The House plan allows employers to chose:  either they can provide private insurance and pay nothing to the government plan, or they can simply pay 8% of payroll to the government and everyone gets the government plan.

Today, employers are already paying more than 8% of payroll for healthcare premiums.  In fact, small businesses are paying between 11% and 14% of payroll to health insurance premiums.  With medical costs rising, this figure is only going up.

So even if your employer doesn’t switch to the government plan now, they eventually will.  A reduction in wages by 6% can be achieved by switching your healthcare provider?  What board of directors *wouldn’t* switch?

Now you might, like Obama, believe that the health care insurers are making too much in profits, so the private insurers just need to reduce prices.   I’m sure they will try to compete with the new taxpayer-funded pricing.  Keep in mind, however, that while a cut from 14% of payroll to 8% of payroll is only a 6% savings for the company, that represents a 43% drop in revenues for the health insurer.  These companies will need to cut costs to reflect the new pricing; which roughly translates to a 43% drop in covered care.  Because of the reduced coverage, this will give employers all the more reason to switch the the simple, no-overhead plan – the government plan.  As more employers switch, more private insurers will go out of business.   It is just a matter of time.

Oh – and how did the government calculate the figure for an 8% payroll tax?  Nobody knows!  Should it be 9%?  7%?  Nobody knows!  It appears to be a number masterminded to drive Health Insurers out of business.

Obama is about taking away freedom and taking away choice.  Government healthcare does improve healthcare for 10% of Americans, but it makes healthcare worse for 90% of Americans.

I evaluate spending proposals by considering what long term value is being built.  The government can inject cash into the economy, but after the short term injection, will value remain in the economy which can benefit us for the long term?  Or is it just a short term spend?

Cars for Clunkers is a short term fix.  It adds cash to the economy for a short period, and allows Americans to continue consuming more goods than we probably need.   What happens to cars?  They get consumed – they get driven, used, and eventually (5-10 years later) get scrapped.  So when the government signs up to spend $5B on cars, they’ve injected a temporary cash boost to the auto-industry, and helped consumers get some “stuff”.  But in the end, Americans receive no long term value from this cash injection.  And when the government stops spending, the auto makers will need to layoff the workers they hired to accommodate the short term needs of the boost.

A better use of money is to build things of value.  If the government wants to create jobs, it should invest in building things.  Building schools, improving roads, and building national or local infrastructure builds long term value.  Unlike the car which will wear out in a few years and provide no value, building a school lasts for decades.  Not only do the citizens building and running the school benefit now, but the school is still usable by our children and grandchildren in the long term.

Tell your congressmen to vote no on any short-term cash injections.  All spending should build value.  If your senator can’t show long term value in their spending, it is not worth it.

Let’s break it down.

America has about 3.5M homeless.  1.4M of those are children.  That means 2.1M adult homeless people.  How many of these people have medical insurance?  None.

For the adult homeless, let’s assume a fixed distribution between 19 and 75, and lets assume they have a typical life expectancy (although they probably live less).  That means that at least 38,596 of them will die this year.  Will many of them die because they didn’t have health insurance?  Of course!  But unless Obama’s magic health care plan can also solve homelessness, these statistics aren’t going to change one bit.  So the whole claim that this is a problem with our insurance program is bunk.

Make your own conclusions about Obama’s health care plan.  But when you hear these ludicrous arguments about “number of uninsured Americans”, “number of Americans to die without insurance”, “high cost of insurance” – remember these statistics are very complicated and never accurately summarized in a pithy headline.

Dear Friend:
I need your help.
Making sure America’s families have access to affordable, quality health care is a complex challenge, but one we simply cannot afford to ignore any longer.

Who is ignoring it?  I’m not; you’re not.

The status quo is unsustainable:

I agree.

46 million Americans have no health insurance.

Yes, we also have about 30 million unemployed Americans.  If you will focus on growing employment, many of the 46 million will be able to afford health insurance.  You point out that health care costs too much; how will your plan reduce the cost of healthcare?

America also has about 60 million smokers.  About 9 million of the 46 million uninsured people you mention are smokers – should they be allowed to continue smoking while we are paying for their healthcare?  Is it fair that they don’t pay for their own insurance when they’re buying cigarettes which kill them?

The U.S. spends more than twice as much on health care per person than most other industrialized nations, yet we rank 29th out of 30 industrialized nations on infant mortality.

This doesn’t appear to be true (see stats).  While it is sad that the mortality rate is not lower, it is not clear that this is an indictment of the American medical system.  Moreover, how is your plan going to fix it?  I don’t see any evidence that it will.

America has the best medical care in the world – bar none.  Americans don’t fly out of country to have surgery – to the contrary, foreigners fly here to have surgery.  The best medical care costs money, and the counter examples you provide are not representative of the entire system.  Yes, we should work to reduce the infant mortality rate, but we should do many things – including cure cancer too.

Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have more than doubled in the last nine years.
And, a recent study found that, if we do nothing, families in many states, including California, will have to spend 40% or more of their pre-tax income on health insurance through their employer.

Yes – why are they paid pre-tax?  Why do health insurers get paid with pre-tax dollars while the rest of us are paid with after-tax dollars?  Stop subsidizing the medical industry with pre-tax dollars and costs will come down.

The time for action is now.

I agree – you mentioned that already.  But your plan doesn’t even address the problems you’ve listed, so I don’t think it is a good one.

What about the rising cost of malpractice insurance?  Why don’t you fix that?  Oh – right – your husband is a lawyer.  You wouldn’t want to take away his revenue stream.

As I work with my Senate colleagues to craft healthcare reform legislation, I ask you to help me by sharing your stories and experiences – both good and bad – with our healthcare system. 
Please go to http://boxer.senate.gov/features/healthcare/submit.cfm  to share your stories with me. 
I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you for the letter.

Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

Google
Google knows your search history, but doesn’t know your address or name.  Google knows what ads you clicked on and what search results you clicked on.  Google may know what city you are in if it can geo-locate based on your IP address, but it might be wrong too (if you are using a proxy).  Google might have your email if you use GMail.  But Google doesn’t know your name, email, or anything personal if you don’t login to any Google services.  Google purges all records in less than one year.

Cell Phone Carrier
Your cell phone carrier knows where you are all the time within 5-10 miles.  Your phone company knows who you talked to, and when, and for how long.  They know who you texted.  They have the content of your voicemail.  If you use a data plan on your phone, your phone company knows what websites you visit, what web searches you did, and what links you clicked.  And unlike Google’s information, which is all anonymous (unless you logged in), the phone company can tie it all back to your name, address, and phone number…  And these records are never purged.  In 2025, the phone company will still know where you were at 3pm on Saturday, July 11, 2009.

NOTE: These opinions do not reflect those of my employer.

When we read, listen or watch the news, we individually can choose media that reflects our own political views.  For instance, those that watch FOX news or listen to KSFO560 may be looking for a conservative view.  For a more liberal viewpoint, we might chose ABC News or Bloomberg.  Regardless of your political slant – America gives you the freedom to choose.

Recently Google’s search engine has been criticized for being overly algorithmic and perhaps too inhuman.  Certainly we all prefer to interact with people than we do to interact with purely the machine. But if search results were not algorithmic, then they would be editorialized.  And if they were editorialized, who should do the editing?  Certainly some governments would like to be involved in that process!  But generally, how do we avoid biases? How do we avoid censorship?

Of course, even if search results are algorithmic, humans created that algorithm, so it is not impervious to biases either.  So far, none of the big search engines have been accused of massive political censorship within their search results.  But maybe we just haven’t noticed yet?

By the way, I’m not talking about Google News, Yahoo News, or Bing News.  When using these sites, I’m well aware that biases are introduced simply by the choice of which news content is included in the site’s news index.   Web search is different.  Web search is like going to the library – I expect that there is no implicit content filter and I further expect all results will be at my disposal.  If there is editorial going on at this library,  I need to know so that I can either use a different library or modify my expectations.

Let’s take an example.  Search for “Martin Luther King” on Google, Yahoo, and Bing.  On Google, the top result is from Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is an independent, collaborative encyclopedia on the web.  It is also the #4 result on Yahoo and the #2 result on Bing.  I find this to be a fairly credible source. Yahoo’s top result is from NobelPrize.org, the official site of the Nobel Prize organization.  This site ranks as the #2 result on Google and the #5 result on Bing and also seems like a reputable and credible source. Finally, on Bing, the top result is from MSN Encarta, an online encyclopedia owned and operated by Microsoft.  This web page does not rank in the top 10 on either Yahoo or Google.  Wait a minute – MSN Encarta is owned and operated by Microsoft?

Since neither Yahoo nor Google rank the Encarta page very high, it is unclear what editorial process Microsoft uses to decide that Encarta deserves the #1 search result spot on Bing.  If Microsoft succeeds in its mission to become the top search provider, does this mean that Microsoft hand picks the content we see?  Sometimes editorial is good, but sometimes it is not.  And how can the user know which is which?

My example may seem trivial, because in reality, the Encarta page seems pretty fair.  But, what if Bing had editorialized it’s #4 result (www.martinlutherking.org) (also #3 on Google) to be the top search result?  This page looks like an official Martin Luther King history page, but it is actually written by white supremacists.  Interestingly, while this page shows up on both Google and Bing, it does not appear in the top-100 results on Yahoo at all.  Yahoo appears to have editorialized this result out of their index.  While most of us disagree with the Stormfront.org, should our search engines be using their own political beliefs to sensor your search results?

Of course, the advertising displayed on each of the search engines is also editorialized – or at least it is displayed at the discretion of the search engine in question.   This can confuse the issue, but at least the 3 search engines all label advertisements distinctly from search results.

To wrap up, we should all be aware that search engines today are biased in some way.  As long as those biases are based on algorithms designed to return content most people want and avoid content most people don’t want (spam, malware, etc) without outright censorship, that is okay.  But when biases start reflecting political opinions via exclusion or preference of self-created content, search engines have a real problem.  Because I don’t believe humans are capable of editorializing a world-wide-web index without introducing accidental or intentional biases, I’ll stick to search engines which use cold, calculating algorithms.

NOTE:  These opinions are my own and do not reflect opinions of my employer.

I was thinking about how this applies to lawyers in America.  Does competition keep the legal industry in check?

Consider what would happen if tomorrow, the population of Accountants in the United States doubled.  Suddenly there would be too many accountants.  The price for accounting work would drop instantly due to over supply.

Now consider what would happen if tomorrow, the population of lawyers doubled.  Unfortunately, there would be no such drop.  A lawyer’s job is to make an argument (lawsuit).  And we’ve created a government which has infinite capacity for new lawsuits.   If there were twice as many lawyers filing claims, our government is *required by law* to expand to meet the needs of all those lawyers.  Is this right?

According to this study, we can see the number of lawyers in America has sharply increased between 1970 and 2000.  Was this growth due to increased demand for lawyers?  Or do we have a supply/demand chain in the legal profession which is out of whack?  Could it be that the same claims which Reback makes about businesses needing competitive pressure to remain balanced applies to lawyers?  And if so, when we’ve got a government willing to accept any lawsuit, from any lawyer at unbounded capacity, how do we enforce competition in the legal industry?

The problem boils down to “frivolous”.  Currently it is virtually impossible to get a case thrown out as frivolous.  “Frivolous” is a specific legal term which has to do with making an grossly wasteful case.  Generally, lawyers can make most any claim and sue anyone without being frivolous.  This process can potentially cost the defendant hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend; and because it is so costly, defendants usually find it easier to settle, even for moderatly large amounts of $25,000 to $100,000.  Even if the defendant is ultimately right and wins in court, the plaintiff owes the defendant nothing for all that wasted time.  Further, the taxpayers were left with the bill for all the court costs.  Why is this so?  When bringing forth a lawsuit where you ultimately lose, why doesn’t the loser pay court costs and defendant costs?  What other checks-and-balances can we put in place to provide the equivalent of “competition” in a legal system which inherently has no bounds on growth?

Unfortunately, our legal system is the pinnacle of the conflict of interest.  Lawyers are one of the highest paid professions in the United States.  Laws which regulate lawsuits will bring down lawyer wages.  How can we expect politicians (largely lawyers themselves), judges, and lawyers to accept legislation which limits their livelihood?  We cannot.

Personally, I don’t think Windows will ever ship without a browser. But I’m pretty happy with the proposal, because distributors will pick up the slack by bundling a browser that makes sense (e.g. the browser vendor that paid the most).

And of course, we can’t ignore the irony. 10 years ago, when Microsoft was killing Netscape, Bill Gates himself testified that the browser could not technically be removed. It couldn’t be done. Here we are 10 years later, when it’s a little more convenient, and now, well, turns out it can be done!

The New York Times seems to like it.

Prop 1A – NO
This confused proposition claims to limit state spending, but the first thing it does is create a “rainy day slush fund” to the tune of ~$16B.  There are only 28M Californians, folks.  That means taxes of $571 from every man, woman and child in the state.  But since only 18M of those people want to work, and another 11.5% are unemployed, each worker will get hit with ~$968!  Yes, we should limit state spending.  As far as I can tell, this is an increase in spending.

Prop 1B – NO
California has not been able to pass a budget largely because legislators have their hands tied.  Propositions like 1B mandate spending in certain areas without consideration for future events.  When crunch time hits, legislators need maneuverability.  We cannot predict the future, and guaranteed spending always hurts.  Experts agree this will be roughly a $10B tax increase starting in 2011.  Further, in order for this law to work, you need to vote yes on 1A.

Prop 1C – NO
The proposition calls itself a “lottery modernization act”, but really it is a loan from the lottery to the state for $5B to cover more spending.   This would also make lottery profits no longer guaranteed for education.  We don’t need more loans for the state to pay back later.

Prop 1D – NO
Redirects funding from 1998’s Proposition 10 so that funding can be used for purposes other than what was designed in 1998.  This is a great example of why propositions are a bad idea.  In 1998, Prop 10 passed.  But now, the state is in a jam and wants the money to use for something else.  Let’s repeal Prop 10 altogether, not amend it to create more crazy spending plans.

Prop 1E – NO
Like Prop 1D, this proposition is redirecting funds to new purposes.  Prop 1E proposes to change the funding plan for 2004’s Proposition 63, which guaranteed funding for certain mental health services.  Now, the state is in a jam and wants to spend it on something else.  Like with Prop 1D, let’s just eliminate Prop 63 rather than create more complications in our budget.

Prop 1F – NO
This law would prevent salary increases for legislators when there is a deficit.  I don’t disagree, but we don’t need such a stupid law.  It has trivial effect on our overall state economy, and we should be more strict about balancing the budget rather than creating penalties for deficits.

Conclusion
The cheat sheet for this year’s election is simple.  NO.  NO. NO. NO. NO. NO.  Get the pattern?

Several of the propositions are about changing earlier propositions (the lottery, prop 10, and prop 64) so that we can balance the budget by using those guaranteed funds for new purposes.  I agree we need to unlock funds so that we can balance our budget.   But creating new, cockamamie laws isn’t the answer.  Let’s repeal the guaranteed spending initiatives altogether.

I’m a developer, not a marketer, so this will be an entertaining, technical talk, with no spin and no “marketecture”!  As a bonus, I promise to tell at least 2 good jokes.  If you don’t laugh, you get your money back.  Ok – that’s not true, ask the conference people about that.

If you haven’t signed up yet for Velocity you can use the coupon code VEL09FSP to get a 15% discount on tickets.

Lately I’ve been getting lots of twitter followers that I don’t even know.  At first I wondered why, but now I believe this is just another type of spam.  Every follow creates an email notice out to the person being followed.  Some percentage of those  will follow the link.  This is just twitter’s bird droppings – SPAM.

Anyway, all email notifications from twitter are now off.

At this year’s conference, every major browser including IE8, Firefox, and Safari were all hacked over a 3 day period.  The only browser which was not hacked was Chrome.  One of the winners of the contest had some interesting things to say about why Chrome was not hacked.

Chrome’s “sandbox” is not an accident; it was designed for this case.  Each web page runs in a renderer process, and that process has no privileges on the OS, so it cannot write to disk or talk to the network.  With all of the browsers being hacked, it’s fair to assume that hackers will find flaws in any browser.  Avoiding flaws is key, but the sandbox ensures that those flaws are contained to some degree.  It is much harder to do persist damage to the machine after the flaw has been exploited because the process can’t touch the network or disk.  While IE8 also uses multiple processes, it does not implement a sandbox, so it is vulnerable in similar ways to single process browsers.  Don’t get me wrong, the sandbox is not perfect, I’m sure someone will find an exploit.  But it does make Chrome harder to break into.  Plugins will be a vulnerability, as they cannot yet operate in a sandboxed environment (Flash, for instance, requires access to the OS in order to run).

More news:
IE8, Firefox, Safari Owned by 0-Day Vulnerabilities, Chrome Survives Intact
Chrome last browser standing after day one of Pwn2Own
Internet Explorer 8 Gets Hacked, Already