How Windows 8 is like Obamacare

Let's get one thing straight, this article isn't meant to be an attempt to be flippant about either topic Rather it's about mandates. 

Mandates rarely come without causing someone pain.  Does the pain of a failed operating system rival that of a botched Universal Healthcare mandate?  Unquestionably not but this isn't about equivalence, it's about arrogance.

Windows 8 was launched with great fanfare.  Preceded by not one but two public betas designed to blunt the inevitable shock by a customer base soon to lose their beloved Start Menu.  At the time Microsoft's two Steve's, Ballmer and Sinofsky, touted the gospel of one OS to rule them all.  Even if that wasn't quite true.  

The Windows on your phone wasn't the same as the one on your PC and neither was the one that graced your shiny new Surface RT.

But wait, for some strange reason, nobody wanted the Surface RT or Windows Phone...

Apparently the same went for Windows 8.

It was too much too fast.  A mandate by Goliath to David.  A directive handed down promising an end to our computing tedium and liberation from the evils of multiple platforms.  Remember what I said about not being quite true?

Let's switch from Redmond Washington to the Washington everyone cares about.  The one with D.C. in the name.  The one where the prospect of healthcare for everyone was the dream of Presidents all the way back to Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  So finally, after years of haggling, backroom deals with insurance industry lobbyists and even a Supreme Court challenge the dream became a reality.

Sort of...

The grand idea came with compromise.  Healthcare for all but still at the whim of a corrupt industry that left the poor bankrupt and the sick unhealed.  It was a mandate after all.  Everyone had to play or be subject to a fine.  There would be websites, exchanges and lip service.  If you liked things the way they were you could continue that way....

except...

You couldn't.  That part about whims of a corrupt industry?  Well, when their policies didn't measure up to the law they simply canceled them.  No warning, no notice, just a curt letter.  The claim was that the policies didn't meet muster and more expensive options were the only answer aside from no coverage at all. 

Oh what political hay was made.  Endless prattle about promises broken and families harmed soon ensued.  Meaningless, all of it.  The bottom line was a mandate executed by the executioners with the blessings of the government via flawed public policy.  It all made for glittering sound bites but the result fell short.

Employers railed against the changes claiming crippling costs to provide adequate care and vows to reduce costs on the backs of their laborers.  Even if it meant reducing the labor force itself, suppressing  wages or cutting hours to do it.  It was true costs were spiraling out of control but not because the concept of healthcare for everyone became law.  It was because the moneychangers collecting the bills demanded more.  Something's got to give and it wasn't going to be the insurance industry. 

Employers claimed an unfair burden of their employees healthcare costs but to those in their charge the employer is the only option.   Nobody making minimum wage could shoulder the costs of an individual policy that often exceeded their month's wages.

We blame the ideology instead of the real problem, the insurance companies.  It wasn't the government, well, actually it was because they let it happen.  Ultimately, however, the blame lay squarely at the feet of the messenger (the moneychangers) and they still wanted their share.  Now they had the law to get it for them. 

Nobody likes a mandate and rebellion will soon ensue either subtle or gross.  Tell someone that touch screens and tiles are how you must use a computer from now on and expect some blowback.

Tell insurance companies that they must cover everyone but do nothing to keep them honest and you end up with the healthcare mess we have now.

The similarities are staggering...

Yes, Windows is just an operating system while healthcare is often a case of life or death but the fumble is the same. 

A change in the way we work with our technology was long overdue, Windows 8 showed us a glimpse of a better future.  So too was Universal healthcare but like the ill fated operating system it was a glittering promise that couldn't deliver.  At least not as it is now.

In the case of Windows you could always just stick with the old version or wait for Microsoft to fix their error in judgment with Windows 9.  Not so with Universal Health care, there's no turning back the clock regardless of what the politicians say.   But just like any version of Windows, expect a slew of "patches" in an attempt to make things better.

Taking the most from the least of us

These days you'd be excused if you wondered whom your elected representatives were actually representing. 

Locked in a battle of ideology where there is no middle ground it's left those with the most to lose in a veritable no-man's land.  If you've suffered the fallout you're living a precarious existence subject to the whims of the political machine.

The proof is easy to find.

The long term unemployed have found their benefit periods drastically reduced and with the looming threat of sequester the size of those checks as well. 

State run healthcare programs have already been denying benefits to the unmarried or childless and reduced benefits and tightened eligibility for the rest..   Even Planned Parenthood and other providers of women's health services nationwide have seen their public funding evaporate based on nothing more than anti-abortion rhetoric . 

While conservatives wage war on social programs, liberals can do little more than act as a backstop even with control of the White House and the Senate.  Progressive legislation frequently finds itself gutted in favor of getting something, anything passed through congress no matter how toothless the legislation.

Wall street doesn't seem to care either way.  In this battle they may as well be the war profiteers taking full advantage of the spoils.  They can literally have their cake and eat it too.  Public policy be damned or more likely ignored so long as the shareholders are happy. 

It's no doubt they will be.

Give the working man a little more cash and they'll happily feed the economy and fill corporate coffers.  Suppress their wages while systematically dismantling a century of labor law and your fortune's made on the backs of a subjugated workforce. 

So as ideologies clash and items like tax reform and infrastructure rebuilding give way to naming post offices  and the minting of commemorative coins, state governments and big business are taking advantage of the lack of governance. 

Look no further for evidence than the state of Arizona now famous for its "Show me your papers" legislation otherwise known as SB1070. 

A week ago their state legislature decided that it was just too easy to get unemployment insurance after conservative business leaders found a sympathetic ear at the state capitol.  For their trouble they got a measure through the state House and Senate to require applicants to provide written documentation from their former employer of their involuntary dismissal from their jobs.

As written, the measure is so biased against the unemployed that all an employer has to do is not provide the applicant with required documentation and the claim can denied.  

Considering funding for the state's unemployment insurance fund comes from employers it's likely the unemployment rate in Arizona will soon drop to 0% in the next 6 months.  Whew! budget crisis solved!

Yes, that's sarcasm...

By the way, Arizona has one of the lowest maximum weekly benefit payments in the country at $240 second only to Mississippi.   Yeah, the gravy train is over you unemployed slackers .

To hear supporters of the measure you'd believe that getting unemployment insurance in Arizona required nothing more than having a social security number and a pulse.  With approximately 75,000 of the state's population of 6.5 million people still on the unemployment rolls (down from 200,0000 in 2010) it's hard to characterize their position as anything but cruel.

The U.S. Department of Labor has already "raised concerns" about the bill's legality under federal law.  Oh yeah, and Arizona's official unemployment rate was still at 8% in January.

Here's another one.  CVS Pharmacy has decided that they need to keep tabs on their employees vital statistics.  Employees covered by the company's health plan are required to provide information such as weight, body fat and other health information or be assessed a $50 per month fee on top of their insurance premiums.    In other words CVS employees can comply with this violation of their privacy or pay a penalty.
 

So if you're collecting unemployment or refuse to submit to employer inquiries about your private health information apparently you're part of the problem.  Meanwhile Washington lets it happen.

We're not talking about forcing millionaires to drive down to a homeless shelter and pass out fistfuls of $20 bills.  It's about subjugating a population already suffering the ravages of a withering economy and a congress impotent to address their concerns.

In the vacuum that's been left, Wall Street soars and so do  the numbers of the less fortunate as they further descend into poverty.  They find a social safety net with ever widening gaps and an indignant conservative leadership holding the scissors.  Worse, the supposed liberal champions of the downtrodden offer little more than lip service.

Twenty years ago this country was facing similar hurdles but ideology wasn't allowed to completely  trump reason.  The result may not have pleased everyone but at least allowed things to move forward.  Brinksmanship was a threat not a foundation for policymaking. 

Actions have consequences, Isaac Newton knew it and apparently so did Matthew, you know the guy from that book Pat Robertson likes to read out of...

"And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’ Matthew25-40

By the way, I'm not religious but that last one makes perfect sense to me...

           

Advertising to your affliction

Commercials annoy me.

"Yeah so what", you're likely saying to yourself right now...

If you have time on your hands like I do, you get to see a lot of ads pitching everything from luxury automobiles to breakfast cereal.  Of course the later the hour the more egregious the commercials become. 

Male enhancement and impotence cures show up the most frequently followed closely by well dressed lawyers pitching resolution via litigation.

All of those are the standard fare.  Even those products that promise to rectify men's...shortcomings. 

Most disgusting of all, however, are the ads from the pharmaceutical companies.  Regardless of how you feel about modern medicine, hawking prescription drugs like feminine hygiene products is something just short of criminal. 

"Ask your doctor" and "You don't have to suffer anymore" are common pitches.  Since when is it acceptable to create a demand for a controlled substance?  Is it wise to blithely wander into your doctor's office requesting medication without being sure of the affliction?  The commercials would make you think so.

How arrogant is that? The pharmaceuticals industry does the diagnosis making your doctor just another middleman.  I'd hope that rampant capitalism hasn't done the medical profession what it's done to our eating habits but I wouldn't hold your breath.  The practice of kickbacks and promotions given to physicians to favor one treatment option over another isn't as rare as we'd like it to be. 

With the advent of the Internet it seems self-diagnosis with a website as attending physician  has turned us all into hypochondriacs.  Every pain or discomfort is sure to have a miracle pill and all we have to do is make an appointment and ask for it.

Of course all the ads mention, "Ask your Doctor". 

Why?

If my doctor knows my physical condition and I don't have any medical training shouldn't he be the one prescribing treatments?  Who cares what a commercial says?  Why is it so important that I be aware of the names of prescription drugs and why do the drug companies feel the need to give them catchy names? 

So what's the point? 

Why does a company that makes drugs have a retail profit motive?  Need should dictate sales in medicine, not the other way around.  Commercials are explicitly designed to create a desire for a product.  In the case of prescription drugs that's a potentially unhealthy goal to say the least.

It's disgusting and highlights one of the primary flaws with the healthcare industry in the United States.  Personally, I don't believe healing should have a profit motive.  When you corrupt healthcare with greed both health and care are compromised.  There is no profit without sales and the ultimate goal of the salesman is to sell as much product as they can.  It's a goal inconsistent with medicine. 

Medicine should be more like the Red Cross than General Motors.  After all GM may charge you for antenna wax but the Red Cross will never charge you for a cot and a blanket when you need one. 

The worst part comes when we see our friends in the legal industry show up on late night TV again.  This time, however, it's not an auto accident or denied disability claim.  It's a class action against the pharmaceutical companies for injuries caused by their wares. 

Medicine isn't M&M's and shouldn't be marketed as such.  Pharmaceutical companies rush products to market often with inadequate testing and lax safeguards.  Competition may be the core of capitalism but it can be lethal to the unlucky patient receiving a recalled prescription.  Profit motives in business is fine, profit motives in healthcare at any level is a perversion.