Healthcare Legislation: it sucks

Well the house finally passed a(by only 20 votes) a health care bill designed to lower costs in the year "who in the hell knows" and promises to make health care more competitive. Unless they plan to model the NFL's collective bargaining agreement were are all screwed. Looking at the bill from afar, with over 1,000 pages that is really afar, the bill does not do any thing to affect the supply side of medical costs. Nothing is stating about getting more certified doctors, using more government research and money for experimental procedures and future medicines.

It is all about attacking the health insurance companies and taking away from them their power. If congress wanted help curb premium hikes, start enforcing a little law known as antitrust. In the majority of the states, few insurance companies dominate the market and because of federal regulations (which can be reversed by Congress)individuals and companies are forced to purchase insurance from the state they reside in. I am no economist but that does not sound like an open market.

for my last rant I take exemption to the "everyone must be covered and those who are not will be fined" thought. I am currently one of those, by choice, because I rarely get sick. In playing sports all my life and in the physically demanding job environment of the Army I have suffered one broken bone (right index finger) sprained ankles and muscles pulls. In 10 years I have been to the doctor more time for annual check ups than for illness. I eat healthy, workout regularly and for most illness I will pay a certain amount to get treated. But Nancy says I am evil and I am a drain on everyone else. And because I am so evil I should be fine for be such a drain. I totally agree of having accessible care to poorer people but those of who choose not to buy insurance should not be punished like some sort of criminal.

Super Freakanomics

I recently bought the highly touted sequel to Freakanomics, Super Freakanomics. For you who do not know about either, "Freak" was developed and written by an economist and investigative journalist. They look at several different phenomenon and explain causation with factors that most people would not really think about. In the first book they look at what successfully helped lower crime rates in the 80's and 90's. Most people claim better laws, prevention programs, and other institutional structures. But the authors, looked at the legalization of abortion. Citing mountains of empirical data, they illustrated a link between the demographics of women who usually get abortions and the demographics of active criminals. They found that both shared lower qualities of living, less educated, single or come from broken families to name a few factors. They explain that a major causation for drop in crime rates was due that less potential criminals were being born.
In the new book, they will apply their empirical research into global warming and other current topics. One excerpt that I enjoy was the empirical relationship that one is more likely to be killed drunk walking than drunk driving. While they do not condone drunk driving as it usually impacts everyone else besides the drunk, a drunk is more likely to die trying to walk home.
The first book is a great read and I would recommend to anyone no matter their background and I look forwarding to finishing the second book.

If you buy American buy Ford

Ford's 3rd quarter figures were released this week highlighted by $1 billion in profit and a positive growth outlook for 2011. "http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,571009,00.html". Of course spurring the number was the government cash for clunkers program, which brought many buyers in to Ford dealership's across the country. But what really help spur this turnaround were two things: Ford's decision not receive government bailout and ability to consolidate debt without going through bankruptcy. In the eyes of many Americans, this illustrated Ford's ability properly manage itself along other American companies.
When business was booming, Ford maintained it business model. It did not try to over expand it truck and SUV lines even though they were bringing in huge margins. Ford understood that all the external pressures pressing on the car market would soon be too much for truck and SUV sales. Early in this decade, Ford was truly committed to producing a hybrid car that would stylistic appeal to buyers as well be very economical. Ford also continued to develop its lower margin cars to be more efficient without a huge price increase. Ford used the boom in sales to strengthen its position against debt holders and it paid huge dividends when sales crashed. Ford managed to consolidate debt and cost production costs to avoid taking federal money or proceeding through bankruptcy. Their ability to remain flexible and to evolve are essential into surviving this new market.
And this is why I believe if you buy American you should buy Ford. They have demonstrated the proper way to tightrope profit margins with operating efficiency and customer satisfaction. They have a new sleek and fuel efficient product line that are very affordable while still offering some of there high value trucks such as the best selling F150. We all know that American cars are dependable, now it is time to recognize which to those makers we can count on no matter where the future will take us.

Financial Regulation: too much or much needed

I was debating whether to discuss my views on financial regulation or healthcare. Seems to me that the healthcare debate is going to be in the spotlight for a while, so I chose to blog about financial regulation. Not the flashiest topic but one that has had some big news in the recent days. Starting with the news from the great pay czar Ken Feinberg, who is planning to restrict the bonuses that execs can receive most notably from AIG. It is important that the moves are not industry wide only pertaining to companies that received bailout money. I feel this is a huge mistake. Now competitors that are able to lure not only potential talent from AIG but also the talent that AIG currently has. If AIG can not offer competitive pay packages, they will most seriously see a decline in talent, productivity and profitability. This does not really help the US taxpayers get their money back. Why do we not just make AIG back what they owe, with interest? That seems to me the more logical thing to do.

UFC and Org Behavior??

I am sure that many of you are scratching your head on why I am talking about UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship) on a MBA blog. First, for all of you that do not know what UFC is, it a mixed martial arts promoting the top fighters from all fighting style (kickboxing, wrestling, submission, karate, judo,etc) against one another. They produced a show called the Ultimate Fighter where 16 fighters train and compete against each other for a contract. To say the least I am a big fan of the show.

But how does this tie into organizational behavior. Well, the 16 fighters are split into two teams of 8 each and our trained by a current and successful UFC fighter. And to boost ratings they always find two coaches that have some kind of animosity towards each other (it would not be reality TV without). On the current season, there is a real dichotomy in the leadership displayed by both coaches. In this case both coaches once held the Light Heavyweight Championship. Coach A, Rashad Evans, has a very positive approach to his team. He is always encouraging them, giving them insights, generally fostering a strong team unity. He leans to team first. Rashad is there to pick his guys up after they fail. Coach B, Quentin “Rampage” Jackson is more critical in his evaluations of his team. His approach is to not really train them but to offer information from his experience. He does foster team unity and focuses more on the individual. In many episodes, if his fighter fails he just walks away in disgust.

SO after about 6 episodes in which one member of each team faces each other, who do you think has won the most fights. If you chose Coach A, Rashad Evans, you would be right. Not only has won most fights but as of today his team is undefeated. Is this really that shocking? From our study on positive and negative affectivity, each can have a dramatic effect on work related performance. Coach A is constantly showing his support for his guys, interacting with them, genuinely taking interest in them. Coach B has not developed close ties with his fighters, and many times when they lose he does not even go into the ring to check on them. The show provides a great example how attitudes and personalities can affect work performances.

Corporate Responsibility

I was listening to an interview with Jim Skinner, CEO of McDonald's, and he discussed the importance of corporate responsibility. He blames several of the recent financial blunders on a lack of so called "Doing the right thing" attitude among some corporations believing that self-policing and the want to do the right thing would do more than strict government oversight. I tend to agree with his views, we should be attempting to change the culture of corporate America. I am very afraid that government will pass tough regulation that will prevent business the lee-way to take some risks and stifle their innovation. People like to forget that without corporations Americans would not enjoy the lifestyles that they have today. Government should promote business ethics and reward those companies that do the right thing. While the many financial bailouts were of some necessity, too much of the money went to support companies who failed to the right thing. I would rather see the money go to companies that show responsibility in their actions and a willingness to look past profit margins.

Rush on Ammo

A recent article from the BG Daily News discussed the rising costs of gun ammunition and how it could end up costing taxpayers. If you are not familiar with this issue ever since President Obama took office there has been a big rush on hand guns and ammunition. Many fear that Mr. Obama would tried to pass tougher gun restrictions and would attempt to use back door tactics to eventually seize weapons. Much of this panic is about nothing. Mr Obama and Congress has much tougher policy decisions on economic recovery, healthcare reform and the war on terrorism much less to approach a hot topic as gun rights. However absurd the rumors and fears it has led to one thing; an increase on gun and ammunition sales and the rise on prices as well.

With people spending all their income reserves to buy ammo it is causing some hurt on taxpayers. Police departments and other government agencies that conduct weapons proficiency training are finding it harder to find the right type of ammunition and the prices in some cases have doubled. Here in Bowling Green, the BGPD has started buying extra ammo each purchase to help build a surplus to prevent training stoppage because of ammo shortages. The gun industry has taken advantaged of the irrational behavior of consumers by raising prices, even though the price to make ammo has not gone up.

I am a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment, but find it ridiculous how paranoid people are of phantom legislation. And because of them we must all pay.