http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/business/28auto.html?th&emc=th

G.M.’s Latest Plan Envisions a Much Smaller Automaker

Over the last months countless articles and news commentaries have discussed the plight of the US auto makers.  Bankruptcy, restructuring and foreign buyouts are all on the table as the US Government pushes Chrysler and General Motors to fix itself or get fixed.

One item that keeps appearing and as I think back over the last years, starting when Asian auto makers built factories here in America, I am constantly amazed to see that the UAW is not part of the solution.  I appreciate that their role is to protect the interests of their members.  Yet they simply  focus on protecting the lavish pensions (developed when Detroit was ever so profitable) that these individuals are “entitled” to.

I have a profound respect for much of the work the union movement has done to protect the American worker and to assure them that they are paid a fair wage, work in reasonably safe conditions and various other initiatives that escape my mind.

What disturbs me these days is that we complain about Outsourcing and the migration of jobs to India, Malaysia, in years past Ireland and countless other countries willing to work for less than the American worker and do those jobs that are “Beneath Us”.  Why we have the human resources, just look at the current rate of unemployment.  When it is zero then OK let’s outsource.

As the spokesperson for American workers and hoping they are aware that we cannot practice isolationist policies and impose tariffs and taxes to protect American jobs.  I worry that they are not out there working with business and the government to protect those jobs or better yet grow the n umber of jobs while still exploiting the virtues of technology and the goal to reduce the end cost to the consumer, their members.

Instead they slow down progress.  They do not take the lead in driving for quality and do not help to make sure what we build or do with American hands and minds is the best that can be made or provided anywhere.

In the article, what I am once again reminded of is the fact that they insist that the “Pensions” be protected 9screw the stockholders and debit holders.  i do not see them thinking about the fact that the future of our children is at risk.  Jobs will continue to go to where it is less expensive to produce and where equally skilled people demonstrate a willingness to work to put food on their tables.

The unions are one of the great strengths of America.  At this time of economic turmoil, where greed is at the core of our housing crisis, the introduction of high risk derivatives and a truly expensive health care system.  They should be leading the workforce to understand that the American dream never was intended to guarantee anyone everything and that the American dream was built on hard-work, prudent investment and quality.

If we can return to these roots and focus on quality, hard-work and assuring the future of America for our children, then we will see an upturn in the market and a return to full employment where immigrants are seen as a positive influence and not illegals stealing American jobs.

At the same time Management is equally responsible for our plight.  Sub-prime mortgages, derivatives, short sighted corporate planning and yes greed leads them also to be UN-American.  They are to focused on the next analyst briefing and their quarterly results and make sure they could sell more for less.  So they purchase materials produced by non Americans.   They do not insist on an equitable balance between pay, quality and work.  Then to make matters worse they insist that they are paid millions of dollars, the Government then bail them out when they make stupid decisions; for what?

We are all in this together and although we know that communism and socialism does not work.  Capitalism only works when we do right by everyone and devise a fair distribution of wealth: based on ability, hard work and ingenuity.

Shortage of Doctors Proves Obstacle to Obama Goals

By ROBERT PEAR 27 April 2007 the New York Times

One proposal — to increase Medicare payments to general practitioners, at the expense of high-paid specialists — has touched off a lobbying fight.

I wonder if Congress should instead focus on improving the income of doctors, reduce the fear of Mal-practive and insisting on deepening their education.  So that people will once again see it as a worthy profession and thus there will be enough doctors to serve our growing population, not simply here, but all over the world.

 As the Grandson, son and brother of doctors, I am driven to suggest to our Congress and the people that we must consider the investment someone must make to becoming a care practitioner and realize that we must encourage people to want to dedicate the time it takes to become proficient.  These dedicated individuals, unlike CEO’s and Wall Street millionaire, must excel in their studies and invest  four years at university, four years at  medical school and then finally before having the skills to serve us, invest an additional three to six years as a journey man (i.e. their their internship and residency).  Hundreds of thousand of dollars later and so much time and study does desire a fair reward. 

I also believe that we should begin to think about training our internist better, so they can be more effective and not simply pass the patient on to a specialist.  they as the gatekeep should have the education and practical training so unlike today thare are able to properly diagnosis the problem we the sick are facing. 

Simply look at the TV series House.  his dedication and effectiveness of his team is what we need.  People who truly think and only turn to specialists when they fibnally accept that the specialists skills are required.  Just to put a value to House.  my father a retired Park Avenue and renowned diagnostician finds this one medical program stimulates his thinking.

The other key issue that Obama and Congress must address is that medicine should be a cottage industry.  Instead corporations and insurance companies now run our health care system, Hillary Clinton’s efforts, although altruistic, probably drove corporations to seek profits at the expense of the real care-takers and unltimately you and I.  These new “medical?” tycoons are more worried about shareholder returns and annual bonuses than the health of the people who should be their focus and are in their care.

Is it a national health system that we need simply to “FIX” the problem.  Or is it a return to a system run by doctors who are properly trained and rewarded. We should think first of investing our taxes on helping the gatekeepers (family practitioners, gynecologist and internists) to be the front line, capable of dealing with most medical issues.  We should encourage their selfless commitment and  drive for education and practical training so they can effectively serve, thus drive down costs by being better at what they do.

Finally thought.  Risk is endemic in any system.  Lawyers drive risk out of the system by pursuing law suits because someone took at risk or was just like the rest of us a made an error.  The net result,t doctors have become overly cautious, dependent on too many tests and unwilling to say this is what I think is wrong and if we don’t do something (however risky) now MY patient will die.

Ed Kountz of jupiter in his recent blog on Alternative online Payments offers an opinion that credit and debit cards where not designed for the Internet. It is interesting to reflect back in history and remember when it was not the magnetic strip that was important to the execution of the transaction but the numbers printed on the front of the card a merchant could simply would say into a phone or type onto their telephone keypad to get an authorization.

Move to the Internet and instead of asking the merchant to type in the account number and expiry date we ask the consumer to fill in an Internet form. How can one argue that ISO7810-3 cards where not built for the Internet.

Back in the day, circa 1993, when we began to think about how we would secure payments over the Internet and address words like dis-intermediation. It was clear that by any definition the ubiquitous credit card was already a vehicle for enabling eCommerce. All the internet did was to take mail order and catalogue business and give it the power to become a global operation; no longer limited by the cost of a telephone call or postage. Nowadays, of course, the internet has become such a vital part of our everyday lives, with people looking up things like “internet in my area” to make sure that they are getting the best deals possible so that they can be confident that their connection won’t let them down.

And, of course, Mr Kountz is correct, there is a real issue with security and the Internet. Yet the issue is no greater than what was faced when Card Not Present transactions started happening as telephone ordering became common place. Did the payment associations attempt to keep up? MAYBE!

First we saw the introduction of CVC2/CVV2 and address verification as tools to address the risks of someone who had captured the data on the face of the card from employing that card maliciously. Not a bad solution, if the merchant was willing to make the changes to their web sites and call center procedures.

Next came SET, now here was the perfect solution, yet at a cost that simply did not offer anyone a reason return on investment; even if Card Not Present Fraud was an issue. Since then the payment associations tried to develop a simpler yet equally secure solution called 3D-Secure, Verified by Visa or SecureCode. The idea is sound. The issue of adoption came down to the simple issue of figuring out how to get the consumer to go through the additional step of activating their 3D-Secure password and better yet remember it. Versus what became the reality, they simply said this is too difficult, I don’t need to buy that today, so they abandon the shopping cart. Merchants saw 3D-Secure as a way to lose potential business and at a rate alarmingly larger than the cost of fraudulent transactions.

So what is the answer? Create new means of payment that are designed for the specific trading environment (mobile, Internet, Mail Order, telephone Order, face to face …) or figure out how to get everyone to work together to come up with a workable solution that exploits the power of the Visa, Discover, MasterCard and American Express Brands.

In my opinion it is about communications and working together as a team. Not once has the merchant been asked to participate in developing more secure solutions to payments. They are simply told through compliance and rule changes this is what they shall do.

Maybe the new Visa and MasterCard will find that merchants are now shareholders and bringing them to the table is in the interest of everyone especially the consumer. Or is it time for a new payment Brand that is built to serve the merchant and operated by the Banks?