Decidedly: The Dwaffler Blog

Rubric, purpose, context

noreply@blogger.com (C. A. Burch) — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 06:00:00 +0000

Can we at least agree on what we are trying to achieve?

Thomas Friedman writes of the need for Obama to define a "a clear, simple, repeatable narrative to explain his politics." Friedman refers to this needed statement as a "rubric" (a statement of purpose or function). It is this latter label that reveals the true value of such a statement.

A context or purpose is essential to a plan or strategy. As a framework for suggested actions, it allows one to see clearly the actions' relative value in terms of achieving higher level objectives. It is more than just a means for "spinning" messages, or of preventing the possibility that actions will be "easily obstructed, picked off or delegitimized by opponents and lobbyists." Although these may be some side benefits of having a clear purpose to frame one's actions, they should not be the primary intent.

Friedman has actually roughed out a good starting point for organizing the thinking in Obama's national plan. Its purpose (depicted on the left in the illustration), the broad brush strokes of fairly high level objectives (in the mid section), and a general reference to tactical actions suggested to achieve the objectives (depicted on the right).

This outline should be taken a step further. The key would be to weight the objectives (those in the middle). Many people would argue that "All are needed. They are all important." This is not disputed. All objectives are on the list because of this very truth...they are all needed. Health care, energy independence, education, infrastructure, national competitiveness. However, there is still a relative priority, a relative importance to undertaking improvements to them. Determination of this relative importance comes by comparative analysis of each against all others, in terms of the context and additionally considering in that comparison the current known status of each as well as the time frame of the plan.

Once relative priority of the objectives is defined, the next step is to assess the more tactical actions being suggested against all objectives. Typically, one action will have been developed in terms of one objective. However, an action could serve multiple objectives. The critical nature of any action is determined by its influence upon supporting the achievement of more than one objective, factoring in the relative importance of each of those objectives. It is the cumulative merit that makes some actions those that are the "king pins" of one's plan.

Most persons might think that this type of prioritization work would take days. It doesn't. It can be done in hours. Others will argue that politics will never allow this to work. One can understand the frustration of Senator Evan Bayh leading to his recent resignation. The key is of course, to have a willingness by a group to commit that time (hours), to be open for reasonable discussion, and to be respectful of others' thoughts. We have seen the most divided groups find common ground, and elevate their work because of their ability to serve a greater purpose. Agreement on purpose is the beginning of the execution of a plan in which everyone is functioning as a team, which is why having such a statement is vital.

Pyrrhic solutions

noreply@blogger.com (C. A. Burch) — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:01:00 +0000

The cost of bad behavior
For the past month, I confess that life, as depicted by the news, began to feel too much as if it were "looping." The subjects and even the actions seemed all too familiar: bankers' bonuses, stalled health care "reform," natural disasters with delays in help arriving, partisan politics as usual, even debates over multi-millionaire TV talk show hosts. The formulaic daily dose of greed, politics, and pain, "offset" by one "feel-good" story a night, was almost too much.

It is difficult to listen to all the pundits' "interpretations" of what everything means, especially when such interpretations rarely get to the heart of the matter. A colleague of mine once told me how she had a boss who would continually say (after she had commented on something in a meeting), "What Sandra means is..." Finally, she turned to the group and said, "No, what Sandra meant was..." (Yes, she left the job shortly thereafter.) I wonder that the news media, speaking to the public, does not see that they are interpreting the public to the public? We don't need to be told what we are feeling. And there isn't just one set of feelings that the nation collectively feels. A poll that determines who is simply for or against an action or person does not reveal the motivations or the feelings around that judgment.

The recent winning of a Republican Senate seat in Massachusetts became a boon to all sorts of interpretations, one of which centered on "why the American public is angry." As if there is but one tangible or tactical "reason," such as "Obama should be focusing more on job creation." [A simple test of the validity of this singular conclusion: How does one explain the large number of employed persons that are angry? How many persons with jobs have put job creation at the top of their lists of priorities?]

For some of us, anger is not as much about the surface issues, as it is about how those issues are being handled in terms of behavior. We have watched an enormous waste of time and money by our so-called representatives, in accomplishing nothing. We have watched our hard earned dollars be given to those who have no compunction about taking from us, but not giving back. Issues themselves (such as health care reform) are overshadowed because of manipulation by some, and the weakness of others in pushing back against such manipulation, with at least a reprimand. Nor does it sit well when attitudes are clearly dismissive of the public's intelligence (yes, there is always the "low end of a bell curve," but even at that end no one wants to be belittled). No one likes to be told that they can be "sold" (in a PR sense) something they are being forced to buy.

Defining issues, prioritizing them and seeking tangible solutions are all important. It is behavior during the process of finding the solution that becomes more important. Courtesy. Respect. Civility. Any decision that involves more than one person depends on these behavioral qualities. How one felt, how one was treated, will be remembered long after a problem has been resolved.

Happy New Year!

noreply@blogger.com (C. A. Burch) — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 08:01:00 +0000

We're taking off for the holiday, and will be back posting more musings in January. The best to everyone. Warm holiday wishes. Have safe journeys, if traveling.

Disfiguring a Queen

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Longridge) — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 08:01:00 +0000

Many of us love large ocean liners. United Arab Emirates' real estate developer Nakheel purchased the venerable and long-serving Queen Elizabeth 2 from Cunard Line with the intention of creating a "stationary hotel" in Dubai. The original Queen Mary was converted in such a manner and now rests in Long Beach, California.

For those wishing to experience some of the luxuries of a time gone by, this type of hotel with a nautical flavor definitely appeals. One can feel a part of the many who journeyed across oceans in this particular type of splendor. She looks like a ship, floats like a ship and really is a ship.

So why buy a ship, a true maritime icon, if one plans to lop off a critical piece of its distinctive appearance, (in this case, her majestic red funnel) and replace that with a "glass penthouse?" Other than for one nightly occupant to boast to his friends and colleagues that his personal wealth enables him to stay in "the most exclusive hotel room in Dubai," this dismembering move certainly will not attract other potential visitors to the ship. And for that "lucky" person who stays in a part of the ship that was never intended to be any aspect of its accommodation, just what is the point?
It is clear that criteria of attraction to this formerly great ship becoming a hotel simply have not been examined from the majority of potential customers' points of view:

Seeing and experiencing the ship just as she was in her glory.
"Cruising" with none of the dangers encountered at sea.
Being where so many celebrities and world-famous people have enjoyed themselves.
Being part of the thousands who walked the same companionways, sat in the same lounges, and dined in the same restaurants.
Having an experience that cannot be equated to anything a land hotel can offer.

Of course, these criteria will be in addition to experiencing the numerous luxuries found in land-based hotels.

The key comes in determining which are more important in the context of attraction to a maritime icon. It is perhaps the lack of knowledge of relative merit of these types of criteria from a customer viewpoint that has led to the proposed sad disfigurement of this particularly beautiful ship.

When leadership fails

noreply@blogger.com (C. A. Burch) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:01:00 +0000

No vision or decisive action

Anger continues to grow towards world leaders around the globe. We see it following so-called free elections. It surfaces at climate conventions. In piazzas in Italy. We feel it in our own living rooms as we sit and watch CSPAN cover an inept U.S. legislature. We see so-called representatives blatantly disregarding the desires of the majority of a population wishing to have better health care.

Suggestions for helping resolve the world climate crisis are nothing more than pathetic near-term solutions having inconsequential long-term effect, amounting to nothing more than "spin." With such puny measures, coupled with the arrogance of those arriving in their private limos and jets, there may not even be a "long-term" to worry about. The suggested half-measures of buying credits while allowing pollution, condones behavior known to be unacceptable, and favors the rich. Money is not going to turn down the world's thermostat. Money is not the cure. It is the problem. Businesses believe they will lose money if there are any measures of substance taken to resolve our climate issues.

And the anger over health care? Polls vary slightly, but all indicate that the majority of the U.S. population wants to have a "public option" for health insurance (but not a government-run system for health care delivery). The legislature does not appear to be listening. Seemingly willing only to serve the interests of the private insurance industry, they are constructing a nightmare of mandated coverage, policed by the government on that industry's behalf.

No proposed solution has directly dealt with the fact that the key reason most Americans lack insurance is because rates, set by this industry, are simply not affordable. Currently, neither premiums nor "shared costs" (those not covered after one's premiums are paid) are within the reach of those who are "uninsured." It is why they are uninsured. This seems obvious. However, in both House and Senate bills, suggested premiums, deductibles and uncovered amounts will be based on "industry input."

Amanda Knox may have done "suspect" cartwheels in a police station in Italy. But does anyone, other than Howard Dean, think that the insurance industry isn't doing a few cartwheels of its own at this point?

Climate and health care issues directly and deeply touch all world populations. Currently, there is too much focus on finding short term "solutions" and then "spinning" them to gain acceptance.

People are tired of platitudes and politics. We need someone to be bold and lead. Leadership does not mean sitting on top of the heap. Leadership is not positioning, or a photo-opportunity, or great individual press coverage. It is not throwing money at someone else and telling them to go solve their problems with it. It is impelling others, through both inspiration and action, through both articulated dreams and decisive deeds, to take actions themselves that align with the better vision for all.

Leadership must answer to the population it serves, be it national or global. To poorly paraphrase Nietzche: "To command is nothing, if no one obeys." A corollary: "To follow is nothing, if no one is leading."

Dreams, Downfalls and Redemption

noreply@blogger.com (C. A. Burch) — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:01:00 +0000

Planning for more than a wing and a prayer

It is said that, when loosely categorized, there are but seven plots in the world, which could be broken down into 100 or so sub plots. "News stories" of late might indicate we are obsessed with but one. "Rags-to-riches" and the much more lucrative variation (from the standpoint of tabloids), the "rags-to-riches-to-rags" theme.

Media coverage of sports figures and celebrities has succeeded in exploiting this theme. There appears to be an endless spectator market for celebrity carnage. It starts with first feeding the general population's need for hope. Then it transitions to tapping the more pernicious pangs of envy, envy of the very thing once loved. Think of Susan Boyle, and most recently, Tiger Woods.

In industry-specific magazines, there is often a similar approach to business coverage. Companies are well loved at their beginnings as the scrappy start ups who are making it big. In time, however, as they continue to succeed, their images change. The very term "big" shifts from one of admiration to one depicting everything that is believed to be wrong with being large (e.g., bureaucracy, inability to listen, believing one's own press, being out of touch with the customers). Think of depictions of Microsoft, Google, and Boeing over the years.

Today, Boeing's Dreamliner flew for the first time. (A beauty to be sure, reflected in classic wet Seattle runways.) The past few years' press coverage has dwelt on problems at Boeing, and the many delays associated with the Dreamliner. Now, we are told that this plane could change everything. Here is yet another rendition of the rags-riches theme: the rags-to-riches-to-rags-to-redemption variation. A number of commentators asked if this first flight would be big enough to overcome the negatives associated with the Boeing image of the past couple of years. It does feel as if we might witness the industrial version of Cinderella Man.

In a story, of course, the author chooses the plot, the starting point, the ending, and the duration of the story. The story's conclusion has been set before we even begin it.

An organization or company obviously wishes to write its own story. A good plan to drive towards a desired conclusion (vision) is the best one can do. If done successfully the story never ends. The plan is always recreated and extended, always envisioning the unknown, the future. A good strategy does not just deal with today's problems or options. It anticipates those of the future.

Anticipation can be reached through trends, and more powerfully through pure imagination, pure speculation. Assumptions about the future should be clearly documented. Confidence levels in the assumptions need to be indicated. Their relative importance to conducting one's business successfully ascertained. Any effect if one were to be wrong in the assumption should be anticipated. The combination of confidence levels, importance and downside effects provides a means to create cushions for critical future actions.

Although the public may devour a good rags-to-riches-to-rags story, the question is whether a company can survive being the protagonist of such a story. Good planning helps a company from becoming tabloid or industry-media fodder, avoiding heavy dependence on one item, one product, or one action to make a comeback. One cannot always have a successful Dreamliner first flight in one's pocket.

Economic Recession: Chicken or Egg?

noreply@blogger.com (C. A. Burch) — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:01:00 +0000

Which came first, global warming or the tsunami?

Thomas Friedman in the New York Times writes of the "two tsunamis" that have hit the U.S. economy: The Great Recession and what he terms "the Great Inflection." His article confirms the insight of my European economist colleague (whom I have mentioned in previous posts): over the long term, recessions and depressions make a country better, leaner, and more efficient.

This current difficult economic period is definitely "sweeping the past away." The technological advancements are less than a tsunami, however. Changes in technology have been evolving over decades. The rapid pace of technological changes has long since become accepted.

The economic depression, however, is the "tsunamic" catalyst that has turned more persons and businesses (those otherwise not inclined to embrace technology) to now grasp technology as if it were a life ring. Software and the internet have entered our world in a parallel to the mechanization of the industrial age. Many facets of doing business (labor, travel, hotel stays, car rentals, paper, pencils, bricks and mortar, etc.) are simply better done (or done without) using fairly mainstream technology at this point. There will be no turning back.

We are experiencing a final "clearing of the landscape." Rather than seeking to rebuild an old order, rather than clinging to the past, we must now move forward developing different ways to thrive in this brave new world.

When a frame of reference changes, actions we choose to pursue obviously will differ. Once a structure in which we must decide is confirmed, as is this new post-tsunami world, then we can move ahead with some confidence in our chosen actions. Instead of using the phrase "creation of jobs" with an emphasis on "jobs" (in which the vision of those jobs is based on the past), we need to shift emphasis to that of "creation." The types of work that will exist in the future have been redefined. The structure for jobs may not even be corporate. We may, in fact, have redefined the entire structure of business.

Business Greeting Cards: When they backfire

noreply@blogger.com (C. A. Burch) — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:01:00 +0000

Juxtaposition causing irony, or reversal of intention

There are a number of businesses or services that most of us would just rather avoid. Doctor, emergency plumber, auto body repair are a few examples. But we recognize the necessity of these businesses in our lives. We are grateful to those persons who have skills as well as kindness during terrible times. We think of these individuals with gratitude, from time to time, but this is typically not a seasonally-oriented fondness.

I just came back from my mailbox. Imagine getting a business Christmas card from the funeral service that handled the death of a family member that occurred in February? Did I really need to be reminded that someone who was here last Christmas, isn't here this Christmas? Of course, the card didn't literally say this. It contained the usual cheery and politically correct non-denominational "Seasons Greetings." It was signed by everyone at the funeral business (some probably hadn't even met me). Those who I did meet earlier in the year were good, kind people. I'm sure the intentions may have been good, but the effect ambushed me with sadness.

Some companies rule out sending business "holiday" cards due to costs. (But the industry persists. Just google it.) Businesses need to consider not only costs in terms of money, but the costs in terms of the reversal of intention.

'Tis the season to feel...um, guilty?

noreply@blogger.com (C. A. Burch) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 08:01:00 +0000

The Commercial Christmas -- leveraging guilt and obligation

Phil Donahue is credited with the remark "December 25th has become guilt and obligation." He is not alone in this opinion.

We have watched the "holiday season" evolve over time from being merely "days" of guilt and obligation to one spanning several months. This expanded duration certainly has the footprint of expert and subtle marketing...er, "building on proven success." Meet the commercial side of the holidays.

Of interest is the coupling of the two words "guilt" and "obligation."

Our clients know that the nuances of wording can ultimately have huge impact over one's choices. So, it is worth examining more closely the interrelationship of these two words. If one were asked "Is it worse to feel guilty or to feel obligated," would the person answering feel a difference? Is one better or worse than the other? If the question were "Is it worse to be guilty, or to be obligated?" is the sense of difference in the words clearer? When using words as the basis for some judgment or actions, finding their emotional "tenor" can be important.

It is apparent that "obligation" itself is not a "bad" thing. There is a certain tone to it that indicates being bound, either morally or legally. "Guilt," however, does not carry the same flavor, but rather suggests a feeling of having committed a wrong, or having failed.

No one likes to feel guilty. So, if marketeers play too much with strategies that make persons feel guilty, they are playing with fire, and are definitely courting backlash. Marketeers have also tainted the more noble aspects of "obligation." They have in fact created a mundane, dislikable composite, i.e. "guilty obligation." Or "guilting into obligation."

A simple definition might begin to set things right. The word "gift." Its definition is "a thing given willingly to someone without payment." Assuaging guilt is a form of payment. Seeking relief of an obligation, repaying an obligation. These are not the "giving" of "gifts." If objects are purchased with these factors as the motivation, those things serve commercial purposes only. The spirit, soul or heart of either persons or the holiday itself are overlooked. Definitions help find one's true purpose. 'Tis the season to be wary...

Amanda Knox: "Americanism" on Trial?

noreply@blogger.com (C. A. Burch) — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:01:00 +0000

Arrogance Abroad

Was Amanda Knox guilty? Was Amanda Knox innocent?

Maria Cantwell, the U.S. Senator from Amanda Knox's home state of Washington, questions the justice system of another country and declares that "anti-Americanism" may have been the cause of the guilty verdict.

The problem, as with many decisions or judgments, is in understanding the definitions of terms, as well as how a differing venue can change them. Americanism. Acceptability.

The American-produced post-verdict analyses of Amanda Knox's trial, show Americans saying "I look at her, and it could have been me." The truth is that the rest of the world could easily be saying, with disdain, "We look at her, and we see 'typical Americans abroad.'"

Europeans have told me that many Americans seem to think of Europe as just another "theme park." A "playground" into which Americans bring their vulgar behavior, coupled with disdain for others' culture and values. Attitudinal issues are not limited to Europe alone. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times has accurately described the U.S. view of Middle Eastern countries purely as "a gas station," overlooking those countries' cultural contributions to humanity or their potential as a highly educated work force.

Before we self-righteously declare "anti-Americanism" as some sort of defense, we need to look at ourselves from others' points of view. Is the trial of Amanda Knox revealing something about ourselves for which we may feel guilt? and for which we may actually feel some shame?

For many Americans, Knox's actions (despite the acknowledged illegality even in the U.S. of smoking dope) apparently seem "normal" or "acceptable." The assumption by Americans that other cultures would adopt an American definition of "normality" or "acceptability" reflects yet an additional deficient element of "Americanism" -- a parochial world view. Any expectation that the world should play by our rules and our values (and then crying foul when it does not) is either the most basic form of stupidity or arrogance. The crux of the matter is not whether Amanda Knox's actions are accepted at home, rather it is whether her actions were "acceptable" in her host country.

Any citizen of any country is an ambassador of their home country when abroad, in most cases traveling without diplomatic immunity. Any actions in which a person engages contribute to the image of one's home country. The collective image that evolves over time, is and will be used by others as a frame of reference for judgment. Foreigners in the U.S. are equally stereotyped by the actions of their compatriots. Have we not seen judgment of a culture be based solely on a person from that culture whom one has met or perhaps has seen as depicted only in films? Can we, ourselves, unequivocally state that such a "framework" or "profile" of a culture has not influenced a judgment of an individual in our system of justice?

As I traveled abroad, well before Amanda Knox, I often was received in terms of a stereotype of "American women," which at the time assumed promiscuity and wealth. The saga of Amanda Knox has only contributed to that image. She is guilty, even if not of other crimes, certainly in terms of contributing to that repulsive stereotype of all women in our nation. In this she is certainly not alone: films and music videos continue to project an image of American female promiscuity.

The "Americanism" of smoking dope and having casual extramarital sex are not values that all Americans support. Do we think that any person, anywhere, would wish their children to adopt these behaviors? Yet, the American "entertainment" industry continues to export that image as being representative of "American values." "Freedom" has been redefined in terms of self-centeredness and self-gratification, without the need for responsibility for the effects of one's actions.

If that image is "Americanism," then yes, I myself feel a sentiment of "anti-Americanism." Knox is a product of a culture that allowed her to believe in the acceptability of such behavior. She has thereby contributed to a depiction of Americans that is going to make them misunderstood before they even speak or act for years and years. Who is guilty? Perhaps Amanda. But the fault, dear Brutus, lies not just in Amanda, but in ourselves.

Health Care Reform: Political Positioning over Principles

noreply@blogger.com (C. A. Burch) — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 08:01:00 +0000

Are our representatives really listening?

It seems we are not going to see the end of this health care debate for a long, long, time. Most offensive is that the politics of the issues have become more visible, and seemingly more important, than the principles that should, in fact, be guiding the reform.

The New York Times hits the nail on the head when it states "In a day of desultory debate..." Desultory. Yes, the very heart of the problem. Without plan or purpose. Except, of course, political gain for one side or the other. Good decisions cannot be reached without clear, agreed upon, purpose.

Health care reform. The guiding criteria that our elected officials should be using to frame such reform still remain unstated or they lack affirmation. What is the definition of health care -- not as an industry that insures, but as a service to this nation's citizens? Is health care a right of these citizens? Should it be available to all, or only to some?

Instead of framing this reform in terms of these key elements, the "issue" of health care reform is being framed in terms of personal political gain: Make a name for oneself. Win for one's party. Keep "the other guys" from making progress. Manipulate and "pitch" to constituencies to ensure an election "win" in the future. Leverage the "issue du jour" in one's own favor.

Is this "debate" for the good of the people? No. We can be but assured that it is for political gain.

Political primping and positioning are fomenting a feeling of resentment in the popular base, which our representatives should by now realize is the constituency most widely and directly affected. This base is neither being represented nor heard by those who are "debating." Contacting elected representatives invariably results in electronic platitudes and form letters stating unwavering pre-set positions, which in turn indicate that opinions and comments are basically unheard.

Statements continue to be made about "affordability" and, in the same breath, those remarks are linked to others such as "no major increase in premiums will be made for the overwhelming majority of Americans who already have insurance."

Have our representatives completely swept under the rug the uninsured Americans, along with the reason for their being uninsured -- premiums that are, and have been, too high, i.e. beyond the range of "affordability?"

It is imperative that our representatives step out of their own shoes. Most Americans do not have the ability to pay the same premiums or deductibles that these representatives encounter in their lives. The insular world of Representatives and Senators, with salaries of $174,000 per year (with an annual cost of living increase) cannot be the basis of understanding the angst of someone with a minimum wage job earning $7.25/hour ($15,000 per year), who hears of "continued levels" of existing already out-of-range premiums or of $5,000/year deductibles. These remarks reveal that the lawmakers are completely out-of-touch with reality.

For a representative, it must be considerably easier, if not "more important," to "listen" to those entities who make big contributions to one's campaign. However, individuals in this society, whether they make millions or make peanuts, should probably take heart in knowing that corporations may "vote" only with their money. The hope here is that ballots on election day, cast by individuals, will remain the only ones that can return an elected official to their seat.

Everything is relative

noreply@blogger.com (C. A. Burch) — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 08:01:00 +0000

A lesson from youthful West Point faces

As I watched President Obama's speech to the assemblage at West Point, I looked at the faces of the cadets. So young, I thought. So very, very young. So much being put on their shoulders. So much to ask of them at such a young age.

During the Vietnam War a different set of equally young faces and shoulders, those of my peers, also had much placed on them as they, too, left for a war in a distant country. From the vantage point of youth, however, one does not sense being so young. And perhaps, when one is going to war, not noticing one's own youth is a blessing.

The odd thing about getting older, as my father used to tell me, is that it is only the body that ages. One continues to feel eighteen inside, each morning when one awakes. Except that a certain breadth of experience provides a type of stability or equanimity to the thinking of that eighteen-year-old deep inside. I am now beginning to experience first hand this insight that my father tried to pass casually to me decades ago.

All this has underscored a key principle in bringing groups to consensus, and finding the unity of which the President spoke. We need to understand varying perspectives in terms of their "context" or vantage point -- those that come from differing backgrounds, or from diverse cultures or experiences, or the differing views that are simply due to age.

If the context, or viewpoint, changes, the criteria by which we judge differs. Context sets the framework for determining viability, or even just acceptability, in our minds.

One simply views life and one's choices differently, when one's position in it changes. It is why a health decision could differ for the same person for the same disease when that person is forty vs. when the same person is ninety-six. Why an item that costs the same can seem expensive or inexpensive depending on one's income. It is why a view of war can change when the soldier is oneself, or is one's child. All perspectives are valid. Common understanding of a "true" picture, and from that the glimmer of potential unity, comes from seeing the same object from all viewpoints.

Gatecrashers: What's Missing in Your Life?

noreply@blogger.com (C. A. Burch) — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:01:00 +0000

Many lessons from a search to suppress emptiness

There seems to be a desperate hunt on in America for the missing piece in one's life. Money. Fame. Power. A reality show. Examples recently have included Balloon Boy and in her own way, Sarah Palin.

The latest manifestation of this pitiable desperation came in the form of more seekers of their "15-minutes of fame" -- the White House state dinner gatecrashers. Was this couple not happy with their Virginia spread of land, their vineyard, their millions? each other? Apparently not. A lesson to remind us that contentment and happiness are an internal journey.

What is the good news in all of this brouhaha about failed security? This is an opportunity for the Secret Service to improve. Let us hope they heed the knowledge of Dr. Deming. Deming demonstrated that multiple inspections in a row in any process will actually have the reverse effect than the one intended. Quality suffers more with more inspections. Each "first" inspector assumes that if he/she fails, then other inspectors to follow will catch any error made.

Those "downstream" in the process take comfort in the fact that they are in effect redundant, and that someone else has already checked, or will check again. All inspectors, therefore, do a less than optimal job at inspecting.

The knee-jerk reaction at the time of a system "failure" when it is related to "inspection," is to add yet another "inspection." This only increases the potential for a future failure. It may seem counter-intuitive, but the aim should be to reduce numbers of inspections or checkpoints in a process.

Stress will increase on the inspector who is the only inspector in a process. But, stress can be managed. (One could change out an inspector at the inspection point more frequently, or automate some methods of "inspection.")

In designing or re-designing a process as a part of a greater system, each step must be designed specifically in light of the greater purpose of that singular process, not the purpose of some other process. (Multi-tasking is overly rated as being a good thing. How well is each specific task performed when doing many at once?)

A system itself can have several checkpoints. However, each checkpoint should reside in a different process in that system, and must be acknowledged as not checking the work of another process. One process might relate to ascertaining eligibility (do you have an invitation?), another to security (ascertaining presence of weapons), another to appropriateness of attire and demeanor, etc. It is the singular responsibility for the action that heightens the quality of that action.

Deming also stated that faults are always in the process, and that humans in the process are subject to the faults of the process design. In the decisions that lie ahead for the Secret Service, let us hope they focus on process, and not on the easy and potentially more dangerous path of blame in their "full review."

Black, Black Friday

noreply@blogger.com (C. A. Burch) — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:01:00 +0000

The business of making a nothing day into something "special"

Today is "Black Friday." Once an ordinary day, business decided it was "an opportunity." It was bestowed with a special name, and a good deal of hype. ("Cyber Monday" is another day recently given a business makeover.) "Black Friday"-- the moniker alone drives me crazy. "Black" is not an adjective that conjures up joy or happiness. The are but few applications, outside the world of accounting, when "black" is considered "good." I'm old enough to remember when the term "Black Friday" meant a financial disaster on the stock market. Yet, the implication is that businesses are going to financially move into the black -- reportedly by selling "cheap goods cheaply." It is so blatantly commercial. It truly is "black" in my mind. The worst sort of "black."

Also disturbing is that this trumped up shopping frenzy is becoming even bigger than the holiday of Thanksgiving, which itself used to be centered on "thanks giving," and was not synonymous with a day to gorge oneself. The focus on two days of excessive consumption speaks volumes. And our nation, according to most news stories and polls, will apparently be in peril if we don't consume enough!! (We'll be hearing how "well" the country is on the news tonight when the "numbers are in.")

Perhaps the slowdown in the economy is giving us a chance to take stock of what we really value. All the stuff in the world is not going to bring happiness.

If each of us were to list the attributes of a perfect holiday, how many of us would list the need to feel obligated to spend money? Must we be timed as to when we wish to be generous? as to when we wish to say we love someone or are thinking of them? ("Tis the season!" -- It seems more a command to "Buy now!")

In Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, we come to know the "un-birthday." There is something extraordinarily special when one receives a gift that comes out of the blue, that has not been purchased due to some either overt or subliminal sense of obligation. How delightful is the gift that has been purchased or created and given free from commercial pressures!

In the Looking Glass world everything is "backwards." In reality, I think this economic slowdown is showing us that things are backwards on this side of the mirror.

Political Polls and Popularity

noreply@blogger.com (C. A. Burch) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:01:00 +0000

Chasing the numbers vs. doing the job

My hat is off to David Axelrod for stating that the current administration won't be worrying about polls re Obama's popularity. Many cable news pundits are saying ignoring the numbers shows "lack of political savvy." Consider, however, how many Americans would say they admire "politicians?" Most people would prefer seeing some positive tangible results after an election. They want to see a job get done. It is annoying to elect someone who then cares more about focusing on re-election than on the job they were elected to do. Take heed, Congress.

The desire to prove worth through attaining position, as opposed to having our deeds create value (even if at some personal expense) permeates our culture. How often do persons in business seem more worried about advancement to a subsequent job (on a upwardly mobile "career path"), than in accomplishing positive substantive change in the job that they are in? What is the typical description of these types? "Political." This word has evolved to become anything but a positive adjective.

Numbers do have value, in their place. They can reflect the relative merit of choices under consideration. They can assess the results of actions, and allow one to steer a better course. Yet, to chase numbers in and of themselves is not wise. The key is to know when and which numbers will help you toward a goal, and which will distract you from that purpose. One's purpose, of course, must be more than something self-serving. Thank you, Mr. President! And you, too, Mr. Axelrod.

Senate Health Bill

noreply@blogger.com (C. A. Burch) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:01:00 +0000

House reprise, variations and all without needed clarity

On Friday, I downloaded the Senate's 2,000+ page version of their "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," and began reading. As with the House's reform bill, key aspects of its structure make it difficult for various constituencies to ascertain effects on them of the proposed system.

Bureaucracy is in evidence from page one, literally. I actually downloaded the Bill twice because, after the first download, it seemed a completely unrelated bill was somehow substituted. The confusion stems from the apparent need to utilize an existing totally unrelated bill (about first-time homebuyers for members of the Armed Forces) as a "work around" to get the actual health care reform bill onto the floor of the Senate. So, the unrelated bill was used, striking out the bulk of its contents, and substituting in their place the terms for the health care reform bill. It is tough to admit that for such critical legislation our current system of government required a "work around" from the get go. Not an auspicious start.

For the curious, here is that beginning on page one:

"IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES—111th Cong., 1st Sess.

H. R. 3590

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes.

Referred to the Committee on _________________ and ordered to be printed

Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed

AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE intended to be proposed by Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. DODD, and Mr. HARKIN) _________________

Viz:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the 'Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act'. "

In general, much of the Senate's bill contains the same annoying legalese, lack of page numbering and lack of clarifying footers that are in the House's bill. There are references and substitutions of fragments of other legislation without full context. If one enjoys reading IRS instructions for doing taxes, one will have the same pleasure in reading this legislation. As with taxes, if this system goes forward, I'm sure an entire industry will evolve to handle explanations, exceptions, processing claims, and requesting subsidies under this new system (begging the question: how will someone afford this help if one actually qualifies for a subsidy?).

The bill mentions implementing a system for rebates when an insurer reports excess profits. Rebates! A system that has scammed many Americans, enough to make the 5 o-clock news on several occasions. Businesses have made huge profits through the rebate system. Does anyone believe this purchasing ploy would not be here today if it weren't profitable? What is our comfort level, our trust in an industry's reporting system, when we know it would not serve their profit motive?

Reports. This bill has extensive reporting requirements of not only insurers, but of care providers. One wonders who will do all the report preparation as well as the reading of these reports. Existing personnel? Or additional hires? All this reporting will surely not be done without expense. And who is going to bear the burden of that expense? (Directly or indirectly.) Perhaps we can take heart in that more jobs will be created, however tedious and time consuming they may be. And, we may experience first hand the expression "death by a thousand paper cuts."

There are references to platinum, gold, silver, bronze and yet another plan that does not even get a "medal" rating. Perhaps, as my father used to say, it won't be worth "a plug nickel." More disturbing than this built-in class structure for care, we, as individuals, cannot determine where we might be in this picture or how we will navigate through the system. One cannot specifically determine what will be available, nor what it will cost. Or, if the full system will become for each of us (depending on our geographic location) simply irrelevant. One might live potentially in a State that could refuse to have an "insurance exchange." Yet, the one thing we can be sure of is that participation will be mandated or we shall be penalized.

As one reads this bill, one experiences a jarring reminder that those who are legislating on our behalf have lived in a privileged and moneyed world. There is reference to $2,000 and $8,000 deductibles, as if average Americans would deem this type of yearly expenditure "reasonable" in addition to whatever are "affordable" premiums. Again, "affordability" in the bill is something that will be determined based on "reviews." The Senate's bill, indicates those who are older can "only" be charged 3 times what a younger person is charged. (The House's bill, as you may recall, "limited" this ratio to 2 times.) The lack of definition of what the lower amount would be limited to, however, leaves these ratios on equally nebulous and dangerous footing.

The Senate bill, as with the House's, contains details at a highly specific level for many areas, but conspicuous by their absence are specifics on the details most critical to the average American. It does not allow an individual to determine, even as an estimate, "What will this cost me?" and "What will I get for that?"

Our clients know that before priorities are set or decisions made, it is imperative that specific understanding be gained about factors or elements of a decision. Terms, such as "affordable," must be clarified specifically so that all understand and agree with its definition. Clarifications must go further to ensure that "those who are not in the room" are also able to understand. "Reasonable" must be defined in terms that are clear, either through references that are clearly understood, or by an example.

Without such explication, there will always be an open invitation for subsequent "interpretation." The arguments that then ensue are guaranteed. If we could only be assured that this needed clarity would be determined during the three weeks of expected debate in the Senate! Ah, but this is unlikely. In politics, vagueness is a means of protection. For politicians, not for the people served. Obscurity is introduced to "reach agreement across the aisle." A most dangerous maneuver. Vagueness is not a solution. My Irish friends often quote a saying that when one tries to sit on two stools, one falls in between.

Kraft-ing Sweet Dreams from the 1800s

noreply@blogger.com (C. A. Burch) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:01:00 +0000

What could bar success?

In the news is the potential acquisition of Cadbury, England's famous chocolatier, by Kraft (with possible alternative offers by Hershey and Italy's Ferrero). This acquisition provides a classic example of the need to examine what is at stake beyond merely the production of a product and how it is marketed.

There is no question that the name Cadbury, and the dreams that started at Bournville in the mid 1800s, resonate with more people than those who are just lovers of chocolate. The Cadbury philosophy differentiated a business and was integral to its product's becoming iconic.

It is not unusual during such a purchase that focus turns to branding and the potential fallout of clashing cultures. Most people foretold that when Schweppes entered the Cadbury picture in the late 1960s, the business would be more focused on pure business than the dreams of its founder. Yet the components that are behind the iconic status of the Cadbury brand cannot be completely ignored. It is more than the taste of chocolate that is behind that name.

At the time any acquisition decision is made, multiple factors are at play. All participants need to understand the relative importance that image has alongside any other factors in the judgment.

A corporate suitor may be appealing for a number of differing reasons:

Brings financial strength
Brings management expertise
Brings a cache in terms of image
Opens up new market segments
Has a culture supportive of the original founder's purpose

Those statements are all from the perspective of the party being bought. The potential acquiring entity might have similar, additional and/or differing desires that it hopes to gain by an acquisition. They should also be elicited and weighted.

There are also concerns that each party will have about a merger or acquisition, and those concerns need to be uncovered and weighted, in terms of potential harm were they to occur, and in terms of probability of occurrence.

It is then, that the various potential corporate combinations can best be viewed. Understanding each party's relative weighting of their own desires and concerns, along with each merged entity's collective ranking against both, would lead to the most robust final decision as to which is the "best" combination.

This exercise would benefit not only the party being acquired. Any party doing an acquisition, who may also have other targeted acquisitions, would have a much more robust roster of potential purchases. That buyer would also clearly know, and be able to plan for, the strengths and weaknesses of any particular acquisition. More importantly, they would know that actions were being properly focused, based on relative importance.

Palin and Balloon Boy

noreply@blogger.com (C. A. Burch) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:01:00 +0000

16 minutes of "fame"?

At times one worries that one can merely become a contributor to another's "15 minutes of fame (infamy)" by commenting upon whatever led to that infamy. Where is the demarcation line between being horrified at the self-promotion of a Balloon Boy & Family and becoming part of their further promotion? That, of course, is the "producing genius" behind reality TV. The more horrific something is, the larger is the audience that it attracts.

Given that, the decision to watch Sarah Palin on Oprah was difficult. Was it important that I watch a potential 2012 political candidate spread out a "wish I coulda thoughta this earlier" re-write of history? Or was I merely contributing to the ratings for the show? To watch, or not to watch? That was the question.

In this era of "makeovers" and "reality TV," Palin criticized McCain campaign handlers for her "makeover." An ironic criticism, given that her book tour and promotional interviews are part of yet another makeover. This time a makeover of history. Was it this that bothered me?

During her interview with Barbara Walters, Palin stated that her family seemed to be becoming a "reality show." (Oddly, this was the aim of Balloon Boy's father.) Demurely feigned disparagement of this idea (or similar ones) might actually hide delight. During her interview with Barbara Walters, Palin held the overtly happy view that Letterman will only increase her book sales by his jokes. Was it my being so easily lured into this hype that bothered me?

The Balloon Boy saga and Palin's book are both about the spotlight, making money, and about the potential that money would allow for achieving something else. Content in the Palin book is secondary to that end, which is why it doesn't matter if it is true or not. The controversy and the hype about the book matter more. Center stage is better than being in the wings.

Just as the staged loss/recovery of Balloon Boy was only a means to an end, so the debate around this book serves another greater aspiration. A clear purpose ensures a greater chance of success. Knowing another's purpose makes their actions easier to understand.

What is the ultimate aim of Palin's book? It has less to do with "setting things straight," or what is past. It is a piece of a strategy that is focused most clearly towards the future. Just think about all the things that Sarah Palin would like to "make over," given the money and power that she might gain from sales of the book.

Keeping in sight these potential end "realities" will determine whether one purchases the book, or gets in line to read one of the many library copies already purchased. And remember, those purchasing will not even have to read it to have served the greater purpose. Just as my watching Palin on Oprah already contributed to that show's ratings. 16 minutes of fame, and counting...

Reaching Agreement without Homogenization

noreply@blogger.com (C. A. Burch) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:01:00 +0000

Valuing differences
Growing up in a highly rural area of a territory of the U.S., I'm old enough to remember when homogenization and pasteurization of milk were introduced at our local dairy. Somehow we were led to believe that both processes made milk "better" for us. I didn't realize for many years, that while pasteurization was the health-related process, homogenization was a cosmetic food "make over." We fervently believed in "Grade A Homogenized." We falsely assumed that both processes were irrevocably intertwined in producing the final "acceptable" product.

Over time, the word "homogenization" has come to evoke conformity, being insipid and mediocre, and with the overall "bland-ing" of America. Ironically, in a nation in which individualism is touted as a hallmark, we have slowly become populated with uniform strip malls dotted with fast food chains and "big box" franchises. One can move 3,000 miles and feel one is still in Anywhere, U.S.A. This surface conformity cannot disguise significant underlying differences of opinions. For many, the sense of a loss of individuality and the need to reaffirm it can surface at any time.

In our work supporting decision-making, we often see the combination of a strong desire to maintain separateness as an expression of individuality even when a group has acknowledged the need to reach agreement. Often voiced is a fear that a decision will become "homogenized." Fear that the result will be a bland choice, because the decision was made while "trying to satisfy everybody."

It is possible to find common ground, or reach agreement at a higher level, while at the same time seeking out and being respectful of differences. Differences between us should not be masked, but unveiled. Whether the subject is health care, going to war, choosing financial institutions to support or not, our differences when voiced are critical to finding better answers to our problems. Our individual thoughts, when weighed and accounted for in terms of what is important to each of us, will surface more robust solutions than those developed from just one perspective.

A decision reached through consensus is not one that is homogenized. A team of mature individuals soon recognizes that one should not strive to achieve individualism through stubborn, singular, inflexible disagreement, a sort of one-dimensional thinking. Each voice, as one facet in an approach, contributes by helping produce a multi-dimensional solution.

Poets and Inventors

noreply@blogger.com (C. A. Burch) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:01:00 +0000

Still life with art

Some comments against the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)'s support of the arts -- a recent subject of Seattle's Jim Tune's arts blog -- were painful to read. Those commenting seemed unaware of the many documented studies showing the interplay between the arts (as a form of creativity, expression, listening, observing, inspiration, or understanding of what it is to be human) and what those commenting were implying was "life."

Specific comments ranged from "The NEA should be removed from the National Budget... It should not be a function of our government." to "Fund education! We need people with practical, productive skills that this country can really use."

There is an acknowledged positive effect of involvement in the arts on students' higher overall academic achievements. Arts are critical in learning to listen, observe, write, think, imagine, invent and create. The ultimate selected "medium" for utilizing these skills in one's life can be in the arts themselves, or the sciences. Yes, there is a "spillover" effect of honing these skills into other academic pursuits.

Ironically, on the same day that I read these anti-art comments, Russia celebrated the 90th birthday of Mikhail Kalishnikov. An interesting man, who confessed that as a young man he only wished to be a poet. However, he deemed himself a "bad poet," so he gave up on writing and went on to invent the AK-47. Thereby, in exemplary fashion, pursuing the "practical and productive."

The juxtaposition of articles seemed so much more than just serendipitous! A key example of a creative and inventive mind.

At its founding, our government retained the right to use tax dollars to wage war. It also made a critical decision -- to use its powers and scope its responsibilities to support aspects of life that those wars defend:

"...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

The arts are most definitely a part of our "Blessings of Liberty." And "securing" them does not just mean at the point of a gun. And, for those still having doubts, who knows whether or not some would-be-poet will become our next great inventor, or even a general?

Getting the purpose right...

noreply@blogger.com (C. A. Burch) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:01:00 +0000

Or self-destruction over "whose" direction

Paul Krugman in the New York Times reports on the shift from political parties themselves, to a support base outside the political officialdom of the party of "celebrity" agents. This move plays to extremist beliefs in our society.

"Real power in the party rests, instead, with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (who at this point is more a media figure than a conventional politician). Because these people aren’t interested in actually governing, they feed the base’s frenzy instead of trying to curb or channel it."

The "right" undoubtedly also believes that the "left" is employing the same techniques. For those in the "middle," frustrations continue to grow as the deep divisions in this country (cited as Krugman points out, decades before), appear likely to continue.

Divisions are sustained, as he indicates, by extremist viewpoints. Unfortunately extremism, by its nature, appeals more to the media ("right" or "left") than anything moderate. The result is that those in the "middle" are besieged by demands for partisanship. Take a stand...a "side." "What are you, some sort of 'leftist?'" "You sound like a socialist!" "Are you a right-wing Republican, for goodness' sake?" Ideas are not heard until they are first pigeon-holed. Opinions that might, by issue, find a home in "one camp" or the other cannot be judged without first being labeled.

The results of this divisiveness for the majority of moderate citizens is an increasing sense of futility. Each "side" enfolds its beliefs in a ballooning self-righteousness. It appears that we are unable to work together to achieve a greater common purpose. We are to be forever mired in the lesser purpose of having some "side" win at all costs thereby entitling the winner to force "the other side" into compliance with its own beliefs.

Is this the nature of a two party system? Will it always be about who is in charge? Who wins? Is it impossible for two sides (whether or not elected officials), once an election is concluded, to put aside "winning the next election" to focus collectively on achieving a greater purpose?

If the purpose of each "side" cannot be elevated to a higher common purpose, we can be assured that decades from now, another journalist will be quoting Krugman's columns, just as he quotes the work of Richard Hofstadter from 1964.

Decisions are typically fought at the level of details. Conflict resolution must first focus on achievement of agreement at a higher level, and then work from that point into the details, exploring alternatives in the context of that agreed-upon greater purpose. Achieving movement in a common direction always depends on collectively seeing value in a destination.

We can always throw up our hands and say that the two-party system is and shall always remain diametrically opposed. That there is no common destination. We can continue to demonize others who have ideas and beliefs that differ from ours. We can insist that we will always be headed in opposite directions, refusing to even attempt common exploration of alternatives.

If we truly believe all of that, and we truly believe that we can never see a common purpose, then we need to accept that we are not one country, but two. We need to then accept that an internal war will always be taking place in which, during any given administration, one country will "occupy" and "enslave" the other to its beliefs. The question is, is this then the type of country we wish to have? Or, is there any hope that we are willing to change this picture of extremism?

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." The author, of course, appears right there on the U.S. penny. Instead of promoting self-righteous beliefs, perhaps it is time to ask "Penny for your thoughts?"

Health Insurance Exchange

noreply@blogger.com (C. A. Burch) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:01:00 +0000

Who in fact has taken over whom?

The House health care reform bill...i.e., the insurance reform bill... passed by a slim margin of 5, with 39 Democrats apparently realizing "being a Democrat" is not the sole reason to vote for a bill. There is some comfort in seeing that "dissent." Decisions should not be made solely for one reason, and despite politics, the need to "close ranks" on a vote is not a criteria of the decision itself.

Since the Bill has now passed, a review of some pertinent parameters of direct costs for the average citizen might be enlightening:

Insurance coverage will be mandatory, and the penalty for not having insurance, will be 2.5% of adjusted gross income.

If one does obligingly go along with the mandatory purchase of health insurance, then the following costs will be encountered by an individual:

"Cost sharing" to be "capped" at $5,000/year (premiums not included). Let's hope we can schedule our illnesses to fall entirely within one year.

A $1,500 deductible/year (which, so generously, will go towards the $5K "cost sharing"). We should be grateful that in addition to premiums, we'll still be paying up to "only" $1,500 before what we paid for with the premiums kicks in.

And, yes, what of the premiums? From a citizen's point of view, premiums have been one of the major roadblocks to acquiring health insurance. In the Bill, the dollar amount remains unspecified. The terms for premiums are:

that they do not count towards the capped "cost sharing"
they can increase as the insured person's age increases
that the highest premium charged is "restricted" to not be more than twice the lowest premium charge.

The Bill's direct wording is as follows:

(1) PREMIUM.—The monthly premium charged to eligible individuals for coverage under the program (A) may vary by age so long as the ratio of the highest such premium to the lowest such premium does not exceed the ratio of 2 to 1; (B) shall be set at a level that does not exceed 125 percent of the prevailing standard rate for comparable coverage in the individual market; and (C) shall be adjusted for geographic variation in costs. Health insurance issuers shall provide such information as the Secretary may require to determine prevailing standard rates under this paragraph.

Unseemly low end premiums will allow even more onerous premiums for those aging, but not yet on Medicare. Yet we are to take comfort in that the rates for the low end will be set by information from none other than the insurance industry. They "will provide information... to determine prevailing standard rates."

This would all be bad enough, if we were free to choose not to participate in such a scheme. But, now, the industry will additionally have the government providing enforcement on their behalf through the IRS.

Reports of "Kill the Bill" rallies indicated that most of those marchers believed that the government was "taking over health care." This evidences a most skillful manipulation. More apparent is that it is the insurance industry that has taken control over health care, even more so than they enjoy today. The industry has secured a market, and through law, is binding the government into a role of being an enforcement agency for their interests.

The future could not be rosier for the insurance industry. Guaranteed premiums for 308 million citizens. High deductibles. Law enforcement at no charge. No private industry ever had it so good.

Many in Congress forgot that addressing the viewpoints and requirements of each constituency is necessary for support of any decision by those whom it will affect. They lost sight of their purpose.

Our "representatives" constructed a system that was driven by and favors the most powerful constituency, not the constituency that is most affected. The original intent of providing health care to all Americans, was exchanged for obtaining money from all citizens. Gives new meaning to the term "Health Insurance Exchange."

More from the health care reform front...

noreply@blogger.com (C. A. Burch) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:01:00 +0000

Good intentions, but serious consequences

In my continued perusal of the 1,990-page House health care bill, I have come upon an interesting exception to the mandatory purchase of insurance. It will become a rather nice loophole, or at least a good alternative if one cannot face the proposed $5,000 medical insurance "cost sharing" (after unspecified premiums, but including a $1,500 deductible) each year for individuals, and if one does not wish to pay the proposed 2.5% of adjusted gross income penalty for not having insurance.

"(5) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual (and any qualifying child residing with such individual) for any period if such individual has in effect an exemption which certifies that such individual is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section."

Cause-and-effect thinking is critical while making decisions. Simply asking "If we resolve this issue in this manner, what might happen?" It is hard to imagine such a test having been made before the above clause was made a part of the Bill.

What will happen when people "find" religion, and then later "lose" it at the time their health becomes critically endangered?

Is the government overstepping its scope by declaring which religions in the U.S. are considered "valid" religions? How would that designated list of "acceptable religions" sit with those who believe choice of faith and belief systems are the individual right of citizens in this country and do not necessarily require belonging to an "established" religion?

From a slightly different angle, there are other questions that arise:

If persons of any faith are still required to contribute to the public school system, even if they send their children to their own faith's system of schools, why should persons be exempt from a mandatory payment into a health system based on their religious belief? One can understand rejecting all forms of health care offered to one on religious grounds. However, just as one might refuse a public education, it would seem that the obligation to pay for the country's health system, as with education, should not be waived.

Cans of worms are being opened with some of the exemptions that are being included in this Bill, because while overly detailed focus has been put on some areas, the potential follow on effects in others have not been carefully anticipated.

Reform: House built on a weak foundation

noreply@blogger.com (C. A. Burch) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:01:00 +0000

Is health care a right?
In Monday's post, I wrote about the need for clarity and simplicity in the structure of any "document" that organizes elements of a decision. All decision-makers need to be able to quickly and readily access information, so that they can make an intelligent decision.

Perhaps of more importance, is reaching agreement on the objective of the decision that one hopes to achieve. Clarification of this ultimate objective must precede detailed descriptions of actions which may or may not help achieve that end.

Although the House Bill starts with the statement "To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes" this statement starts well, but ends poorly. The last clause obscures the purpose by referencing undefined purposes. The tiny little word "all" (in reference to "all Americans") is dwarfed by the other verbiage.

Fundamentally the question that must first be answered:
Is health care a right of citizens of the U.S.?

Secondly, if so, is this Act affirming that right?

Thirdly, if the second is true, why is anyone still speaking about "acceptable levels of uninsured, or underinsured" Americans?

There has been a good deal of drifting away from the original purpose. The criticism by some persons that this "reform" is more about insurance than about health care stems validly from the fact that most actions are now dealing with insurance (even the White House site defends this reform as "Health Insurance Reform"). This reform is not being framed in terms of "rights" to health care. The Act, itself, adopts a short name referencing "Affordability" but nothing about "Accessibility" in its title.

Affordability is but one factor in terms of Accessibility. Insurance is but a means to make health care accessible to some. Ironically, it is also a factor that has resulted in health care becoming inaccessible to others.

As the focus on "options" has shifted to types of insurance, we need to ask why. Investigators always say to "follow the money." Who benefits more from focusing on the ins and outs of insurance than in clarifying the rights of citizens?

A simple vote by every member of Congress to answer whether health care, not health insurance, is a right of a U.S. citizen or not is needed. Once we have the answer to that question, it would be infinitely easier to create a system relating to funding it, alternatives as to how it could be provided and if and what type of "industry" will be needed and structured to support it.

The Bill refers to "building on what works in today's health care system." "What works" is never enumerated. Perhaps there is nothing to point to specifically. More likely the statement is a euphemism for not letting go of a system. But this system has allowed some to amass a fortune from the misfortune of others, and those same entities are now strategically keeping the question of "rights" of "all" citizens out of the discussion.

A clear statement of context will always clarify the better actions to take. And some must be very concerned that, if that context were to change, "building on what we have" might not, indeed, be the best move.

House Health Bill: the Devil you say!

noreply@blogger.com (C. A. Burch) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:01:00 +0000

In the weeds, fractured, and in legalese

Any decision, and especially one of great import, needs to be structured for clarity. Having said that...

On October 29th the House produced a bill for health care reform. Rather than just accept the media's interpretation of it, I undertook the review of its 1,990 pages last night. I made it to page 334. I still intend to finish, but some things are already apparent.

I wonder how many reporters have, and more importantly, how many Representatives will fully read and fully understand it in its present structure. How can one?

Six aspects of the structure cause concern:

1. Not every Representative in the House is a lawyer, yet the language could not be more "legalese" or more tangled in its convolutions.

Example:

"In any case in which agreement with respect to the provisions required under subparagraph (B) for any fiscal year has not been reached as of the first day of such fiscal year, the latest agreement with respect to such provisions shall be deemed in effect on an interim basis for such fiscal year until such time as an agreement relating to such provisions is subsequently reached."

We should demand that Representatives, as authors of bills, "take a page" from this Bill itself (page 121 to be exact) in which they admonish others to use "plain language:"

"The term ‘‘plain language’’ means language that the intended audience, including individuals with limited English proficiency, can readily understand and use because that language is concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices of plain language writing."

2. Instead of defining terms in the designated area called "Definitions," the Bill makes reference to definitions buried across the 1,990 pages of the document, as well as definitions found in other documents.

Example:

"GENERAL DEFINITIONS.—Except as otherwise provided, in this division:
(1) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.—The term ‘‘acceptable coverage’’ has the meaning given such term in section 302(d)(2).
(2) BASIC PLAN.—The term ‘‘basic plan’’ has the meaning given such term in section 303(c).
(6) EMPLOYMENT-BASED HEALTH PLAN.—The term ‘‘employment-based health plan’’ (A) means a group health plan (as defined in section 733(a)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974); "

NOTE: Since the Table of Contents does not include page numbers, nor do the footers indicate location, quickly locating "section 302(d)(2)," or section "303(c)" or others (in other Acts) to learn the definition of terms is pretty much impossible. The reader is likely to read for some time, without knowledge of terms' meaning, before learning actual meaning. This invites misunderstanding. It begs the question, "Is this misleading structure intentional?"

3. Not constructed in terms of constituencies, the Bill obscures the full picture being painted for each, i.e., for user/patient, provider (doctor/hospital, etc.), insurance provider, small business, large business, government (administration and oversight), government (tax: implications, administration, penalties). As it now stands, each constituency's roles and responsibilities are fractured and spread throughout 1,990 pages.

4. This Bill is neither a stand-alone read, nor action. In it are Amendments to other legislation: e.g., to the Social Security Act, and the IRS tax code. These Amendments are literally sprinkled throughout the document. More importantly, they are made purely by reference to excerpted portions of phrases. Full context is obscured, as in the example below:

Example:

"PAYROLL TAXES.—
(A) Section 3121(a)(2) of such Code is amended (i) by striking 'or any of his dependents' in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) and inserting ', any of his dependents, or any eligible beneficiary (within the meaning of section 106(g)) with respect to the employee',"

5. Always a dangerous thing to do, there are numerous sections that appear to repeat themselves. In some (but not all) cases, there are slight alterations. For clarity, an element should appear once and in one location, and should include any variations (revealing their relevancy and rationale). As the Bill currently is written, without being able to ascertain quickly a context for each current repetition (caused by lack of footers indicating location/context), further confusion is invited. For a bill that includes proposed use of technology as a solution, it amazes one that the simple management of footers, so basic to all word processing, has been overlooked. Again, it begs the question, "Is this obfuscation intentional?"

6. The Congress is so "into the weeds" that this Bill pre-empts the work that is the purview of an administrative body. One wonders what the Department of Health, Education and Welfare's (HEW) job is.

An example of "the weeds:"

"WHERE SERVICE IS FURNISHED
For purposes of paying the additional amount specified in paragraph (1), if the Secretary uses the 5-digit postal ZIP Code where the service is furnished, the dominant county of the postal ZIP Code (as determined by the United States Postal Service, or otherwise) shall be used to determine whether the postal ZIP Code is in a county described in subparagraph (A). "

In summary...

When did Congress drift from the role model of the Founding Fathers when it came to succinct frameworks of clarity? The entire Bill of Rights is on one page. Consider that document's Eighth Amendment in its entirety: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Period. Paragraph. End of entire Amendment.

Our clients know that a directorial body's responsibility is to provide a framework for management and staff to refine subsequently into an implementation plan. That is the "direction" and the scope expected from such a body. A "Zip Code level" of detail is far beyond being a framework.

The U.S. public have been advised that the "devil is in the details." However, the devil in this case appears to be the modern day Congress' assumption that they must be in charge of the details, and that approval of a framework for further work is impossible without their dotting all i's and crossing all t's.