I've been reading a lot about president Obama recently. And I don't like what I'm reading. A lot of it stems from his recent winning of the Nobel peace prize - but that served only as a stimulus for a broader question: What has he done so far? What has become of his promises? What can be said about his progress so far?
I must admit, that I too thought that the peace prize was a bit unexpected. When I first read about it, I too thought to myself "But what has he done so far?"
But something else is happening. People are using this as a rallying point to state that Obama is actually useless, that he is earning points merely by talking about nice things in the air without delivering.
I might have believed this as well, but one thing saved me from doing so. Just after the election, while he was still president elect, I read his book "The Audacity of Hope". And that has given me an insight into how he thinks and wants to work. That, and I've good sources of news and data about how the political system works (Largely from the New York Times & The Daily Show). But more importantly, I've also captured what could be called the heart of the conservative movement – I've also read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand – largely deemed to be the "Capitalist Manifesto".
I will also take this opportunity to point out that a lot of the people on TV who talk about the principals of capitalism and then make reference to the book have never actually read it, or if they did, they only skimmed through it.
So – this is what I bring to the table when I digest my daily news breakfast: an understanding of the president's frame of mind and goals as well as an acute understanding of the pillars of Conservative ideology. The two sound incongruent, but they aren't really.
And it is these tools which have given me the insight into the current situation – the Nobel Peace Prize, the debate on health care reform and bailouts...not to mention the manner in which the debate is being done.
And it is all such shit.
Allow me to explain – today I read an article by Charles Blow of the New York Times. In essence, he says that the American Public is getting tired of waiting. Waiting for things that don't seem to be happening. And he states he Obama should cease his dream of bipartisanship and just plough forward with reform.
That, sir, would be a mistake.
There is a fine line between a moral sanction and tyranny.
But I digress – the next logical question would be: Why isn't bi-partisanship working? It seems its because the Conservatives are resisting.
Why are they resisting?
That seems to be the question no-one is really asking. I find it quite peculiar that the conservatives claim that something like a public option would be against their ideology (a careful reading of Ayn Rand would reveal that it is NOT). Every time I heard their arguments, I cannot help but think that they are out of their minds - they espouse interpretations of the proposed legislation that make me think that they themselves haven't read it. This leads me to believe that their opposition is not based on ideology.
So, if not ideology, perhaps popular support? No that can't be right either – most polls show that people actually support the public option (a confounding factor here would be the public's knowledge of how government programmes are actually run – Medicare is government run and people don't even know it). People are afraid that they will lose their current coverage – again no, since people may keep whatever policies they have.
So if not, ideology or public defence...well, what then? What are we left with?
Personal reasons.
I feel there is such resistance from the conservatives because there is something personal at stake. Many of the conservatives have taken large donations from Pharmaceutical as well as Health Insurance companies. And money, in the US, means you can run for office. (yes, the role of corporate donations in pubic campaigns is being debated, but with all the urgency of a 6 year old worrying about his pension).
So, these people are resisting because they sold their voice to the insurance companies, who have vested interests. What interests? In the current system, they are major winners. And no-one likes to lose.
So now the REAL question is – how do you convince insurance companies that it is in their best interest to support good health care reform? Public opinion doesn't really matter – its translation into sales dollars is foggy at best.
How do you align the goals of the organization to the goals of the government?
This is my opinion – as of now, you cannot. Why? Because it seems the goals of these organizations ISN'T to provide quality healthcare – these are money generating organizations. I used that term on purpose – these are not "value" or "wealth" creating organization, but money creating organizations. And I don't believe the nonsense PR that they come up with because I know that actions speak louder than words. The people at the top in these organizations, or rather, the shareholders in these organizations, aren't in this to create value in the healthcare space – but rather, to maximize their money, currency.
So the next question would be: how do you change that emphasis? How do you shift the emphasis from money generation to value generation?
Ahh...now we're talking about the REAL core of the matter. And as far as I can see, NOONE is talking about this specific point.
A good starting question would be: why do people want to invest their money into money generating organizations? To make more money. Why do they want to make more money? The usual answer I get is: because they are greedy people and human desires are unlimited. I'm sorry, but that's crap. Psychology has advanced far too much for me to take that as an answer.
This is what I know from psychology: people want to do something useful and something that they love, and they want to enjoy the fruit of their labour. You want to buy yourself a private jet so that you can go anywhere you want to whenever you wish? It's possible, but you've to earn lots of money to do that. And so people do that. But you also want to ensure that life doesn't catch you off guard, so you ferret away savings for a rainy day. And you want to ensure that once you are no longer capable of work that you can live out your days in comfort – a non working retirement.
Now to do all this, you need to create value – and that value needs to be such that other people are willing to pay you for your trouble.
What I feel is that people feel that these conditions cannot be met UNLESS they try and maximize the amount they have through any means possible. And yes, I agree that it is important that your money grows.
But there are two things I think we need to examine:
· What rate of return is acceptable
· What ethical boundaries exist – and more importantly, what are the consequences of this?
Generally, people cross ethical boundaries when the rate of return is not acceptable to them, or if they wish to achieve it by a means that is societally unacceptable (the former point is my own, the latter is Durkheim's). I am also going to concede that ethical boundaries vary from culture to culture. BUT there are certain absolutes – primarily that any activity that does not generate value, or rather generates harm, is ethically unsound.
But my, I have diverged totally from the topic at hand.
This is what I wanted to say: Obama wants the GOP in with him because if he doesn't do that, then he crosses the line into "soft" tyranny. The Conservatives want to splinter and destroy the debate because it is in their own best interests to – for funding. The leaders of the insurance industry want a status quo because they feel it is only via the status quo that they may realize their goals.
The solution – identify the goals of the backers of the insurance industry and try to incentivise "good" behaviour. I have a few ideas, but they are still being developed.
Posts
