He’s lying.  I could have believed the first part of that comment, but he would have killed for MS to have made this…he’s lying.
ORIGINAL POST:

OK, I am not a technophile, nor am I a technophobe.

I’m probably like most people in the middle.  I saw what Apple offered in the iPad and I liked it.  But here’s the thing:  They presented it as a third category, between the iPhone and the MAC computers.  Look, I understand the need to tell the world (and your employees) that the iPad won’t hurt the computer business.  However, they are wrong (to our benefit).

It is obvious with its size the iPad will not compete with the iPhone.  After all, the iPad shrunk down to pocket size IS the iPhone.  So that leaves the computer occupying the only space where the iPad can expand into.  What will it take for the iPad to replace my MAC computer?  I want one, but I want it to replace my computer!

I think Apple hints at this because they offer a stand (propping it up like a monitor) and an external keyboard for typing, meaning you can use it at your desk instead on in your lap. But I am feeling pain as the device lacks in some key areas that would allow me to dump my computer.  Here’s just a few practical things (I’m not being technical).

1)  Connect my iPhone to my iPad.  This is a big mistake, I think.  If I can do just about everything I want on my iPad, why do I need a computer for iTunes storage and synchronization?  I think the iPad charger should allow for a wire or receptacle to connect to the iPhone.  This would allow both devices to get charged, and would allow those devices to communicate with one another.  Syncing my library, my calendars, my email, my contacts, etc. would be nice.

Research:  I understand Apple might be addressing this by allowing users to store all of their libraries with iTunes instead of on the local computer.  I believe they purchased a company that did this so I hope its true.  I also hope it expands to store docs, contacts and all the other stuff I mentioned above.  I could sync over the airwaves.

2) No USB port.  This is a real bummer. There are so many things to connect over the USB port like a printer, for example.  Sure I have a bluetooth printer, but many don’t, and special drivers are needed, etc.  It goes beyond printers too.  How about a thumb storage drive?  We need a USB.

Research:  Perhaps the easiest fix is to have USB drives on the charging dongle or on the base of the stand.  Apple would have to allow us to load stuff on the device, though, and that’s always been a no-no in the iPhone world without the help of some third party apps.

3) Why not allow users to load stuff on the storage drive, like docs, programs, etc?  After all, they let us do it with the MACs.  I get the phone thing.   They need to create a stable device that requires less tech support and is reliable to phone users.  The iPad is different though, and I am less sure why it can’t have more features akin to the MAC.

and a very small thingy:  Is the back of this curved or flat?  If curved, how will it sit flat on a table? To me it looks like a slight curve, so I wonder if it will wobble around on a table top without being on a stand.

I don’t care about:

FLASH:  I can get around it by going to YouTube or other video sites for the most part.  Web developer and small businesses be warned:  Move away from Flash.

GPS:  As an iPhone user, I already have it.  My phone will be in my possession a lot more than my iPad. Heck’s it’ll be on my desk or in my pocket WHILE I’m on the iPad.

CAMERA:  Oh, please!  I have that on my iPhone too.  Most people have this on their phones.  It’s a lot easier to hold up my iphone for a pic than the iPad, but I’d like to see people on vacation trying it.

MULTI-TASKING:  I can get by without it.  But if I can’t write a document while referring to an Internet resource, I’ll be in trouble.  Let’s keep our fingers crossed on that one.  As for games and other stuff, I couldn’t care less.

YOUR GOING TOO FAR IF YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT:  HDMI, 16:9, OLED, DRAG & DROP, THE NAME, etc.

That’s it from my perspective.  Sure other sites are listing all kinds of goofy stuff, but I think many of those issues are listed just for the sake of having a long list.  To techies it might be more important, but I’m just a regular Joe.

Like many corporate executives, I was one who stood by PCs, Windows and Blackberrys because that is what most offices had.  I took the position that I had to use what my clients used so we could facilitate a better understanding of each other”s need.  However, a friend convinced me to try a MAC and offered his Mini for an inexpensive test run.  I found the MAC to be simple, straightforward and extremely reliable.  I immediately took inventory of the PC software I was using to figure out how much it would cost to get MAC versions.  It was expensive.  So I assessed the situation again and started to remove some of the software from my list.  You know, the ones I really didn’t need.  For others, I looked for replacements on the web.  For example, I found a web-based version of Quickbooks over the boxed version.  I found it to be better anyway, since it was backed up and secured by Intuit rather than by me.

I also ditched MS Outlook because I found out the MAC mail, calendar and contacts programs worked just as well, if not better in some cases.  I did purchase a Word, Excel and PowerPoint software package for the MAC, although I really didn’t need to.  My database was Internet-based, my accounting program was Internet-based, and my Internet was Internet-based.  My ability to create documents, presentations and spreadsheets was there with the MAC software version. My communications tools were in place using the MAC embedded software.  All my bases were covered.  Now to go to work.

I’ve been doing this for one year now and here’s what I can report:

1)  I never have to deal with issues of speed associated with PCs.  My MAC boots up very quickly and runs almost forever before a reboot is needed.  My machine stays on for months at a time.  Updates come down and install with little need for my interaction (it reboots as part of the process).

2) No virus issues.  Now I know the MACs, like any machine can be susceptible to viruses.  Hackers are creative.  That being said, there are few out there because it’s a huge effort to infect so few machines.  Additionally, Apple blocks access to key areas of the computer that are open in PCS – like the registry I think.

3) There is a ton of software out there developed and downloadable through Apple.  It’s like a mini app store and coming out of Apple means I can depend on it’s security a little more than most other sites out there.  Or at least I have someone to complain to.

4)  The backup process with Time Machine is very nice and completely passive.  After initial setup, the MAC backs up all the important stuff like mail, calendars, docs, etc. throughout the day.  It happens as you change stuff, pretty much.  Most importantly it does so without degrading performance.  You don’t even know it’s happening.

Most impressing to me was the overall change in the way I perform my day-to-day tasks.  MAC has taught me that a straight line between two points is the way to go – no fluff, no show, no waste.  Here’s what I’m talking about:

My PC had all kinds of goofy software on it that allowed me to do goofy things.  The MAC had limits since that software was not always available or was expensive for the MAC.  So I decided to work around it via the Internet, or to eliminate that task altogether.

Today, after one year, I can honestly say that I am at least twice as efficient as I was before.  I do more with less.  I am much more organized and I have more time to do thing better.  I don’t waste time on those goofy programs that I don’t really need. I don’t spend any time fixing, updating or cleaning up my computer.  If I want to play or learn, I surf the Internet.  My computer loves me for that (I don’t pack it full of garbage making it less efficient and slow) and I love my computer for that (I don’t have to spend time taking care of it).

I never played college ball and up, but in high school I was a starting player.  At 128 lbs, I played wideout, flanker and returned punts and kickoffs.  During my 36 games in high school I was knocked unconscious nine times.  On numerous occasions I lost my helmet on hits.  I never left the game for more than one play. That was a long time ago (late 70′s), so the rules were different and certainly slower at the high school level.

I few years after high school, I began to notice increasing hearing loss in one ear.  Then I had a horrible attack of dizziness that led to a lot of vomiting (like sea sickness).  I thought it was just the flu, but when it happened a few months later, I decided to get it checked out.  When doctors noticed my hearing loss they suspected a benign tumor on the base of the brain stem. Fortunately, an MRI revealed there was no t tumor.  However, the attacks of vertigo progressively got worse and more frequent.  The seasickness part was the worst.  When the dizziness hit, it would be just a minute before I’d vomit.  Sometimes the dry heaves would go on for eight hours.  I lost 23 lbs in 30 days.

After visiting many doctors, a specialist finally determined I had Meniere’s Disease.  It’s basically when the inner ear fills with too much fluid, unable to drain, and tears, sending your nerves and sensors into overload (vertigo, dizziness, etc.).  After being tested for six months to try to find a cause, it was determined the cause was from too many concussions.

I spent twelve months on valium (every single day) while I worked.  After a year, a new surgery technique was tried on me. Basically they used a steroid to destroy my inner ear.  Now the hearing is gone and my balance is messed up.  I spent 45 days learning how to walk again.  I was like a baby crawling, then walking.  I had to learn how to walk by using one ear and my eyes for balance instead of both ears.

It’s been 16 years since that surgery and I have not had a single attack.  I cannot hear out of that ear anymore, so it makes for a peaceful night’s sleep.  Sometimes I get a slight pressure in the deaf ear, so I know when I’m going to get a cold or flu a few days before it hits (yeah, that’s kinda cool).

I am from a sports family.  My father was an all-state player who played in the 1940 Leo vs. Austin Chicago city championship at Soldier Field (more than 130,000 attended and set a record). My father became a referee for over 30 years.

I have a daughter who is 10, but if I had a son I would not let him play organized football.  I know all the good things about the sport, but it’s not worth the risk.  It’s not worth it.

Lying is a simple indicator of unethical behavior. Here are just some of the lies discredited since Obama has been in office.

Reminder:  Don’t blame the media – these originated from or were repeated by Republican lawmakers.

Warning:  All of these have been proven lies.

“Not only is there no scientific evidence that CO2 is a pollutant, higher CO2 concentrations actually help ecosystems support more plant and animal life.”

“There’s no evidence anywhere that offshore drilling has hurt tourism in any area where it has been allowed.”

“White House Political Director Patrick Gaspard once served as the “right-hand man” for Bertha Lewis, who heads up ACORN.”

“For the first time in history, the Democratic Congress will not allow an increase in the social security COLA (cost of living adjustment).”

“Under the Baucus bill … federal funds would subsidize coverage of elective abortions.”

“The Obama administration’s cap-and-trade plan would create “a $1,761 yearly energy tax.”

“Obama used to be a lawyer for ACORN. (he handled one case, not as an employee)”

“The Obama administration “was successful in rushing a massive spending bill through Congress in just two days — after which it sat on the president’s desk for three days, while he was away on vacation.”

“Photo of “tea party” protests shows crowd sprawling from Capitol to Washington Monument” (an old photo of a different event was used)

A new bill “was written into the new health care reform initiative ensuring that Congress will be 100 percent exempt.”

“You lie!” (in response to President Obama saying health reform would not insure illegal immigrants.)

“The Obama Administration’s own White House Council of Economic Advisers has estimated 4.7 million Americans will lose their jobs if the (health care) bill passes.”

“Cap-and-trade is wildly unpopular with Americans.”

“Schoolchildren across the nation “will be forced to watch the president justify his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other president.”

“Any government-run ‘public’ plan … forces more employers to drop employee coverage due to rising costs and pay an additional 8% payroll tax for each worker.”

“The Department of Veterans Affairs has “a manual out there telling our veterans stuff like, ‘Are you really of value to your community?’ You know, encouraging them to commit suicide.”

“The health bill’s plan for comparative effectiveness research “would be used by the government to ration care.”

“Birthers have obtained a copy of Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate.

“I’m 59. In either Canada or Great Britain, if I broke my hip, I couldn’t get it replaced.”

“A provision in the health care reform bill for end-of-life counseling for seniors is not “entirely voluntary.”

“Ezekiel Emanuel, one of President Obama’s key health care advisers, “says medical care should be reserved for the nondisabled. So watch out if you’re disabled.”

“Seniors and the disabled “will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care.”

“The Democrat-backed health care reform plan “will require (Americans) to subsidize abortion with their hard-earned tax dollars.”

“Page 992 of the health care bill will “establish school-based ‘health’ clinics. Your children will be indoctrinated and your grandchildren may be aborted!”

“Health care reform legislation is “likely to mandate free ‘sex change’ surgeries.”

“The health care reform plan would set limits similar to the “socialized” system in Britain, where people are allowed to die if their treatment would cost more than $22,000.

“If you log into the government’s Cash for Clunkers Web site (cars.gov) from your home computer, the government can “seize all of your personal and private” information, and track your computer activity.

“President Barack Obama suggested on national TV that the Democratic health care bill “will have government decide” that a healthy, 100-year-old woman in need of a pacemaker “should take a pain pill” instead.”

“All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services.”

“In the health care bill, “The ‘Health Choices Commissioner’ will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.”

“John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, “has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population.”

“The Senate voted this week to allow illegal aliens access to Social Security benefits.”

“White House spokesman Robert Gibbs “lied” when he said President Obama’s birth certificate is posted on the Internet.”

“The health care reform bill “would make it mandatory — absolutely require — that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner.”

“The health care reform bill — on Page 16 — outlaws private insurance.”

“The Obama administration offered “$900 million to Hamas, a recognized terrorist organization, to rebuild Gaza.”

“In North Carolina, they used stimulus money to hire one new state worker. His job, apply for more stimulus funds from the taxpayers by the way of the federal government.”

“The ACLU has filed a suit to have all military cross-shaped headstones removed.”

“ACORN will be a paid partner with the Census Bureau and “they will be in charge of going door-to-door and collecting data from the American public.”

“Under the “Cash for Clunkers” program, “all we’ve got to do is … go to a local junkyard, all you’ve got to do is tow it to your house. And you’re going to get $4,500.”

“Under a public health care option, 120 million Americans will “lose what they now get from private companies and be forced onto the government-run rolls as businesses decide it is more cost-effective for them to drop coverage.”

“Inside the stimulus package “is anti-Christian legislation that will stop churches from using public schools for meeting on Sundays, as well as Boy Scouts and student Bible study groups.”

“The federal Hate Crimes Prevention Act bill would create “special protection for pedophiles.”

“President Obama has never received a paycheck from a profitmaking business in his entire life.”

“There has been no net global warming for over a decade now.”

“Secretary Geithner has left the option on the table” of abandoning the dollar for a multinational currency.”

“The administration raises revenue for nationalized health care through a series of new taxes, including a light switch tax that would cost every American household $3,128 a year.”

“Under Obama’s budget plan, families making over $250,000 are “going to lose their mortgage deduction, their charitable deductions.”

“Under the Obama plan . . . all the health care in this country is eventually going to be run by the government.”

“In just one month, the Democrats have spent more than President Bush spent in seven years on the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and Hurricane Katrina combined.”

“The stimulus has “$30 million in there to protect mice in San Francisco.”

“There is a provision in the economic stimulus plan that means that “students cannot meet together in their dorms, if that dorm has been repaired with this federal money, and have a prayer group or a Bible study.”

“For every dollar (in the stimulus package) that is spent to help small businesses, $4 is being spent to help upkeep the grass on the lawns of Washington.”

“The stimulus bill includes “$300,000 for a sculpture garden in Miami.”

“Says a Congressional Budget Office report on spending by House Democrats in the economic stimulus concluded it “is just not stimulus. It won’t help the economy grow.”

“Even with recent changes, the average hourly wage at General Motors is still $75 an hour.”

If an insurance company is forced to provide coverage for a sick person, why wouldn’t they just hike the price way up to, say $6,000/mo. in order to cover their risk?

People wouldn’t be able to afford it, so they’d have to go elsewhere.  Where can they go if all the other options are at, say $3,000/mo.?  What if they can’t afford that?

What makes anyone think the insurance companies want to cover sick people?  They don’t.

In the old days when TV and newspapers were the only source of news, both of these resources only presented news once or twice per day.  That meant the reporters, writers and editors had the time to investigate prior to publicizing the news.  They had to, since they were protecting their integrity.  At that time integrity was everything.

Today, the public has learned to accept the true, blended with the partially true, and in many cases the untrue.  I’m amazed that outlets like FoxNews can  promote one small fact as the basis for a story and then expand on it with loads of opinion and conspiracy, resulting in a big lie.  They defend it my saying it’s their opinion or by dropping a question mark at the end of the sentence.  Sure, it’s a legal defense, but it gets ratings.  Others follow in desperation to achieve those same ratings.  Integrity seems extinct.

I read an article today about Joe Lieberman and his opposition to a public option as part of a health care option.  For this interview he sat in a room with the editors or The Connecticut Post.  Here’s a statement from that article:

If the public option “is off the table, we have the opportunity to achieve significant reform with bipartisan support,” Lieberman said during the nearly two-hour meeting Wednesday afternoon.

Later in the piece, he defined reform.

He supports mandating that no one can be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions and that everyone be required to have health insurance. Reform should also include malpractice reform and health exchanges, which would offer different plans for varying costs and coverage for individuals or small businesses, he said.

This seems to be representative of most politicians against the public option.  My hard press for Joe would have been, “How do you expect insurance companies to lower prices when they are ultimately forced to cover sick people?  Why wouldn’t they just price themselves out of the competition in order to get the sick people off the books?  Even with insurance exchanges will these companies actually compete for the unprofitable business of sick people?

I’m no journalist, but why do these “reporters” just sit and listen without questioning anything presented by these politicians?  It seems that without a public option, we are left to “trust” the insurance companies to do the right thing, in line with the intent of reform’s message.

Sound familiar?  The Glass-Steagal Act prevented banks from expanding into the investment business, and was repealed because politicians thought banks would be trusted to do the right thing.  So here we sit, shelling out billions because these banks were too big too fail.  I’ll bet these health insurers one day hope to be “too big to fail”.

Here is my list of questions every reporter needs to ask guests from the Senate and Congress.

“For full-disclosure purposes, do you accept contributions from insurance companies?”

“Are you willing to eliminate tax-payer coverage for insurance and health care for all of congress and the senate, so that you can demonstrate your commitment to the new reforms you propose?”

“Are you willing to try a public option for just five years to see if it works?  The $700B cost (over ten years) would be reduced to one-half, at $350B; a number everyone will agree on?”

“With insurance mandates adding new customers to the insurance companies, can you be sure the insurance companies will return the favor to the customer in the form of lower prices, especially if they now have to cover sick people?”

“Since you are against a government-run option, is it safe to say you are against Medicare?”

“While you worry about the government’s ability to provide services, do you share this opinion of the military – another government-run operation? How about government-run Bethesda Naval Hospital, where many politicians prefer to get their most important surgeries and health services?

“If the cost is truly your issue with a public option, why not just expand Medicare to everyone over 50, but ask those individuals between ages 50 and 62 to pay a  premium to be included?”

Oh, that’s the public option.

The overall structure of our democracy is simple:  One representative of a community of citizens goes to Washington to work on behalf of that community.  If they do well, the community re-elects them to another term.  If they don’t do well, or another candidate seems better, the community elects the new candidate.

Today, many politicians have strayed from their primary duties to work on behalf of their community and specifically, the voters.  Because they don’t represent their communities as well as they could – or because they don’t trust their community to re-elect them, the campaign the get re-elected becomes the primary focus.

How can a politician retain his/her position of authority, power and those great benefits? Get re-elected.  What’s the easiest way to ensure a candidate is re-elected?  Money.

Since the community of voters is not trusted to re-elect the candidate on their own, ecause of good work on behalf of the community, the politicians look to money.  Money buys airtime, advertising, and can even be used to buy the endorsements of local community leaders and politicians.

So how does a politician raise money?  Fundraising is one way, but that requires work and time.  In many cases you also have to spend money to get money, coordinate, feed, mail, etc.  Boy, I’m sweating already.  But wait, there’s another way.

Why go out and suck up for money when it’s being delivered to my doorstep?  In Washington, there are tens of thousands of lobbyists knocking on doors to hand out money.  To circumvent the rules, they don’t hand the politician money, but instead contribute to their war chest, so they can get re-elected.  To alleviate the fear of rejection among their constituents, they can get more money, too.  So now they are in the cycle – the cycle that says money will get me re-elected so I don’t have to listen to my constituents anymore.  Well, I’ll listen but I won’t do anything.

So who’s behind the money?  Well, ultimately its groups or corporations that want the politician to do something for them, or not do something.  They can be PACs (Political Action Committees), Associations or lobbying firms.  What’s usually right under the surface, however, is the source.  And the source is usually a single entity or a group of entities with very similar traits: A single company or a group of companies in energy, for example.  The American Medical Assn., is another example.  There are thousands of these – and more being created every day.

These individual entities write checks to politicians, so in the end the politician is simple working for one entity – and not the community of voters who elected them.  The entity is writing the check in exchange for some sort of favor.  Now that the favor has been bought, the politician is no longer working for his people – but instead for a company or group.

This very concept undercuts the entire election process and ultimately the concept of democracy.  Who are you voting for, and why?  Is it adequate representation?  Who are they working for?  Who’s paying them, or contributing to their re-election?

How do we get it back?  The very lawmakers that could abolish lobbyists and their practices would suffer the most, right?  Do you think they would do it, or do it completely – in a way that no one can circumvent?  Of course not.  So how does it change?

First, technology has proven to be an extremely effective way to communicate, analyze and deliver the message.  However, the counter attack from the others is to muddle the information by sending out their own, called “disinformation”.  One poll says 72% of Americans want a public healthcare option while another poll says only 51%…  this is how it’s done.

I believe the only way we can defeat the power of the lobby is to expose the politician.  The only way to undercut the value of money is to ensure the voters know of these relationships.

Transparency:  Not just a website, but a more broad media is needed.  Mainly, a CSPAN of sorts that continiously investigates and exposes these relationships and publishes information locally to the politicians’ constituency.

Public Outcry:  The public needs to pressure the media, and subsequently politicians, to expose lobbyist efforts.  The public needs to show the proper reaction by actively reaching out to politicians.  Call their office and tell them what you know and what you want as a voter (Health Care, Energy Reform, etc.).  If politicians have enough pressure from constituents, lobbyist power will subside.  It’s all about re-election, folks.

Observe:  Make ann effort to get knowledgeable on your own.  Don’t expect the news media to be totally open and honest with you.  Each has their own agenda and is ultimately loyal to advertisers.  For example, pay attention to Fox and ask yourself why it’s so important for BP to reach out to you.  It’s not – they don’t sell products to you.  Instead, they pay advertising to show the network who’s paying their bills. Pay attention.

Activism:  Do something.  Call your politician.  Write a letter.  Create a group to raise the volume on your issues.  Call newspapers, TV news and write blogs.  Get out there.

This is the only way to overcome the power of lobbyists.  If health care and other issues important  to you fail, we  know who’s fault it is.

I think he’s out of practice.  Perhaps it’s an ego thing, where he doesn’t feel he needs to do his homework.  Michelle did say he needs to be reminded once in a while to keep in check.  Either way, I think he disappointed the folks (like me) who really thought he would come out fighting.  Throughout the show I found myself answering the questions much better, simpler – and faster.  Why didn’t he?

Here we go:

The first questions was really stupid:  “Can you promise that if you wife or kids get sick, you’ll not seek extra care not approved by government plan?”  In other words, would you just accept the system given to you and watch your wife or kids die?  What a stupid, loaded question. Of course, Obama defelcted it and spun off in another direction, adding that “”it’s my family member, if it’s my wife, if it’s my children, if it’s my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care.”

Me: Of course I want any care that will improve my famiy’s health.  What do we do today in that same circumstance?  If the insurance company does not approve the treatment, we can pay for it ourselves or we can not do the treatment.  The government, like insurance companies today, are not going to let you go bananas, getting every treatment available.  But I will tell you this:  The government is not making decisions based on making a profit – but insurance companies do.

Insurance companies are out to make as large a profit as possible.  If it were entirely up to them, they would insure only healthy people.  That’s why, when you get sick they move quickly to reduce the long-term cost of taking care of you.  You’ll get a huge premium increase at the end of the year – or you’ll get dumped.  After the termination, which insurance company do you think will pick you up? None. The government won’t be able to do this.  Bottom line?  You get covered.

Gibson asked the president if it doesn’t make sense to decide what the limitations will be on options in any reform bill before voting on it. “That’s what people are afraid of,” Gibson said. The president said he understood the American people “know they’re living with the devil, but the devil they know instead of the devil they don’t.”

Me: Don’t just highlight it, defend it.  First, there are many options to consider when creating a reform bill.  They won’t all be perfect, and they won’t all be implemented immediately – this is a gradual implementation.  Second, the closest thing we have to a public option today is Medicare, so you may know the devil better than you think.  Now, I realize Medicare is not perfect, but let’s consider the ease of which a Medicare patient is processed.  They simply go into a hospital or make an appointment with their doctor.  No bills, no credit cards, no anything.  This may be an option for those who select a public plan.

Now that I’ve formally mentioned “Public Plan”, let me add this: Despite the 72% of Americans who want a public health care option, opponents will compare it to long lines at the DMV, or some rare cases in Britain or Canada in order to scare you.  I believe our government does some things very well and we should be proud of these institutions.  Does Medicare work well?  Perhaps not perfectly, but it’s a heck of a lot better than the for profit insurance companies.  Does the Military work well?  This is one of the most complex organizations in the world and we do pretty darn good. Does Nasa do well? I don’t think anyone can argue that.

A public option will be just that – an option.  Should t perform badly, insurance companies will win.  SHould it perform well, insurance companies will have to compete to survive.  That’s who you make change.

Another dumb question:  How can we get general practitioners instead of specialists out of Med school?  BO said he would provide incentives like loan forgiveness, etc. Ughhh. Boring. No one cares.

Me: Doctors go where patients are.  Today, patients don’t go to regular checkups with a general practitioner.  They don’t work on preventative care with a family doctor.  Instead, you wait until you get sick and you go to the emergency room.  That’s where the patients are and that’s where the doctors will be.  We need to create programs that help patients reduce the number of circumstances that put them in the emergency room.  These programs will be run by doctors and nurses who will benefit financially by their participation.  Specialists, who make lots of money today, will run into fewer patients with emergency needs and will make less money.  Supply and Demand people.

Another stupid question: Some lady’s 105 year old mom was originally denied a pacemaker by her physician, but a second physician went for it because her mother was vibrant, etc.  Will decisions be made based on a person’s livelihood and energy? Obama ran on, into a dicusssion about his grandmother and the importantce of her care, but the reality of her likelihood of survival after breaking her hip.  Tough decisions had to be made.

Me: Congratulations on being one of the 30-40 people in America who’ve reached that age.  (OK, I’ll assume she gets that point) People, please understand that our promise is to give people the care they need in order to cure their ills, or in those rare cases where it’s near the end, make the person as comfortable as possible.  It’s no different than today – except that the government will stick around while the insurance companies will drop you.

OK, on the to nightline section of the show where the President started to kick a little butt.  Problem was, no one tuned back in.

Gibson read a letter from GOP Senators: “At a time when major government programs like Medicare and Medicaid are already on a path to fiscal insolvency, creating a brand new government program will not only worsen our long-term financial outlook but also negatively impact American families who enjoy the private coverage of their choice,” the senators wrote. “The end result would be a federal government takeover of our health care system, taking decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients and placing them in the hands of a Washington bureaucracy.”

“They’re wrong,” the president said.  YES! He’s beginning to warm up…arguing that in a Health Insurance Exchange, the public plan would be “one option among multiple options.”  Ok, he petered out a bit there.

Me: They’re wrong.  The GOP and insurance companies want you to think the decisions are between you and your doctor, but they are not.  They are between you and an approval board measuring risk within the insurance company.  This is as bureaucratic as it gets.  These people are making decisions based on profitability, not your health.  No ask yourself this:  Why is the GOP so defensive about a public option – one you don’t have to select over your current plan?  I would remind them that they work for you, not the lobbyists.

The concern, Gibson articulated, is that such a plan wouldn’t be offered on a level playing field.

Here’s where Obama started to get hot: “We can set up a public option where they’re collecting premiums just like any private insurer and doctors can collect rates,” but because the public plan will have lower administrative costs “we can keep them honest.” Obama said he didn’t understand those advocates of the free market who constantly say the private sector can do things better and are yet worried about this plan. (Right on!)

“If that’s the case, no one will choose the public option,” the president said. He also suggested, however, that the private sector might not necessarily be better, point out that users of Medicare and Veterans Administration hospitals constantly rate “pretty high satisfaction.” (YES! Now he has our attention, except it’s like, midnight)

OK – Obvious this guy is a lobbyist: John Sheils, senior vice president of The Lewin Group, a health care policy research and management consulting firm, estimated that up to 70 percent of those with private insurance would end up on the public plan.

Obama: “There are a whole series of ways that we could design this,” the president said, arguing that employers would be given a “disincentive” to shift their employees to the public plan. Wrong answer.

Me: As we’ve stated before, the health care situation in this country has a significant impact and relationship on the economy. Some of these businesses might find it attractive to move to the public option.  Like others, however, they too will be paying premiums, feeding the system.  Companies that save money, can in turn hire more people.  That is how this can help the economy.  Secondly, smaller businesses who can’t afford to hire employees or offer health care to those they hire, may now afford to do so.  That is another way to improve the economic condition in this country.

Loaded question: “What can you do to convince the American public that there actually are limits to what we can pay for with our American health care system and if there are going to be limits, who’s going to design the system and who’s going to enforce the rules for a system like that?”

Obama: “If we are smart, we should be able to design a system in which people still have choices of doctors and choices of plans that make sure that necessary treatment is provided but we don’t have a huge amount of waste in the system.”  Then he cited the Mayo Clinic and said more doctors and hospitals should be like them. Shot and a miss. Snoooooooze.

Me: Let’s clarify this question for you.  You are asking us to limit the cost of such a system and ensure everyone that the cost is fixed and we’ll have the guards in place to control those costs.  However, we just spent the past 30 minutes discussing how tests and care should not be limited in any way as to provide the maximum quality care.  Control costs, but don’t limit my care.   With technology and today’s generation, I have confidence that we can add enough efficiency to the system to control costs over the long term, wtihout affecting quality of care.  For God’s sake we put a man on the moon when we had absolutely no clue what was up there. (nice touch)

A lady asked about a single-payer, medicare-for-all system.  President said he is agaisnt it now because it would be disruptive to the economy, stating that health care is 1/6th of the economy.  OK, makes sense for now. I approve.

“How and who will pay for a national health care system,” was next.  Obama said we’d pay for it.  He went on to criticize the budget office estimate, saying they did not credit the cost with savings from technology, elimination of administration stuff, fat trimming, etc. He mentioned the $177B subsidy that goes to insurance companies.   I bet a lot of folks didn’t know that.

Finally, I’d add that he should have focused on the fact that the private insurance option is in real trouble.  Earlier he mentioned that premiums are going up every year and eventually the cost will be too high.  My only complaint is that he wasn’t  forceful enough on this point, and he didn’t use this point throughout his discussion.

Me: Private insurance will die if we don’t fix this system.  Why?  Because as your premiums grow and become more unaffordable, so do the premiums of employers, who will evventually have to drop the benefit.  In addition, premiums for healthy people will begin to rise to cover unhealthy people.  Unhealthy people will cost more and eventually fall out of the plan due to their inability to pay the high premiums.

Once that happens we’ll have insured healthy people and uninsured sick people.  Then where will we be?

Folks this is a high priority issue and if you, the constituency are not being vocal enough with your congressman or senator, get on with it.  The only way we’ll get things accomplished is if you can outgun the lobbyists.

Here’s a link to find and contact your congressman or senator: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

However, they are unwilling to apply the same principles to health care.  A public option for health care is being fought against by Republicans based on the idea that private insurance companies can’t compete against a public option.  Why not?  If they can’t compete, then they too are doomed to fail, right?  Applying the fundamentals of the Republican philosophy, I’d say they are “bailing out” private insurance providers by limiting the players allowed in the game.  Why are they working so hard to save these underperforming (customer perspective) companies?  Why do they get this “bailout”?

Republicans won’t bail out banks because “competition is good and competition will weed out the good from the bad”. But regarding health care, “competition is bad, unfair and private insurance companies will fail.”

Allowing anyone to participate in the health care market, including government, will result is a fierce competition.  This competition may kill companies, produce new companies and many might remain viable.  What is certain, however, is that it will produce a better option for the customer.  According to the Republican mantra, the free market, free competition scenario always produces a better service and a better product.

If politicians truly put the public first, they would let all options fight it out for our business – and we’ll decide (as consumers) who wins and who fails.

Does everyone remember Chris Hunt and Scott Scanlon owned Hunt-Scanlon?  You may recall Hunt-Scanlon was once a trusted source in senior level executive recruitment.  They disappeared – almost overnight – when Whitney Group discovered that its CFO had committed fraud.

“Ex-Finance Chief Jeffrey Sussman, 51, committed fraud when he advanced “millions of dollars” without authorization over four years to Hunt-Scanlon Corp., a company that tracks the executive-search market, according to a complaint filed Sept. 25 in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan. Whitney also sued Hunt-Scanlon, alleging the Riverside, Connecticut-based company owes it $7 million from the money transfers.”

Hunt-Scanlon quickly disappeared and it was later discovered that they had both filed personal bankruptcy (http://www.trollerbk.com/portal/?module=intro&c=F837B62F-EC1A-FDD7-0A5904839CB832BE&showcase=1).  Thanks to a reader submission.

GUESS WHAT?  They are back.  In business.  Recruiting Industry.  Supposedly in a “position of trust”. Nerve.

OH, and they are sponsored by the AESC (Association of Executive Search Consultants), a supposedly reputable organization.  They are also sponsored by Dillistone’s FileFinder, and recruiting software/database provider.  If you are a client of FileFinder or a member of the AESC, I suggest you reach out to them.

Here’s the press release about Hunt and Scanlon’s new venture:

HSZ MEDIA, LLC LAUNCHES HUMAN CAPITAL WEBSITE

Greenwich, CT — June 15, 2009 — Human capital market research firm, HSZ Media, LLC, has launched its business in Greenwich, Connecticut, offering two daily online news briefings tracking industry trends and leadership data to talent management professionals. The company’s news services track developments in the Americas, Europe, Middle East/Africa and Asia.

HSZ Media’s two daily news briefings – Human Capital News Update and C-Talent Leadership Changes – offer proprietary market intelligence in the broad human capital and executive recruiting markets and track comprehensive C-level executive leadership changes at thousands of top companies. “We track key market trends in the human capital sector and its key decision-makers on a global basis – providing daily industry news coverage, weekly Q&A’s with leading human capital experts, industry surveys, general market intelligence and leadership data,” said Dale Zupsansky, a co-founder and head of the company’s tracking and editorial services. “Our aim is to serve real-time information to human capital business leaders around the world,” said HSZ Media’s managing director Chris Hunt. “The media sector has seen a significant shift in how to best offer news and data — we think our strategy positions us well for the future,” added CEO Scott Scanlon.

HSZ Media’s premium subscription package includes two daily newswires totaling over 2,500 articles annually, weekly interviews, data and statistics, and access to the company’s entire news archives. Premium subscribers are allowed complete access to HSZ Media’s website for $195 annually or $349 for a two-year subscription. Trial subscriptions are now being offered at hszmedia.com.

About Us:
HSZ Media, LLC is a leading market research firm providing news, industry analysis, and leadership data to human capital and talent management professionals in the Americas, Europe, Middle East/Africa and Asia. Our two daily news briefings – Human Capital News Update and C-Talent Leadership Changes – offer proprietary market intelligence to the broad human capital and executive recruiting markets and track comprehensive C-level executive leadership changes at thousands of top companies. HSZ Media delivers authoritative intelligence — offering comprehensive, human capital news and data coverage to companies seeking talent management knowledge and a competitive edge in the global war for talent.

Contact Information:

Christopher W. Hunt
Sales and Subscriptions Inquiries
chris@hszmedia.com

Scott A. Scanlon
Editorial Inquiries
scott@hszmedia.com

Dale M. Zupsansky
Editorial and Website Inquiries
dale@hszmedia.com