JUSTIFYING INHUMANITY AT DOUBLE THE COST

JUSTIFYING INHUMANITY AT DOUBLE THE COST

Jan 31, 2017

By Brian McKay

This week saw a lot of outrage over the decision of the Mylan CEO to jack the price of an EpiPen by 400% and give herself an $18 million bonus. It was outrage well placed as an EpiPen can mean the difference between life and death for many. Holding the life of a child over a barrel would typically be considered an unethical business practice.

What has been prompted by this story is again the question, “Why is our health for sale?”

It is for sale. To the highest bidder. Want competition in big pharma to fix the mess? Won’t happen. Can’t happen. In fact, the whole system can neither be fixed by or based upon competition at all.

Competition is great in some areas. Do I want to see competition among pizza places? Of course. I want a good pizza.

Competition can really stink in others though. Private fire departments didn’t work so well in the 1880’s. Can’t pay us? We’ll let it burn. Can’t pay the prescription cost or the doctor’s fee? Well your health can just burn too.

It seems that competition in health care has worked so well that the U.S. is 37th in the world. The 36 nations before us even include Costa Rica and that horrible place, Canada. In fact, we spend twice as much as number one France (17.5 percent in 2014) for far worse results. Where again is the advantage of competition?

Smart business would actually say that if a model exists that costs far less and provides better results, you go with it. The people that want government run as a business might need to realize this. Those of us that want a government that leads the world in compassion for its most vulnerable would be extremely satisfied as well.

Not only does cutting our GDP expenditure in half save money but it leaves money to ignite other areas of the economy that have higher ratios of employees per dollar spent. The velocity gets ratcheted up and that GDP thing that measures how fast money is moving, goes up with it.

Many argue unproven concepts for which no actual estimates exist. Something thrown around is opening up health insurance to compete across state lines. Again competition is proposed as the fix with no numbers to back it. The better model already exists. Why not run with that? Why are we so scared of the best fix? Oh that’s right, Republicans have a communist conspiracy theory for it. Obviously they prefer harboring ridiculous conspiracies to enacting change that stops people from needlessly dying.

The United States also comprises the majority of big pharma’s profits. Essentially we pay for everyone else. With years of patent protection there is no way the specific drug is open for that coveted competition. While there is no objection to companies making money, making exorbitant amounts while locking out our poorest is reprehensible.

The myth for years has been that citizens from other countries come here for their health care and that you could die before being admitted in other countries. Feelings are fun. Feelings taken from a crappy commercial on Fox News are even more fun for some, but the stats support none of those feelings. Yes, in France or Germany you have access to health care, its excellent and you needn’t worry about ending up bankrupt. Sounds pretty damn good doesn’t it. Walmart could actually plan on their under paid employees at least being able to see the doctor in order to keep working hard to deliver lower prices.

Obamacare has made some difference in that at least more people are insured. The dramatic cost increases that others say it has produced haven’t happened. Not yet at least. They will as insurers have been leaving the exchanges. What was an attempt to do better became a silly compromise that Republicans liken to the Holocaust on a regular basis. Honestly, all it does is suck a little bit less than the shit that came before it.

Its time. The inhumanity of leaving our most vulnerable without the care they need while spending at least double of everyone else equals nothing less than insanity. We can do better and our health is not a profit center.

Please feel free to write the greedy bitch at Mylan and tell her to go fuck herself. You may certainly use my name.

 

Brian McKay is a co-founder of zenruption. As an MBA he thinks capitalism can be great when used responsibly, kind of like alcohol. Oh that’s right, he has often violated that principle. The results usually speak for themselves the next morning.

 

 

 

 

Feature photo courtesy of Flickr, under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial license

Tesla 3 Delivers

Tesla 3 Delivers

Jan 31, 2017

By Jerry Mooney

The much anticipated Tesla Model 3 was revealed tonight in a relatively short presentation. It was much anticipated because people have been waiting for the disruptive car company to finally produce a compelling car for the general public and this is it. Expected to cost $35,000 before tax incentives, the Tesla 3 truly becomes an affordable electric car, with the cache of the Tesla brand and the convenience of the Tesla Supercharger network, which will continue to expand. Tesla expects the network to double by next year.

Tesla models leading up to the Model 3 were amazing but expensive. The Model S costs upwards of $70,000 and the Model X can put you back $140,000 when fully equiped. These cars were designed to be expensive and for a limited target consumer. By selling these high priced cars, Tesla was able to fund the creation of the Model 3 while improving their mass production process and lowering costs.

This also gave Tesla time to create their own battery production operation, the Gigafactory, to reduce production costs through streamlining the process and economies of scale. Currently, Tesla is the largest consumer of batteries in the world, which is astounding considering Apple and Samsung have millions of battery reliant products worldwide. Elon Musk showed updated footage of the factory and said it is currently functional even though it is also under construction.

The large and increasing demand for batteries made the Gigafactory necessary, and the Gigafactory makes the Model 3 at $35,000 with a range over 200 miles possible. This bold marriage seemed to require the vision of Elon Musk, the eccentric CEO of Tesla. Musk claims to find inspiration from unconventional sources like The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy, so taking on seemingly impossible tasks comes from fiction, not normal business manuals.

Before tonight’s unveil, Musk knew the Tesla 3 already a succeeded, even before a single car was sold. This is largely due to his unconventional way perceives success. The mission statement of Tesla is to advance the advent of sustainable transport, which Elon emphasised. The Tesla 3 has already inspired competition, like the Chevy Bolt to begin production of competitive models. Now, all of the major car manufacturers are following Tesla’s lead. Which leads us to the Model 3.

Now that we have seen the unveil, what have we learned? Things we expected: the Model 3 has an EPA estimated mileage of over 200 (215). The price will be $35,000 before tax incentives and be available at the end of 2017. The design is similar to the Model S but about 20 percent smaller (apparently a shortened frunk and trunk).

Some nice surprises: The Tesla 3 has a 5 star safety rating in all categories. It also has free access to the supercharger network. There is a large (I’m assuming a 17 inch) video console like in the Models X and S, but mounted differently (it apeared external to the dash). The Model 3 can go from 0 to 60 in six seconds. It will be equipped with autopilot hardware and software. Even though it is 20 percent smaller than the Model S, because most of the space was taken from the frunk and trunk it will still seat 5 adults comfortably.

This car has been so anticipated and followed in the footsteps of the Model S and Model X, there was almost the expectation that Tesla might become a victim of its own reputation. However, the car looked awesome! For an inexpensive electric car with range and performance, this appears to set the bar high for the competition.

Jerry Mooney is co-founder and managing editor of Zenruption and the author of History Yoghurt and the Moon. He studied at the University of Munich and Lewis and Clark College where he received his BA in International Affairs and West European Studies. He has recently taught Language and Communications at a small, private college and owned various businesses, including an investment company that made him a millionaire before the age of 40. Jerry is committed to zenrupting the forces that block social, political and economic justice. He can also be found on Twitter@JerryMooney

WHEN TIME RUNS OUT ON THE TEST JUST FILL IN C

WHEN TIME RUNS OUT ON THE TEST JUST FILL IN C

Jan 31, 2017

By Brian McKay

What is a conscientious voter to do? We either have status quo or worse. That’s it. Stay the fucked up same or be even more fucked up. What a great choice.

One could say that the American people are getting screwed. I might go so far as to say that we screwed ourselves. We refused to educate ourselves and we refused to accept actual positive change over the status quo. The funny thing is that exceptionalism comes up in every narrative of the major parties and allows us the opportunity to forget how far other nations have started to eclipse us because obviously we know what is best and can only be right.

We are running out of time. Start marking C on the unfinished questions.

Race relations are deteriorating and starting a downward spiral based on years of unaddressed systemic inequality. Wealth disparity has exceeded levels last seen in the Golden Age. Mass shooting have become commonplace. A significant proportion of our population believes the statement written on the Statue of Liberty is pure junk. Families that have lost children in war zones are fair game to be criticized and a major political party can attempt to censor the best candidate it has had in years. Oh… and the Russians might be involved in a bunch of it.

What is a country to do when our best options are third party candidates? Maybe it is time to vote for them for once. Actually I like them… both. They are better than anything the mainstream can seem to put together with their manipulation and dysfunction. I’ll take either one, though I lean Green for sure.

That’s it folks. America got left with subpar. The least of two evils is what we have with major parties. I am imploring you to reject that notion for once and all. It’s time. Let’s rethink for once and bash on the system that has been failing us. Seriously, Congress has an 11 percent approval rating and you will most likely reelect the same guys. For fucks sake, just vote for the guy that wears horns on his head and promises free ponies for once. Seriously, he might actually get more done.

And this whole exceptionalism thing? Let it go. Large companies will often tell their employees how spectacular they are while being surpassed by the small and nimble startups. Yeah, the U.S. has become that large company. Hubris kills and it is now killing us as a nation.

Our health care is abysmal at 37th in the world. We have crafted a narrative that anyone can make it in America when we sit at 17th on the social mobility list and let’s not get started where we are on the happiness list.

So why do we keep buying the same shit? Both political party conventions were train wrecks. One candidate easily challenges Andrew Jackson for the asshole award and wins while the other one probably runs her own crime syndicate.

How did we get here? Laziness? Stupidity? Buying the lies and hype?

I have no idea but the U.S. has become a powder keg that is ready to blow. 2017 will most likely be one of the most disruptive years in our history regardless of who wins the Presidency and the captures the Senate and House. And guess what? It’ll still be a stalemate disaster where nothing gets done.

So at this point I guess we have nothing left to lose. Go out and vote third party this year. While you’re at it lift a middle finger to the traditional parties we have been saddled with for far too long.

Even Sisyphus found redemption in telling the gods to “Fuck Off” while pushing that boulder every day.

 

Brian McKay is a co-founder of zenruption. He is basically done with it all. The minute your child states her desire to move to Canada, that tells you where we truly have ended up. Vote your conscious this year and forget the winner equation.

 

 

 

 

Feature photo courtesy of Flickr, under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial license

Who Is Really Casting Your Vote?

Who Is Really Casting Your Vote?

Jan 29, 2017

By Ashley Richardson

For most Sanders supporters, the last year has been difficult to cope with. The divide between those voting for Green Party candidate, Jill Stein, and those planning to write in Bernie Sanders is becoming a growing concern. Some will vote for Bernie if the DNC replaces Hillary Clinton (unlikely), while others are dedicated to voting Green, regardless. One scandal after another has further revealed the devious nature of the “democratic” candidate, Hillary Clinton, as well the media’s bias unwillingness to cover topics exposing such. More than ever, I’ve resorted to personal research and peer input to sift through information, and while this is good practice, it’s also time consuming and frustrating at times. This election cycle has further destroyed my trust in the United States government as well as the companies I rely on daily.

Some states have “sore loser” laws, dictating that candidates who lost in the primary election cannot then run as an independant in the general election. When I searched these legalities using google, I was provided with the following information:

  “Sixteen states confirmed to Conservative Review that they have sore-loser laws which apply to presidential candidates: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia.”

Google even offers this information to anyone who searches for something remotely similar:

 

This information is disheartening, to say the least. For some, this result may be the end of research road and solidify a vote. I personally question any information provided by a website with a clear political bias (conservativereview.com) and continued into the search result from Ballotpedia.com. The information I found there, said something quite the contrary.

 

Ballotpedia.com –

“Ballot access expert Richard Winger has argued that, generally speaking, “sore loser laws have been construed not to apply to presidential primaries.” In August 2015, Winger compiled a list of precedents supporting this interpretation. He argued that in 43 of the 45 states with sore loser laws on the books, the laws do not seem to apply to presidential candidates. Winger claimed that sore loser laws apply to presidential candidates in only two states: South Dakota and Texas.”

We have two conflicting results. Who is to be trusted? Can anyone be trusted?

Most recently, Matt Lieberman of Sourcefed posted a video demonstrating a clear bias in google’s search output, supporting Clinton. An investigation was conducted byRobert Epstein of The American Institute for Behavioral Research, the article and results can be found here.

Obviously it’s too late for Bernie to run as an independent, so the information provided in my example is somewhat irrelevant. But for those still planning to cast their vote for Bernie, please research the legalities, and not just for your state. Unless your vote is intended only as a protest, whether or not a Bernie has met the requirements necessary for a qualified win is quite relevant.

 

 

By Ashley Richardson

For most Sanders supporters, the last year has been difficult to cope with. The divide between those voting for Green Party candidate, Jill Stein, and those planning to write in Bernie Sanders is becoming a growing concern. Some will vote for Bernie if the DNC replaces Hillary Clinton (unlikely), while others are dedicated to voting Green, regardless. One scandal after another has further revealed the devious nature of the “democratic” candidate, Hillary Clinton, as well the media’s bias unwillingness to cover topics exposing such. More than ever, I’ve resorted to personal research and peer input to sift through information, and while this is good practice, it’s also time consuming and frustrating at times. This election cycle has further destroyed my trust in the United States government as well as the companies I rely on daily.

Some states have “sore loser” laws, dictating that candidates who lost in the primary election cannot then run as an independant in the general election. When I searched these legalities using google, I was provided with the following information:

  “Sixteen states confirmed to Conservative Review that they have sore-loser laws which apply to presidential candidates: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia.”

Google even offers this information to anyone who searches for something remotely similar:

 

This information is disheartening, to say the least. For some, this result may be the end of research road and solidify a vote. I personally question any information provided by a website with a clear political bias (conservativereview.com) and continued into the search result from Ballotpedia.com. The information I found there, said something quite the contrary.

 

Ballotpedia.com –

“Ballot access expert Richard Winger has argued that, generally speaking, “sore loser laws have been construed not to apply to presidential primaries.” In August 2015, Winger compiled a list of precedents supporting this interpretation. He argued that in 43 of the 45 states with sore loser laws on the books, the laws do not seem to apply to presidential candidates. Winger claimed that sore loser laws apply to presidential candidates in only two states: South Dakota and Texas.”

We have two conflicting results. Who is to be trusted? Can anyone be trusted?

Most recently, Matt Lieberman of Sourcefed posted a video demonstrating a clear bias in google’s search output, supporting Clinton. An investigation was conducted byRobert Epstein of The American Institute for Behavioral Research, the article and results can be found here.

Obviously it’s too late for Bernie to run as an independent, so the information provided in my example is somewhat irrelevant. But for those still planning to cast their vote for Bernie, please research the legalities, and not just for your state. Unless your vote is intended only as a protest, whether or not a Bernie has met the requirements necessary for a qualified win is quite relevant.

 

 

AN OPEN RESIGNATION LETTER TO JOHN STUMPF, CEO OF WELLS FARGO BANK

AN OPEN RESIGNATION LETTER TO JOHN STUMPF, CEO OF WELLS FARGO BANK

Jan 29, 2017

Brian McKay

August 8, 2016

 

John Stumpf, CEO

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

 

Mr. Stumpf:

 

This will be the first time I pen a resignation letter that details the extensive failures and misgivings of an organization. It will be both an indictment of Wells Fargo and corporate America in general and what I see as general lack of long term vision and positioning this organization for eventual disruption. It is a critique of shareholder prominence and the establishment of our country’s eventual fall from prominence, to which Wells Fargo is now helping to lead the way.

I have worked for some epically shitty companies in the past. My time with Qwest Communications saw the evaporation of shareholder value at a rate never before seen in the United States. It has been several years of contemplation as to which is the worst company for which I have ever been employed and I have finally settled on Wells Fargo because hypocrisy tilted the scales in the company’s favor. The fact that the company’s Vision and Values state that the most important part of the company is its employees while the company is constantly pushing good people beyond their breaking point.

There comes a point in organizations when the quest for quarterly profits and appeasement of Wall Street creates what I call organizational psychosis. Unfortunately, Wells Fargo has become organizationally psychotic. How do I know this? My 5 years and 2 months with Wells Fargo have witnessed nothing but disdain for our customers as our sales representatives are pushed to the limits of absolute futility under the guise of “best serving our customers”. Our “Culture of Caring” is unfortunately a lack of caring for the employees of the company which translates into a lack of caring for our customers. Despite the recent rash of bad press and investigations into our sales practices the sales goals of my own and other departments have been increased to a level which is near impossible. This will only further what is already a massive employee turn-over rate and result in a further lack of service and concern for our customer base. My time in sales has seen the disregard of our customers in the constant push of service people funneling customers to me for products they certainly don’t need with service that has not been performed. The good people I have had the pleasure to work with have been veterans that took care of their customers and cared to make sure they were taken care of. Despite metrics that could not be attained by most, at least a few of us did what was ethical and right in light of an organization steeped in poor service and willing to do anything to make sales goals.

It is degrading for employees to constantly see an organization that only touts its successes while consistently failing to address the existence of the company on multiple top ten lists of the most hated companies in America.

Wells Fargo is the only bank that publishes the numbers of its banking products per customer with its quarterly results. Currently, we have over 6 products (or solutions) per customer and express our desire to have 8 core solutions per customer. We tout this amount as success. The company has claimed that only a few bad actors have established bogus accounts and products for our customers, mostly in the L.A. area. I must interrupt our organizational psychosis to inform you that such fraud is endemic across the entire organization. Our customers receive debit cards they do not want. Daily it is seen that customer profiles have fake email addresses associated with them and are enrolled in all our online banking products even when the customer has indicated no desire to use that service. It seems the numbers we provide every quarter are greatly exaggerated.

I would posit that this letter does not pose any threat of cognitive dissonance within your organization. Wells Fargo is filled with yes men that trumpet shareholder value and the significance of the bank being the most valuable in the world while ignoring the collective discontentment of those at the front line of the organization. As such, the incentives that drive behaviors become more convoluted and impossible to attain at a higher frequency. It is the organization that exclaims its greatness at every moment while ignoring its weaknesses that is soon to fall and open itself to disruption. Our customer base that is victimized will eventually find a home with a smaller and more nimble organization that comes into the industry and offers them more. Eventually the organization will work its way towards its nadir.

Mr. Stumpf, you have received numerous awards for the return on shareholder value you have created while at the helm of Wells Fargo but you have only cowed to the Street while ignoring that which fosters long term growth. I consider such executive leadership to be weak and non-holistic in its nature. Soon Fed Funds rate increases coupled with Wells Fargo’s size will create a situation of diminishing returns. I would not hesitate in predicting that the company plans of cost cutting and reducing employment expenses from 57% of gross revenue will further constrain the responsiveness and the customer focus of the organization.

And so it is with great happiness that I leave Wells Fargo behind after this period of time. I have no doubt that the organization that is now myopic was once great. Upon my hiring, I held out great hope to develop a career, earned my MBA while with the company and performed with consistent excellence. Now I walk away to leave the company to constant turn over in its branches and service centers and hire kids that can’t manage their own finances, let alone those of our customers. All the while the company that claims they are the “competitive advantage” but refuses to foster development, retain them and pushes survival within the organization to the detriment of the company’s reputation, customer service and long term market potential.

You are not alone Mr. Stumpf but representative of the mega banks in general. Small and nimble is coming and fintech is growing. Can you abandon the organization psychosis in order to compete? May you have the fortitude to do so, change your course and actually develop the world class organization the company has claimed to be.

 

Sincerely,

Brian McKay

Pin It on Pinterest