School bullying has becoming a near obsession to the point of Anderson Cooper making a national campaign against it and CNN reporting endlessly on it along with other media. There is reason for it if children lose their lives to it.
However, to a person raised outside the US it is surprising that for all the research on victims and aggressors, mea culpas by talking heads and school administrators the dynamics and the solution are so difficult to understand. I can already hear the chorus of dissent and dismissal for lack of complicated paradigms and formal research papers.
Nonetheless there is a simple remedy that could be tested at minimal or no cost with virtually no lead time. It is probably too simple to be credible to many, but let's look at it just in case.
Premises
Most would agree that bullying, in its many manifestations, reflects a fight for social dominance and status within a group and may be acted out by individuals or groups. I will leave it to researchers of primates to explain why humans have such a need. I accept that we do to varying degrees and give various displays of it.
The first notable thing to a newcomer to this land (40 years ago) that enters a US middle school or high school is the strong social dynamics of popularity. In American schools popularity is the all absorbing priority of students except for those contrarians that on purpose reject it and create alternative counter cultural groups with varying degrees of alienation. Popularity can be built by many means from the jersey of an athlete-jock to the pom-poms of a cheerleader to the wallet of a big spender and by the kid that has easy access to the family's medicine or bar cabinet. Looks and clothes and the right vehicle (including the one a parent drives them to school in) are key components to the social climb.
So, just as for everything in society, there are the haves and the have-nots. As in any group from social and sport clubs, to greek houses, to trade unions to military elites, exclusion and limitation of membership is the means to increase the value of the membership and its benefits for those accepted: thus hazing rituals, separate and exclusive gatherings, country club fees, special handshakes, etc.
In schools the same group dynamics evolve and are fed by differences in economic means, athletic skill, gift for jokesterism, access to drugs and transportation. Group membership is further amplified and managed by social media tools, cell phones, etc. as tools of inclusion, exclusion and social attack.
The Fix
To that same newcomer that went to school abroad in a country where students attend from 8am to 1pm, then go home, never eat lunch at school, and study on their own in he afternoons, the fix is obvious. School group dynamics are driven not only, but heavily by the ability of kids to group (read include exclude others) at lunch time. In the cafeteria and in the school yard the whole population can see who belongs where and with whom building the necessary envy, desire for membership, superiority by exclusion. Just as for primates violence, psychological or physical, enforce the group membership and relative dominance.
So an easy fix is to test in schools is to break up or weaken the cycle of group creation and control by inclusion/exclusion: Require students to sit at assigned (randomly drawn and periodically rotated) seats at every opportunity in classes in cafeterias, auditoriums, etc.
Forced one on one contact is not as desirable as voluntary contact, but it would teach tolerance for societal rules (for sure and also need) and eventually tolerance for people that one would have not chosen to come in contact with. Initially such school requirement would be most unpopular, but discovering that people outside a chosen group are not dorks or geeks or dumb or poor or useless would eventually prevail.
Similarly, school uniforms have for ages demonstrated their ability to unify a student body by minimizing aesthetic and economic differences.
This whole idea is probably anathema to a population and culture that for the last 50 to 100 years has been schooled in the American way of school cafeterias and schoolyards. But there is reason for optimism: school uniforms have started making a come back in many public schools, with great results, for similar reasons a despite the best efforts of vested interests intent in commercializing our children into ever changing fashion objects (sidebar: Anderson Cooper and CNN might research how many countries that score above the US in middle and high school achievement require uniforms in their schools - care to bet?).
This is only a small step that probably would take some years to have serious impact on the culture, but rivers change course according to one small grain of sand being displaced one way or another. This is one grain that would require very little to test.
Marco Messina
10/11/11
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Monday, February 7, 2011
A National Disgrace
I just confronted yet another instance of how the US is losing the war for innovation, green technologies, sustainability and energy independence to countries like India and China despite the fact that the inventions put in play are American Inventions. See Smart Planet - China to develop a greener nuclear reactor
How can that happen? The usual suspects could be fingered: disrespect for science and engineering, focus on easy answers, industrial vested interests, etc. I propose that perhaps the worst is "Failure To Communicate" and this is the most blatant example I ever found.
Background
During the Manhattan Project a process to use nuclear materials (nuclear cycle was identified that could generate nuclear power but was not good enough for the explosive reaction needded for nuclear bombs. Given the objective of the Manhattan Project, it was naturally sidelined.
During the 1950's and 1960's the "less efficient" process was revived, as an option for peaceful power generation. in what became known as the Thorium Nuclear Reactor. It was demonstrated capable to avoid all the most negative aspects of a high pressure nuclear reactor (e.g. meltdown, explosion, highly 1000-years radioactive waste, etc.), but gained little attention.
From the 1970's until today nuclear power developed evermore the popularity of "the turd in the punchbowl" for a variety of legitimate and other reasons.
Today it appears that the media and the voters would prefer confronting an ice age with candles than considering nuclear power generation in the US. But what if there were an option that avoids many or all of the risks, costs less, produces more and was already tested sixty years ago?
Well, for that option to go anywhere we'd have to publicize it so that voters would come to understand it, develop confidence in it, accept it and allow construction of this "new" variety of nuclear plant.
The national tragedy
As it happens, that option appears to exist in the Thorium Nuclear Reactor (TNR)
How can it happen?
Smart Planet reports these facts (hats off to them for reporting at all)
at the bottom of their report there is also a video surely intended to help the reader better understand the process and the inherent opportunity.
The combination of the report and that video is the disgrace I am talking about. It is the clearest example of scientists' and science reporters' inability to effectively communicate and make a good case even when all facts appear to be in their favor:
In 1993 Michael Crichton took the media to task (speech at the National PressClub) warning that superficiality and lack of quality in reporting would eventually have disastrous consequences for the media, which undoubtedly it is having.
I suggest that by framing important issues poorly, sloppy, if well intentioned, reporting can have more disastrous consequences than no reporting at all. We all depend on the media to make informed decisions, to support or obstruct national policies. On a subject as urgent as the one above, and not particularly popular with the populace, the damage may well exceed the benefit.
When that happens an opportunity the voters and for the nation to stay in the lead is wasted. India and China move ahead and we are left to wonder why. As Crichton said, there are no easy answers, but surely bad information or badly framed information will lead us to lousy outcomes.
And that is a national tragedy.
How can that happen? The usual suspects could be fingered: disrespect for science and engineering, focus on easy answers, industrial vested interests, etc. I propose that perhaps the worst is "Failure To Communicate" and this is the most blatant example I ever found.
Background
During the Manhattan Project a process to use nuclear materials (nuclear cycle was identified that could generate nuclear power but was not good enough for the explosive reaction needded for nuclear bombs. Given the objective of the Manhattan Project, it was naturally sidelined.
During the 1950's and 1960's the "less efficient" process was revived, as an option for peaceful power generation. in what became known as the Thorium Nuclear Reactor. It was demonstrated capable to avoid all the most negative aspects of a high pressure nuclear reactor (e.g. meltdown, explosion, highly 1000-years radioactive waste, etc.), but gained little attention.
From the 1970's until today nuclear power developed evermore the popularity of "the turd in the punchbowl" for a variety of legitimate and other reasons.
Today it appears that the media and the voters would prefer confronting an ice age with candles than considering nuclear power generation in the US. But what if there were an option that avoids many or all of the risks, costs less, produces more and was already tested sixty years ago?
Well, for that option to go anywhere we'd have to publicize it so that voters would come to understand it, develop confidence in it, accept it and allow construction of this "new" variety of nuclear plant.
The national tragedy
As it happens, that option appears to exist in the Thorium Nuclear Reactor (TNR)
- The TNR was designed and tested in the US in the 1960's
- Our TNR technology is now being test deployed by India and China
- In the future, when it becomes fully commercial, we will buy it from India and China just as we buy oil from Canada and OPEC today
How can it happen?
Smart Planet reports these facts (hats off to them for reporting at all)
BUT
at the bottom of their report there is also a video surely intended to help the reader better understand the process and the inherent opportunity.
The combination of the report and that video is the disgrace I am talking about. It is the clearest example of scientists' and science reporters' inability to effectively communicate and make a good case even when all facts appear to be in their favor:
- The video is 16 minutes long. Challenge yourself to listen to the end. It will become a blur, but you'll get key relevant pieces any way.
- Is the audio in the video speeded up to suit the internet attention span? Hard to tell. If it is, shame on the editor, if it is the speakers's natural pace, shame on them.
- Did all the presenters speak at the same time? I doubt it. Shame on the editor.
- The message is clearly educational about the advantages of the TNR, but you would not know it. The positive technical details are buried in an alphabet soup and cacophony that hides it all.
- The speakers in the video, one guesses, are knowledgeable presenters at professional conferences, but sound like drug advertisements disclaiming potential side effects.
- Comments such as "no one knows anything about TNR any more because all the original scientists are dieing" would dissuade any politician from going to bat for this technology.
In 1993 Michael Crichton took the media to task (speech at the National PressClub) warning that superficiality and lack of quality in reporting would eventually have disastrous consequences for the media, which undoubtedly it is having.
I suggest that by framing important issues poorly, sloppy, if well intentioned, reporting can have more disastrous consequences than no reporting at all. We all depend on the media to make informed decisions, to support or obstruct national policies. On a subject as urgent as the one above, and not particularly popular with the populace, the damage may well exceed the benefit.
When that happens an opportunity the voters and for the nation to stay in the lead is wasted. India and China move ahead and we are left to wonder why. As Crichton said, there are no easy answers, but surely bad information or badly framed information will lead us to lousy outcomes.
And that is a national tragedy.
Friday, September 17, 2010
What a night with Lipbone Redding and the Dogs of Santiago
It happens only once every few years, but when it does, wow! It feels like magic. Tonight (9/17/2010), in Park City, I went to a small party, two dozens people or so. The invitation promised live music by Lipbone Redding. Never heard of them before. Marginal expectations at best. As we helped ourselves around the buffet in a beautiful mountain home set on the side of a hill turning into the stunning colors of the Fall in PC, a treo, not much of a band if you asked me, was tuning up on the terrace. One guitar, a bass and a bongo with cymbals. Minimalist was the motif and so were my expectations.
First surprise: Lipbone Redding had an extra secret instrument you could not see. Watch this video and listen to the music: there is NO Brass, no trumpet, no sax, no trombone - what you hear is the "voicestrumentalist" sound of Lipbone Redding - Sachmo would be impressed. When Lipbone just sang, Fats Waller would have stopped to listen with a big smile. I was in heaven, could hardly stand still. Second surprise: Lipbone and his friends could have stolen the show at last night's final of 2010 America's Got Talent. May be not from Jackie Evancho (should have won by a landslide!), a 10 year old girl with a heavenly voice, but in my book would have buried winner Michael Grimm hands down. Anyway, you be the judge. The range of styles is broad, all impeccably delivered after being made their own like Sixteen Tons, to all the rest original compositions, all with a crips natural happiness of beat I had not heard since Rafa Mora in Costa Rica (see that post and listen). These guys are in a league of their own with a style, technique, a natural voice-trumpet and a tongue in cheek perspective of life like the Dogs of Santiago. Remember NO horns only a voice - Wow ! Do not pass up a chance to see them yourself if you are so lucky they go through your town. The Lipbone Redding Orchestra Lipbone Redding - Voicestrumentsls, Guitar Jeff Eyrich - Upright Bass, Backing Vocals Rich Zukor - Drums/Percussion, Backing Vocals http://lipbone.com or http://facebook/citizenonemusic
First surprise: Lipbone Redding had an extra secret instrument you could not see. Watch this video and listen to the music: there is NO Brass, no trumpet, no sax, no trombone - what you hear is the "voicestrumentalist" sound of Lipbone Redding - Sachmo would be impressed. When Lipbone just sang, Fats Waller would have stopped to listen with a big smile. I was in heaven, could hardly stand still. Second surprise: Lipbone and his friends could have stolen the show at last night's final of 2010 America's Got Talent. May be not from Jackie Evancho (should have won by a landslide!), a 10 year old girl with a heavenly voice, but in my book would have buried winner Michael Grimm hands down. Anyway, you be the judge. The range of styles is broad, all impeccably delivered after being made their own like Sixteen Tons, to all the rest original compositions, all with a crips natural happiness of beat I had not heard since Rafa Mora in Costa Rica (see that post and listen). These guys are in a league of their own with a style, technique, a natural voice-trumpet and a tongue in cheek perspective of life like the Dogs of Santiago. Remember NO horns only a voice - Wow ! Do not pass up a chance to see them yourself if you are so lucky they go through your town. The Lipbone Redding Orchestra Lipbone Redding - Voicestrumentsls, Guitar Jeff Eyrich - Upright Bass, Backing Vocals Rich Zukor - Drums/Percussion, Backing Vocals http://lipbone.com or http://facebook/citizenonemusic
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Columbus all over again
Food for thought
When Columbus landed in North America it took months for his closes back-home associates to learn about it. Europe's literati took years to hear about it and nearly a century passed before the proof that the earth was not flat sunk into people's consciousness. Some wits would say that even today some people are only marginally aware of it (Austria and Australia are still indistinguishable to same).
Well we are at that point again. Today's announcement is as momentous if not more so. The information will travel faster, but, still, real consciousness of its significance will lag, luddites will deny it (e.g. the moon landing was a video scam), some (ostriches) will ignore it, some will be horrified by it (and try to put the gene back in the bottle), all will be directly or indirectly affected.
The impact will be not only in the practical consequences (medicine, industrial, etc.), which have been in the making for years, but mostly, in the psyche of homo sapiens. I do not know when it happened (lags still exist even in the information age), nor how long it will take to sink in, but today's announcement is "Columbus all over again". Write down the date; it will matter when you'll say "I remeber when..." to your grandchildren, to whom the whole affair will have become as common place as TV remotes and cell phones.
Today homo sapiens made life, not a human, not without some minor procedural shortcuts, not "new" life only a duplicate, but synthetic self duplicating DNA based life just the same. The world and we as a species will not remain the same.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/science/21cell.html
May 20, 2010
The genome pioneer J. Craig Venter has taken another step in his quest to create synthetic life, by synthesizing an entire bacterial genome and using it to take over a cell.
Dr. Venter calls the result a “synthetic cell” and is presenting the research as a landmark achievement that will open the way to creating useful microbes from scratch to make products like vaccines and biofuels. At a press conference Thursday, Dr. Venter described the converted cell as “the first self-replicating species we’ve had on the planet whose parent is a computer.”
“This is a philosophical advance as much as a technical advance,” he said, suggesting that the “synthetic cell” raised new questions about the nature of life
Other scientists agree that he has achieved a technical feat in synthesizing the largest piece of DNA so far — a million units in length — and in making it accurate enough to substitute for the cell’s own DNA.
But some regard this approach as unpromising because it will take years to design new organisms, and meanwhile progress toward making biofuels is already being achieved with conventional genetic engineering approaches in which existing organisms are modified a few genes at a time.
Dr. Venter’s aim is to achieve total control over a bacterium’s genome, first by synthesizing its DNA in a laboratory and then by designing a new genome stripped of many natural functions and equipped with new genes that govern production of useful chemicals.
“It’s very powerful to be able to reconstruct and own every letter in a genome because that means you can put in different genes,” said Gerald Joyce, a biologist at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif.
In response to the scientific report, President Obama asked the White House bioethics commission on Thursday to complete a study of the issues raised by synthetic biology within six months and report back to him on its findings. He said the new development raised “genuine concerns,” though he did not specify them further.
Dr. Venter took a first step toward this goal three years ago, showing that the natural DNA from one bacterium could be inserted into another and that it would take over the host cell’s operation. Last year, his team synthesized a piece of DNA with 1,080,000 bases, the chemical units of which DNA is composed.
In a final step, a team led by Daniel G. Gibson, Hamilton O. Smith and Dr. Venter report in Thursday’s issue of the journal Science that the synthetic DNA takes over a bacterial cell just as the natural DNA did, making the cell generate the proteins specified by the new DNA’s genetic information in preference to those of its own genome.
The team ordered pieces of DNA 1,000 units in length from Blue Heron, a company that specializes in synthesizing DNA, and developed a technique for assembling the shorter lengths into a complete genome. The cost of the project was $40 million, most of it paid for by Synthetic Genomics, a company Dr. Venter founded.
But the bacterium used by the Venter group is unsuitable for biofuel production, and Dr. Venter said he would move to different organisms. Synthetic Genomics has a contract from Exxon to generate biofuels from algae. Exxon is prepared to spend up to $600 million if all its milestones are met. Dr. Venter said he would try to build “an entire algae genome so we can vary the 50 to 60 different parameters for algae growth to make superproductive organisms.”
On his yacht trips round the world, Dr. Venter has analyzed the DNA of the many microbes in seawater and now has a library of about 40 million genes, mostly from algae. These genes will be a resource to make captive algae produce useful chemicals, he said.
Some other scientists said that aside from assembling a large piece of DNA, Dr. Venter has not broken new ground. “To my mind Craig has somewhat overplayed the importance of this,” said David Baltimore, a geneticist at Caltech. He described the result as “a technical tour de force,” a matter of scale rather than a scientific breakthrough.
“He has not created life, only mimicked it,” Dr. Baltimore said.
Dr. Venter’s approach “is not necessarily on the path” to produce useful microorganisms, said George Church, a genome researcher at Harvard Medical School. Leroy Hood, of the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle, described Dr. Venter’s report as “glitzy” but said lower-level genes and networks had to be understood first before it would be worth trying to design whole organisms from scratch.
In 2002 Eckard Wimmer, of the State University of New York at Stony Brook, synthesized the genome of the polio virus. The genome constructed a live polio virus that infected and killed mice. Dr. Venter’s work on the bacterium is similar in principle, except that the polio virus genome is only 7,500 units in length, and the bacteria’s genome is more than 100 times longer.
Friends of the Earth, an environmental group, denounced the synthetic genome as “dangerous new technology,” saying that “Mr. Venter should stop all further research until sufficient regulations are in place.”
The genome Dr. Venter synthesized is copied from a natural bacterium that infects goats. He said that before copying the DNA, he excised 14 genes likely to be pathogenic, so the new bacterium, even if it escaped, would be unlikely to cause goats harm.
Dr. Venter’s assertion that he has created a “synthetic cell” has alarmed people who think that means he has created a new life form or an artificial cell. “Of course that’s not right — its ancestor is a biological life form,” said Dr. Joyce of Scripps.
Dr. Venter copied the DNA from one species of bacteria and inserted it into another. The second bacteria made all the proteins and organelles in the so-called “synthetic cell,” by following the specifications implicit in the structure of the inserted DNA.
“My worry is that some people are going to draw the conclusion that they have created a new life form,” said Jim Collins, a bioengineer atBoston University. “What they have created is an organism with a synthesized natural genome. But it doesn’t represent the creation of life from scratch or the creation of a new life form,” he said.
When Columbus landed in North America it took months for his closes back-home associates to learn about it. Europe's literati took years to hear about it and nearly a century passed before the proof that the earth was not flat sunk into people's consciousness. Some wits would say that even today some people are only marginally aware of it (Austria and Australia are still indistinguishable to same).
Well we are at that point again. Today's announcement is as momentous if not more so. The information will travel faster, but, still, real consciousness of its significance will lag, luddites will deny it (e.g. the moon landing was a video scam), some (ostriches) will ignore it, some will be horrified by it (and try to put the gene back in the bottle), all will be directly or indirectly affected.
The impact will be not only in the practical consequences (medicine, industrial, etc.), which have been in the making for years, but mostly, in the psyche of homo sapiens. I do not know when it happened (lags still exist even in the information age), nor how long it will take to sink in, but today's announcement is "Columbus all over again". Write down the date; it will matter when you'll say "I remeber when..." to your grandchildren, to whom the whole affair will have become as common place as TV remotes and cell phones.
Today homo sapiens made life, not a human, not without some minor procedural shortcuts, not "new" life only a duplicate, but synthetic self duplicating DNA based life just the same. The world and we as a species will not remain the same.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/science/21cell.html
May 20, 2010
The genome pioneer J. Craig Venter has taken another step in his quest to create synthetic life, by synthesizing an entire bacterial genome and using it to take over a cell.
Dr. Venter calls the result a “synthetic cell” and is presenting the research as a landmark achievement that will open the way to creating useful microbes from scratch to make products like vaccines and biofuels. At a press conference Thursday, Dr. Venter described the converted cell as “the first self-replicating species we’ve had on the planet whose parent is a computer.”
“This is a philosophical advance as much as a technical advance,” he said, suggesting that the “synthetic cell” raised new questions about the nature of life
Other scientists agree that he has achieved a technical feat in synthesizing the largest piece of DNA so far — a million units in length — and in making it accurate enough to substitute for the cell’s own DNA.
But some regard this approach as unpromising because it will take years to design new organisms, and meanwhile progress toward making biofuels is already being achieved with conventional genetic engineering approaches in which existing organisms are modified a few genes at a time.
Dr. Venter’s aim is to achieve total control over a bacterium’s genome, first by synthesizing its DNA in a laboratory and then by designing a new genome stripped of many natural functions and equipped with new genes that govern production of useful chemicals.
“It’s very powerful to be able to reconstruct and own every letter in a genome because that means you can put in different genes,” said Gerald Joyce, a biologist at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif.
In response to the scientific report, President Obama asked the White House bioethics commission on Thursday to complete a study of the issues raised by synthetic biology within six months and report back to him on its findings. He said the new development raised “genuine concerns,” though he did not specify them further.
Dr. Venter took a first step toward this goal three years ago, showing that the natural DNA from one bacterium could be inserted into another and that it would take over the host cell’s operation. Last year, his team synthesized a piece of DNA with 1,080,000 bases, the chemical units of which DNA is composed.
In a final step, a team led by Daniel G. Gibson, Hamilton O. Smith and Dr. Venter report in Thursday’s issue of the journal Science that the synthetic DNA takes over a bacterial cell just as the natural DNA did, making the cell generate the proteins specified by the new DNA’s genetic information in preference to those of its own genome.
The team ordered pieces of DNA 1,000 units in length from Blue Heron, a company that specializes in synthesizing DNA, and developed a technique for assembling the shorter lengths into a complete genome. The cost of the project was $40 million, most of it paid for by Synthetic Genomics, a company Dr. Venter founded.
But the bacterium used by the Venter group is unsuitable for biofuel production, and Dr. Venter said he would move to different organisms. Synthetic Genomics has a contract from Exxon to generate biofuels from algae. Exxon is prepared to spend up to $600 million if all its milestones are met. Dr. Venter said he would try to build “an entire algae genome so we can vary the 50 to 60 different parameters for algae growth to make superproductive organisms.”
On his yacht trips round the world, Dr. Venter has analyzed the DNA of the many microbes in seawater and now has a library of about 40 million genes, mostly from algae. These genes will be a resource to make captive algae produce useful chemicals, he said.
Some other scientists said that aside from assembling a large piece of DNA, Dr. Venter has not broken new ground. “To my mind Craig has somewhat overplayed the importance of this,” said David Baltimore, a geneticist at Caltech. He described the result as “a technical tour de force,” a matter of scale rather than a scientific breakthrough.
“He has not created life, only mimicked it,” Dr. Baltimore said.
Dr. Venter’s approach “is not necessarily on the path” to produce useful microorganisms, said George Church, a genome researcher at Harvard Medical School. Leroy Hood, of the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle, described Dr. Venter’s report as “glitzy” but said lower-level genes and networks had to be understood first before it would be worth trying to design whole organisms from scratch.
In 2002 Eckard Wimmer, of the State University of New York at Stony Brook, synthesized the genome of the polio virus. The genome constructed a live polio virus that infected and killed mice. Dr. Venter’s work on the bacterium is similar in principle, except that the polio virus genome is only 7,500 units in length, and the bacteria’s genome is more than 100 times longer.
Friends of the Earth, an environmental group, denounced the synthetic genome as “dangerous new technology,” saying that “Mr. Venter should stop all further research until sufficient regulations are in place.”
The genome Dr. Venter synthesized is copied from a natural bacterium that infects goats. He said that before copying the DNA, he excised 14 genes likely to be pathogenic, so the new bacterium, even if it escaped, would be unlikely to cause goats harm.
Dr. Venter’s assertion that he has created a “synthetic cell” has alarmed people who think that means he has created a new life form or an artificial cell. “Of course that’s not right — its ancestor is a biological life form,” said Dr. Joyce of Scripps.
Dr. Venter copied the DNA from one species of bacteria and inserted it into another. The second bacteria made all the proteins and organelles in the so-called “synthetic cell,” by following the specifications implicit in the structure of the inserted DNA.
“My worry is that some people are going to draw the conclusion that they have created a new life form,” said Jim Collins, a bioengineer atBoston University. “What they have created is an organism with a synthesized natural genome. But it doesn’t represent the creation of life from scratch or the creation of a new life form,” he said.
Monday, May 10, 2010
An Indomitable Spirit
I could only wish that at 85 I will still have the undying curiosity to try something new every turn and even to recycle my own creations to make new ones. That is the real test of commitment and detachment of the ultimate creative spirit.
My mother is blessed with that spirit and has shared her painting technique with friends and associates over the years. The most recent time was earlier this year when she was asked to give a demonstration to the Artists Of South Whidbey (AOSW) on Whidbey Island, Washington.
Here you can see her presentation.
Note: The concept behind this presentation was one of the last projects my mother produced in collaboration with my father's multimedia production support in 2008. It was updated in 2010 for AOSW.
Find more at her gallery http://piapaintings.com
My mother is blessed with that spirit and has shared her painting technique with friends and associates over the years. The most recent time was earlier this year when she was asked to give a demonstration to the Artists Of South Whidbey (AOSW) on Whidbey Island, Washington.
Here you can see her presentation.
Note: The concept behind this presentation was one of the last projects my mother produced in collaboration with my father's multimedia production support in 2008. It was updated in 2010 for AOSW.
Find more at her gallery http://piapaintings.com
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Patents - What do they mean to you?
If you are interested in this subject you probably fit one of the following classes:
- You are an expert angel investor with IP due diligence experience - your comments would be most welcome.
- You are a potential or new angel investor (bless you for helping to grow our country). In this case you might be interested in a practical view of what protection a patent rally gives you.
- You are an entrepreneur that could use some financial help to get your invention (IP) to market (bless you for helping to grow our country). In this case you should know what questions to expect from your angel investor and have good answers.
This post attempts to share, for the benefit of the last two groups, my experiences over twenty five years as an inventor, patent holder, investor in technology ventures, acquirer of intellectual property (IP), licensor of IP, entrepreneur commercializing my own or someone else's IP. If you want legal opinions or legal advice on this, call your attorneys. If they are IP specialists they'll have legal details and perspective far more reliable than mine. However, beware; just because they are so familiar wit he domain, IP attorneys will often presume that you understand the nuances of IP legal protection principles and legal practice, not necessarily the practical aspects of it, which is what I am focusing on here. Mine is a "business" view of patents, not a "legal" view and therefre focuses on what is practical not only what is legally rightful.
What does a US patent give the inventor?
In simple terms, the RECOGNITION by the US government that he/she is PRESUMABLY the inventor of a certain concept, product or process and therefore has the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT to practice the invention for a certain period of time (e.g. 17 years) without competition. Note that contrary to public perception it does not give the inventor any real protection (with one exception) unless he take steps to enforce that right. The exception is that the Customs Office will do their best to stop an infringing product from entering the US if they are provided with a suitable request, documentation and proof of patent infringement. Otherwise, the inventor is solely responsible to enforce his patent rights, which implies taking legal action against an infringer.
Against the above background then a number of questions arise:
Can one afford to sue the infringer?
Practically speaking, only if the practice of the invention has a cash flow worth protecting in an amount that covers the expenses, distraction, aggravation, etc. associated with a litigation. Winning the case may not produce cash flow or a significant pay off; it may produce only an injunction against the infringer, which by the way does not preclude another one from coming along.
What if in the course of litigation one discovers that other aspects of the product infringe on patents held by the infringer?
This is very common in the electronics industry where frequently patents have great value to counter-sue and eventually settle by reciprocal licensing. Much of this jousting is now going on and reported in the press involving Apple and their iPad against various competitors among which only one (the smallest and weakest) was sued for infringement. In these cases there may only be legal expenses and the benefit of upsetting a competitor's product development roadmap.
If one has a validly issued patent, how much protection does it provide?
Better than none to be sure, but hardly a guarantee. The case of RIM (Research In Motion), makers of the Blackberry, is very instructive (details): It started in 2000 when RIM was a startup with strong beliefs that their issued patents covered their products well. After a surprising chain of events, by 2006 they settled for $650 million with NTP (plaintiff) after a court injunction forced the Blackberry network dark for one day (a $2 billion business at that time). Since 2006 and continuing to this date "patent reexamination" action by RIM has sought to void NTP's prior art claims; NTP is responding in kind. One can hardly imagine the costs involved (at $500 or more per hour). Needless to say RIM investors had been confident of their IP position. Conclusion: even ISSUED patents are no guarantee since prior art can be submitted at any time and reexamination requested.
Is a patent much ado about nothing?
Definitely not. A Provisional Patent filing, if properly written and searched, tells potential investors that there may be more than just an idea. It says that the company and the inventor understand the IP aspect of their business and have invested time and money to protect their innovation. If a patent is issued, it tells investors that a stake is in the ground that proves innovation, at least from a theoretical and PTO standpoint. If potential competitors exist, they are not easy to find and may be behind the current inventor and therefore not innovators in the PTO sense. Of course they could still come out later with proof of "prior art" and open the RIM type can of worms.
It should be noted that claiming infringement while holding an issued patent has a risk. The "infringer" may turn up to have prior art and that may invalidate the patent. To wit, I had occasion of working with a small manufacturer who was an outstanding and recognized innovator but never filed a patent. He explained that, not being interested in having investors or selling the company, patents to him were a cost and of no value. His strategy was to practice whatever innovative process he devised without fear. If anyone came to try and stop him he depended on his meticulously documented prior art files to trump the action. Furthermore he had no interest in licensing his own inventions and felt that since issued patents files are open to the public, they are more risky than helpful unless one deals with fundamental inventions. By those strategies, his company never grew to dominate his markets, but he as happy with that; my lesson was to beware that prior art occasionally may come out only when one "kicks the beehive".
Why uncertainty cannot be eliminated?
In the US the PTO operates on the doctrine of "first to invent". This means that anyone can come and claim to be THE inventor of anything if he can show prior art precedent to that of any patent filed. If a patent had been issued, reexamination is the cure. Documentary proof of prior art can be from most kind of documents, preferably lab books (numbered non-removable pages), dated and witnessed affidavits, etc. Elsewhere in the world the "first to file" rule is followed therefor it is imperative to not delay a viable filing and one can depend on the value of an issued patent to a greater degree.
Conclusion
From a business viewpoint, the value of a patent is not an absolute one. It depends on the circumstances of the business, the market, the product, the objectives of the inventor, the objectives of investors and many other factors. Deciding to file a patent (the inventor) or to assign a value to a patent (the investor) is a problem without an optimal solution. Clear understanding of options, implications and trade offs is the best one can achieve in reaching an entirely subjective decision. The "Should I get a patent" Roadmap may help with that analysis. Read more about my Roadmaps
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Health Care - We, the people, are getting shafted
Now, let me get this straight......
we're trying to pass a health care plan
written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it,
passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it,
to be signed by a president that also is exempt from it and hasn't read it and who smokes,
with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes,
all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese,
and financed by a country that's broke.
See any problems with it?
Friday, March 26, 2010
Trying Hope ... Again
Frankly I feel completely cheated by the audacity of hope for change. I just saw the political process prostituted to the point of openly buying votes for a bill with "part of the pay off being exemption from being covered by the bill". Yes, reread it: even in most corrupted nations like Nigeria they do not have the gall of doing something like that. Yes, that's change all right. I was one of the dumb asses audaciously hoping and I resent being had.
So, it is time again to hope for change. Now I hope for Paul Ryan to bring us some national leadership along with his straight talk and real, if unpleasant choices. I long for the intellectual honesty (or just plain honesty) of a person willing to propose a medicine sure to be unpleasant at times but well reasoned, to fix several fundamental weaknesses of our economy and political system. Bravo, Mr. Ryan.
As a public service here is a reprint of the article by Congressman Ryan published in Newsweek Feb 19, 2010
By Paul Ryan | NEWSWEEK
Published Feb 19, 2010
From the magazine issue dated Mar 1, 2010
Imagine your family’s finances if you spent and borrowed like Washington: you’d owe $60 in credit-card loans for every $100 of income. Every month you’d pay back a little but borrow even more. In 10 years, you’d owe $87 for every $100 you made. At some point you’d hand off the debt to your kids. If they worked until 2035, they’d owe more than $180 for every $100 they earned. In 2050, your grandkids would owe more than $320. By 2080 they’d owe seven times their earnings. Of course, lenders would cut them off well before then, and your family would be ruined. But this is the path your government is on right now.
Today, our country faces a fiscal meltdown - and Washington’s continued cowardice is a big part of the problem. The social-insurance strategies of the 20th century - Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security - are driving our federal government and economy to collapse. It’s long been obvious that we’re ill prepared for the retirement of the baby boomers. Now, the recession and Washington’s recent spending spree have accelerated the day of reckoning.
Consider just one program: Medicare. Today, this program is short $38 trillion of what it promises to provide your parents, you, and your kids. In five years, the hole will grow to $52 trillion. Your family’s share: $458,000. Medicaid will add trillions more in state and federal debt.
Social Security’s surplus is already gone, and its debt is mounting. Without shoring up its finances, the government will be forced to cut benefits nearly 25 percent or raisepayroll taxes more than 30 percent.
Both Republicans and Democrats share the blame for failing to be candid about the difficult choices we face and for continuing to make promises that cannot be kept. Some apparently have no sense of shame about shaking a tin cup at China and Japan.
I’ve put forward a specific solution to meet this challenge, a plan the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says can achieve its goals of paying off government debt in the long run - while securing the social safety net and making possible future economic growth. I call it “A Roadmap for America’s Future.” If followed, this is what will happen:
HEALTH CARE
You, not your government or your boss, should own your health plan. The Roadmap replaces a tax break that benefits only those with job-based health insurance with tax credits that benefit every American. It addresses the key drivers of rising health-care costs, securing universal access to quality, affordable health coverage.
MEDICARE
Everyone 55 and over will remain in the current program. For those now under 55, the Roadmap turns Medicare into a health-care program like the one enjoyed by members of Congress. Future seniors will receive a voucher and will be able to choose from a list of Medicare-certified insurance plans that best suit their needs. Thegovernment subsidy will provide additional support for those with lower incomes and higher health costs.
SOCIAL SECURITY
Everyone 55 and older will remain in the existing program with no change. My plan offers those now under 55 a choice: continue to take part in traditional Social Security or join a retirement system like Congress’s own plan. Future seniors will be able to invest more than a third of their payroll taxes in savings accounts they will own. These accounts will be guaranteed and managed by the federal government - not by a private investment firm. For both Social Security and Medicare, eligibility ages will gradually increase.
PRO-GROWTH TAX REFORM
To get the economy going again, the Roadmap offers the option of a simple, low-rate, two-tier personal income tax, eliminating loopholes and the double taxation of savings and investment. Corporate income taxes will be replaced by a simple 8.5 percent business consumption tax.
For specifics on these and other reforms, go to americanroadmap.org.
Critics say that any attempt to cut entitlements is tantamount to political suicide. Nonsense. Most Americans see such reforms as common sense. It makes sense to gradually increase the eligibility ages for Social Security and Medicare - Americans are living decades longer than when these programs were first enacted. It also makes sense to tie benefits to income so that those with fewer resources receive more support. Arguing in favor of “means testing” Medicare premiums, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, the respected Maryland Democrat, put it well late last year: “We have to buck up our courage and say that if we try to take care of everybody, we won’t be able to take care of those who need us most.”
One frequent charge against these reforms is, however, correct: the Roadmap does shift power to individuals at the expense of government control. It rejects the merits and sustainability of a cradle-to-grave welfare state, which drains individuals of their self-reliance. The plan unapologetically applies our nation’s founding principles - individual liberty, limited government, and free enterprise - to the challenges of today. And the Roadmap does this in a way that honors our historic commitment to strengthening the social safety net for those who need it most.
I welcome the debate on how to tackle our fiscal crisis - and the larger debate on the proper role of government. But I’d encourage those taking aim at the Roadmap to arm yourselves with a specific alternative. My dad used to say, “Son, you are either part of the solution or part of the problem.” (That was usually when I was being part of the problem.) Now we must make the same demand of politicians in Washington: Don’t patronize the American people as if they were children - deferring difficult decisions and promising fiscal fantasies. Tell the American people the truth and offer them a choice, and they will do what’s right.
Ryan of Wisconsin is the ranking member of the House Budget Committee.
Find this article at: http://www.newsweek.com/id/233915
So, it is time again to hope for change. Now I hope for Paul Ryan to bring us some national leadership along with his straight talk and real, if unpleasant choices. I long for the intellectual honesty (or just plain honesty) of a person willing to propose a medicine sure to be unpleasant at times but well reasoned, to fix several fundamental weaknesses of our economy and political system. Bravo, Mr. Ryan.
As a public service here is a reprint of the article by Congressman Ryan published in Newsweek Feb 19, 2010
Red Alert
As Obama’s national-debt panel prepares for deliberations, one congressman proposes how to get back in the black.
By Paul Ryan | NEWSWEEK
Published Feb 19, 2010
From the magazine issue dated Mar 1, 2010
Imagine your family’s finances if you spent and borrowed like Washington: you’d owe $60 in credit-card loans for every $100 of income. Every month you’d pay back a little but borrow even more. In 10 years, you’d owe $87 for every $100 you made. At some point you’d hand off the debt to your kids. If they worked until 2035, they’d owe more than $180 for every $100 they earned. In 2050, your grandkids would owe more than $320. By 2080 they’d owe seven times their earnings. Of course, lenders would cut them off well before then, and your family would be ruined. But this is the path your government is on right now.
Today, our country faces a fiscal meltdown - and Washington’s continued cowardice is a big part of the problem. The social-insurance strategies of the 20th century - Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security - are driving our federal government and economy to collapse. It’s long been obvious that we’re ill prepared for the retirement of the baby boomers. Now, the recession and Washington’s recent spending spree have accelerated the day of reckoning.
Consider just one program: Medicare. Today, this program is short $38 trillion of what it promises to provide your parents, you, and your kids. In five years, the hole will grow to $52 trillion. Your family’s share: $458,000. Medicaid will add trillions more in state and federal debt.
Social Security’s surplus is already gone, and its debt is mounting. Without shoring up its finances, the government will be forced to cut benefits nearly 25 percent or raisepayroll taxes more than 30 percent.
Both Republicans and Democrats share the blame for failing to be candid about the difficult choices we face and for continuing to make promises that cannot be kept. Some apparently have no sense of shame about shaking a tin cup at China and Japan.
I’ve put forward a specific solution to meet this challenge, a plan the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says can achieve its goals of paying off government debt in the long run - while securing the social safety net and making possible future economic growth. I call it “A Roadmap for America’s Future.” If followed, this is what will happen:
HEALTH CARE
You, not your government or your boss, should own your health plan. The Roadmap replaces a tax break that benefits only those with job-based health insurance with tax credits that benefit every American. It addresses the key drivers of rising health-care costs, securing universal access to quality, affordable health coverage.
MEDICARE
Everyone 55 and over will remain in the current program. For those now under 55, the Roadmap turns Medicare into a health-care program like the one enjoyed by members of Congress. Future seniors will receive a voucher and will be able to choose from a list of Medicare-certified insurance plans that best suit their needs. Thegovernment subsidy will provide additional support for those with lower incomes and higher health costs.
SOCIAL SECURITY
Everyone 55 and older will remain in the existing program with no change. My plan offers those now under 55 a choice: continue to take part in traditional Social Security or join a retirement system like Congress’s own plan. Future seniors will be able to invest more than a third of their payroll taxes in savings accounts they will own. These accounts will be guaranteed and managed by the federal government - not by a private investment firm. For both Social Security and Medicare, eligibility ages will gradually increase.
PRO-GROWTH TAX REFORM
To get the economy going again, the Roadmap offers the option of a simple, low-rate, two-tier personal income tax, eliminating loopholes and the double taxation of savings and investment. Corporate income taxes will be replaced by a simple 8.5 percent business consumption tax.
For specifics on these and other reforms, go to americanroadmap.org.
Critics say that any attempt to cut entitlements is tantamount to political suicide. Nonsense. Most Americans see such reforms as common sense. It makes sense to gradually increase the eligibility ages for Social Security and Medicare - Americans are living decades longer than when these programs were first enacted. It also makes sense to tie benefits to income so that those with fewer resources receive more support. Arguing in favor of “means testing” Medicare premiums, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, the respected Maryland Democrat, put it well late last year: “We have to buck up our courage and say that if we try to take care of everybody, we won’t be able to take care of those who need us most.”
One frequent charge against these reforms is, however, correct: the Roadmap does shift power to individuals at the expense of government control. It rejects the merits and sustainability of a cradle-to-grave welfare state, which drains individuals of their self-reliance. The plan unapologetically applies our nation’s founding principles - individual liberty, limited government, and free enterprise - to the challenges of today. And the Roadmap does this in a way that honors our historic commitment to strengthening the social safety net for those who need it most.
I welcome the debate on how to tackle our fiscal crisis - and the larger debate on the proper role of government. But I’d encourage those taking aim at the Roadmap to arm yourselves with a specific alternative. My dad used to say, “Son, you are either part of the solution or part of the problem.” (That was usually when I was being part of the problem.) Now we must make the same demand of politicians in Washington: Don’t patronize the American people as if they were children - deferring difficult decisions and promising fiscal fantasies. Tell the American people the truth and offer them a choice, and they will do what’s right.
Ryan of Wisconsin is the ranking member of the House Budget Committee.
Find this article at: http://www.newsweek.com/id/233915
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Yes we can - No you can't
What a difference a year makes. I've gone from hope to total disillusionment and it appears I am not alone. This rapid change of mood raises the question: "Are we just a bunch of ungrateful, uninformed, wishy washy and hyper-reactive dingbats? ", or perhaps we are displaying a new trait politicians ought to learn to consider in the age of the internet?
Let's look at two recent instances where voters suddenly revolted against the "great leader" they had trusted.
First we have George W. and his Rasputin, Dick Chaney. Here is a quick review of the relevant events:
Now let's look at why, suddenly, "yes we can" does not resonate any more with the hopeful change-minded electorate. Consider this to figure why and how a "tea party" would start:
The two scenarios above show that one party is no more decent than the other.
The Supreme Court meanwhile asserts that corporations are "citizens" with the right to free speech and are free, if not to a vote at the polls, to at least to vote their pocket book. The latter of course is worse to the democracy as it entails influence without responsibility or accountability. The citizenry's common sense could only be insulted more if the wise Justices permitted corporations "as individuals" to marry and have children - now that is a new legal frontier.
Faced with pork and lies and insult to common sense, is it any surprise that a sentiment develops among the sheep that perhaps, just perhaps, "we deserve some respect? We, the living, ought to stand up and say 'I count and you work for me' ".
Some fantasize nonsense like "going Galt", the more realistic develop a Tea Party frame of mind, perhaps it is finally time for a new party.
Let's look at two recent instances where voters suddenly revolted against the "great leader" they had trusted.
First we have George W. and his Rasputin, Dick Chaney. Here is a quick review of the relevant events:
- 9/11 creates an abnormally uncritical citizenry catalyzed by patriotism, and fear,
- the Bush, Chaney, Woolfowitz, etc. gang figure they don't need to disclose their private agenda of redesigning the Middle East. In pursuit of it, fabricate tales of weapons of mass destruction to start a war
- the US goes to war on two fronts with a majority of support justified by fabricated information and fears
- with war in progress the great leader gets re-elected
- eventually analysts, former generals, etc. unveil the lies used to tee up the strategy and the internet distributes them to all able to read
- after 4 years of burning billions by the month, the economy goes into a tailspin
- the voters, suddenly recognize they were lied to and paying a huge price for it and give victory to an untested newcomer that promises "change", the only thing that all want regardless of political orientation - CHANGE
- and change we get with the highest expectations. Probably an non-republican could have been elected. I for one admit being so offended by the lies and so smitten by the prospect of change that I abandoned my past "Reagan conservativism" and the fact that the alternative to "yes we can" was an Alaskan-diva whose key qualifications included "mayor of a town of 6000" did not help.
Now let's look at why, suddenly, "yes we can" does not resonate any more with the hopeful change-minded electorate. Consider this to figure why and how a "tea party" would start:
- with the economy in collapse "Mr. hope" bails out the banks. Perhaps needed to avert further trouble, but why not a single bureaucrat or banker lost his job in the process? The problem is not that some bankers make millions, is that some are paid millions with our money - "Mr. hope" wonders why the fuss? Duh.
- GM, whose brilliant management consistently lost (stock) value to its shareholders for 45 years straight, must be saved from bankruptcy, its executives must be paid (or exit with) millions of our subsidy money - such great talent must be retained, no?
- Meanwhile small business owners fail by the thousands and banks who are given billions to lend, with no conditions to actually do so, continue to lend nothing.
- "Mr. Change" campaigned on a promise to "change" medical services to control rising costs, rein in insurers' practices of coverage exclusions, increase insurance competition with a government plan and insurance sales across state lines.
- After near a year of debate and horse trading the grand proposal offers:
- no expansion of Medicare as an alternate to private insurers,
- no cross states insurance sales to increase competition,
- any limits on pre-existing conditions will take years to be enacted
- senators from too many states to count have been "bought" with cash subsidies, exclusion from participation in the plan they vote for, etc.
- unions have been cut similar deals
- where does the tax paying citizen figure in this barrel of pork? So much for CHANGE and the audacity of hope.
- disillusionment sets in but we are saved at the last minute by sheer luck in Massachusetts
- Again the voters have revolted against arrogance, stupidity, lies and having their common sense insulted
The two scenarios above show that one party is no more decent than the other.
The Supreme Court meanwhile asserts that corporations are "citizens" with the right to free speech and are free, if not to a vote at the polls, to at least to vote their pocket book. The latter of course is worse to the democracy as it entails influence without responsibility or accountability. The citizenry's common sense could only be insulted more if the wise Justices permitted corporations "as individuals" to marry and have children - now that is a new legal frontier.
Faced with pork and lies and insult to common sense, is it any surprise that a sentiment develops among the sheep that perhaps, just perhaps, "we deserve some respect? We, the living, ought to stand up and say 'I count and you work for me' ".
Some fantasize nonsense like "going Galt", the more realistic develop a Tea Party frame of mind, perhaps it is finally time for a new party.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Social Media and a 2010 Boston Tea Party
At the risk of being stoned, I admit it: I believe that web social media, so far, has been a phenomenon of a solution in search of a problem, businesses are wasting tons of money hoping to figure out a way to make money with it, and marketing consultants are the only ones doing so. This conclusion is in part supported by statistics like: over 90% of Twitter traffic is generated by 10% of the registered users; in other words relatively few people with time on their hands chatting with similarly busy people. The assessment specifically excludes news media people and services who cleverly use it to let the "10% crowd" do some news sleuthing for them, or to generate following for their programs.
Well, I was WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Businesses beware! There may not be easy money to be made out of social media, but lots to lose by treating customers with contempt in an age when that news can be circulated to the world effectively and effortlessly.
To wit, the below email I received from a friend says it all.
(For wared email)
A musician named Dave Carroll recently had difficulty with United Airlines.
United apparently damaged his treasured Taylor guitar ($3500) during a flight.
Dave spent over 9 months trying to get United to pay for damages caused by baggage handlers to his custom Taylor guitar.
During his final exchange with the United Customer Relations Manager, he stated that he was left with no choice other than to create a music video for YouTube exposing their lack of cooperation. The Manager responded: "Good luck with that one, pal". So he posted a retaliatory video on youtube.
The video has since received over 5.5 million hits.
United Airlines contacted the musician and attempted settlement in exchange for pulling the video. Naturally his response was: "Good luck with that one, pal".
Taylor Guitars sent the musician 2 new custom guitars in appreciation for the product recognition from the video that has lead to a sharp increase in orders.Here's the video ..... http://www.youtube.com/watchv=5YGc4zOqozo&NR=1>
--------------------------------------
You read it right 5.5 million hits and counting. I guess the days of telling customers to blow off are ending and social media is lending a hand.
Well done Dave Carroll, cool song too.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Imagine that !
Have you heard what our President discovered? Health insurance companies are not playing nice and are defending their turf against the proposed legislation that would hurt their profits. Imagine that! And we thought they were idiots born under a pumpkin. Really incredible.
Well,consider this: Those companies are run by some of the smartest minds to come through our educational system, who worked hard to be selected to study for an MBA where they could be trained that making a profit for their shareholders is their only responsibility (I know, I am one of them) and the more they do so the better they get paid, the more Wall Street will increase the value of their stock options and your retirement fund and mine will eagerly buy their stock because they are so good at making profits regardless of how may children, adults and retirees may be denied benefits for whatever reason. For our retirement we really do not want to know, we just want the profits. That's how the market is supposed to work to strive for efficiency and profitability for the benefit of society in general and our 401K in particular. That's why it will not change and should not change.
The problem is that in some area, we would like people to matter more than profits and economic efficiency, particularly when we are the people involved. That's where "government" has a different mission: people come first and no one makes a profit on people's misfortune (diseases) and tries to make all people well so they can all be productive. For sure many smart MBAs chose this professional perspective and end up running Medicare and like programs. It is not a case of smart and dumb (and the government's MBAs want a nice compensation too) the difference is in the perspective and the priorities. That is why every single country outside the US has implemented a government run basic healthcare safety net for all citizens at a price the nation can afford offering a level of service that society is willing to afford.
Note the key words PRICE, LEVEL OF SERVICE, COUNTRY CAN AFFORD. Let's look at what that means
PRICE - what portion of total expenditures the nation can devote to healthcare. In the US we pride ourselves of the great medical care we get compared to other countries, but that is a delusion derived by comparing the minimum that other countries (often less wealthy) guarantee to all citizens with the best that a well-insured minority of a wealthier country can afford. The better score we give ourselves may make us feel good, but from a public policy analysis standpoint it is just a delusion.
COUNTRY CAN AFFORD - What % of GNP (or of tax collections) should we spend for healthcare for ALL citizens? Medicare does something similar within the limits of its budget and limited to the population they serve. The program has been generally successful (ask an retiree) and it shows that in general the government can do this job as competently as anyone. This type of calculation is the realm of government and it is already done for roads and bridges, interstate highways, national defense, space exploration, scientific research grants, etc. No one has more experience than government at dealing this with process and in the context of the electoral process (i.e. depending who drives the ship, the tax collections and the services, will vary and we affect that by how we vote).
LEVEL OF SERVICE - Given the above budget limits what procedures and "amenities" (single occupancy hospital room, TVs and telephones, etc.) should be provided to ALL at no cost? This will be clearly lower than the lucky well-insured minority is used to, but immensely better than the little or nothing some live with. For the lucky, well-to-do, well-insured minority there is of course the option of supplemental insurance to cover the better quality of life healthcare options they now enjoy.
Providing a high-end cost-be-damned services-unlimited system is a pipe dream no country can afford whether via a public or private insurance system. Using that as the target is the ruse used by insurers to create confusion and stall change. The objective should be to provide a minimum to all which is reasonable in the context of our our moral code and of our GNP. Above that "minimum" everyone should be on their own at their own expense as it is for everything else in life.
Should we be surprised that private insurers resist the loss of their nice franchise to make money on our collective backs? Of course not. If we want to provide some level of basic service to all and at the least cost the public insurance option is the only way, just as we do for roads and police and fire protection. Those that want and can afford more can certainly do so (as thy do with toll roads and private security services).
The question we must answer as a nation is: Do we want businesses to make a profit on the minimum care required to fix the misery (disease) that can and probably will affect us all? The rest of the world has answered NO for profits on health and misery as well as NO for road and police. So far the US has said YES to profits on misery and healthcare and NO for roads and police. Perhaps it is time to find a better answer than some implausibly convoluted variation on the theme of employer provided insurance (an irrational legacy of WWII wage controls - see prior post).
The fact that the inurers complain and do not play nice at the prospect of losing their fat franchise should be no surprise. Let them offer supplemental insurance, there will be still a lot of fat in that franchise and let the US shed the legacy of WWII and offer all citizens a modern and rational healthcare plan.
Well,consider this: Those companies are run by some of the smartest minds to come through our educational system, who worked hard to be selected to study for an MBA where they could be trained that making a profit for their shareholders is their only responsibility (I know, I am one of them) and the more they do so the better they get paid, the more Wall Street will increase the value of their stock options and your retirement fund and mine will eagerly buy their stock because they are so good at making profits regardless of how may children, adults and retirees may be denied benefits for whatever reason. For our retirement we really do not want to know, we just want the profits. That's how the market is supposed to work to strive for efficiency and profitability for the benefit of society in general and our 401K in particular. That's why it will not change and should not change.
The problem is that in some area, we would like people to matter more than profits and economic efficiency, particularly when we are the people involved. That's where "government" has a different mission: people come first and no one makes a profit on people's misfortune (diseases) and tries to make all people well so they can all be productive. For sure many smart MBAs chose this professional perspective and end up running Medicare and like programs. It is not a case of smart and dumb (and the government's MBAs want a nice compensation too) the difference is in the perspective and the priorities. That is why every single country outside the US has implemented a government run basic healthcare safety net for all citizens at a price the nation can afford offering a level of service that society is willing to afford.
Note the key words PRICE, LEVEL OF SERVICE, COUNTRY CAN AFFORD. Let's look at what that means
PRICE - what portion of total expenditures the nation can devote to healthcare. In the US we pride ourselves of the great medical care we get compared to other countries, but that is a delusion derived by comparing the minimum that other countries (often less wealthy) guarantee to all citizens with the best that a well-insured minority of a wealthier country can afford. The better score we give ourselves may make us feel good, but from a public policy analysis standpoint it is just a delusion.
COUNTRY CAN AFFORD - What % of GNP (or of tax collections) should we spend for healthcare for ALL citizens? Medicare does something similar within the limits of its budget and limited to the population they serve. The program has been generally successful (ask an retiree) and it shows that in general the government can do this job as competently as anyone. This type of calculation is the realm of government and it is already done for roads and bridges, interstate highways, national defense, space exploration, scientific research grants, etc. No one has more experience than government at dealing this with process and in the context of the electoral process (i.e. depending who drives the ship, the tax collections and the services, will vary and we affect that by how we vote).
LEVEL OF SERVICE - Given the above budget limits what procedures and "amenities" (single occupancy hospital room, TVs and telephones, etc.) should be provided to ALL at no cost? This will be clearly lower than the lucky well-insured minority is used to, but immensely better than the little or nothing some live with. For the lucky, well-to-do, well-insured minority there is of course the option of supplemental insurance to cover the better quality of life healthcare options they now enjoy.
Providing a high-end cost-be-damned services-unlimited system is a pipe dream no country can afford whether via a public or private insurance system. Using that as the target is the ruse used by insurers to create confusion and stall change. The objective should be to provide a minimum to all which is reasonable in the context of our our moral code and of our GNP. Above that "minimum" everyone should be on their own at their own expense as it is for everything else in life.
Should we be surprised that private insurers resist the loss of their nice franchise to make money on our collective backs? Of course not. If we want to provide some level of basic service to all and at the least cost the public insurance option is the only way, just as we do for roads and police and fire protection. Those that want and can afford more can certainly do so (as thy do with toll roads and private security services).
The question we must answer as a nation is: Do we want businesses to make a profit on the minimum care required to fix the misery (disease) that can and probably will affect us all? The rest of the world has answered NO for profits on health and misery as well as NO for road and police. So far the US has said YES to profits on misery and healthcare and NO for roads and police. Perhaps it is time to find a better answer than some implausibly convoluted variation on the theme of employer provided insurance (an irrational legacy of WWII wage controls - see prior post).
The fact that the inurers complain and do not play nice at the prospect of losing their fat franchise should be no surprise. Let them offer supplemental insurance, there will be still a lot of fat in that franchise and let the US shed the legacy of WWII and offer all citizens a modern and rational healthcare plan.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Two ways to invest in "green"
In the last few weeks I attended several presentations from companies presenting their business plans and experiences as “green businesses”. Two stood out in my mind at the extremes of what’s out there for angel investors to seek. Since in some cases I signed NDAs I’ll keep all companies confidential but it may not be difficult to deduct their names with a little research and detective work.
Company1Purpose of the presentation: Present a business plan for investment by accredited investors to raise several million dollars
Idea behind the business (as stated in the presentation): Take advantage of the huge amount of government money promoting technological migration to a “greener” world.
Competitive advantage: Far out patent pending technologies invented by undiscovered brilliant inventors with no industry track record of delivering working products or systems – the power of the outsider to think out of the box.
Business model: promote the patents through associates, consultants and green enthusiasts, license the patents to major industry players to make and market and collect royalties
Secret sauce: patent pending untested technology that must be kept secret from the big competing interests in the industry, therefore little can be disclosed.
Use of funds: Promotional expenses, R&D to prototype and demonstrate the technology, salaries to management and marketing team, filing more patents, pay licensing fees to the inventors (50% of funds raised) for untested technologies.
Take away: Too good to be true? Perhaps so judging from the response of several attendees. The technologies presented promise a) cars running on various fuels (including H2) continuously converted on demand from water, b) energy from waste water to feed the utility grid, c) solar plant daytime energy storage for redistribution at night and/or to distant locations at higher prices. One alone would be a holly grail, but diversification calls for all three and the markets are ripe for it. Buyers beware.
Company2Purpose of the presentation: Educate entrepreneurs on a “green business” perspective derived from ten years of R&D and product marketing.
Idea: “green” has taken an unfortunate connotation of either fashionably exploitable business angle or expensive luxury that costs businesses a lot. Both are wrong.
Products: Water-based, human and environment safe chemical cleaning products for industrial processes, aviation, gun cleaning, and more to come.
Use of funds: N/A – Company2 need none, they are offered more they want to take, the business is profitable and fast growing
Take away: Company2 has demonstrated, over ten years, that environmental and human safety offer a) profitable markets for the producers and b) can be demonstrated to reduce TCO for the customer that switches from noxious chemicals (the only ones available in the past) to the more worker and environment safe products available today. C) There are great opportunities for entrepreneurs, and their angels, that want to pursue a similar business strategy.
The key to Company2's market penetration was and is to effectively communicate and demonstrate the value proposition to prospective customers who are frequently under great pressure and incentives from legacy suppliers to continue past practices. It takes time, commitment and tenacity. The pay off takes time.
So why does this matter? Because in the current euphoria to go green with our investments and to benefit from the ongoing global technological transition, it is easy to seek an end-run with some magic sauce. It may be possible but unlikely. More probably the returns we seek will come from: innovation that creates incremental improvements, education, rigorous analysis of alternatives and serious commitment to a mission. Technological transitions have never been an overnight affair (see railroads, automotives, semiconductors, internet, telecoms, etc) and angel investors will need now as ever due diligence and patience. More importantly, we should seek credible business models, not promoters' wild promises of world changing magic.
Company1Purpose of the presentation: Present a business plan for investment by accredited investors to raise several million dollars
Idea behind the business (as stated in the presentation): Take advantage of the huge amount of government money promoting technological migration to a “greener” world.
Competitive advantage: Far out patent pending technologies invented by undiscovered brilliant inventors with no industry track record of delivering working products or systems – the power of the outsider to think out of the box.
Business model: promote the patents through associates, consultants and green enthusiasts, license the patents to major industry players to make and market and collect royalties
Secret sauce: patent pending untested technology that must be kept secret from the big competing interests in the industry, therefore little can be disclosed.
Use of funds: Promotional expenses, R&D to prototype and demonstrate the technology, salaries to management and marketing team, filing more patents, pay licensing fees to the inventors (50% of funds raised) for untested technologies.
Take away: Too good to be true? Perhaps so judging from the response of several attendees. The technologies presented promise a) cars running on various fuels (including H2) continuously converted on demand from water, b) energy from waste water to feed the utility grid, c) solar plant daytime energy storage for redistribution at night and/or to distant locations at higher prices. One alone would be a holly grail, but diversification calls for all three and the markets are ripe for it. Buyers beware.
Company2Purpose of the presentation: Educate entrepreneurs on a “green business” perspective derived from ten years of R&D and product marketing.
Idea: “green” has taken an unfortunate connotation of either fashionably exploitable business angle or expensive luxury that costs businesses a lot. Both are wrong.
Products: Water-based, human and environment safe chemical cleaning products for industrial processes, aviation, gun cleaning, and more to come.
Use of funds: N/A – Company2 need none, they are offered more they want to take, the business is profitable and fast growing
Take away: Company2 has demonstrated, over ten years, that environmental and human safety offer a) profitable markets for the producers and b) can be demonstrated to reduce TCO for the customer that switches from noxious chemicals (the only ones available in the past) to the more worker and environment safe products available today. C) There are great opportunities for entrepreneurs, and their angels, that want to pursue a similar business strategy.
The key to Company2's market penetration was and is to effectively communicate and demonstrate the value proposition to prospective customers who are frequently under great pressure and incentives from legacy suppliers to continue past practices. It takes time, commitment and tenacity. The pay off takes time.
So why does this matter? Because in the current euphoria to go green with our investments and to benefit from the ongoing global technological transition, it is easy to seek an end-run with some magic sauce. It may be possible but unlikely. More probably the returns we seek will come from: innovation that creates incremental improvements, education, rigorous analysis of alternatives and serious commitment to a mission. Technological transitions have never been an overnight affair (see railroads, automotives, semiconductors, internet, telecoms, etc) and angel investors will need now as ever due diligence and patience. More importantly, we should seek credible business models, not promoters' wild promises of world changing magic.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Haunted
Music is big part of this story - Listen while you read
Have you ever felt haunted by a promise you made? This is my story. It has been with me since March of 2008 when I vacationed in Costa Rica. The travel log of that trip will wait for another day although I brought back photo memories of that magnificent country that you can see here (suspend the music player if it is playing by pressing the space bar) - you’ll have to dream up your own explanations for the photos, but the feel for that enchanting country will come through nonetheless – stay in touch and the travel log will come).
This posting is really about being haunted by a promise. This is, in a small way, my first step toward buying my freedom from that promise. Time will tell if it works. I may have to travel back to Costa Rica to try harder than this, and that would not be bad at all. So, here it goes:
The trip
In 2008 Darlene, my wife, and I wanted a trip to a warm place with a direct flight from Phoenix AZ. We’ve seen much of Mexico, another lovely country of wonderful people, so we were looking for another destination. My boss Rich, an accomplished world traveler and bon-vivant, told me that he had invested in Costa Rica to develop property near Dominical. He sang the glories of the country and we decided we had to see this jewel often called “Switzerland of Latin America” for its orderly government, peaceful people, high productivity and dependable banking. As a former international banker I was most curious to see it.
We traveled there in March 2008 just before the rainy season would come. In one week we drove all over the North and West of the country and saw a volcano up lose (Arenal), high altitude cloud forests, sea level tropical forests, and more monkeys, sloths and butterflies than we had hoped. The Costarican people proved to be all they were promised to be: friendly, helpful, well educated and with a joi de vivre hard to find at home in our hurried culture. Check the photolog (suspend the music player if it is playing) and go see for yourself.
A monkey on my back
In this wonderful country full of monkeys, I managed to put one on my back in a most unexpected way. The last stop of our Costa-Rican west coast exploration was the famous surfer village of Dominical, well known to all “real surfers” that dream of an “endless summer” lifestyle. We are not surfers, so we were looking mostly for a laid back village where Rich had been developing property for sale to vacationing and “expat” gringos. We were enchanted enough to even go talk to realtors about property, but in the end that was just daydreaming.
We stayed at the Hotel Domilocos, a grand hotel by surfers standards, but more of a motel-6 sort of place. It was just what we try to travel by: basic, clean, convenient, friendly, well priced accommodations you do not need to book days ahead, the kind that are mostly a lucky find. That day we were lucky, the more so because in it, at the edge of the village, at the end of a dusty road, they were said to have a high end Italian restaurant.
The restaurant opened quite late, was an untested quantity, looked suspicious with high prices at the end of that dusty road and the front desk announced that the chef had just left to Italy on vacation. We decided to go for fish tacos at the local surfers’ hangout under the nearest palapa surrounded by broken surfboards.
Late in the evening on our way to our room we found the restaurant at Domilocos packed, lively and with great music. We stopped for a nightcap and got a seat right in front of the single musician that sounded like a whole orchestra. Over a cognac and a banana flambé’ in Grand Marnier we discovered that the restaurant was indeed top class despite the vacationing chef.
As we listened to the music I felt transfixed. The latin rhythm, the romantic songs and a musician that could switch from piano to keyboards to accordion to acoustic guitar and guitarron were too much to leave. We stayed until closing, whenever that was.
During a couple of intermissions I met the musician, bought a couple of his CDs for souvenirs and bought him a drink. Rafa Mora was his name (he is from Costa Rica, there is a musician in Spain by the same name). I learned that he had tried to introduce his music into the US with the help of a friend in NYC, but the friend had gone bust, his CDs were gone and no contacts had come from the effort. Rafa asked what I did for a living and I explained my work at Maricopa College Small Business Development Center. Instinctively, and as I did with just about anyone in those days, I offered to help him develop his business by tracing his friend and see what could be done to reopen his web site. I was willing to host his site along with several of my own ones if we could get it transferred without too much trouble. At that news Rafa gratefully gave me a copy of all his other CDs that I had not already bought and wished me well in my endeavor. The rest of that evening he pulled all the stops off performing for us as if I had been the most connected music industry mogul in LA.
Upon our return I made a few searches over the net, but never found his former friend. I had no time to develop a site for him, besides I did not have any local contact for him in Dominical since he never followed up to send me his email address. Life happened, I took up some demanding projects that took all my time and eventually I left the MCSBDC to chase a success chimera to the moon. Over the months, I listened to Rafa’s music often as a crutch in tough times to make me smile again remembering that happy night in Dominical. His captivating music has a joi de vivre that beats any antidepressant and on a romantic soul it works wonders.
All this musical bliss has not come free of charge, however. Every time I hear Rafa sing and play a little monkey on my back gets agitated and whispers in my ears questioning if I did enough for those free CDs I got. They had no cost to me and I could not sell them for more than I paid, but to Rafa they were a significant cost and investment in his future as a musician or so says the little monkey. So, today I had to take a step, at least a little one, to quiet the little miserable bastard on my back: 1. I wrote this posting, 2 I am streaming Rafa’s music for you to hear. May be it will be my luck that some music industry connected reader my “discover” Rafa and lend a hand. In time I’ll do more, starting with tracking down Rafa by email back in Dominical – I doubt my monkey will rest for long.
In the meantime you can enjoy Rafa’s magic. Look him up if you are in Dominical, Costa Rica. The Hotel Domilocos will be a good place to start and everyone in town should know Rafa Mora musician and singer extraordinair. Happy travels.
Mucho gusto mi amigo Rafa – El mejor a Costa Rica
Songs and arragements copyright of Rafa Mora
- Cuerdas Sentimentales 1
- Cuerdas Sentimentales 2
- Cuerdas Sentimentales 3
- Cuerdas Sentimentales 4
- Cuerdas Sentimentales 5
- Cuerdas Sentimentales 6
- Cuerdas Sentimentales 7
- Cuerdas Sentimentales 8
- Cuerdas Sentimentales 9
- Cuerdas Sentimentales 10
- Cuerdas Sentimentales 11
- Cuerdas Sentimentales 12
- Cuerdas Sentimentales 13
- Cuerdas Sentimentales 14
- Noche Inolvidable 01
- Noche Inolvidable 02
- Noche Inolvidable 03
- Noche Inolvidable 04
- Noche Inolvidable 05
- Noche Inolvidable 06
- Noche Inolvidable 07
- Noche Inolvidable 08
- Noche Inolvidable 09
- Noche Inolvidable 10
- Noche Inolvidable 11
- Noche Inolvidable 12
- Noche Inolvidable 13
- Noche Inolvidable 14
- Noche Inolvidable 15
- Noche Inolvidable 16
- Noche Inolvidable 17
- Noche Inolvidable 18
- Noche Inolvidable 19
- Noche Inolvidable 20
This posting is really about being haunted by a promise. This is, in a small way, my first step toward buying my freedom from that promise. Time will tell if it works. I may have to travel back to Costa Rica to try harder than this, and that would not be bad at all. So, here it goes:
The trip
In 2008 Darlene, my wife, and I wanted a trip to a warm place with a direct flight from Phoenix AZ. We’ve seen much of Mexico, another lovely country of wonderful people, so we were looking for another destination. My boss Rich, an accomplished world traveler and bon-vivant, told me that he had invested in Costa Rica to develop property near Dominical. He sang the glories of the country and we decided we had to see this jewel often called “Switzerland of Latin America” for its orderly government, peaceful people, high productivity and dependable banking. As a former international banker I was most curious to see it.
We traveled there in March 2008 just before the rainy season would come. In one week we drove all over the North and West of the country and saw a volcano up lose (Arenal), high altitude cloud forests, sea level tropical forests, and more monkeys, sloths and butterflies than we had hoped. The Costarican people proved to be all they were promised to be: friendly, helpful, well educated and with a joi de vivre hard to find at home in our hurried culture. Check the photolog (suspend the music player if it is playing) and go see for yourself.
A monkey on my back
In this wonderful country full of monkeys, I managed to put one on my back in a most unexpected way. The last stop of our Costa-Rican west coast exploration was the famous surfer village of Dominical, well known to all “real surfers” that dream of an “endless summer” lifestyle. We are not surfers, so we were looking mostly for a laid back village where Rich had been developing property for sale to vacationing and “expat” gringos. We were enchanted enough to even go talk to realtors about property, but in the end that was just daydreaming.
We stayed at the Hotel Domilocos, a grand hotel by surfers standards, but more of a motel-6 sort of place. It was just what we try to travel by: basic, clean, convenient, friendly, well priced accommodations you do not need to book days ahead, the kind that are mostly a lucky find. That day we were lucky, the more so because in it, at the edge of the village, at the end of a dusty road, they were said to have a high end Italian restaurant.
The restaurant opened quite late, was an untested quantity, looked suspicious with high prices at the end of that dusty road and the front desk announced that the chef had just left to Italy on vacation. We decided to go for fish tacos at the local surfers’ hangout under the nearest palapa surrounded by broken surfboards.
Late in the evening on our way to our room we found the restaurant at Domilocos packed, lively and with great music. We stopped for a nightcap and got a seat right in front of the single musician that sounded like a whole orchestra. Over a cognac and a banana flambé’ in Grand Marnier we discovered that the restaurant was indeed top class despite the vacationing chef.
As we listened to the music I felt transfixed. The latin rhythm, the romantic songs and a musician that could switch from piano to keyboards to accordion to acoustic guitar and guitarron were too much to leave. We stayed until closing, whenever that was.
During a couple of intermissions I met the musician, bought a couple of his CDs for souvenirs and bought him a drink. Rafa Mora was his name (he is from Costa Rica, there is a musician in Spain by the same name). I learned that he had tried to introduce his music into the US with the help of a friend in NYC, but the friend had gone bust, his CDs were gone and no contacts had come from the effort. Rafa asked what I did for a living and I explained my work at Maricopa College Small Business Development Center. Instinctively, and as I did with just about anyone in those days, I offered to help him develop his business by tracing his friend and see what could be done to reopen his web site. I was willing to host his site along with several of my own ones if we could get it transferred without too much trouble. At that news Rafa gratefully gave me a copy of all his other CDs that I had not already bought and wished me well in my endeavor. The rest of that evening he pulled all the stops off performing for us as if I had been the most connected music industry mogul in LA.
Upon our return I made a few searches over the net, but never found his former friend. I had no time to develop a site for him, besides I did not have any local contact for him in Dominical since he never followed up to send me his email address. Life happened, I took up some demanding projects that took all my time and eventually I left the MCSBDC to chase a success chimera to the moon. Over the months, I listened to Rafa’s music often as a crutch in tough times to make me smile again remembering that happy night in Dominical. His captivating music has a joi de vivre that beats any antidepressant and on a romantic soul it works wonders.
All this musical bliss has not come free of charge, however. Every time I hear Rafa sing and play a little monkey on my back gets agitated and whispers in my ears questioning if I did enough for those free CDs I got. They had no cost to me and I could not sell them for more than I paid, but to Rafa they were a significant cost and investment in his future as a musician or so says the little monkey. So, today I had to take a step, at least a little one, to quiet the little miserable bastard on my back: 1. I wrote this posting, 2 I am streaming Rafa’s music for you to hear. May be it will be my luck that some music industry connected reader my “discover” Rafa and lend a hand. In time I’ll do more, starting with tracking down Rafa by email back in Dominical – I doubt my monkey will rest for long.
In the meantime you can enjoy Rafa’s magic. Look him up if you are in Dominical, Costa Rica. The Hotel Domilocos will be a good place to start and everyone in town should know Rafa Mora musician and singer extraordinair. Happy travels.
Mucho gusto mi amigo Rafa – El mejor a Costa Rica
Songs and arragements copyright of Rafa Mora
Monday, August 31, 2009
The Simplest Medical Care Fix
If I told you I have the fix to the current debate on medical care reform, you'd laugh. Nobody does or so it seems.
Well, I believe that it is simpler than we are told. Smile sarcastically and stay with me a minute.
Why is it so difficult? I's a very complex system that touches every citizen, native, naturalized, resident and illegal. The solution to the riddle must balance the conflicting interests at an affordable cost over a long period of time which is difficult to forecast. In addition we want to resolve the issue to everyone's satisfaction and in a hurry with a permanent answer. This is utter nonsense.
The first step in finding the answer is in uncoupling as many of the problem areas so they can be addressed separately. Secondly is to find strategies that permit incremental changes that are self adjusting over time. With these two premises here is:
The solution
Why would it work?
The current debate has confused issues to the point that even seniors covered by Medicare plus their supplemental insurance are losing sight that Medicare is serving them well for their basic needs and supplemental insurance is affordable because the basics are covered already. It is time we extend the same functionality, albeit at a price, to the rest of the population.
Increasing the complexity of the problem and of the solution ensures that paralysis and confusion set in That only benefits insurers and service providers that can focus their energy to exploit those niches to their advantage and profit.
It is simple than we think.
Well, I believe that it is simpler than we are told. Smile sarcastically and stay with me a minute.
Why is it so difficult? I's a very complex system that touches every citizen, native, naturalized, resident and illegal. The solution to the riddle must balance the conflicting interests at an affordable cost over a long period of time which is difficult to forecast. In addition we want to resolve the issue to everyone's satisfaction and in a hurry with a permanent answer. This is utter nonsense.
The first step in finding the answer is in uncoupling as many of the problem areas so they can be addressed separately. Secondly is to find strategies that permit incremental changes that are self adjusting over time. With these two premises here is:
The solution
- Give every US citizen and legal resident the right to buy into the same medical care plan that covers US Congressmen and federal employees
- Mandate that Congress cannot legislate a separate plan for themselves and cannot have service preferences over other citizens within the system
- Eliminate employers' tax deductions for employee and medical benefits. Give all deductions to the taxpayers for what they pay for medical and other insurance plans
Why would it work?
- Over time Congress would see that the quality of service and care is maintained. They do it now and their service is better than what most citizens get (who said government services do not work?)
- Anyone who has other or better private options can use them alternatively or in addition. More power to them.
- The federal medical care option would provide healthy competition to private insurers and will likely reduce costs growth rate
- If all care providers have to deal with the feds, electronic record keeping will be easier to implement, will reduce costs and bureaucracy and eventually will be implemented by private insurers as well. That will evolve later and separately without impacting the policy issue.
- The federal claims processing system is already in place and requires no reinvention. It will require increases in processing capacity and that will create the opportunity for efficiency improvements in 4 above
- To provide coverage to the poor, the unemployed, those impacted by personal medical catastrophe, etc. the Congress will legislate appropriate tax credits to cover insurance fees and expenses. That debate, however, will be separate, will be a matter of ethics and of defining our national progressivism without having to affect the "mechanical" system of medical care insurance.
- The cost of services to illegal aliens and others individuals that medical providers must serve according to their oath, should be processed as costs of the federal plan. This will ensure that hospitals do not disproportionately absorb those costs (because of location of philosophical orientation or funding requirements). Those costs are currently borne by taxpayers but not explicitly accounted for. This will ensure accurate accounting of costs that as a nation we must consider when planning border protection policy.
- By separating employment from medical care insurance we'd abandon a system created by accident in WWII (was intended as a work around to war time wage controls) and never as a reasoned policy of social insurance. The result would be to stop the costly nonsense of employees having to change medical insurance provider simply because they change employers.
- In this proposal there is no expectation of complete equality for all citizens. Those that can afford supplemental insurance to "be shipped to the moon for exotic procedures without questions or delays", will continue to be able to do so. They have those options today and always will. The currently uninsured however will also have a reasonable option. That option may be subsidized to the degree that we, as a nation, feel appropriate in the future just as we do now for Social Security and Medicare (without having to change the benefits processing and accounting systems).
The current debate has confused issues to the point that even seniors covered by Medicare plus their supplemental insurance are losing sight that Medicare is serving them well for their basic needs and supplemental insurance is affordable because the basics are covered already. It is time we extend the same functionality, albeit at a price, to the rest of the population.
Increasing the complexity of the problem and of the solution ensures that paralysis and confusion set in That only benefits insurers and service providers that can focus their energy to exploit those niches to their advantage and profit.
It is simple than we think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)