Supreme Court Rejects Call To Review Healthcare Law–Perhaps Added Time To Invest In New Technologies to Query, Sort and An
Posted Apr 25 2011 12:10pm
Nobody wants to touch this as it is very, very complicated. It’s like any other major decisions today and a short while back I commented with another post and frankly without technologies to bring all the information forth to sort and review, you can’t do it today and expect any levels of real fairness or accuracy. Most legal offices today can certainly attest to this fact as the cases they try and research, even though smaller in size as far as background information required have the same issues. In a business today such as health insurance, to where business models can be adjusted and implemented sometimes in a time frame as short as 48 hours, how do lawmakers and the legal system keep up, they can’t.
I am not saying anything new here as it is a reality, but I may be the only person that is acknowledging it. Back in 2009 I created a post suggesting a “Department of Algorithms” or something along that line to monitor and run audits to ensure that practices using current day technologies are accurate and delivery accurate results and not venture too far off into the “desired” results are for profit. Fro all news and what read today, nobody wants the responsibility of this “hot potato” on their back for a fluent legal decision.
Not too long ago in the news we had judges that had conflicts of interest and we heard how they didn’t know how this occurred on companies they had been invested in for years, and the truth of the matter is with mergers and acquisitions along with greater IT technology investments, the companies had changed their methods of operation with several algorithmic adjustment of their business model. In short they perhaps had not kept up with how the face of business, coupled with technology is changing today in the US. I just read over the weekend that up at Harvard a new group in was created to study mergers and acquisitions on healthcare, about time and there’s plenty of reading here on this blog addressing many of those and the impact and changes they have created.
We all talk about transparency in government today and it was transparency that brought this to light. Again, I’m not saying anything here that has not played out in front of our eyes in the news today, it just is what it is. Here’s an example below of a conflict of interest story that was in the news a few months ago.
This same fact is also becoming more apparent in current lawmaking practices as we all have seen the unintended consequences that result and there will always be a certain amount of that occurring; however with smarter planning and using the same technologies used by big business and corporations today, some of this could be eliminated with simulations and creating a full on visual on how laws would play out in the world before they are voted in and added as a part of our legal processes. One such opinion article was posted not too long ago about exploring this possibility. Get the staff and resources needed up front. Big business does that all the time and it’s standard operating procedure.
It is also very easy when making interpretations today to get “fooled” too with vast numbers and amounts of information and sometimes things get foggy. Charles Siefe has to really like the fact that I keep pushing his book, but it’s truthful and does make you stop and think about the analytics that are presented today, as the numbers as crunched and presented can be and cannot be truly accurate.
As I always say there are algorithmic formulas created for “accurate” results and those created for “desired” results and the two are not always the same, although we seem to just take for granted they are, but they are not.
Here’s another post below where I focused on using new techniques and high levels of intelligence to create smarter laws and ones that are flexible to work today in the US with Congress going this direction as well and it would certainly make the the job easier for the judges if we at least started with this process too. When suggesting this high powered business type of intelligence, Congress had a chance to see it work but I think something got lost in the translation here as being the server technology was used on Jeopardy, I am guessing they thought it was only good for playing games and missed the value it would offer for lawmaking, so off t Wall Street it goes to be pitched to hedge funds and other investment businesses that want it.
So again, lawmaking and interpretations are complicated and difficult today and if I were in one of those areas, and we see this a lot today, without the necessary intelligence of technology to make better decisions, we see a fall back to something that had meaning and value to address from many years past, like abortions for one example. That plays out today like an orchestra and constituents all across the US scratch their heads as to why this keeps coming up. It’s a known issue (abortions)to where folks can take a stand, doesn’t require any real technology to sort out and it makes the news all the time and creates a flurry of emotional roller coasters to keep things disruptive and distracted so the real issues never get addressed properly and somewhat get written of with the saying “its complicated” and we get nothing or little accomplished. Just read the news and it plays out in the headlines day in and day out.
So again, I return back to my initial thoughts here in the fact that nobody wants to deal with the “hot potato” and this is kind of what we get and digital literacy improvements via all avenues of lawmaking would certainly be a big help and get the US back to the position of respect and recognition we enjoyed for many years but right now we don’t have that sadly and with the inability to raise up to meet the challenges, we are sinking and will continue to suffer through additional mounds of disruption and distraction (which a certain amount of that is always there) as it becomes the norm rather than pursuing smarter and realistic methodologies to bring the country back to where we once stood. It’s depressing to say the least. You can agree, disagree and have your own point of view here but again transparency speaks and we can’t ignore the elephant in the living room forever. BD
The Supreme Court rejected a call Monday from Virginia's attorney general to depart from its usual practice and put review of the healthcare law on a fast track. Instead, judicial review of President Barack Obama's signature legislation will continue in federal appeals courts. The justices turned down a request by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a leading opponent of the law, to resolve questions about its constitutionality quickly. The Obama administration opposed Cuccinelli's plea. Only rarely, in wartime or a constitutional crisis, does the court step into a legal fight before the issues are aired in appellate courts. Hearings already are scheduled in May and June in three appeals courts.