I wish I knew. A fellow asked me today, given I've taught career management courses for over 30 years, how one could retire. He was thinking about his situation. I was thinking about mine.
Some say, "never retire." Why would you want to stop doing what you want to do? I get that. In fact, I've taught a lot about passion and flow over the years (thanks to Doug Newburg and Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi), and if one is passionate about one's work/profession/activities indeed, why retire? I have a colleague who declares they will carry him out in a box. So, for some (many?) retirement means giving up life. In stragne support of this view, there has some data that noted that something like three-quarters of retirees died within 18 months of their retirement. If you have a role/job you love, and you're still good at it, and it fulfills you, why not continue? My personal physician is in his eighties and going strong.
Some say retire as soon as you can so you can live the 'good life.' One hears people talking about how quickly they want to retire. Babblings of the naive? What would the good life be? Playing golf every day? Lounging on the couch or beach or porch? Writing novels in Key West? Surely it depends on how one defines the good life. My friend and co-author Doug Newburg defines success as "when it's over, you want to do it again." Not money. Not fame. Not power. Bill Clinton recently (this is 2011) said he's doing what he loves. What would you like to do over and over again? What could you do for months on end without losing energy and engagement?
So I get that some people are more, what, Type-A or engaged or passionate. I've been/am a workaholic and have read the books on it. (e.g Diane Fassel's work) If a highly engaged lifestyle is in your blood or better said, "habitual routines," would you be happy retiring? I've met both types as I guess you have: those who LOVE their retirement and those who are bored and end up going back to work.
Is retirement just about how much financial stake you have? The headlines these days trumpet the Boomer's anxiety about not having enough to retire. The government keeps raising the eligible age. Is retirement really the holy grail after which we all should be seeking, the life of "leisure?" What if I/you had $100 million in the bank? What would you do? Quit? And do what? You're probably aware of the research showing that the majority of those who win the lottery would give it back because it ruined their lives. "Sure," you say, "don't throw me in that briar patch! Let TRY it!"
A new insight hit me today, though, after my friend asked his question. I do like doing what I do, I just want to do it more at my pace. I realize that's a loaded statement. What is "my pace?" I've grown weary of meeting other people's schedules. Of canceling things I want to do for things I feel obligated to do. I love variety. My job is great for me. A professor of business enjoys opportunities to read, write, gather data and make sense of it, publish, teach, work in administration, consult, travel the world, and meet daily interesting and highly energetic people. We are largely in control of our own schedules, way more than many other jobs. I lucked (read "trial-and-errored" myself) into a profession that suits me to a T. AND I'm getting a bit weary. I want to set my schedule more. I no longer want to have to get up to be somewhere. I'd rather get up to workout--at my pace. I know, whine whine whine. Not really. I love my job AND I'm getting tired. A colleague advised me recently, "you know what, you can slow down. You've earned it." The comment sounded very reassuring and encouraging. Then I wondered, "Is that how deadwood is formed?" I don't ever want to be deadwood. Heaven and my mother forbid.
So, a new definition of retirement is emerging for me. How about for you? I'm imagining retirement as a diminishing and lengthening sine wave, reducing the amplitude and the frequency until gradually and peacefully, I'm able to continue enjoying my broad interests without pressing or hurrying, rather, letting the natural pace of my lifespan settle down. Nancy Gross' quote on the importance finding a pace 'which neither hurries you nor holds you back' suits me here. I admit I've been trying to live like that for decades, usually unsuccessfully.High engagement does produce a lot. And in my case, some weariness.
A colleague came into my office the other day and said, "Wow, I look around and you seem like someone who's lived two or three lifetimes in one." Hmm. He offered it as a kind of compliment. In my mind's eye, I remember my mother's constant advice about never making a deadhead run--that is, never coming or going empty-handed, even from one room to the other; you could always be carrying something. Like many, I often have trouble relaxing. I embrace this better now than before. Maybe that's one step on the road to a diminishing sine wave retirement; accepting who one is.
So, I'm writing this while watching golf and feeding the dog. The peaceful pace cannot come from outside-in, only from inside-out.
We might think of several types of potential retirees here:
1. Person who dislikes work and always has and wants to get out as fast as they can. This person's major constraints are savings and lifestyle. The lower your lifestyle standards, the sooner you can retire. Healthcare is a huge part of this calculation. We still need to figure out in the wealthiest nation on earth how to handle the growing health tidal wave of the Baby Boomer generation.
2. Person who loves what they do and can't imagine not doing it. For this person, retirement is perhaps just slowing down as the abrasions of age takes its toll.
3. Person laid off or 'forced' into considering retirement. This person requires some careful reflection about who they are, what they want to do, and if they have the energy to make it happen--which is likely to mean making some changes in life-long habits. These folks probably grind on this issue as much as the first group.
4. Person who has lots to do besides work. These people can find fulfillment in charity work, writing, art, athletics, and other non-professional work experiences. For this person, life after work is not threatening rather a pleasant invitation to attend to avocations long admired and contemplated. But will they actually like them when they are faced with just those? Thought about learning a language or taking up guitar? What if you get bored or sore fingers? What if you move to be near your children and create waves in the relationship?
Retirement doesn't have to mean the same for all. Generically, ceasing to work for livelihood seems like a good definition. That doesn't mean we have to cease living or producing or enjoying or creating. Even those growing a bit slower and having a bit less energy know that being human means finding enjoyable activities, preparing and anticipating, executing, and enjoying the experience of doing. This will likely be true until the last day we are able.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Great Leadership Link
Dan McCarthy, dean of the Whittemore Business School at UNH, writes and composes an interesting blog on "Great Leadership." You might enjoy. http://www.greatleadershipbydan.com/
Leaders vs. Managers
Over the last month, I've participated in and observed a heated debate among academics (on-line) about the differences between leaders and managers. Everyone seems to have their own strongly held view and not much persuasion seems to have taken place. Perhaps this is an academic debate. For those striving to influence others and to make things happen, though, I offer what I think is an important distinction.
This distinction has to do with how much one lives outside-in versus inside-out. By "outside-in" I mean that one consciously or pre-consciously weighs what "they" might think before one acts or speaks. The more we adjust our behavior to fit in, the more we are living outside-in. And that's not all bad. It is the basis for orderly society. People drive on the correct side of the road, obey most of the laws, put on clothes in public, and speak with some deference and these things and many more allow for an orderly community.
At the same time, we can imagine in addition to how much we mindfully and mindlessly conform how much we initiate fresh thoughts and behaviors based on our own recognizance. How much do we allow original thoughts? Behaviors? Approaches? Insights? A community (or nation) that rates high on conformity is less likely to be adaptive, innovative, and probably even viable.
Why? Because things change.
So, here's the distinction I draw between leaders and managers. Both try to influence people but the underlying question is "with whose ideas?" Management (and again, it depends on how one defines the term, yes?) in my view focuses more on getting things done that others have determined, devised, and declared. Managers work toward goals, ideals, and outcomes--that others largely have set or prescribed. In that sense, while managers work hard to get others to do things, and are essential to every organization, they are living more "outside-in" than inside-out in that others have set the vision, the dreams, and the goals.
Managers tend to use what I will call "level one" and "level two" approaches. These are behavioral rewards and punishments for the former and logic and reason for the latter.
Leaders on the other hand are those who think beyond the current expectations and imagine a different emerging world. Leaders are those who see beyond current boundaries and expectations and dare to initiate stretches or changes or radical disruptions. Call it "vision" if you want, but the terminology is less important than the phenomenon--the ability to live more inside-out and less outside-in.
Of course, if one lives too much "inside-out" one might find one's self bankrupt or in prison. There are risks. And the risks run deep because they accrue to the leader's account not someone else's.
Take for example Jeff Immelt's eleven year run as CEO at GE. He inherited a company that had developed 20 years of cultural focus on fit and efficiency. Jack Welch's determination to get the right mix and then play only in games he could win created enormous wealth. Immelt decided that doing what was good for yesterday ever more efficiently wouldn't win the future. His emphasis on ten new technological innovative streams has yet to prove as financially successful as Welch's legacy. AND Mr. Immelt is clearly working inside-out. There's risk.
How much of your life do you live outside-in? That is, before you speak or act, how much do you consciously or semi-consciously think about what "they" will say? Are you willing to stretch or break current convention for the sake of a new initiative or direction?
People who live 100% outside-in and hence 0% inside-out, we might call "doormats," or "cowards" or "sheep" or as James Joyce termed it "clay." People who live 100% inside-out and 0% outside-in at the other end of the scale we might call ego-centric, self-centered, narcissistic SOBs.
On average, where are you on this scale? If you wanted to be a leader and not "just" a manager, where should you be on this scale? That is, in your view, how much inside-out would an effective leader be? Do you habitually ask others where we should go? Or do you find yourself habitually thinking of new visions and directions. I invite you to think about this tension-balance and observe yourself over time. And to reflect on how differences in the proportions of this tension-balance might define leadership and management.
This distinction has to do with how much one lives outside-in versus inside-out. By "outside-in" I mean that one consciously or pre-consciously weighs what "they" might think before one acts or speaks. The more we adjust our behavior to fit in, the more we are living outside-in. And that's not all bad. It is the basis for orderly society. People drive on the correct side of the road, obey most of the laws, put on clothes in public, and speak with some deference and these things and many more allow for an orderly community.
At the same time, we can imagine in addition to how much we mindfully and mindlessly conform how much we initiate fresh thoughts and behaviors based on our own recognizance. How much do we allow original thoughts? Behaviors? Approaches? Insights? A community (or nation) that rates high on conformity is less likely to be adaptive, innovative, and probably even viable.
Why? Because things change.
So, here's the distinction I draw between leaders and managers. Both try to influence people but the underlying question is "with whose ideas?" Management (and again, it depends on how one defines the term, yes?) in my view focuses more on getting things done that others have determined, devised, and declared. Managers work toward goals, ideals, and outcomes--that others largely have set or prescribed. In that sense, while managers work hard to get others to do things, and are essential to every organization, they are living more "outside-in" than inside-out in that others have set the vision, the dreams, and the goals.
Managers tend to use what I will call "level one" and "level two" approaches. These are behavioral rewards and punishments for the former and logic and reason for the latter.
Leaders on the other hand are those who think beyond the current expectations and imagine a different emerging world. Leaders are those who see beyond current boundaries and expectations and dare to initiate stretches or changes or radical disruptions. Call it "vision" if you want, but the terminology is less important than the phenomenon--the ability to live more inside-out and less outside-in.
Of course, if one lives too much "inside-out" one might find one's self bankrupt or in prison. There are risks. And the risks run deep because they accrue to the leader's account not someone else's.
Take for example Jeff Immelt's eleven year run as CEO at GE. He inherited a company that had developed 20 years of cultural focus on fit and efficiency. Jack Welch's determination to get the right mix and then play only in games he could win created enormous wealth. Immelt decided that doing what was good for yesterday ever more efficiently wouldn't win the future. His emphasis on ten new technological innovative streams has yet to prove as financially successful as Welch's legacy. AND Mr. Immelt is clearly working inside-out. There's risk.
How much of your life do you live outside-in? That is, before you speak or act, how much do you consciously or semi-consciously think about what "they" will say? Are you willing to stretch or break current convention for the sake of a new initiative or direction?
People who live 100% outside-in and hence 0% inside-out, we might call "doormats," or "cowards" or "sheep" or as James Joyce termed it "clay." People who live 100% inside-out and 0% outside-in at the other end of the scale we might call ego-centric, self-centered, narcissistic SOBs.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Tegel me no more 8-(
I love Berlin's Tegel airport. You get out of the cab, and you're right at the gate. Security is run at each gate. No long lines. When you get off the plane, they deliver your baggage AT THE GATE. It's amazing. This last trip, my bags were there when I got to the gate. Amazing. I LOVE Tegel. And of course, they are shutting it down. I'm reminded of Jared Diamond's discussion of the Collapse of Societies and how sometimes the modern way is unsustainable and a big step backward. Sometimes the older system is more reliable, sustainable, convenient, and efficient. The Vikings in Greenland wouldn't learn from the Inuits and eventually died out. The New Guineans have been living there along with the Tokopian Islanders thank you for 46,000 years and then along came the "Europeans." I'm sure Shoenflug will be a nice airport. The new Denver airport was a nice (looking) airport. I'm sad that "they" are shutting down Tegel and moving. I can't imagine a more convenient experience than Tegel.
Now, Frankfurt and Munich on the other hand, are large, confusing, under-signed, and maze-like. Everytime I follow the signs, I end up in the wrong place. The electronic board says --> and it turns out the right way is <--. Tring to find the G gates in Munich? Be careful, you might find yourself outside before you know it. Frankfurt? Take a map, a GPS, and a personal guide and then run and hope for the best.
Don't take my Tegel!! Too late, I suppose.
Now, Frankfurt and Munich on the other hand, are large, confusing, under-signed, and maze-like. Everytime I follow the signs, I end up in the wrong place. The electronic board says --> and it turns out the right way is <--. Tring to find the G gates in Munich? Be careful, you might find yourself outside before you know it. Frankfurt? Take a map, a GPS, and a personal guide and then run and hope for the best.
Don't take my Tegel!! Too late, I suppose.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Living with Bi-Lateral Quadriceps Tendon Ruptures/Repairs
This POST is intended as a forum for those who have or have had bilateral quadriceps tears (and subsequent repairs). You can post here or e-mail me at JimClawson@virginia.edu . My new friend, Jim Falvo, has also had this. Here's Jim Falvo's Amazing Story .
This POST is intended as a forum for those who have or have had bilateral quadriceps tears (and subsequent repairs). You can post here or e-mail me at JimClawson@virginia.edu . My new friend, Jim Falvo, has also had this. Here's Jim Falvo's Amazing Story .
(The short introduction) On 9/2/06, I was descending a flight of stairs in Istanbul, Turkey, and both my legs gave away. I heard a distinct "pop, pop, pop" in both legs as they collapsed. The next day, MRI's confirmed the diagnosis, bi-lateral quadriceps tears. It was very painful, terrifying, and confusing since I had no sense of weakness, fatigue, or advance warning. Getting home from Istanbul was a grueling experience made possible by a generous client and the warm flight attendant staff on a Delta flight. Since then I've learned that this is a relatively rare event; the first surgery on bilateral quadriceps ruptures (BQRs) was only done in 1949, two years after I was born. If you've had or are in the middle of a BQR event, I hope my experience here will help you. And if you're willing, I hope you'll write and share your experience with me and others. I couldn't find any blogs on-line that covered this kind of experience. So I wrote a "BLIARY" (non-interactive) which if you want more details and recovery history, you can find at:
(The short introduction) On 9/2/06, I was descending a flight of stairs in Istanbul, Turkey, and both my legs gave away. I heard a distinct "pop, pop, pop" in both legs as they collapsed. The next day, MRI's confirmed the diagnosis, bi-lateral quadriceps tears. It was very painful, terrifying, and confusing since I had no sense of weakness, fatigue, or advance warning. Getting home from Istanbul was a grueling experience made possible by a generous client and the warm flight attendant staff on a Delta flight. Since then I've learned that this is a relatively rare event; the first surgery on bilateral quadriceps ruptures (BQRs) was only done in 1949, two years after I was born. If you've had or are in the middle of a BQR event, I hope my experience here will help you. And if you're willing, I hope you'll write and share your experience with me and others. I couldn't find any blogs on-line that covered this kind of experience. So I wrote a "BLIARY" (non-interactive) which if you want more details and recovery history, you can find at:
http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj/BLQuad_Ruptures/Bilateral_Quad_Tear_Blog.htm
If you've had a BLQT, I hope you'll share your experience with Jim Falvo and me. Cheers.
How to make career decisions
I've been teaching a career management course for 30 years, first at HBS and then here at the Darden School, UVA. I'm surprised at how important career decisions are to people and at how little rigor they bring to those decisions. The result is a modified trial-and-error methodology that unfortunately leads to current statistics of something like 5-8 career changes for most graduating MBAs. People use a variety of techniques for making career decisions: serendipity, opportunistic, creation, and peer pressure. Given the high proportion of habitual behavior among most people, a matching approach seems to be the obvious best approach. By matching approach, I mean making decisions based on goodness of fit between personal habits or enduring life themes and the demands of any particular job, career or organizational culture.
The problem is that most people don't know themselves well enough and in enough detail to make a good decision based on goodness of fit between themselves and the demands of a job. Well, you might say, I know myself well. Really? What are your habitual ways of thinking? How do you prefer to process information? What's your preferred social structure and style? Have you analyzed your preferred lifestyle? What about your analytic skills? Energy level? Biochemical brain balances leading to or away from ADD, OCD, BPD, etc.? The danger with any degree of self awareness is what we might call "benign self deception." If you make career decisions based on your momentary reflections of who you are and what you want, be careful! You may overlook some key factors (habits or themes) in your life that will surface after you've taken the job--and then you'll be looking again.
Those who make career decisions on a rigorous self assessment are likely to make better decisions than those who don't. So then the question is, "how can I get a good self assessment to use in my career search and decision making?" There are thousands of self assessment tools out there, some of them trash and some of them quite helpful. But consider this premise: no single instrument is accurate enough or comprehensive enough to give you confidence in making career decisions.
There are just too many variables to consider in one instrument and too many variables in the answering of the questionnaire items to trust your career future or even a part of it to one instrument. The answer is to take several self assessment tools and look for the repeating patterns or themes or the tips of iceberg habits that appear across instruments. This requires some time and effort and some skill at inductive logic (looking at the data and generating the principles). Too much time and effort your say? Compare that with the cost of time and effort in working in a job that doesn't fit you and then doing it all over again in 1-3 years. Why not invest up front and narrow your career search to the band of jobs that would likely fit you better?
My colleagues and I have ported the text I used (and was the lead author on--Self Assessment and Career Development) to the web to offer this kind of service. You can preview it at www.CareerNextStep.com. (shut down in 2010, under rebuilding) There are more than a dozen instruments there for you to use in your search for a rigorous listing of your career defining personal characteristics. But whether you use Career Next Step or not, whenever you approach your next major personal or professional decision, please, consider carefully (preferably data-based) your dominant Life Themes (cognitive, interpersonal, social, professional, etc.) before you decide. If you choose ignoring them, the odds are you'll be unhappy and be making the same decision again shortly. Save yourself a boat load of time and effort by investing in a good self assessment up front.
The problem is that most people don't know themselves well enough and in enough detail to make a good decision based on goodness of fit between themselves and the demands of a job. Well, you might say, I know myself well. Really? What are your habitual ways of thinking? How do you prefer to process information? What's your preferred social structure and style? Have you analyzed your preferred lifestyle? What about your analytic skills? Energy level? Biochemical brain balances leading to or away from ADD, OCD, BPD, etc.? The danger with any degree of self awareness is what we might call "benign self deception." If you make career decisions based on your momentary reflections of who you are and what you want, be careful! You may overlook some key factors (habits or themes) in your life that will surface after you've taken the job--and then you'll be looking again.
Those who make career decisions on a rigorous self assessment are likely to make better decisions than those who don't. So then the question is, "how can I get a good self assessment to use in my career search and decision making?" There are thousands of self assessment tools out there, some of them trash and some of them quite helpful. But consider this premise: no single instrument is accurate enough or comprehensive enough to give you confidence in making career decisions.
There are just too many variables to consider in one instrument and too many variables in the answering of the questionnaire items to trust your career future or even a part of it to one instrument. The answer is to take several self assessment tools and look for the repeating patterns or themes or the tips of iceberg habits that appear across instruments. This requires some time and effort and some skill at inductive logic (looking at the data and generating the principles). Too much time and effort your say? Compare that with the cost of time and effort in working in a job that doesn't fit you and then doing it all over again in 1-3 years. Why not invest up front and narrow your career search to the band of jobs that would likely fit you better?
My colleagues and I have ported the text I used (and was the lead author on--Self Assessment and Career Development) to the web to offer this kind of service. You can preview it at www.CareerNextStep.com. (shut down in 2010, under rebuilding) There are more than a dozen instruments there for you to use in your search for a rigorous listing of your career defining personal characteristics. But whether you use Career Next Step or not, whenever you approach your next major personal or professional decision, please, consider carefully (preferably data-based) your dominant Life Themes (cognitive, interpersonal, social, professional, etc.) before you decide. If you choose ignoring them, the odds are you'll be unhappy and be making the same decision again shortly. Save yourself a boat load of time and effort by investing in a good self assessment up front.
Universal Human Rights
Are there any universal human rights? This is a really tough question. Have you thought about it?
Eleanor Roosevelt and the UN published in 1947, the year I was born, a list of some 30 what they claimed ought to be (declared to be) universal human rights. See this web site, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ if you want to check it out. Many of them revolve the core concept of the "dignity" of every human being. Life. Liberty. Freedom. Equality under law. Own property. Trial. etc.
I've been asking this question, "what if any do you think are universal human rights," of people for the last year or so and am amazed at how few people believe there are ANY.
Mother Nature doesn't seem to grant any. No right to live, right to reproduce, right to freedom, speech, mental health, a whole body, or any of it. No right even to dignity. Birth defects, mental illness, a little too much of one of the 300 brain hormones or a little DNA/RNA reproductive malfunction, a missing gene or two, and boom, you have schizophrenia, spinal bifida, cleft palates, and various syndromes. Mother Nature's way is perhaps a harsher way.
So "rights" seem to be granted by cultures not by nature. My philosophy friends may pick this all apart; it seems that almost everything has been discussed before. Nevertheless, what rights should a culture grant its citizens? Clearly this varies across the globe.
Life? Should we do everything we can to keep every human being alive regardless of quality of life? That's a big one. Oregon says not necessarily. It's an important question, though, because it has huge implications for the kind of universal healthcare (more later) that a society might or might not offer. Should every citizen of every country have equal access regardless of wealth to flu shots? Setting broken bones? Blood pressure medication? Cesarean section birth?
What about the right to have children? Consider this dilemma. A man is born with severe birth defects including cerebral edema, webbed hands and feet and diminuitive skeleton. He has fifteen or more operations to be able to function minimally in society. He's unemployed. He marries and has a child who has all of the same defects. The baby girl will go through the same series of a dozen or more operations costing upwards of a million dollars in order to get rudimentary fingers and toes and skull plates inserted so her brain can grow. Her father says he wants to have more children. Should he be allowed to do so?
Should we have a license to become a parent? Does everyone have the right to reproduce? If not, who would decide and on what criteria? Clearly the couple above are making decisions that impose a large financial burden on society. Should society accept that burden? We say one has to have a license to drive, to drink, to bear arms, and to practice certain kinds of professional activity. What about reproduction?
The right to freedom? What does that mean? Freedom to speak? To move to another location? To publish? The American Bill of Rights spells out some. Freedom from poverty? Does every human deserve or rather "have" the right to basic necessities of life?
Again, Mother Nature does not grant any of these. But some cultures grant some of them.
For me, there is an intersection somewhere between human dignity and self reliance and social compassion. That intersection is a large gray area obviously--as people try to figure out how much to emphasize each one. If you push on self reliance, then some will go without healthcare. If you push hard on social compassion, then some will abuse the system and get a 'free' ride. If you push hard on the equal human dignity dimension, then someone has to pay for health care and prisons.
In nature, it seems, that birth defects, variation in talent and ability, variation in sexual orientation, variation in appearance, in susceptibilty to disease, even social attributes (see Nigel Nicholson's book, Executive Instinct for example) are facts of life. How do we collectively, culturally, respond to these variations? Do we/should we do all we can to keep everyone alive artificially? Some might argue yes on the one hand and then condemn stem cell research on the other.
I want to believe that every parent to brings children into the world should accept responsibility for the well being of that child. If they cannot care for them, they should not bring them in and then "dump" them on society. Clearly, not everyone does accept that responsibility. I think society should hold biological parents accountable for their offspring. If the children are not able to become self reliant, then the parents should care for them. We shouldn't, I say, make it easy for parents to reproduce and then abandon.
Every child, it seems to me, should have the best chance it can to survive and grow. I no longer believe that the natural parents necessarily know best what to do for those children. I've seen too much abuse and mistreatment even in the name of religion to continue that mythological belief. The problem is who should decide? Not facists. Not communists.
The reality is that our local sub-cultures decide whether we want them to or not. Hence a rapee in Asia might be stoned. A woman sold. A female child in Africa "circumcised" (sewn up) while the community looks on in approval. A street person in Los Angeles dies alone in the gutter.
The concept of "rights" also implies we might infer the concept of "responsibilities." If a society is going to grant me some "rights" (since Mother Nature does not), then I must have some responsibilities to that society in return. If I ask about my rights, should I not also ask about my responsibilities?
What's your list of "universal human rights?" What about the related "universal human responsibilities?"
Mine would include the following:
1. Right to choose life or not.
2. Right to choose to sustain another's non-viable life or not.
3. Right to basic health care in my society.
4. Right to a basic education.
5. Right to move, to speak, to believe, to work where and how I want.
6. Right to know the whole deal--not just what you choose to tell me. We should not profit from the ignorance of others.
7. Right to own things.
8. Responsibility to be self reliant. I "should" be able to take care of myself and my family.
9. Responsibility to care for those I bring into the world.
10. Responsibility to contribute to my society from which I benefit. This might be in taxes or service or both.
11. Responsibility for the consequences of my actions especially as they affect others.
12. Responsibility to behave in ways that if all participated in, society would be enhanced, not degraded. (Kant's universal imperative)
Eleanor Roosevelt and the UN published in 1947, the year I was born, a list of some 30 what they claimed ought to be (declared to be) universal human rights. See this web site, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ if you want to check it out. Many of them revolve the core concept of the "dignity" of every human being. Life. Liberty. Freedom. Equality under law. Own property. Trial. etc.
I've been asking this question, "what if any do you think are universal human rights," of people for the last year or so and am amazed at how few people believe there are ANY.
Mother Nature doesn't seem to grant any. No right to live, right to reproduce, right to freedom, speech, mental health, a whole body, or any of it. No right even to dignity. Birth defects, mental illness, a little too much of one of the 300 brain hormones or a little DNA/RNA reproductive malfunction, a missing gene or two, and boom, you have schizophrenia, spinal bifida, cleft palates, and various syndromes. Mother Nature's way is perhaps a harsher way.
So "rights" seem to be granted by cultures not by nature. My philosophy friends may pick this all apart; it seems that almost everything has been discussed before. Nevertheless, what rights should a culture grant its citizens? Clearly this varies across the globe.
Life? Should we do everything we can to keep every human being alive regardless of quality of life? That's a big one. Oregon says not necessarily. It's an important question, though, because it has huge implications for the kind of universal healthcare (more later) that a society might or might not offer. Should every citizen of every country have equal access regardless of wealth to flu shots? Setting broken bones? Blood pressure medication? Cesarean section birth?
What about the right to have children? Consider this dilemma. A man is born with severe birth defects including cerebral edema, webbed hands and feet and diminuitive skeleton. He has fifteen or more operations to be able to function minimally in society. He's unemployed. He marries and has a child who has all of the same defects. The baby girl will go through the same series of a dozen or more operations costing upwards of a million dollars in order to get rudimentary fingers and toes and skull plates inserted so her brain can grow. Her father says he wants to have more children. Should he be allowed to do so?
Should we have a license to become a parent? Does everyone have the right to reproduce? If not, who would decide and on what criteria? Clearly the couple above are making decisions that impose a large financial burden on society. Should society accept that burden? We say one has to have a license to drive, to drink, to bear arms, and to practice certain kinds of professional activity. What about reproduction?
The right to freedom? What does that mean? Freedom to speak? To move to another location? To publish? The American Bill of Rights spells out some. Freedom from poverty? Does every human deserve or rather "have" the right to basic necessities of life?
Again, Mother Nature does not grant any of these. But some cultures grant some of them.
For me, there is an intersection somewhere between human dignity and self reliance and social compassion. That intersection is a large gray area obviously--as people try to figure out how much to emphasize each one. If you push on self reliance, then some will go without healthcare. If you push hard on social compassion, then some will abuse the system and get a 'free' ride. If you push hard on the equal human dignity dimension, then someone has to pay for health care and prisons.
In nature, it seems, that birth defects, variation in talent and ability, variation in sexual orientation, variation in appearance, in susceptibilty to disease, even social attributes (see Nigel Nicholson's book, Executive Instinct for example) are facts of life. How do we collectively, culturally, respond to these variations? Do we/should we do all we can to keep everyone alive artificially? Some might argue yes on the one hand and then condemn stem cell research on the other.
I want to believe that every parent to brings children into the world should accept responsibility for the well being of that child. If they cannot care for them, they should not bring them in and then "dump" them on society. Clearly, not everyone does accept that responsibility. I think society should hold biological parents accountable for their offspring. If the children are not able to become self reliant, then the parents should care for them. We shouldn't, I say, make it easy for parents to reproduce and then abandon.
Every child, it seems to me, should have the best chance it can to survive and grow. I no longer believe that the natural parents necessarily know best what to do for those children. I've seen too much abuse and mistreatment even in the name of religion to continue that mythological belief. The problem is who should decide? Not facists. Not communists.
The reality is that our local sub-cultures decide whether we want them to or not. Hence a rapee in Asia might be stoned. A woman sold. A female child in Africa "circumcised" (sewn up) while the community looks on in approval. A street person in Los Angeles dies alone in the gutter.
The concept of "rights" also implies we might infer the concept of "responsibilities." If a society is going to grant me some "rights" (since Mother Nature does not), then I must have some responsibilities to that society in return. If I ask about my rights, should I not also ask about my responsibilities?
What's your list of "universal human rights?" What about the related "universal human responsibilities?"
Mine would include the following:
1. Right to choose life or not.
2. Right to choose to sustain another's non-viable life or not.
3. Right to basic health care in my society.
4. Right to a basic education.
5. Right to move, to speak, to believe, to work where and how I want.
6. Right to know the whole deal--not just what you choose to tell me. We should not profit from the ignorance of others.
7. Right to own things.
8. Responsibility to be self reliant. I "should" be able to take care of myself and my family.
9. Responsibility to care for those I bring into the world.
10. Responsibility to contribute to my society from which I benefit. This might be in taxes or service or both.
11. Responsibility for the consequences of my actions especially as they affect others.
12. Responsibility to behave in ways that if all participated in, society would be enhanced, not degraded. (Kant's universal imperative)
We need a US health care system
One of my New Year's Resolutions this year (09) was to learn enough about the US health care system to form an opinion. I've read half a dozen books, (Daschle, Herzlinger, Porter & Teisberg, Emmanuel and others) a bunch of articles, had dozens of conversations with people who've experienced different systems and even seen Sicko.
And, six months ahead of schedule, I have an opinion. First, along with millions of others, (but not apparently the honorable representative from Ohio) I think our health care system is majorly broken. I think we need a health care system that:
1. Provides universal coverage. It's a national embarrassment to live in the richest country in the world by far and have 50,000,000 Americans without access to basic care. What they do is go to the ERs which is the most expensive basic care we could imagine.
2. Has everyone who uses the system contributing to it in proportion to their means. Taxing people who have more is a hard sell when illegal aliens and people off the tax roles are not contributing to the health care they get.
3. Preserve choice. Individuals should be able to chose the kind of health care they want.
4. Preserve private enterprise's engagement in the health care system. Americans want to be in business and earn from that. We don't want the government to administer health care. Preserve a multi-payer system to distribute the costs.
5. Remove the profit motive from health care. The problem with mixing profits and health care is that providers avoid the really sick and are encouraged to milk the system to their own advantage so that margins rather than health care becomes the foremost concern.
6. Reduce the litigious nature of medicine so that doctors can practice medicine with less concern about being sued by anyone who seeks a free income.
7. Enhance the development and collection of health records and data that would feed research into health care systems and processes.
8. Reduce the cost of the US healthcare system.
9. Protect the patient from predatory practice.
10. Provide universal healthcare coverage for all people within the United States at a basic level.
11. Snip the connection between healthcare benefits and employers. The cost of healthcare is a major drag on employers.
12. Encourage wellness among the population.
All of that is a tall order. AND here's a system that will do all of the above. It's not mine. I'll give credit at the end.
WHAT WE SHOULD DO THIS YEAR
1. Create a national health care board similar to the Federal Reserve. This national committee would oversee the rules and procedures governing the system. Appointed with a similar process as the Fed.
2. Create twelve health care districts each with a regionally appointed board to make regional application rules, adjudicate disputes, assign patients, collect data including the development of a universal health care record, conduct research, recommend to the national board. Law suits would have to be cleared by the regional board for legitimacy before they could be brought.
3. Anyone who resides within a region who does not have health insurance would be assigned to a private plan by the regional board. All patients would have the option every January to switch systems, preserving choice. Thus, every person is covered, private companies are responsible to their patients and cannot avoid sick people. Inefficient or ineffective companies would find their patients leaving. Effective and efficient systems would attract patients.
4. Premiums are allocated from a federal pool to private insurers according to their roll of patients and their needs. Hence, insurers who had more serious illnesses would receive more funds providing an incentive to attend to the seriously ill as well as to the not-so-ill.
5. Doctors and hospitals and other health care institutions would be compensated by the private insurers through private contracts. The better providers would command higher compensation and the better insurers would be able to pay them.
6. Install a federal sales tax of 8% on all sales of all finished goods and services that goes into, without exception, the federal health fund pool. Funds are allocated to the twelve regions based proportionately on the sales in their regions. In this way, everyone who lives in America is participating in supporting the healthcare system, but only according to their needs. Illegal aliens. Tourists. Diplomats. Drug dealers. EVERYONE who bought something would be contributing to the healthcare system. If you have a big income and want to buy a $500,000 car, you can. It will cost you $540,000. and you'll be contributing more to the health care system than the person who buys a $9,000 car for $9,720. Should the poor be made to contribute to the healthcare system. I believe anyone who uses a service shoudl contibute to it. Our own Ralph Waldo Emerson's SELF RELIANCE you know. This process also snips the connection between employers and healthcare costs (I know, just a minute).
The national sales tax requires some attention. Would it stimulate the development of a black underground market? Perhaps--we also have income tax evasion present in the country today. We'd have to monitor that. Would it create a sea-anchor/drag on sales and the economy? Maybe a bit, but I think it would be a short-term (1-3 years) dip and then we'd be "used" to it. More than the healthcare cost to employers today? I don't think so. Other countries manage a VAT and seem to be carrying on. Would the government try to siphon off the tax for other purposes? Of course. Hang those folks. Publicly. Yes, the ones we elected who steal from the pool--hang 'em. Not really--just throw them in jail for 30 years where they'll get free healthcare.
The biggest sticking point of this system is likely the source of funds--a national sales tax. But wait a minute, what are we paying for health care NOW? We have one of the most expensive, inefficient systems in the industrialized world. And what do we get for that? 34th in the world on infant mortality--for example. We're NOT getting the bang for our buck. The system described above would press relentlessly for improvements in the system by encouraging efficiency and quality without sacrificing the sick. It would allow ALL who benefit from the system to contribute to it retaining a sense of dignity and membership. It would allow us to do much better research on better healthcare methods and procedures. It would reduce frivolous litigation. It would reduce cost. It would encourage the formation of small businesses in healthcare AND release the drag on non-healthcare entrepreneurs.
We need this system NOW. And my thanks to Ezekiel Emanual and his book, HEALTHCARE, GUARANTEED for striking to the heart of the issue(s). I WISH President Obama and Speaker Pelosi would read this book TODAY. How could any of we Americans be opposed to adding 8 cents to our bill the next time we buy coffee or a donut to help get people off the streets and out of the gutters when they cannot afford healthcare? Our current system is NOT taking care of our own. And our economy is three times larger than the next largest one. Shame on us for being so insensitive.
And, six months ahead of schedule, I have an opinion. First, along with millions of others, (but not apparently the honorable representative from Ohio) I think our health care system is majorly broken. I think we need a health care system that:
1. Provides universal coverage. It's a national embarrassment to live in the richest country in the world by far and have 50,000,000 Americans without access to basic care. What they do is go to the ERs which is the most expensive basic care we could imagine.
2. Has everyone who uses the system contributing to it in proportion to their means. Taxing people who have more is a hard sell when illegal aliens and people off the tax roles are not contributing to the health care they get.
3. Preserve choice. Individuals should be able to chose the kind of health care they want.
4. Preserve private enterprise's engagement in the health care system. Americans want to be in business and earn from that. We don't want the government to administer health care. Preserve a multi-payer system to distribute the costs.
5. Remove the profit motive from health care. The problem with mixing profits and health care is that providers avoid the really sick and are encouraged to milk the system to their own advantage so that margins rather than health care becomes the foremost concern.
6. Reduce the litigious nature of medicine so that doctors can practice medicine with less concern about being sued by anyone who seeks a free income.
7. Enhance the development and collection of health records and data that would feed research into health care systems and processes.
8. Reduce the cost of the US healthcare system.
9. Protect the patient from predatory practice.
10. Provide universal healthcare coverage for all people within the United States at a basic level.
11. Snip the connection between healthcare benefits and employers. The cost of healthcare is a major drag on employers.
12. Encourage wellness among the population.
All of that is a tall order. AND here's a system that will do all of the above. It's not mine. I'll give credit at the end.
WHAT WE SHOULD DO THIS YEAR
1. Create a national health care board similar to the Federal Reserve. This national committee would oversee the rules and procedures governing the system. Appointed with a similar process as the Fed.
2. Create twelve health care districts each with a regionally appointed board to make regional application rules, adjudicate disputes, assign patients, collect data including the development of a universal health care record, conduct research, recommend to the national board. Law suits would have to be cleared by the regional board for legitimacy before they could be brought.
3. Anyone who resides within a region who does not have health insurance would be assigned to a private plan by the regional board. All patients would have the option every January to switch systems, preserving choice. Thus, every person is covered, private companies are responsible to their patients and cannot avoid sick people. Inefficient or ineffective companies would find their patients leaving. Effective and efficient systems would attract patients.
4. Premiums are allocated from a federal pool to private insurers according to their roll of patients and their needs. Hence, insurers who had more serious illnesses would receive more funds providing an incentive to attend to the seriously ill as well as to the not-so-ill.
5. Doctors and hospitals and other health care institutions would be compensated by the private insurers through private contracts. The better providers would command higher compensation and the better insurers would be able to pay them.
6. Install a federal sales tax of 8% on all sales of all finished goods and services that goes into, without exception, the federal health fund pool. Funds are allocated to the twelve regions based proportionately on the sales in their regions. In this way, everyone who lives in America is participating in supporting the healthcare system, but only according to their needs. Illegal aliens. Tourists. Diplomats. Drug dealers. EVERYONE who bought something would be contributing to the healthcare system. If you have a big income and want to buy a $500,000 car, you can. It will cost you $540,000. and you'll be contributing more to the health care system than the person who buys a $9,000 car for $9,720. Should the poor be made to contribute to the healthcare system. I believe anyone who uses a service shoudl contibute to it. Our own Ralph Waldo Emerson's SELF RELIANCE you know. This process also snips the connection between employers and healthcare costs (I know, just a minute).
The national sales tax requires some attention. Would it stimulate the development of a black underground market? Perhaps--we also have income tax evasion present in the country today. We'd have to monitor that. Would it create a sea-anchor/drag on sales and the economy? Maybe a bit, but I think it would be a short-term (1-3 years) dip and then we'd be "used" to it. More than the healthcare cost to employers today? I don't think so. Other countries manage a VAT and seem to be carrying on. Would the government try to siphon off the tax for other purposes? Of course. Hang those folks. Publicly. Yes, the ones we elected who steal from the pool--hang 'em. Not really--just throw them in jail for 30 years where they'll get free healthcare.
The biggest sticking point of this system is likely the source of funds--a national sales tax. But wait a minute, what are we paying for health care NOW? We have one of the most expensive, inefficient systems in the industrialized world. And what do we get for that? 34th in the world on infant mortality--for example. We're NOT getting the bang for our buck. The system described above would press relentlessly for improvements in the system by encouraging efficiency and quality without sacrificing the sick. It would allow ALL who benefit from the system to contribute to it retaining a sense of dignity and membership. It would allow us to do much better research on better healthcare methods and procedures. It would reduce frivolous litigation. It would reduce cost. It would encourage the formation of small businesses in healthcare AND release the drag on non-healthcare entrepreneurs.
We need this system NOW. And my thanks to Ezekiel Emanual and his book, HEALTHCARE, GUARANTEED for striking to the heart of the issue(s). I WISH President Obama and Speaker Pelosi would read this book TODAY. How could any of we Americans be opposed to adding 8 cents to our bill the next time we buy coffee or a donut to help get people off the streets and out of the gutters when they cannot afford healthcare? Our current system is NOT taking care of our own. And our economy is three times larger than the next largest one. Shame on us for being so insensitive.
Is Egypt better off?
Can someone please explain to me how Egypt is better off now? The Army has suspended the constitution and declared that they are in charge until they can hold "elections." Has Egyptian freedom expanded or contracted?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)