The healthcare insurance system in the US amounts to a criminal conspiracy to defraud the American people. It is state-sanctioned robbery on an enormous scale.
OK, your likes and retweets have inspired me to turn this into a thread:
I am fortunate to be able to pay $30k/yr in healtcare premiums.
Today we learned that our insurance company had denied $1800 worth of claims on a ridiculous technicality. (@askUHC)
Completely legal of course, but utterly predatory.
This situation: corporate behavior that is legal & predatory & unapologetic is brought to you by the current kleptocratic thinking embraced by our government.
I say all this as someone who is fortunate to be able to pay $30k/yr in premiums for family coverage. Also probably another $10k of expense to pay for normal services that our insurance doesn't cover.
(That this is more than many people's annual income is not lost on me.)
The assumption that people don't have a right to healthcare--I get that, even though I disagree.
What bothers me is the companion assumption, that corporations have the right to extract as much profit as possible from people who have no other options.
This is similar to the notion that corporations are somehow "burdened" by regulation--regulation intended to protect American people from harm. We value the opportunity for corporate profit more than the opportunity to create a safe society.
It's old-fashioned conquerer-class rape and pillage, wearing a lovely suit.
Though these days, the suits aren't that great, TBH. /END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
When I talk about planning work, no matter what it is, (strategy, OKRs, user stories, jobs-to-be-done, goals, *whatever*) I always get questions about "altitude" or "grain-size."
And, because I write about Outcomes, and my book is called "Outcomes Over Output", people assume that I think that all of these statements should be based around an outcome of some sort.
In other words, "we are going to [do this thing] in order to [achieve this outcome]" or "the user needs [x thing] in order to achieve [y outcome]."
Let's talk about what McConnell said yesterday. In the narrowest sense, he's right: 45 does have the right to see this process through, and he is within his rights to seek the protection of the courts. But...
Just because he has the right to do something, doesn't mean he should. This is called forbearance, and it is critical to a functioning government.
Forbearance means, for example, that just because you can launch a nuclear weapon, you don't do it. You recognize that the world is better off as a whole if you do not go nuclear.
I think it’s because they fundementally changed the storytelling logic of the show.
In Season 1, they established clear, easy-to-understand game rules. Hosts behave like this. Humans behave like that.
The thrill of the show then was that in each episode, the rules were both transgressed and revealed in small, thrilling increments. Dolores gains awareness. Maeve gains power.
All the while, the hosts, humans, and viewers (!) are working to figure out the deeper game rules.
I made a reservation, and though it took me a few minutes to check in, when I got to the counter, the woman checked me in, handed me a numbered ticket, then the looked around for a security guard!
She calls out to the nearest guard who was just wandering by, "Hey Jerry!"
Jerry comes over. She says to him, "He has a reservation. Take him to the front of the photo line."
I work with technology and digital product teams who create and roll out apps, very much like what the state party in Iowa just very publicly failed to do. Here's my take. /1
First, the NY Times reported that, in some precincts, as many as 7 of 10 target users didn't even download the app. In other words, the basic problem here was that people didn't use the system. /2
This happens in the enterprise all the time. IT rolls out some new system, but people keep doing what they've always done. In most cases, this means that they keep using Excel. In Iowa, it meant that people tried to continue using paper and telephones. /3
I was reminded of the first time we taught together, and how we've learned, both as teachers, and about the material itself. /1
@Boogie I think our first class together was in 2011. (Let's say +/- 1 year.) We were luck to land a 12-class gig to teach #leanUX to a client with offices around the world. The gig went well and was expanded. We probably taught that 2-day class 20+ times over the next year or so. /2
@Boogie To get to have so many iterations is a blessing really. (I guess standup comics know this.) You get to try your material, get feedback, respond to questions, see what works and what doesn't. /3