Author: Doug Berger

Founder, visionary, and editor of Doug's Views. Need more info - see the About page linked below the masthead.
Posted on

Advertising Unknown Outcomes

Recently I have seen commercials on TV from a particular cancer treatment center. I have no particular view point on advertising medical treatment because I see it all the time – from Doctors, Hospitals, drug companies, and other medical items. But the commercials from this treatment center just seem a bit off to me because it seems to imply they can do something that may not be possible – curing you of cancer.

The commercial starts with a woman telling her experience at a hospital and finding out they had cancer. In the two I’ve seen the women basically say “The Doctor comes in says you have cancer and leaves…” and they tell how bad they feel and how they want to do whatever it takes to beat the cancer. The implied message is the hospital or doctor they get the news from doesn’t want to help.

The first commercial I saw had the woman continue with her story by say she went to the treatment center and was given all kinds of tests and exams and she asked her new doctor how long did she have to live. She tells the camera that the doctor said she had no expiration date and he couldn’t tell just by looking at her.

Here is the text of the story that is on their website (I redacted the name of the patient, doctor, and hospital):

In July 2001, Peggy was told she had stage IV pancreatic cancer and to go home and get her affairs in order. In this video, Peggy talks about how she found hope and healing at treatment center

“After three days of testing, I looked at [the Doctor] and I said “How long do I have?” And he looked at me and said “Peggy, we did a lot of tests on you and I never saw one thing stamped on the bottom of your foot that said you were going to die in two months. You have no expiration date. That is in hands way above mine.”

It’s really unbelievable how one doctor can tell me I have two months to live, and then I got to [the center] and they offered hope.

This treatment center is making an implied promise to “cure” people of cancer.

I know that sometimes compassion is missing or in low supply in the medical field but I find it hard to take a medical facility telling a patient that if you use us you have a better chance to not dying from cancer.

I just don’t think more compassion or telling patients what they want to hear – rather than the truth – is good business especially for someone with cancer. I also don’t think any hospital or Doctor would not do everything to treat cancer if they can. If they didn’t then one could claim malpractice.

Cancer isn’t some monolith disease where one fix takes care of it – if it were then there might not be any cancer in the world. Sometimes treatment works, sometimes it works for awhile, and sometimes it doesn’t work at all. The outcome is based on the cancer, the person, and how soon it is discovered.

Posted on

Bail Outs Revisited

In previous posts, I have supported bail outs for our banking system and auto makers because of the fried economy. I still think government intervention is a good emergency tool to use to prevent a complete collapse, but because of politics, the bail outs turned out to be a bad idea. It reminds me of a panhandler asking for a couple of bucks to “get something to eat” but you know he or she is just going to use to buy a 40 oz. At some point you have to say no.

I think the factors that play into a decision for government intervention should be based on the national interest. It’s like the old moral situation that if you knew something bad was going to happen and could prevent it, but it might lead to your death, would you still act?

There really is no debate that the economy is a foundation of a peaceable livable society. Look at all the countries that have poor economies – they tend to have bad political and social situations.

The banks need some infusion of cash to keep them open because it might have led to a domino effect – one fails then they take others with them. Part of that is confidence. The reason the Great Depression was so “great” was because of a lack of confidence and government intervention at the time helped restore some confidence.

The auto industry is a different interest based on the number of people employed not only making the cars but those who supply the makers and the subsidiary economy dependent on the industry. For 2 or more of those companies to fail would hurt big time. Probably as bad as the rust belt era of the 1970’s when dozens of steel makers and other heavy industries went bust putting millions out of work.

The problem I see is that once the money came in nobody seemed to work on changing or saving their business. AIG and the banks still paid their bonuses, had their lavish parties, and held on to the money for mergers. The auto makers just kept up their business as usual while Senators and Congress critters insisted that Unions take all the lumps.

So while I still think the bail outs were a good idea – I admit they didn’t work out like they were sold to us. But that’s what happens when you give away money without strings attached.

What should have happened was the large banks and AIG who were failing should have been broken up and those struggling with toxic assets should have had those assets taken off the books at their current value – why should the bank profit from their own bad decision. Bonuses should have been stopped as well as any spending not directly connected to doing their core business – like office redecoration, parties, or lobbying.

Then there would be a follow up with a review and changes, if needed, in government banking regulations to try and prevent this problem from happening again.

The auto makers should have presented a plan about how they will change their product mix and business model to reduce expenses while moving toward more energy efficient cars and trucks, as well as those that use alternative fuels. The goal is moving to a leaner business and one that will be able to compete and contribute to the move off our oil dependency.

It’s not any different than when a person asks for a business loan – you have to show a viable business plan – or you have investors who can kick you to the curb if you endanger their return on their investment through bad decisions.

Posted on

Tough Love for Auto Makers but not for the Banks

On Monday President Obama basically threw two of the three US auto makers under a bus when he announced that GM and Chrysler were at the end of their credit line from the US Treasury. It just seemed off to me that the Wall Street con-men who fried the economy, still got billions in bonuses, and whose CEOs hardly got shoved around, got better treatment than the auto makers. Maybe I am not understanding this “tough love” concept I keep hearing about.

I do understand that there needs to be a systematic change in how the auto makers operate as a condition for help but I also believe there needs to be the same kind of changes to the banking industry that actually got us into this mess – like a return to some form of The Glass-Steagall Act and reform in the bank regulatory agencies to enforce existing laws. Also the leadership of the banks that approved the actions that led to the bust should be removed and in some cases the bad banks and AIG need to be wind down and broken up.

Instead we get the removal of the GM CEO and calls for Unions to trash their contracts in an effort to reduce their wages to the same level as workers at foreign owned factories in the US. GM was given 60 days to change and Chrysler was given 30 days to merge with another company.

I just don’t see the fairness of the treatment and yes I know the businesses aren’t the same, but seems to me to be like the guy who held and fired the gun is getting a special deal while the guy driving the get away car is getting the death sentence.

I subscribe to the John Rawls concept of justice – “According to Rawls, ignorance of these details about oneself will lead to principles that are fair to all. If an individual does not know how he will end up in his own conceived society, he is likely not going to privilege any one class of people, but rather develop a scheme of justice that treats all fairly.”

As Eugene Robinson wrote in his column:

Both the credit crunch and the reluctance of consumers to spend what money they have left are the direct result of Wall Street’s atrocious misbehavior. Yet the administration’s plan for rescuing the banking sector involves generous inducements, big subsidies and the opportunity for wealthy investors to become much wealthier while assuming very little risk. There are reasons for structuring the bank bailout this way, and there are reasons to take a get-tough attitude with the auto companies. But the juxtaposition is galling — and, for many autoworkers, potentially devastating.

Detroit Dissonance

So where is the fairness in treatment? Where is the justice?

Maybe I’m missing something?

About Proudly powered by WordPress