Wednesday, August 12, 2009

#wewanthealthcarereform

In all the healthcare hubbub...


With all the screaming and yelling go on at these town halls, and the fantastically heavy coverage given these "real american" "protectors of the republic", its amazing how much non discussion of healthcare is happening...at the town halls, on the news..even the debate on the net is now centered on the "outrage" and increasingly on the violent behavior and sentiments expressed by the protesters...


...and it seems to me that this discussion is being hijacked by those who have the least to gain and the most to lose, and they are using those who have the MOST to gain and the LEAST to lose to make their point.


It seems pretty evident that the health insurance industry doesn't like ANY discussion of a public option. Even having a conversation about it is a bad idea, because once you have even an inefficiently run not for profit health insurance option, it will in almost have to provide better service for its participants...why?


Because health insurance is a business where capitalism and the free market work AGAINST the consumer. By its very nature, a for profit health insurance company manages the company for the benefit of its shareholders, which means it is always looking to:


Grow revenues (increase the gross number of policies, look for investment opportunities for its cash, etc, etc)


Reduce costs : Manage its business efficiently..and...pay out only what it MUST in benefits.


By doing these two things well, profits increase..and profits go to...shareholders.


In short, a health insurance company, like any insurance company, makes more money by not paying.


The moment you have a not for profit insurance company all that margin that was being used to provide value to shareholders becomes available to the health consumer. There is no longer any incentive to make it difficult to file a claim, because not paying claims no longer makes sense....


but I'm not setting out today to argue my opinion on what we should do about healthcare.


I'm simply saying that there should be a real discussion about it..and that if we all had a real conversation about it, my bet would be that most of us would prefer a system that covered all of us, and that cost less, while still doing a great job taking care of our health as a country and a society.


I'm also pretty sure that system wouldn't be the one we have today.


So as you watch the tea bagger/birther crowd..who are helped to organize by special interest funded groups...(I wonder which ones?)....

get disproportionate (and sympathetic) coverage on certain news outlets (FOX)....just remember what we're NOT discussing...and then go tweet: #WeWantHealthCareReform


Oh, and if you don't buy my statements on how health insurance companies with a profit motive behave, give this a read: Ira Glass on "pre existing conditions"

Monday, August 10, 2009

High Frequency Trading....

Okay, so I've been reading both sides of this debate..and I have to say..what is really new here?

Having watched a few technology transitions in financial services over the last 15 years or so, and I have to say this feels a lot like others, with one big exception.....we really are reaching the point of diminishing returns here.

When we're done giving NYSE and other proximity hosters coin for shaving milli's off a transaction...and transitioning away from the TCP stack for distributed computing to 10G ethernet and RDMA..and all of our cacheing and reliability mechanisms are optimized for sub millisecond trade executions..and all the CPU's are Nehalem....

And service providers provide a level playing field execution capability to those without the wherewithal to build these systems....

Then what? Do we start looking for sub microsecond trading?

This trend certainly keeps alot of technologists on wall street and at tech companies gainfully employed, so don't get me wrong, an arms race can create some nice side effects..but you really have to stop and wonder whether this is creating a better market.

When the purpose of executing faster is to execute smarter, by taking advantage of fleeting price disparities, I think thats a good thing...but when its done to take advantage of fee structures, for example..I'm not so sure.

I think what I would like to see is more reasoned dialogue about where this is going, apart from simply taking advantage of the current market environment to make a short term killing.

What happens when everyone can trade at high frequency latencies?