Comments on: Healthcare Insurers: I Think the Appropriate Word is “Disturbing” http://www.todaysworkplace.org/2009/08/14/healthcare-insurers-i-think-the-appropriate-word-is-disturbing/ Sun, 05 Feb 2012 04:46:42 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Reggie Greene / The Logistician http://www.todaysworkplace.org/2009/08/14/healthcare-insurers-i-think-the-appropriate-word-is-disturbing/comment-page-1/#comment-22495 Reggie Greene / The Logistician Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:41:32 +0000 http://www.todaysworkplace.org/?p=2026#comment-22495 At this point, although the debate and spin continue, this bill is essentially dead from an emotional and mandate perspective, even if some version gets passed. Whether it ultimately proves to be of any benefit to society, or a detriment, will take years, if not decades, to appreciate. This bill, and virtually anything that might be done to improve our healthcare system, involves too much complexity with which we are emotionally motivated to deal. In addition, there are too many factions with entrenched economic and/or financial interests to permit it to become a true health initiative. There's been too much arguing about the details. People can not describe in 2 or 3 sentences the conceptual parameters of the effort and what it is supposed to accomplish. Unfortunately, people can describe how they feel about it in 1 or 2 words, and that's not good. And that's not to mention the elements who have whipped up hysteria by suggesting, with certainty, what will occur once the final product (which does not yet exist) emerges. If either side of the debate has to work this hard arguing about something which theoretically should improve the lives of the masses of people, there's a big problem. Even more so than how something is done, people are interested in results, not the details. And once again, as is frequently the case with much of human processing, the facts don't really matter. How people view the world, what they value, and what they want, matters. And there is nothing collaborative in nature about that. Factor in the strong individualistic American DNA, and this effort is emotionally toast. At this point, although the debate and spin continue, this bill is essentially dead from an emotional and mandate perspective, even if some version gets passed. Whether it ultimately proves to be of any benefit to society, or a detriment, will take years, if not decades, to appreciate.

This bill, and virtually anything that might be done to improve our healthcare system, involves too much complexity with which we are emotionally motivated to deal. In addition, there are too many factions with entrenched economic and/or financial interests to permit it to become a true health initiative.

There’s been too much arguing about the details. People can not describe in 2 or 3 sentences the conceptual parameters of the effort and what it is supposed to accomplish. Unfortunately, people can describe how they feel about it in 1 or 2 words, and that’s not good. And that’s not to mention the elements who have whipped up hysteria by suggesting, with certainty, what will occur once the final product (which does not yet exist) emerges.

If either side of the debate has to work this hard arguing about something which theoretically should improve the lives of the masses of people, there’s a big problem.

Even more so than how something is done, people are interested in results, not the details. And once again, as is frequently the case with much of human processing, the facts don’t really matter. How people view the world, what they value, and what they want, matters.

And there is nothing collaborative in nature about that. Factor in the strong individualistic American DNA, and this effort is emotionally toast.

]]>