Take Two

In case you live on a different planet and hadn’t heard, the Supreme Court today begins three days of oral arguments on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). This has promised, at least outside the courtroom, to be a circus of the first order. Legal analyst from all sides of the debate have weighed in, not that it matters, on the merits of the case brought by 26 attorneys general (and a few private parties). Regardless the outcome, it will be praised by the winners and decried by the losers. Such is everything in politics. I am not blanket supporter of the law nor am I a blanket opponent. Like all legislation, there’s some good stuff and some bad stuff in here. The biggest issue I had with the bill is that few, if any, members of Congress had read it prior to voting on it. That is the height of irresponsibility and should be grounds for expulsion from Congress. Then again, we’d have serious turnover if one got booted for not reading a bill one was voting on. Not sure that’s not a bad thing.

I have one major beef with the law- the individual mandate. In short, each American is required to either purchase health insurance (either via their employer or on the open market) or be fined. This is a wet kiss to the insurance industry. In order to get them to agree to take people they routinely refused to cover (ie, people who actually use insurance), Congress made sure there were plenty of other people (ie, everyone else) who were compelled to buy the product to cover that risk. The inflow of dollars into the insurance industry due to this law will be massive. Also, as another gift to the pharmaceutical industry, Medicare was barred, by law, from negotiating drug prices. This, ladies and gentlemen, in inside baseball at its finest. New customers for the insurance industry- high prices meds for the drug industry and the campaign coffers never run drug. Candidly, this makes me sick.

The stated goal of the act is to provide every American with health insurance coverage. There was a simple and far less constitutionally dubious way to do this. National, single payer, health insurance. Aka government health insurance just like a large part of the industrialized world. Why, you may ask, did the Congress not go this route? Because they are cowards.

National health insurance would by HUGELY expensive. It would require new taxes of a significant magnitude, most likely a value added tax (VAT) or national sales tax like what is used in Canada to pay for their health care. This would also be massively unpopular with the electorate who has shown a proclivity to want their cake (and icing) and eat it too. In short, it would be politically unpopular and would cost many members of Congress their seats. That just wouldn’t do although it would be the best way to insure coverage for every American. And so, with their will accomplices in the insurance and pharmacy lobby, they passed the monstrosity that is before the court today. Good times.

Upon reflection, I really hope the Supreme Court does strike the law down. Lay this issue back in the laps of the cowards on Capitol Hill and, if they really do think it’s important, make them do it right. I know they won’t because that’s who they are but it’s a nice thought.

Buckle your seat belts folks. It’s going to be a bumpy few days.

Wired has a great story this month on Bob Lefsetz. If you’re into the music industry, it’s certainly worth your time. But this rant is only tangentially about him. Bob Lefsetz was a failure in the music industry, both as a musician and a record executive. And now, he blasts away via his news letter at the industry that he couldn’t succeed in. Does that seem ironic to anyone else?

I don’t mind constructive criticism. But one thing I have zero tolerance for is a criticism from someone who either 1) doesn’t excel at that which they are criticizing or 2) critics who have no outside record of success on their own. For example, I like reading restaurant reviews but unless the reviewer is a chef, I take what they say with a block of salt. Why? Because it takes into account their personal biases. Also, my thought is, if you were good at it, you’d go do it. It’s easy to take pot shots from the cheap seats. It’s quite another to strap on your helmet and perform.

I feel the same way about business books. Most of them are written by people who are not successes in business but rather are successful authors and speakers. Theory is terrific but unless you can convert it into actionable knowledge it just makes you good at board games. Those who can, do. Those who can’t become critics.

I leave you with wisdom from the great Teddy Roosevelt, perhaps my favorite president. You simply can’t improve on this.

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.