Full disclosure: In the past, I have worked doing public relations for hospitals in Michigan, one large, one small.
News coverage of the healthcare reform debate can be fascinating, if you can set aside the human costs of inadequate health care.
A doctor bemoans the fate of medicine as health care becomes a business. Dr. Sandeep Jauhar writes in the New York Times that he became a physician to care for patients, not to be a businessman, but considering costs has become a high priority for doctors.
In the same issue of the Times an editorial suggests that as much as $700 billion per year, or 30 percent of U.S. healthcare spending is wasted.
That amount of waste seems plausible when you consider that the U.S. spends more per capita than any other country, according to World Health Organization (WHO) figures. Question: How is it that we can spend so much per person on health care when so many people are not covered by insurance and so, supposedly, do not access health care? According to this link, that and other assumptions about the uninsured are not necessarily correct. Still, with 15 percent of the population uninsured—almost 50 million individuals—the rate seems too high.
When the debate leaves numbers behind and goes to quality, there seems to be a difference of opinion as well. Does the United States have the best healthcare system in the world as some claim when they oppose healthcare reform? The WHO disagrees. (This information is from a 2000 report available here. The 2008 version also is available. Apparently the reports do not update the quality rankings each year.)
The point is not that conflicting opinions and information exist. The point is, that even with a cursory search of the Internet, and taking into account that the information from different sources isn't likely to be equally reliable, news media coverage of the current healthcare debate could be MUCH better.
More later,
Russ
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Friday, July 03, 2009
Education is a culture we could choose to share... but don't
Cultural diversity is running rampant in the United States. Or, more accurately, most Americans claim a link to and a pride in their ethnic, geographic, religious, or other "roots."
What Americans aren't doing is becoming fluent in any culture but the one they like the best. There's nothing inherently wrong with embracing some aspect of your history, but as most Americans speak only English, most Americans only embrace or even acknowledge one culture.
We are all members of multiple cultures. Hardly anyone in the U.S. is a member of only one ethic group. The majority can trace their lineage back to multiple countries. Go back far enough and every family will find a change of religion somewhere in its history. But, many (I suspect most) people choose to identify with only one culture from their family or personal background.
Choosing one culture is not a problem. Choosing only one culture is a problem.
Why? Because it separates us and gives us notions such as "The War on Christmas," (which has spawned at least one book on the subject). A lack of multi-cultural fluency causes differences in cultural to be viewed as attacks.
One culture that we all should share (there are more) is the culture of education.
It's a fairly standard belief in the United States that going to college is a good thing. It is, but not for the reason most people cite – to get a good job. The most important thing college students can learn is how to be a part of the shared culture of education. Here are some aspects of that culture:
Americans go to public or private school, or are home-schooled because the law requires it. The law requires it because it gives Americans one basis for shared culture and understanding. It allows us to embrace our diversity without embracing separateness.
More later,
Russ
What Americans aren't doing is becoming fluent in any culture but the one they like the best. There's nothing inherently wrong with embracing some aspect of your history, but as most Americans speak only English, most Americans only embrace or even acknowledge one culture.
We are all members of multiple cultures. Hardly anyone in the U.S. is a member of only one ethic group. The majority can trace their lineage back to multiple countries. Go back far enough and every family will find a change of religion somewhere in its history. But, many (I suspect most) people choose to identify with only one culture from their family or personal background.
Choosing one culture is not a problem. Choosing only one culture is a problem.
Why? Because it separates us and gives us notions such as "The War on Christmas," (which has spawned at least one book on the subject). A lack of multi-cultural fluency causes differences in cultural to be viewed as attacks.
One culture that we all should share (there are more) is the culture of education.
It's a fairly standard belief in the United States that going to college is a good thing. It is, but not for the reason most people cite – to get a good job. The most important thing college students can learn is how to be a part of the shared culture of education. Here are some aspects of that culture:
- be skeptical, but open-minded
- think critically
- evaluate the evidence
- if there is no evidence, do some research to find some
- respect other people's ideas
- give credit where credit is due
Americans go to public or private school, or are home-schooled because the law requires it. The law requires it because it gives Americans one basis for shared culture and understanding. It allows us to embrace our diversity without embracing separateness.
More later,
Russ
Thursday, July 02, 2009
How many people are EMPLOYED?
The jobless rate is the top story for many news outlets, with a loss in June of 467,000 jobs, according to the New York Times. It's a huge number. It puts the U.S. unemployment rate at 9.5 percent. Our economy has lost 6.5 million jobs since January 2008. No surprise, the announcement sent the stock market lower. The market seems to react to news almost emotionally to almost any negative announcement.
Couldn't news be reported differently so that the market wouldn't be as "depressed" by the numbers? Journalists are taught that the significant is newsworthy. If that's true, than why isn't the number of EMPLOYED people being reported?
Is reporting only the negative a form of bias? I don't want to suggest that we should get only happy news, but how the news is reported makes a difference. Compare FOX News and MSNBC or the New York Times and the Washington Times. They report on the same news (mostly), but treat it differently.
Is reporting the employment rate as well as the unemployment rate an option? Would it make any difference? To people? To the stock market?
More later,
Russ
Couldn't news be reported differently so that the market wouldn't be as "depressed" by the numbers? Journalists are taught that the significant is newsworthy. If that's true, than why isn't the number of EMPLOYED people being reported?
Is reporting only the negative a form of bias? I don't want to suggest that we should get only happy news, but how the news is reported makes a difference. Compare FOX News and MSNBC or the New York Times and the Washington Times. They report on the same news (mostly), but treat it differently.
Is reporting the employment rate as well as the unemployment rate an option? Would it make any difference? To people? To the stock market?
More later,
Russ
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
The "Best and Brightest" seem pretty dim these days
While I suspect that the George W. Bush economic policies, or lack thereof, are at least partly responsible for the current global recession, there is something much more important at the root of our economic woes, at least here in the United States.
America has seen itself as the best and the brightest of nations – innovative, talented, able to solve any problem – but that just doesn't seem to be true any more. Maybe it never was, but I think the United States, as a nation, lacks vision – in both senses of the word. We lack a vision of how to be innovators in all aspects of business, politics, life, and world leadership, and we can't seem to see that anything is wrong with us.
What's wrong? Here's my take:
Short-term thinking
The auto business is a good example of short-term thinking. American car companies focused more on SUVs and pick-up trucks because they would sell now, rather than focusing on the cars Americans would need in the future. They fought improved mileage standards and safety ratings rather than looking toward the future by developing more fuel-efficient vehicles. The result has been billions in losses and government bailouts.
The argument in favor of the Big Three groupthink has been that they are making cars the American people want and will buy. True enough as far as it goes, however, I can't fathom why auto industry executives, receiving huge salaries, couldn't see the changes coming (gas prices? pollution abatement?) and prepare for them unless there was a reward for short-term thinking and/or a punishment for long-term thinking.
The laws governing business, at least publicly-traded businesses, provide that reward and punishment. I'm generalizing here, but the rules governing businesses tracked by the Securities and Exchange Commission essentially state that the primary duty of a publicly-traded business (and its officers) is making money for shareholders. Therefore, any decision that negatively affects the stock price is a potential SEC violation. Investing in the future might be the smart thing to do, but it might also mean lower profits, lower stock prices, and dissatisfied shareholders.
Taken to the extreme, this is silly, but shareholders want money and they want it now. CEOs and boards of directors listen to shareholders. Shareholders have even been known to sue over actions that affect stock prices.
Stock prices or even high profits are not the only measures of a successful business. A business that gets away with illegally dumping toxic waste might be more profitable for its shareholders, but that doesn't make it a good company. The company's costs are just spread to the community at large in the form of (potentially) poor community health, degraded wildlife habitat, and toxic waste clean up.
Narrow thinking
Short-term thinking is in itself a form of narrow thinking, but being narrow minded has other aspects as well. Education is a great example. Most Americans would likely agree that a college education is a good thing. Why? There are a number of reasons: the ability to be a more effective citizen in a democracy, self-actualization, leaving a legacy of learning and knowledge to your children, better health, and others. But the main reason? The one everyone mentions first? Most often the only one people can think of? A college degree means a job that pays well.
A few years ago, I assigned students in several sections of a basic college composition class (English 101 or the equivalent) a paper that described the elements of a good education. Of the 90+ students who turned in a paper, ALL of them had only one requirement for a good education: a good education results in a job that pays well. Not a job that they loved, or at least could tolerate, only a job that provided a lot of money.
I can forgive this kind of narrow thinking in students. They are, by definition, ignorant of some of the more subtle aspects of education. One of the reasons for going to college is to learn to think more broadly. Unfortunately, many of the people in business and education in this country don't seem to have learned that lesson and America has suffered as a result. We have CEOs that can't think beyond profit and engineers that can't think beyond the way things were done 20 years ago.
Selfish thinking
All the narrow and short-term thinking, along with consumerism and a lack of understanding of what personal liberty really entails, has led Americans to be a particularly self-absorbed group. Too many people think that the world revolves around them, and only them.
While it's true that each of us can only respond to the world from our own experience, we should consider more than just ourselves when we interact with the world. Society is created from our interactions, and always interacting selfishly can lead to dire consequences.
Global warming? I don't know all the science, but response to global warming shows how we think selfishly. Critics suggest global warming does not exist or that it is not caused by human beings. I won't argue the points, but the general response to warnings seems to be that limiting emissions will hurt business. I have no doubt of it, but the potential death and suffering of billions of people does not seem comparable to reduced profits for business. I recognize that reduced profit affects people as well as businesses, however, the opportunity presented for business by the new technology required for doing business with limited emissions should more than overcome that suffering.
Caveats
This is obviously a book-length topic, so there are many arguments left unaddressed. I'm not sure if I have this book in me at the moment. In any event, comments are welcome, and if you know of a book that does cover this topic, let me know.
More later,
Russ
America has seen itself as the best and the brightest of nations – innovative, talented, able to solve any problem – but that just doesn't seem to be true any more. Maybe it never was, but I think the United States, as a nation, lacks vision – in both senses of the word. We lack a vision of how to be innovators in all aspects of business, politics, life, and world leadership, and we can't seem to see that anything is wrong with us.
What's wrong? Here's my take:
Short-term thinking
The auto business is a good example of short-term thinking. American car companies focused more on SUVs and pick-up trucks because they would sell now, rather than focusing on the cars Americans would need in the future. They fought improved mileage standards and safety ratings rather than looking toward the future by developing more fuel-efficient vehicles. The result has been billions in losses and government bailouts.
The argument in favor of the Big Three groupthink has been that they are making cars the American people want and will buy. True enough as far as it goes, however, I can't fathom why auto industry executives, receiving huge salaries, couldn't see the changes coming (gas prices? pollution abatement?) and prepare for them unless there was a reward for short-term thinking and/or a punishment for long-term thinking.
The laws governing business, at least publicly-traded businesses, provide that reward and punishment. I'm generalizing here, but the rules governing businesses tracked by the Securities and Exchange Commission essentially state that the primary duty of a publicly-traded business (and its officers) is making money for shareholders. Therefore, any decision that negatively affects the stock price is a potential SEC violation. Investing in the future might be the smart thing to do, but it might also mean lower profits, lower stock prices, and dissatisfied shareholders.
Taken to the extreme, this is silly, but shareholders want money and they want it now. CEOs and boards of directors listen to shareholders. Shareholders have even been known to sue over actions that affect stock prices.
Stock prices or even high profits are not the only measures of a successful business. A business that gets away with illegally dumping toxic waste might be more profitable for its shareholders, but that doesn't make it a good company. The company's costs are just spread to the community at large in the form of (potentially) poor community health, degraded wildlife habitat, and toxic waste clean up.
Narrow thinking
Short-term thinking is in itself a form of narrow thinking, but being narrow minded has other aspects as well. Education is a great example. Most Americans would likely agree that a college education is a good thing. Why? There are a number of reasons: the ability to be a more effective citizen in a democracy, self-actualization, leaving a legacy of learning and knowledge to your children, better health, and others. But the main reason? The one everyone mentions first? Most often the only one people can think of? A college degree means a job that pays well.
A few years ago, I assigned students in several sections of a basic college composition class (English 101 or the equivalent) a paper that described the elements of a good education. Of the 90+ students who turned in a paper, ALL of them had only one requirement for a good education: a good education results in a job that pays well. Not a job that they loved, or at least could tolerate, only a job that provided a lot of money.
I can forgive this kind of narrow thinking in students. They are, by definition, ignorant of some of the more subtle aspects of education. One of the reasons for going to college is to learn to think more broadly. Unfortunately, many of the people in business and education in this country don't seem to have learned that lesson and America has suffered as a result. We have CEOs that can't think beyond profit and engineers that can't think beyond the way things were done 20 years ago.
Selfish thinking
All the narrow and short-term thinking, along with consumerism and a lack of understanding of what personal liberty really entails, has led Americans to be a particularly self-absorbed group. Too many people think that the world revolves around them, and only them.
While it's true that each of us can only respond to the world from our own experience, we should consider more than just ourselves when we interact with the world. Society is created from our interactions, and always interacting selfishly can lead to dire consequences.
Global warming? I don't know all the science, but response to global warming shows how we think selfishly. Critics suggest global warming does not exist or that it is not caused by human beings. I won't argue the points, but the general response to warnings seems to be that limiting emissions will hurt business. I have no doubt of it, but the potential death and suffering of billions of people does not seem comparable to reduced profits for business. I recognize that reduced profit affects people as well as businesses, however, the opportunity presented for business by the new technology required for doing business with limited emissions should more than overcome that suffering.
Caveats
This is obviously a book-length topic, so there are many arguments left unaddressed. I'm not sure if I have this book in me at the moment. In any event, comments are welcome, and if you know of a book that does cover this topic, let me know.
More later,
Russ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)