Contrary to the Loudest Opinion

A few moments ago, the President signed the first part of his promised healthcare reforms into law. I have heard many loud voices in opposition to these changes and a question comes to mind. Was it necessary to make all of these changes by legislation ?

I'm afraid that the answer is yes and no. Changes such as removal of lifetime and annual limits, forbidding insurance companies to drop your coverage if you get sick and the elimination of pre-existing conditions are all necessary to work towards limiting the damages caused to families by personal bankruptcies due to medical bills. It is unfortunate that these changes had to be forced upon the insurance industry because they could have instituted these changes themselves, without legislative action. It was their own refusal to do what was needed and wanted by the public that forced the present situation.

There are enormous profits to be made from healthy people, not sick people. Unfortunately, this is not how insurance is supposed to work. The risk is not being spread among all subscribers as it should be if the ill cannot buy insurance or are dropped from coverage if they become sick.

Questions that I have not heard adequately asked or answered are, how much are these changes going to cost versus the costs to the economy of the personal bankruptcies due to uninsured medical expenses? How much money will be saved by more people being able to see and pay for a doctor's visit compared to the cost of an uncompensated emergency room visit?

The truth is that no one really knows how this will all shake out. To toss what has been done in favor of the status quo, before giving the new legislation a chance to work and be tweaked, is short sighted and irresponsible way to run a country or a business.

Was all of this necessary? Yes because the health insurance industry refused to do what their customers asked for and therefore forced a huge financial burden upon those customers, often destroying the lives of those customers in the process.

Are the newly instituted reforms all the correct ones? I don't know but, they must be given a fair chance to succeed or fail before a proper judgement can be rendered. Let's give them that chance.

Why "Free"?

Have you ever noticed that the most popular buzz word in the US is "free"? "Free Trade", "Free Enterprise" and "Free Market" are the words that seem to dominate all economy related discussions.

In recent years this emphasis on all things free has resulted in widespread deregulation of large sectors of the economy. This deregulation is good in theory but we seem to have forgotten why these regulations were instituted in the first place. The excesses and risks of the 1920's lead to the market crash of 1929 and the ensuing "great depression." We now find ourselves in a great recession because the leaders of this country never seem to learn anything from history.

Ninety nine point nine percent of the businesses in this country are run by honest hard working individuals. The problem is that the one tenth of one percent of business leaders are not as honest and are looking to make as much as possible at any cost. They maybe small in number but they seem to be concentrated in the wealthiest and most powerful levels of society. They have a level of wealth where they have very little, if anything, to lose when things go wrong. Their salaries are outrageous and their bonuses, which can pay many times that of their salaries, are truly obscene to the majority of the population. This 0.1 percent have the influence, through their greed and avarice, to bring to whole system down around them.

We need to replace the overuse of the word "free", in our vocabulary with "Fair". We need fair trade, fair enterprise and a fair market. The realization of the american dream for all requires the level playing field of a fair market with reasonable and fair regulation, reasonable and fair taxation, reasonable and fair trade and included in that must be reasonable and fair healthcare.

All the people need is a reasonable and fair opportunity to realize their dreams, not one which gives all the advantages to the elite, ultra wealthy, and powerful. Christ threw the dishonest money changers out of the temple and we should find a way to throw these dishonest "businessmen" out of business and hold them personally responsible for the damage they have caused.

Truth in Advertising

What happened to the idea of truth in advertising?

There are laws regulating manufacturer claims about product performance or efficacy in many areas of our lives. Why is it that when industries, special interest groups or politicians try to influence the public about a certain issue, they so often resort to half truths, exaggerations and often, bald faces lies. Though I understand and support the concept of free speech, do not the citizens of this country deserve some sort of consumer protection from these deceits?

The clean energy debate is rife with such deceit. For example, "Clean Coal" is a theory and a technology in development. I does not yet exist in industry and if it comes to be it will be very expensive. The same industry which falsely promotes this technology as if it exists is simultaneously fighting carbon cap and trade policy claiming it will be very expensive and cost thousands of jobs. The truth is that it likely won't be significantly more expensive than the nonexistent "clean coal" technology and as far as jobs go, that is speculation and a scare tactic. Cap and trade can provide some of the funding to encourage clean coal and other alternate energy development leading to new jobs in new industries that don't yet exist.

If you really want to convince someone that your viewpoint is right the best method is truthful education and open debate based on the facts, not on half truths, exaggerations, lies and scare tactics. Syms clothing stores motto says it best. "An educated consumer is our best customer."

We need to hold those who blatantly lie to the public to task for their underhanded deceit.

Health care in the US

Considering the mishmash of insurance companies and regional economic disparity within this country, I am amazed that the existing health care system works at all.

One proposal is to allow health insurance companies to sell policies across state lines in order to foster greater competition int the market. Although well intentioned, this idea is fraught with problems. Under the current system insurance companies must adhere to the regulations of each individual state and must be licensed to operate in each state within which they do business. Each state has the right and ability to regulate the industry in their own state as they see fit. Much is made of states rights. Would this new "interstate competition" not trample on those state rights? Would a company operating out of Georgia and selling policies in Michigan be subject to the laws of Michigan or those of Georgia? I have not heard this question asked or discussed. Until this question is asked, discussed and answered I don't see it as being a viable concept.

Different insurance companies can reimburse one doctor at different rates for the same procedure. Likewise, hospitals have to negotiate reimbursement rates with each company they accept. This is insane. This creates a vast and expensive bureaucracy that wastes money better used on patient care and is, I believe, ultimately unsustainable. A single payer system would be a better option but practically unworkable given the present climate in the country.

Growing up under the Canadian system, I wish we had it here. Everyone is covered and no one goes bankrupt because they get sick. The system is not prefect but it works and the vast majority, even if they complain, would not want a private system for anything.

Contrary to popular opinion, Canada does not and never did have a national or socialized health care system. Rather, it has a national health care policy. Each province has its own insurance system and those provinces often squabble over inter-provincial reimbursement rates. Health insurance is socialized but health service delivery is private. Doctors and hospitals do not work for the government. Canadians have more choice of doctors and hospitals than many Americans do. HMO's tell you what doctors and what hospitals you have to go to and what procedures they will pay for. Canadians have no such restrictions. The insurance system has no say over your treatment.

What the US needs is a hybrid system. Pre-existing condition exemptions must be eliminated. Doctors must not be able to be over ruled in treatment decisions by anyone except their patients. Annual and lifetime limits to coverage have to go. Policy cancellation due to illness must be banned and Copays, deductibles and coinsurance must have reasonable limits so as not to force anyone into bankruptcy. The entire structure and concept of risk pools in the industry needs to be reconsidered.

The idea of insurance is to spread the risk out over as wide a pool as possible. The idea of taking the sick and those at high risk and placing them into a separate pool from those who are healthy defeats the entire concept of spreading risk. Instead it only serves to concentrate the risk. This may not be a popular idea but it is a fair idea.

Many European countries use private insurance companies but rates are regulated for basic coverage and companies cannot make a profit on those policies. Their profits are made on supplementary policies purchased by those who want them and can afford them. Surely this is a concept worthy of consideration. I really find the idea of making huge profits from the illness of another human being repulsive. Earning a reasonable living is fine and expected but billions of dollars of profit for shareholders who provide no service to patients is just wrong.

We need federally regulated minimum standards but State regulated standards of practice within their borders. Larger pools spread costs out and result in more fair premiums for all. The more people who are covered the greater the risk is spread and the lower the cost to the consumer. Lower premium costs will allow more people to participate and continue the cycle of reduced premiums for all. Those who, through no fault of their own, still cannot afford to purchase coverage must the be taken care of by a level of social coverage. Just as we can't allow people to starve to death and provide food stamps, we have a social and moral responsibility to provide for the poor in a responsible way other than the emergency room.

I have heard that the constitution does not provide for federal guaranties of health care but I tend to disagree in part. To "promote the general Welfare" must include personal welfare and ones health is surely part of that.

I have also heard that heath care is not a right because it is not mentioned in the constitution. Healthcare as we understand it now did not exist two hundred years ago just as many of our other rights were not originally mentioned. Although I believe the preamble makes a case for it to be a right, the amendment process still works and perhaps the right to healthcare should be formally enshrined and the naysayers silenced.

Ultimately, a federally supported, state run single payer system would be a more efficient and cost effective one but, given the realities of the present environment it is not workable.

Government regulation does not mean and never has meant socialism. Free enterprise should not supplant fair enterprise and fairness is all I am really proposing.

Immigration Reform?

As a legal immigrant I may have a different perspective on the issue than the politicians and natural born citizens of this country. Is the system as broken as the illegal immigrant lobby, the media and the politicians make it out to be?

The system is cumbersome and very time consuming. Given the bureaucracy involved, I understand some of the problems. However, no amount of rewriting of the laws or changes in procedures and policy will do a bit of good if the Congress acts in the usual manner. That is, the simple error they make in most legislation mandating sweeping changes in anything. They perpetually under fund every program they come up with. Current problems such as border security should come first but I have yet to be convinced that the current system is as broken as we are led to believe. The biggest problem is chronic underfunding. If the funding issues are not resolved first no attempts at reform have a chance at success.

Corporate Detatchment

One of the keys to being successful in an interview is supposed to be the ability to get some feedback from the interviewer as to what you need to improve in order to be more successful. I get a rejection note in the mail with no hint of personality, humanity or explanation. The person who interviewed me was described to me as having the personality of a rock with eyes. Not exactly an image most companies would like to project. What did I do or say wrong and how am I supposed to learn for the future? I may as well have been interviewed by a computer. Too much time is being spent relying on computer surveys and formulated questions and no time really talking to the applicant to find out what they are really like.

Application and interview systems seem to have become so formulated and automated that employers are likely missing out on hiring the best people for the jobs. Years of face to face interaction with customers means nothing to companies who use these types of hiring methods. Only watching some one interact with customers can truly give an employer an accurate picture of any prospective employee.

Maybe there is some humanity left?

The first interview with the second potential employer was much more enjoyable. Once the mandatory STAR questions were done it was time for a short role play. Usually I hate role plays but this one went very well. Unfortunately the job is only for 90 days but 90 days at 40 hrs. per week is better than part time or no hours. It is unfortunate that they only hire most jobs as temporary/seasonal. No commitment on their part to the employees and no long term security for those who try to provide for their families.

Corporate America still doesn't get it. Jobs without hope of long term security will never give consumers the confidence to spend and invest in this economy enough to return us to the prosperity we all want.

Keep your fingers and toes crossed! Come on call backs!

Step one

Initial interview with possible employer number one done. Now comes the wait to see if I get called for a second and third. The first interview with employer number two is tomorrow.

I hate the interview process! Psychology and scientific methods, although valuable, seem to have taken the humanity out of the experience. Job hunting in this economy is no picnic but the whole process seems to have become totally sterile. Human resources seems more IT than it does human. Computers read resumes and choose candidates based on using the correct key words. Real people have been taken out of the equation and the subtleties that a human could discern are now lost. The best candidate for a position may be over looked because of a few missing key words and industry specific terms or acronyms.

Computers are wonderful things but they will never be able to replace all the qualities a human can impart to the hiring process.

Serendipity?

Some may call the events of my last few days of job searching as serendipitous but I prefer to think that God's hand is at work. An acquaintance of my wife suggested that I apply with her company. I did that and also applied at the competitors store.

Another friend of ours works for the competition at the particular store I applied to. He was working the day I went in with my resume and he informed me that they were hiring only for part-time positions. After a few moments of conversation he informed me that a full time position in commercial electrical sales had opened due to the sudden passing of the employee who held that job. Suddenly I'm looking at a full time day time position with a major retailer and in a field in which I've been working for the past 22 years. I have an interview scheduled for tomorrow morning. A second interview for a part-time seasonal job with the competitor is set for Tuesday morning.

Be it through networking, serendipity or as I choose to believe, the hand of God, I have my first real opportunity in months. I am excited for tomorrow and thankful to all involved for their advice and help in this, the longest job search of my life.

Keep me in your prayers tomorrow. I'll keep you all updated here.