Aligned Marketing Blog

Marketing executive, Steve Hartkopf shares all in this informative yet personable blog.

Is this Any Way to Run a Country?

Steve Hartkopf - Wednesday, March 10, 2010

I'm not going to right directly about business, communication, social media or any of that today. Instead I'm going to write about what everyone seems to be talking about, ObamaCare.

Everywhere I go it seems people are talking about ObamaCare. Most of the people I talk to (older white guys like me) see it as a government takeover of healthcare, the old "16% of the economy" statement. They believe such a step is highly intrusive on our personal freedom and too expensive, a huge risk. Most add that if you want healthcare then you need to get a job. Government you see can't fix anything, it's inefficient as heck (think DMV) and, oh by the way, if they wanted to fix healthcare they should start by fixing Medicare and Medicaid, both of which are basically bankrupt. The enemies are the trial lawyers, who drive up malpractice insurance through frivolous claims and record awards, and tax-and-spend liberals who never saw a government program they didn't like because so few of them actually pay for them.

A second group, which is generally led by my more liberal Democratic friends, believe it is a great idea. Healthcare is something everyone needs, is basically a human right, and since the uninsured end up in Emergency Rooms anyway, the highest cost healthcare service available, which, by the way, only treats symptoms, any solution is less expensive than the current system. The problem with the current system is it's a patchwork of rules and laws created by our true enemies - a corrupt system ran lobbyist, insurance companies and heartless Republicans who only care about the most capable and the most blessed amongst us. If the government could just manage the whole thing it would work for everyone.

The truth from my perspective is both Democratics and Republicans are corrupt. They're both for sale, they both lie and, for the most part, are only interested in power, re-election and themselves. There are no statesmen taking the high ground in this debate. It's partisan. Manipulating the people is more a means to an end. My view is a little cynical but then i did graduate at the top of my class.

In the end I think the Democrats will get their way and we'll have national healthcare. At some point we're going to realize we can't afford our entitlement programs and our large military. So, like France and Japan and many other countries, we'll cut back on our military spending. We will survive and still be great, we'll just won't be the same. Is that good or bad? I

'm not sure. I think we are a little too aggressive militarily but if we're not there to stop the bad-guys who will?

One possibility is the country is so enraged by this "take-over" that they will throw the Democratics (yes, it's actually the Democratic Party) out in November. A wave of Republicans will arrive, slow down this process, that will give business more confidence to hire and invest, and the economy will pick up more steam.

Before you stand up and cheer, realize that this apparent good news does not solve the healthcare issue and the Republicans, as we've seen in the past, are fully capable of the same level or stupidity. Is this any way to run a country?

Steve
800-707-9150

Comments (5) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

Comments

Jon Spangler commented on 10-Mar-2010 02:44 PM

You are quite correct that our legislative system of government needs serious work. Money--the need for it, the power of lobbyists who have to much of it, and too much corporate influence in governmental affairs in general--has a lot to do with it, and money (like power) is a corrupting influence. But I'm not sure that Washington (or Sacramento, for that matter) lacks people of good will who are trying to do the right (just, socially and economically responsible) thing. It is clear that our current health care and health insurance systems are far too expensive, restrictive, and inefficient, as well as unjust. And private profits are improved when corp[orate customer service clerks ration our health care by limiting prescriptions, tests, and payments to our physicians for needed care. And this is a predominantly private-sctor-based system that is bankrupting all of us with 39% annual increases in premiums. What to do? IMHO, a single-payer system--like the very successful and efficient Medicare system--would save us all billions of dollars and help millions of under-insured and uninsured people get needed medical care. But this is a politically impossible (unsalable, unmarketable) idea right now, even if it promises to save us much more money in the long run over anything else that is on the table. What to do? As a start, I'll take the current Obama proposal, which is very Republican in its approach, despite false claims to the contrary from the partisan Right. We need to start somewhere to clean up the mess that we are in, and the Republicans did nothing at all substantial while they had the chance. (They went to war instead, which only made everything a lot worse, but that is another comment for another day... :-) The Republicans' refusal to engage in creating useful legislation is a sad statement of their placing partisan electoral aims well above the good of the nation, and they have actively sought to prevent good governance from taking place. I say we make the tiny start that can be salvaged from this ugly, partisan"train wreck" in Washington and get started on joining the rest of the "developed" world as far as taking care of our nation's health care needs. (I think it's Republican-caused, but no one is blameless) And we need to (re-?) regulate all of corporate America adequately, including the health insurance and big pharma companies that have bought their way into the halls of power.

Steve Morrissey commented on 11-Mar-2010 10:26 AM

Steve: Good to see you 'speaking-out' on this subject-glad it's not taboo for discussion even in a business-related blog!! This seismic shift in public policy will indeed affect everyone and I was glad to see that business lobbies are planning to spend heavily with ad campaigns designed to defeat this in coming days. This after getting bamboozled by Obama who first got their support (Doctors in lab coats in the Rose Garden), then cut them loose with accounting jujitsu to "pay for" the plan. Ditto Insurance companies who now know they too were thrown under the Obama bus! This piece of legislation represents "game over" should it ever become law. It would fundamentally alter the relationship of the citizen to the state. Democratic leaders know if they can only pass this into law (FAST), their roles will unalterably expanded so that there will little need to account for "the consent. . . of the governed"; the state will win every time! This may seen cynical, but I believe it no stretch to say this has nothing to do with health care but is all about POWER. It is a naked grab for all the marbles and people have a growing sense that this is so. The only good news is that we are not victims yet. . .but, time is short! Time to invoke Ronald Reagan's idea that "government is too big and spends too much" and that government is not the solution but is, in fact the problem. Existing public policies distort market economics to the point that health care costs cannot respond to the freedom of choice and accountability that consumers exercise in most other purchase decisions. Fixing these distortions should be first in any legislation not acceleration them and thus sending the ship of state over the falls. No more speeches Mr. President! No more pandering to fear and anger among various groups. Agitation is something you may know best, but its run its course and we're not buying it! And they said George Bush was stubborn! This process must be stopped entirely and loudly event to the point of civil disobedience if lawmakers refuse to listen. Time to consider withholding the consent of the governed if policymakers insist on governing against their will!

Jon Spangler commented on 16-Mar-2010 02:51 AM

Steve, I see that you and I have "slightly" different perspectives on the role of government in a civilized society. :-) Consumers have not had true "freedom of choice" in many aspects of their (our) lives for a very long time, especially in health care. Have you ever had to change doctors or stop going to a very good one because he/she was not a member of a particular health care plan? Or not received necessary medical care because an insurance company clerk with NO medical training said it was not allowed under a plan? Given a choice, I would choose a government-run program in a heartbeat over the current rip-off corporate socialism that is thinly disguised as"free enterprise." At least I can vote to remove legislators or CEOs whose choices i dislike that way. (Have you tried to vote out the CEO of Anthem/Blue Cross/Wellpoint after the proposed 29% premium boost?) We have had eight-plus years of being controlled by big corporations. I say it's time to toss the corporate fat cats out of Washington, DC and try real governance for a change.

Steve Hartkopf commented on 16-Mar-2010 06:03 AM

Jon, yes we truly have different views. I'll leave the descriptors - "civilized society and fat-cats," etc. out because, in my opinion, they add little value. I've seen the efficiency of for-profit companies as it compares to that of government, which is not a for profit enterprise. The incentive to keep costs low and productivity up in a for-profit firm is ultimately a benefit, in my mind, to the customer, not to mention the taxpayer. Is private enterprise perfect or a panacea? Of course not! I guess I'm just a small government guy. And, yes, I've had to change doctors because of insurance, life went on. And if this new program is so good, why aren't Congress and perhaps even the unions anxious to join? We won't change each other's mind on this, so I'll just close by saying "Thank you for reading and commenting on my blog. All the best, Steve

Anonymous commented on 13-Jun-2010 04:17 AM

Sent you contact form, we are looking into selling into US market.

Wal-Mart's $20B Stimulus Package

Steve Hartkopf - Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Have you heard about this? In a Wall Street Journal article (July 17, 2009 http://tinyurl.com/lemhhe) written by Miguel Bustillo Wal-Mart announced it will require suppliers to provide an “environmental label” for all products sold through Wal-Mart. This is a huge initiative and, because of Wal-Mart’s clout, could end up defining environmental labeling for every product sold on the planet!

The article stated, “Wal-Mart Thursday will tell suppliers they must calculate and disclose the full environmental costs of making their products, then allow Wal-Mart to distill the information into a rating system that shoppers will see alongside prices for everything from T-shirts to televisions.” That means the largest retailer in the world is now going to be taking on the role traditionally held by a government agency and a consumer advocate. It gets better.

An initiative of this size will take years, maybe decades, to implement. The driving force behind the initiative is marketing. Young consumers typically care more deeply about the environment than their parents and eco-friendly initiatives are highly attractive to this group. In addition, Wal-Mart clearly wants to get ahead of any regulatory actions by setting an early standard. Don’t forget, any company the size of Wal-Mart views the government as a possible competitor because unfriendly legislation can constrain growth.

One has to wonder about the logic behind adding cost to already fragile suppliers in this economy but, since Wal-Mart will always secure the lowest possible price, what do they care?

The specifics of the initiative are unclear (there’s a surprise) but what they’re looking for are metrics on greenhouse gas emissions, solid waste production, and water usage, information they roll-up to determine sustainability. Sustainability is a touchstone word in the environmental community that refers to a company’s ability to continue producing goods using, ideally, a minimum amount of energy and producing a minimal amount of waste. That sounds like a good goal unless "minimum" ends up being defined as zero.

Buried in the new lexicon is another eco-babble term I had not heard before, social compliance, which includes community investment. Wal-Mart is apparently aligning itself with government officials who see social engineering as a core responsibility and necessary to constrain the evil-excesses of free enterprise. Personally, I think returning 7.2 million lost jobs (Bureau of Labor Statistics, July 2, 2009) would be some fantastic social engineering but what do I know?

Wal-Mart’s “comprehensive sustainability index” will measure the environmental impact of the suppliers’ products. Wrote Bustillo, “For example, an index might flag how much each contributes to global warming and if it contains wood harvested in ways that deplete natural stocks.” I get it, for every tree we grow we get to sew a shirt.

Jay Golden, an Arizona State University professor and co-chairman of a consortium that will help Wal-Mart design standards added, "You can design something that is carbon neutral, that does not contribute to climate change, and yet is still detrimental to human health in other ways."

Let me get this straight, a group of Wal-Martians and academics are going to make sure that products are not being created from “wood harvested in ways that deplete natural stocks” and that suppliers don’t “design something that is carbon neutral, that does not contribute to climate change, and yet is still detrimental to human health in other ways.”

Here’s an idea: Since it’s been proven that feces adds to global warming, why don’t they just cut out all this crap and lower our prices 5%? Since Wal-Mart sales are over $400B we can call it Wal-Mart’s $20B Stimulus Package.

Steve

Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink