by the Party become election casualties, as is speculated, the party will be over. Why? Because the group doesn't offer anything new to the political system. They don't bring a new ideology, new principles from which to govern, or new solutions. If they can't impose real influence, the movement will decay into dry leaves blowing in the wind.
What is this movement about anyway?
From what I can tell the Tea Party is against taxes; against health care reform; believes we need to bring "common sense" back to governance; the federal governments role should be limited, and of course, it believes that we need to kick the bums out of office (i.e. in their minds the democrats). Well, it's pretty hard to argue with any of that, so what's my problem? It's not new, and it's hyperbole! What specifically are they proposing to do in order to solve [any of] our complex problems? Is the government supposed to do nothing? Is that their answer? Just say screw it, not my problem! Even incumbent Republicans can do better than that.
How did the movement get this far?
The only reason their rhetoric has gained a following is because we have an angry segment of the populace who want to be heard, and the Tea Party is riding this wave of anger. This is an important point. The Tea Party isn't leading a movement with a message people can believe in, it simply ceased an opportunity to coral a wave of anger and discontent. In other words, it's following the anger, not leading with better solutions. Combine this with self-indulgent media coverage (Category="Entertainment", Subcategory="News"). The media loves a good cock fight, so they give it good coverage, egg it on, and voila, it looks like the Tea Party is a real force. The media savors the juicy content and milks it until the cow gives no more. Everyone's a winner!
What's next?
I'm angry, and I want to be heard too. But I also know that ears don't work very well when someone is screaming at them. Sometimes it takes some noise to get attention, but once ears are focused in your direction, it behooves you to say something that matters. Either the Tea Party doesn't get this point, or they don't have anything substantive to say; either way, if they don't figure this out soon, it will be check, and mate!
Friday, March 26, 2010
Suffocating Inside the Obamacare Box
I haven't read the 2600+ pages of the bill, but from what I can tell it fails to deliver any creative solutions. It just throws money at a broken system. Ask Microsoft if throwing money at MSN or Windows Mobile has made them the leader in either of these markets. It hasn't.
I'm comfortable in believing that reform is necessary. But reform in my mind means stepping outside the box and trying to view the problem through a completely different lens. Our government needs to problem-solve like Google.
Google would start with root cause analysis--instead of focusing on why so many people can't afford health care, it would ask why they need so much of it to begin with. I'm betting that the bulk of health care costs are a result of avoidable, self-inflicted, lifestyle choices (poor choices that is).
So what kinds of outside the box ideas are floating around out there?
How about challenging why implementation of a "new system" has to be all or nothing. Why not implement in one volunteer state so its effectiveness can be evaluated, its problems fine-tuned prior to a national rollout. Worst case: the government is on the hook for an expensive health care solution in, say Utah, instead of the whole country. I haven't heard this one before, but it seems logical to me.
How about seriously considering if there's a place for elements of Harry Rosen's health care for his hotel employees. Yea it's bold, it may have flaws, but it has some major benefits and is clearly out of the box thinking. Is there a place for government incentives to stimulate this kind of individual responsibility?
While I'm not sold on all of his ideas, John Mackey (CEO of Whole Foods) offered this one that is new to me, and I like it:
"...revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program."
Mackey's article is definitely worth reading, if for no other reason than to learn how Whole Foods manages its health care costs--interesting.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not hearing anything like these risk management alternatives in Obamacare. From what I can tell it's pretty straight up: infuse more money, attempt to manipulate the free market, and create no incentives to improve individual responsibility (oh, I forgot, and pray a lot).
I'm comfortable in believing that reform is necessary. But reform in my mind means stepping outside the box and trying to view the problem through a completely different lens. Our government needs to problem-solve like Google.
Google would start with root cause analysis--instead of focusing on why so many people can't afford health care, it would ask why they need so much of it to begin with. I'm betting that the bulk of health care costs are a result of avoidable, self-inflicted, lifestyle choices (poor choices that is).
So what kinds of outside the box ideas are floating around out there?
How about challenging why implementation of a "new system" has to be all or nothing. Why not implement in one volunteer state so its effectiveness can be evaluated, its problems fine-tuned prior to a national rollout. Worst case: the government is on the hook for an expensive health care solution in, say Utah, instead of the whole country. I haven't heard this one before, but it seems logical to me.
How about seriously considering if there's a place for elements of Harry Rosen's health care for his hotel employees. Yea it's bold, it may have flaws, but it has some major benefits and is clearly out of the box thinking. Is there a place for government incentives to stimulate this kind of individual responsibility?
While I'm not sold on all of his ideas, John Mackey (CEO of Whole Foods) offered this one that is new to me, and I like it:
"...revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program."
Mackey's article is definitely worth reading, if for no other reason than to learn how Whole Foods manages its health care costs--interesting.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not hearing anything like these risk management alternatives in Obamacare. From what I can tell it's pretty straight up: infuse more money, attempt to manipulate the free market, and create no incentives to improve individual responsibility (oh, I forgot, and pray a lot).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
