Disqus - Latest Comments for danrua

Re: A Nonpartisan Guide to Healthcare Reform

sbspalding — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 17:28:44 -0000

What you describe in reference to the "public option" is a systemic problem with any government facilitated healthcare system including Medicare parts A-"D". Namely, it becomes a question of who is paying for any of this.

The answer is unquestionably "future generations." Which is a convenient scapegoat that both parties rely on to keep near-term thinkers at bay. If you look at the most recent conflict in Iraq you will see a serious long-term economic boondoggle that was justified as a necessary expense for a variety of political reasons that aren't worth going over again here.

My argument "about" Health Care Reform as a principle is that it is necessary. Without any reform, Health Care costs will -still- require most (if not all) of the GDP to sustain in the next 15-20 years (by some estimates). Everyone paying attention knows that this is not a system that can continue. It would be political suicide for either side to admit that.

Where I think this particular plan offers a step in a positive direction is that it seeks to identify inefficiency in the current system and resolve it. I wouldn't put money on that working out as the cheerleaders would say it would, but it is a proactive government step towards change. The odds of the entire thing changing 500 times before it actually becomes law are so high I'd leave it at that for now.

My conclusion to all of this is that we are on a train heading towards a brick wall. Half of the country wants to stay on the train, the other half wants to switch to a track that will potentially head towards yet another brick wall. Most people neither know they are on a train nor see the wall that they are running into. Those who see both aren't talking about it because it would put the fear of god into the constituency.

This entire exercise is designed to put information out there and allow others to make decisions based on it. I tried to pick -reasonable- elements to describe both sides opinions on the matter.

Re: A Nonpartisan Guide to Healthcare Reform

danrua — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:58:25 -0000

Much of the debate about this or other politically-charged issues have roots in near-term vs. long-term thinking/pandering. The party that highlights near-term candy over larger long-term poison often wins the debate because the average voter doesn't "do the math" for net long-term consequences. This is just a specific example of the risks of society's growing "sound bite" debate trend.

Even this post focuses largely on near-term risks instead of combining near-term and long-term risks. For example, your conclusions about private insurance and rationing focus on whether this single legislative step accomplishes the risks being highlighted by those opposing government healthcare. However, the President has specifically stated his goal of single payer:
"I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.... A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House." via http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-in-03-id-like-to-...

On the topic of near-term vs. long-term, note the President's use of "we may not get there immediately." That puts today's legislation in its appropriate context, as a step towards an ultimate goal.

Even without knowing the President's stated long-term goal, economics can help predict the long-term consequences of a "public option" that has the ability to sustain losses, supported by higher taxation or future generation deficits. A government competitor that isn't subject to profit/loss/market forces ultimately puts private insurers out of business, resulting in higher taxes and/or fewer choices for all. If that government competitor succeeds in putting all others out of business (via economics or politics), healthcare rationing of the sort Rahm Emmanuel's brother outlines is a very real risk.

Therefore, your summation that private insurers will not be driven of out business and government-driven rationing will not occur lacks a time frame for full analysis. Although today's language may not achieve those outcomes immediately, they are very real long-term risks of today's legislation for government healthcare.

Re: On Disclosure

sbspalding — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:21:29 -0000

I definitely see your point, which actually brings up an interesting addendum. The FTC has very recently clearly stated their opinion on compensation based disclosure. The framework exists, yet I have a hard time believing (whether correct or not) that bloggers have materially changed their behavior.

A lot of this, I think, comes down to educating people on their responsibilities. This education needs to come from marketers, advertisers and the blogosphere as a whole. In many ways, my major reservation is that the "rules" are already there and I always find it distasteful to add additional systems and bureaucracy when the problem seems to be a cultural one.

Your last point adds weight to these reservations.

This is the point where we decide as a communication medium how we will handle advertorial, and I think we should focus on advocacy and education rather than another bulwark.

Re: On Disclosure

danrua — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:01:38 -0000

You and I agree on almost everything, but still I don't agree your stated belief is "commonly held" or "simple fact". If we put our "reader hat" on and stop engaging as marketers and bloggers, I think it gets more clear.

I'd bet the commonly held belief by readers is that they'd prefer to know soft-money and hard-money conflicts. Depending upon the context and reader the conflict may matter more or less, but they'd like to know and make that decision for themselves.

I'd also note that FTC guidelines (which are largely based upon reader expectation) make no distinction between soft and hard-money compensation. In fact, the recent FTC Guide additions almost all deal with disclosing soft-money conflicts. For example:

Example 7: A college student who has earned a reputation as a video game expert maintains a personal weblog or ‘‘blog” where he posts entries about his gaming experiences. Readers of his blog frequently seek his opinions about video game hardware and software. As it has done in the past, the manufacturer of a newly released video game system sends the student a free copy of the system and asks him to write about it on
his blog. He tests the new gaming system and writes a favorable review. The readers of his blog are unlikely to expect that he has received the video game system free of charge in exchange for his review of the product, and given the value of the video game system, this fact would likely materially affect the credibility they attach to his endorsement. Accordingly, the blogger should clearly and conspicuously disclose that he received the gaming system free of charge.

Therefore, someone IS saying "you have to disclose in order to play ball."

As such, I'd draw a distinction between what we feel is appropriate/best and what we feel is doable given that the foxes (bloggers/marketers) have been guarding the henhouse (readers/conflict disclosure) on this topic for too long. Substantial populist adoption and industry force can come from advocacy and technology. The nice thing is that I believe technology can make it easier, if we put our thinking caps on...and create the most trusted form of media ever devised -- TV, magazines, radio wouldn't be able to compete with the transparency possible online.

Re: On Disclosure

sbspalding — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:34:25 -0000

I think you might have misread my response slightly. I agree completely with the idea that compensation is compensation whether it's hard, soft or wrapped in green jello.

My point is that this belief is not the commonly held one, and that the reality is that many people who receive large amounts of "soft" compensation would balk at the idea that it's on the same field as actually money.

Good bad or otherwise, this is simple fact.

Which leads to my final point about the Universal Disclosure policy. I think the principles are sound, what I am not certain about is whether it would have any teeth unless there was either --

1. substantial populist adoption
2. industry force

behind it. Unless someone is saying you have to disclose in order to play ball, we will be in the exact same place we are now except with another well-intentioned and principally sound framework.

Re: On Disclosure

danrua — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:42:54 -0000

Steve,

I think the "paid" vs "compensated" distinction is bogus. The whole industry is going to continue in-fighting if we don't get people's heads around the reality that there is a spectrum of conflict readers could be interested in knowing about, not a black-and-white world. The reality also is that the world of readers is diverse, some who would care about the least conflict and others that wouldn't.

Therefore, public blogs, videos, podcasts will benefit from a solution that discloses the spectrum for all readers, allowing each reader to decide how much weight to give the conflict. IZEA's www.DisclosurePolicy.org is one framework for doing that. CleanStreamMedia (inside joke) and a Universal Registry are others.

Don't perpetuate the myth that drives marketers/bloggers to cry "DISCLOSE" at hard-money conflicts while shrouding their soft-money transactions as not disclosure worthy...it all creates conflict that readers will weigh based upon their diverse perspectives.

Re: http://www.borthwick.com/weblog/2009/04/19/699/

Johnborthwick — Thu, 14 May 2009 13:20:30 -0000

The implicit data point is a really good one. The bit.ly team are storing all this data on each link that is sent through the system -- click data (on the + page), entity data (from calais and other semantic extraction tools), location data etc. etc. I just asked Nate and the hash specific data is approx 20 gig and then there is approx 200 gig of metrics data (real time and roll up's). There is a lot of implicit value here.

Re: http://www.borthwick.com/weblog/2009/04/19/699/

danrua — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:30:06 -0000

nice prezi. most of those datapoints involved the shift from google search traffic to facebook/twitter discovery traffic. have you seen similar data on discovery vs. search, but at a higher level -- comparing goog search referrals to social media discovery referrals (including blogs, microblogs, social networks, RSS)? I've got to believe the shift to discovery stream referrals is even larger than represented by tw/fb alone.

Re: http://www.borthwick.com/weblog/2009/04/19/699/

danrua — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:21:37 -0000

Great post John.

Chartbeat reminds me of another, possibly larger flow in streams I've been investigating: implicit data/feeds. Most streams today are explicitly created by users, either by creating content, making a friend, saving a favorite etc. For every explicit action of a user, there are probably 100+ implicit datapoints from usage; whether that is a page visit, a scroll, a video/shopping abandon etc. I also believe such implicit data is less skewed by the digerati that creates a significant chunk of today's explicit dataset -- providing a more accurate view of online likes/dislikes/activities.

Therefore, I applaud your work on Chartbeat and encourage you to turn that data inside out by connecting with cross-site implicit datapoints. That becomes less about site/page-specific webmaster analytics, and more about surfer/user (anonymous or not, depending upon user choice) implicit activity feeds flowing into a larger stream...keep me posted if u go that route.

Re: My Google Talk On Disruption

danrua — Tue, 12 May 2009 09:09:19 -0000

agreed Fred. We just went thru homeschool decision/research and, as an investor, it was an invigorating process -- opening so many interesting paths to hack the norm. As investor & parent, I'm looking for the "Rockstar School" as online homeschool complement where every teacher/subject is top-decile, funny, engaging -- talent abounds, need world-changing entrepreneur to incentivize/record/deliver top global talent. Ping me if see similar...

Re: Can You Manage A Global Economy One Nation At A Time?

danrua — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 12:30:30 -0000

After reading your summation "I think it's going to take ... global regulation" (assuming you mean regulation designed/enforced by the global community, of which the US is a minority), I'm curious what the "or, else" extension is to that thought.

What do you fear happens if different nations/markets must compete for customers/investment based upon the quality of their chosen regulations & regulators? I agree a global approach and coordination is valuable, but why is global regulation (and, presumably, enforcement by some global entity) necessary for US citizens to prosper?

Re: Obama's First Weekly YouTube Address

danrua — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 02:39:34 -0000

Interesting thought Fred. I don't see it as black and white as you do: one nation vs. one world. I'm much more comfortable with a president-elect who appreciates both national interests and world interests have a role in any solution. As such, mentioning both in the address seems very appropriate...

Re: Obama - Biden Tax Calculator is Shady

danrua — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:14:11 -0000

not yet, but we're about one president and filibuster-proof congress away...both sides know that, and our future hangs in the balance of the middle realizing what's at stake!

Re: Obama - Biden Tax Calculator is Shady

danrua — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 10:44:31 -0000

I, too, like the Fair Tax, and any systems that try to match the tax you pay with the resources you consume.

I haven't heard anyone come from the other side, driven by "no taxation without representation" concepts; how about you get a "vote" for each dollar you pay in tax? If 10 people, investing different amounts, created an LLC to buy investment property, it's unlikely they'd decide things by 10 equal votes. Rather, each would own different shares in the entity and vote those shares on key decisions.

Why isn't government and taxation structured similarly? Then, taxing at different rates would at least match with having a proportional say in how those taxes are used. It might also encourage the masses to support equal contribution by all to government expenses. I know it would be radical, but it would eliminate the millions who have flipped the script to leverage "representation without taxation".

Re: Monetizing Internet Radio With Music

danrua — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 09:22:15 -0000

sponsored content...all media gets their eventually...I like it ;-)

Re: ted murphy | Having a great time so far. They cancelled Grand...

danrua — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:07:44 -0000

balcony...sweet!

Re: Startup Resources

sbspalding — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:12:05 -0000

Thanks Dan! How could I make a list of VC bloggers without including my favorite. Hope you're having a great weekend.

Cheers,

Re: Startup Resources

danrua — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:04:47 -0000

impressive post Steve -- thanks for the mention and great job!

Re: SocialSpark: Advertising Democratized?

sbspalding — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 01:38:27 -0000

Good point Dan! I think that it's crucially important that people understand that this is a project completely separate from PPP.

Re: SocialSpark: Advertising Democratized?

danrua — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:12:23 -0000

Thanks for the coverage Steve -- thorough post.

I'd add to your statement: "you can still use SocialSpark to help you get access to advertisers who are looking to reach out to the blogosphere" that SocialSpark provides value for any blogger regardless whether monetization is of interest. The face-based analytics and audience-building tools are unique and valuable in their own right. Every blogger will benefit from claiming their blog in SocialSpark upon launch...or earlier if you can get into the private alpha!