YouTube Hit: Weiner Confronts GOP on Health Care

The House floor was the scene of some heated exchanges after Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) took the floor to address the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.

While this is merely a heated and not offensive exchange. It is representative of the diminishing level of discourse in Congress on both sides. Congress is becoming the WWF without the folding chairs and pile drivers.

147 thoughts on “YouTube Hit: Weiner Confronts GOP on Health Care”

  1. Buddha:

    A corporate executive makes people think he is effective through public relations just as politicians do to become elected. It is perception rather than reality which makes a good executive in some instances. Think Michael Eisner at Disney, his claim to fame? Re-releasing Snow White, they thought he was a genius.

  2. Byron,

    He would have likely endorse a single payer public trust insurance system (as it’s 1 – most efficient and 2 – removes those costs from business) as he thought health care insurance as it has been run is simply a drag on corporate resources best used elsewhere. He was also interested in tort reform but I think less to damages than he was to the way the contingency model brought out frivolous lawsuits. Those are two of the “sins” of Western management. The others are lack of constancy of purpose, emphasis on short term profits (already mentioned), performance without appraisal, turnover in upper management, and running a company on visible figures alone (already addressed – it seems contrary to his “manage what you can measure” mantra, but it’s really just acknowledging the reality that somethings are not properly measurable). But since his death, several in the PA field have added to his list of Western management sins to include an outdated patent and IP system and unjustifiable executive compensation as inefficiencies.

    As to government? Government wouldn’t have to get involved if people weren’t threatening the very fabric of society simply by exercising greed that in the end adds nothing of value to a company and in fact damages it so as to minimize their efficacy going into the future.

    Deming was an efficiency expert. Broken is broken. And if industry can’t and won’t police themselves?

    That is the nature of the law. It brings law to the lawless.

    If those CEO’s operating in a criminally negligent and venal manner now can’t run a company now let alone for a reasonable salary that doesn’t reduce the efficiency of the company and damage the economy in the process? That’s not talent flying. That’s shit floating. The problem isn’t good businessmen or even businessmen per se.

    It’s criminal and sociopathic businessmen. People who will lie, cheat and steal to maximize their personal profits and those of the shareholders, damn the costs to workers or society.

    And dealing with criminals and sociopaths is also the business of the law as it is a primary function of the government to protect the lawful from the criminal elements of society.

    Deming knew this was the practical reality of things too – although minimal involvement is best for process improvement, government is necessary. For without rules, there is anarchy and anarchy is most definitively not an efficiency.

    That today there is also a breakdown at the campaign finance level when criminals pay for other criminals to be elected and do their bidding is another ancillary issue.

  3. Buddha:

    I dont think government should regulate salaries which is all I said. If you think I meant more than that then you would be wrong. And I dont think any post that I have ever written could lead anyone to think that I believe officers of corporations are above the law.

  4. here is my big concern regarding current day Corporations, aside from the money, aside from the cover-ups and lies, why do they keep doing something when very real and very valid and very well researched concerns are voiced by scientists and other people who actually know what they are talking about?
    Why are they incapable of putting on the brakes when THEY TOO will be spared some incredibly harmful consequence????

    How come why??????

    and then they act like 3 year olds caught w/hands in a cookie jar….it is BIZARRE!

  5. Buddha:

    I think he might have looked to government for health care reform and possibly for tort limitations but I don’t think he generally wanted government involved in business.

    I would be interested in any information to the contrary. It has been about 20 years since I took his course.

  6. Byron,

    I want you to ask yourself this question:

    Would a man who dedicated his life to the concept of continuous process improvement approve of a business process (current CEO compensations) that damages not only the business proper long term but the economy of the nation as well?

    The only answer is no, he wouldn’t.

    Does that make him a fool?

    Also no. It makes him honest and in possession of forethought and compassion (as in the ability to see beyond the greed of the one to the needs of the many).

    But your statement here: “Bottom line though, in a free society if people are stupid enough to pay someone 25 million for something that another could do just as well for 500k then so be it. One of the problems is that many of these executives are like politicians, they talk a good game.”

    That is the talk either of a fool or a sociopath.

    They talk a good game so they should get to steal without punishment?

    Are you sure that’s what you wanted to say?

    And forget pols. We’re talking business, so no false equivalence arguments. Pols are a different kind of sinner. Do you really think that because they “talk a good game” that businessmen should be allowed to do what they want without fear of legal repercussion?

    Because I talk a good game and I listen an even better one and I would swear that’s what you just meant.

  7. Byron
    1, August 1, 2010 at 7:40 pm
    Blouise:

    so you are a multi-millionaire? Good for you if you are. Based on your posts here, I will assume you gave it all away to charity or a good portion of it anyway. Again good for you to help other people.

    ==============================================================

    Hey, wait just a minute … are you an IRS agent? … I’m not going to talk to you anymore!

  8. I’m not the scientist here but 1 of the problems w/GMO’s is that it is not possible to prevent contamination of other non-GMO crops. When they first tested it on corn there were huge die-offs of monarch butterflys. People who were allergic to peanuts began to experience allergic reaction to other GMO foods..turns out the ‘gene’ spliced into the corn exponentially increased the allergen. Removing a species from the foodchain (like bees for example) has far reaching consequence and with GMO’s , there is no reversing the damage once it pollutes the seed pools. Plus, our bodies biologics are not adapted to the frankenfoods….

    ‘In what is being described as the first ever and most comprehensive study of the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers have linked organ damage with consumption of Monsanto’s GM maize.’
    http://www.truth-out.org/article/three-approved-gmos-linked-organ-damage+

  9. Woosty:

    is the rice bad for you? The article did not say.

    I don’t know the science behind this but aren’t all food crops and animals genetically modified by cross breeding and hybridization? It has been going on for centuries, what makes a gene splice so different than crossing cereal grains the old fashioned way?

  10. Buddha:

    First of all I don’t make the rules concerning people’s salaries nor do I want to. Secondly I don’t run those companies so I don’t have any say in what they do or how they do it.

    Personally if I had a big company I wouldn’t take a huge salary, how much does one individual need? Secondly I would want my company to prosper over the long term so I would not go public and have to be beholden to share holders.

    I just read today where a company is thinking about buying all it’s shares back so it can become private. I imagine one of the byproducts of the financial reform legislation.

    Bottom line though, in a free society if people are stupid enough to pay someone 25 million for something that another could do just as well for 500k then so be it. One of the problems is that many of these executives are like politicians, they talk a good game.

    If you want to have government place limits on peoples salaries I would advise against it but not for any love for millionaires. And if Deming wants government to limit executive salaries then he is a fool. I was under the impression that he thought the private sector should do that to promote an efficient and well run company.

  11. TraderB 1, August 1, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    If the Republicans do not take Congress back, we can expect 2 more years of recession (Depression?). The rich are on strike. They are not hiring, but are making money hand over fist with lean staffs. They are hoarding it or sending it overseas.

    The uncertainty over health-care costs, taxes and compulsory unionization have them frightened of adding more people in spite of the orders pouring in. There is also fear that Obama will seize your company under some pretext. Better to slowly liquidate U.S. operations and invest overseas.
    _____________________________
    well that manner of catering to fear is a self-fulfilling prophecy…………..

  12. Byron,

    Everything you’ve said to justify executive compensation (these individuals you’re so concerned with) flies in the face of two of Deming’s sins of Western management: running a company on visible figures alone and emphasis on short term profits.

  13. Blouise:

    so you are a multi-millionaire? Good for you if you are. Based on your posts here, I will assume you gave it all away to charity or a good portion of it anyway. Again good for you to help other people.

Comments are closed.