In that regard, I’ve had some recent expreiences with AT&T, Amazon.com, and DirecTV which have reminded me that despite all the marketing hype, the Rolling Stones were right: you can’t always get what you want. The underside of this realization is that in most cases, you can only get what vendors want you to have, the way they want you to have it.

I work out of a home office and have “business” telephone and internet through AT&T. I also have AT&T wireless service (for the whole family) and DirecTV, both under personal accounts. The business account is set up under my company’s name with a “C/O” to me, at my address. This was originally done so that I could get certain services that were only available to AT&T’s “business” customers. The small consulting firm I work for is being acquired but I will continue to be based out of my home office. Because I will no longer need AT&T’s business services and wanted to bundle my landline, internet, wireless and satellite TV for cost savings, I called AT&T to inquire about converting the business account to a personal one. I immediately discovered that really wasn’t an option because AT&T would require me to change phone numbers and re-subscribe to DSL internet service (thus losing my family’s current email addresses). Moreover, if I wanted to stay on DSL, the “transition” could involve a loss of internet access for up to two weeks! When I balked at this, they offered me the option of subscribing to their U-Verse internet service, with the existing DSL not shutting down until after installation. The problem was, we would still have to change phone numbers and email addresses. In addition, the only way they would support U-Verse would be if I agreed to use AT&T’s standard modem/router. I already have a fairly robust home network in place (ethernet and wireless) and based on the poor reputation of AT&T’s home networking devices (including my own past experiences), this was not a viable option. In frustration, I finally asked if the name on the business account could simply be changed to my own. I was told that this could only be done by issuing a new account number, which would require “re-initialization” of all services with no guarantee of retaining the same phone numbers or email accounts. At that point I decided to give up - after about 90 minutes on the phone. I just couldn’t get what I wanted.

LATE UPDATE – 11/19/11: Surprise! The U-Verse service I was offered really isn’t available yet and may not be for some time…

This morning I went to Amazon.com to look into the recently announced Kindle Lending Library. Amazon has been very accomodating in setting me up for automatic renewal of my “Amazon Prime” membership. They have also made it very easy to access Kindle media by providing a free download of their “Kindle for Mac” app. Of course, the clear intent is to make it as easy as possible for me to spend money on Kindle media. Despite the fact that they are already reaching deep into my pockets on a consistent basis, Amazon has decided that the lending library will only be available to those who own an actual Kindle device. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti-capitalist and would willingly pay a nominal “rental” fee to access the library. In my case, I simply read too many books and periodicals to pay full price for everything I’m interested in. It’s why I’m an avid user of the San Francisco Public Library and its website. Once again, I just couldn’t get what I wanted.

In last Sunday’s newspaper, a full-page, color ad was inserted for DirecTV. It promised new subscribers free premium services for three months, a guaranteed low rate (for essentially the same package I have) for all of 2012, and a free NFL Sunday Ticket package for the rest of the season. Assuming a new subscriber put together a package virtually identical to mine, he or she would be paying about $35-40 less per month through the end of 2012. Feeling a bit like a sucker, I called to inquire about changing packages (mine is grandfathered and no longer offered) and any other potential offers that might be available to longtime subscribers like me. They pretty much blew me off by saying that at sometime in the past I must have availed myself of a “new subscriber” offer. Because I’ve had DirecTV for almost 12 years, I don’t remember if discounts were offered when I started; but I do know that there are many more services offered today (HD, HD DVR, “Whole-Home”, etc.) that I had to pay full price for when they were first rolled out. What really got me is that they were completely unwilling to offer me anything for having been a longtime customer. For the third time in less than two weeks, I just couldn’t get anything I wanted.

If you’ve come this far, thanks for reading my rant in its entirety and I hope you find it helpful. I guess I’m just an aging baby-boomer who still believes that things should be fair and equitable. Idealism dies hard!

For starters, I’ve been in the midst of busy season at work. Think April 15th for tax preparers, accountants, etc. It starts for me around mid-September and usually runs through the first week of December. During the last two or so weeks, it’s an all-out, burnout where perspective gets thrown out the window and all I can think about is getting to the finish line.  Despite the fact that I’ve gone through this annual ritual for over 15 years, it never gets any easier.  Every gain in productivity and efficiency I’ve attained has been more than offset by increases in the amount and complexity of work required.

And it’s not just about me…This fall, my wife has been busier than ever in her role as Adjunct Staff (in Spiritual Direction) with the Mercy Center in Burlingame.  At the start of September, we were also asked to become part of the Pastoral Care staff at our church. We’re only part-timers, but even that status comes with significant responsibilities – particularly when compared to the level of commitment generally required of ”volunteers”. I should also mention that our eldest daughter, Rachel, is entering high school next year. This means that we’ve also been in the process of evaluating schools, submitting applications, and in the case of one private school – pursuing financial aid. 

Taken together, this “perfect storm” of activity has forced us to become even more adept at juggling schedules and trying to carve out quality time for our family, friends, and ourselves. We’ve encountered a fair amount of “turbulance” in this season, but with God’s grace we’re hanging in there and continuing to learn new things about ourselves every day.

Thanks for stopping by.

I have health insurance for my family through Kaiser and am blessed to have one of the most comprehensive coverage plans they offer. As such, we’re responsible for copayments of only $5-$10 for each office visit or occasion of service (lab tests or other diagnostic procedures). Kaiser policy requires patients to satisfy their copayment requirement at the point of service. This is critical because if the system functions properly, it minimizes the need for the people-intensive and costly process of billing and collection. Consider that we’re probably talking about thousands or even hundreds of thousands of patient encounters every day – with most of them requiring a copayment from the patient. This is a great example of a little thing that makes a big difference.

Unfortunately, I’ve found that there’s some dysfunction in the “little thing” I’m describing. Over the past 18 months, Kaiser’s patient registration system has repeatedly failed to determine the correct copayment amounts for services rendered to our family. As a result, I’ve received several statements from them requesting payment of $5 or $10 due to errors made in determining the copayment amount at the time of service. I’ve worked in healthcare finance my entire professional career and have seen thousands of patient bills/statements in a variety of formats. Based on my experience, I can say that Kaiser’s statements are some of the most confusing I’ve ever seen. Each of the statements I received listed all occasions of service within a given time period (generally 3-6 months) with the copayment amount due for each one, individual amounts collected (but not referenced by date of service), reversals of copayment assessments that were in error, and the corresponding revised copayment amounts. Did you get all that? It may be even more confusing when you actually see it. The statements were arranged in chronological order, not by date of service, but based on the date each transaction was processed. Because my entire family of four has coverage through Kaiser, all of the statements I received were at least 2-3 pages long (front and back to “save paper”). Initially, not wanting to take the time to “tick and tie” (an accounting term) all of the transactions, I just sent in the amount due at the bottom of the statement. When I received subsequent statements that included some or all of the transactions listed on the previous one (now including the last payment I sent by mail), I decided that I needed to “tie everything out”.

Again based on experience, I knew that this problem was “systemic”, most likely impacting thousands of Kaiser beneficiaries. I also knew that it was costing Kaiser a lot of money to bill me and others for erroneous copayments, to process the corresponding payments, and to offer telephone support to people who had questions about their bills. While it may not cost Kaiser $5 per claim for this process, it’s hard to imagine them getting a justifiable rate of return on the additional costs incurred.

The final straw came this week when I received a call from USCB, a self-described “Receivable and Resource Management Company”. See how deeply embedded the cultural zeitgeist is – when we feel compelled to apply a “happy-face” description to what is essentially a collection agency? Anyway, the agent was very pleasant but refused to tell me much of anything about the purpose of the call unless I was willing to provide certain personal information for purposes of “identification”. I understand about the requirements of HIPAA and concerns for personal privacy, but I also know that the verification process can be as extensive as they want to make it – obtaining as much information from me as possible while holding out the “carrot” of telling me what the call is actually about. We quickly reached a standoff, with the agent only willing to tell me that an account in my name had been referred by Kaiser. The call ended with me requesting and receiving a telephone number for the Kaiser department that had referred the claim.

The Kaiser representative was very helpful but as confused as I had been about the layout of the statement she called up on her computer. After about 10 minutes on the phone, she determined that a copayment in the amount of $5 (yes, FIVE dollars) had not been paid, so the account had been referred to collections. The date of service was back in July 2008. Despite my best efforts to “tick and tie” all the statements I had received, I apparently missed one amount – or did I? It turns out that the last statement showing this amount was issued in October 2008 and at the beginning of 2009, Kaiser converted to a new system. It appears that outstanding amounts from the old system were simply converted into a single “Balance Forward” item in the new system. Because we haven’t experienced any copayment errors since January, we didn’t receive any statements showing the unpaid Balance Forward. No statement – no payment, if no payment – the account is automatically sent to collections after a designated period of time. The Kaiser rep immediately agreed to write-off the account (despite my offer to pay over the phone) and proceeded to go back into the old system to make sure that there were no other amounts outstanding under any of our four Kaiser member numbers.

This entire process has caused me to ponder the number of “little things” (processes) in our financial systems that tend to be overlooked or forgotten. How many of these have become dysfunctional, costing institutions and companies millions of dollars that might otherwise be put to good use? Perhaps a reordering of priorities is called for…

In addition to stepping back from the increasingly heated rhetoric that will undoubtedly dominate the final weeks of the campaign, I like to keep things “light” by enjoying political humor – particularly cartoons. Here are two of my recent favorites: 

Copyright © 2008 Universal Press Syndicate

That’s enough from atop the soapbox for now…thanks for stopping by.   

Around 1500 AD, the Dutch humanist Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus (commonly referred to as ”Erasmus”) published a compilation of ancient Greek and Latin adages (proverbs) called the Adagia. Included in this compilation was the proverb ”a rolling stone gathers no moss”. The commonly understood meaning is that people who don’t call any one place home are generally free of the types of entanglements (relationships, responsibilites, etc.) that bind or restrict most others. In ancient times, this type of lifestyle and its lack of “commitment” was considered undesirable (a stone with no moss). In modern times, we’ve turned the old proverb on its head by celebrating the lifestyles of well-known “rolling stones” or “rounders” – particularly those who are performing artists.

In 1948, the blues musician Muddy Waters wrote a song called “Rollin Stone” in which he included the following phrase: “I got a boy child’s comin’, He’s gonna be, he’s gonna be a rollin’ stone…” Fourteen years later (1962), the song inspired a new British rock group who were fans of Muddy Waters to call themselves “The Rolling Stones”. The rest, as they say, is history.

On Wednesday night, my wife (Barbara) and I went to see the latest Stones concert film – “Shine A Light“, directed by Martin Scorsese. It was playing at the local IMAX theater, with sound rivaling a live performance. I went not because I’m a big fan of the Stones (which I’m not), but because I was curious about their longevity in our youth-obsessed culture. This year, Mick Jagger and Keith Richards will be 65 years old, Charlie Watts will be 67, and Ronnie Wood – the “baby” of the group – will be 61. If you watch any of the movie trailers on the website, you’ll see the map of life etched on their wrinkled faces. I’m betting that a lot of young people will recoil at the numerous closeups in the film, but being an “old guy” myself, I was able to look past the wrinkles and see the unmistakable intensity and energy they brought to the performance. In that regard, I thought the film was phenomenal. We weren’t just watching a concert, the camera work actually made us feel as if we were onstage in the midst of the performance.

The movie really got me to thinking. When I was younger, the intensity, focus, and energy needed to accomplish things was easy to summon. I now realize how much of it was expended on things that were ultimately frivolous. No regrets there, that’s the joy and sometimes, the folly of youth. However, as I’ve gotten older, I realize that I have to make a conscious effort to summon the personal resources I need to accomplish things that are important to me. From my perspective, the process of “finishing well” that I’ve written about in previous posts is directly related to this effort. The older one gets, the more purposeful and deliberate must be the preparation. As Barbara put it, Mick Jagger couldn’t perform today at the intensity level he does without strict adherence to physical conditioning, diet, lifestyle, etc. In that regard, watching the Rolling Stones continue to pursue their life’s passion at their age, with such a high level of intensity and energy, was oddly inspiring. That they are, as their name indicates, “rolling stones” is undisputed. It’s the path they’ve chosen and the price they’ve paid for 40+ years of live performing.

I was left with a final question. By naming the movie “Shine A Light”, was Martin Scorsese trying to say that the Rolling Stones shine a unique artistic light on our lives? I’m reflecting on that as I go back and revisit my January 16 post entitled “Shining the Light”. What are the differences between ”cultural light” and “spiritual light”? In our post-religious (and clearly post-Christian) culture, can people tell the difference? If not, what are the implications? 

I was reading about the music business recently and remembered something I’d read in the December issue of Wired Magazine. It was an article about Doug Morris, the CEO of Universal Music Group (UMG), arguably the largest music distributor in the world. Among the impressions I got in rereading this article was that UMG has now become the ”rival du jour” of Steve Jobs and Apple. As a techie and businessperson, I’m amazed at how long Steve Jobs has remained at the center of the business/technology nexus. It could be said that he and Steve Wozniak invented the concept of the personal computer. Job’s list of accomplishments also include popularizing the graphical user interface (GUI) through the Mac, setting new standards for computer-animated films through Pixar, pioneering an “all-in-one” desktop computer – the iMac, creating iTunes and the IPod, and most recently – creating the iPhone. For over 30 years, since the formation of Apple in 1976, Jobs has repeatedly managed to wed technology with profitability – no small feat. He’s had some setbacks and dry times, but he’s also hit the jackpot more than once.

Lest you think otherwise, I’m not an “Apple” guy. We do have iPods in our family and I do use an iPhone, but I don’t have any particular affection for Steve Jobs or his company. What intrigues me is his long track record of taking technology – particularly things others have invented but can’t seem to sell – and developing things consumers want. Think of the GUI and Xerox PARC and Pixar – which started as a special effects house under Lucasfilm. Apple has also mastered the art of creating new markets – convincing people that they absolutely need to have its latest creations. Think about the famous launch of the Mac in 1984 and the development of the iPhone – which combined features from PDA’s, the iPod, and cell phones – to virtually create the “smart phone” market. To be sure, there are now other alternatives to iTunes, the iPod, and the iPhone – but these products and services are bringing the market to saturation, long after (in technological terms) Jobs and Apple have made a killing as pioneers. 

Jobs was visionary in seeing the impending explosion of digital music at a time when the big music companies were focused on increasing their profit margins from the sale of CD’s. In exchange for access to virtually all of their libraries, he gave the “Big Four” music companies (UMG, Sony BMG, Warner Music Group, and EMI) what they wanted – copyright protection. He did this by developing a proprietary scheme that works exclusively with iTunes and the iPod. At the outset, they didn’t care, particularly when he started to make big money for them. As noted in the article about Doug Morris, it’s only lately that they’ve begun to realize that Apple was well on its way to cornering the market for digital music. In 2008, about 20-25% of all digital music is expected to flow through iTunes. Now, the “Big Four” - led by Doug Morris – are banding together to restrict Apple’s access to their libraries and develop their own “consolidated” digital music service. The problem is, none of these companies has any real expertise at being service providers. All they’ve ever done is sell product.

In that regard, its hard to imagine Steve Jobs lying awake at night worrying about the Big Four. Even if they’re successful, Apple has already made so much money in the market it can be content to maintain a healthy share and compete on the basis of quality service. On the other hand, its also hard to imagine that Jobs and the folks at Apple don’t already have the next killer app or product in the development pipeline – ready to once again pioneer a new market. Who would you bet on?

The results of the Ohio and Texas primaries are trickling in as I write this. Vermont has already gone to Obama and McCain appears to have secured sufficient delegates to win the GOP nomination. Of the three candidates, I believe only one represents real change – Barack Obama. That’s not a political endorsement on my part or an indicator of who I’m voting for in November, just an observation. As I see it, a Clinton or McCain presidency would be based on established, proven “players” from within the political system. Because Obama is a relative newcomer to power politics at the top level, he doesn’t have the entrenched “party machine” with all of its functionaries behind him – at least not yet.

I’ve been reflecting on the current political season as I’m reading the 1992 edition of David Halberstam’s famous book – The Best and the Brightest. I vaguely remember reading it when I was a young man, but I must admit that it didn’t interest me then like it does now. The book is essentially about the administration of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) and the roots of the Vietnam War. Halberstam does a great job describing all of the major players and correlating who they were with what they did or didn’t do.

JFK rode into office on the winds of change, promising to bring fresh faces and a fresh outlook to the White House and American politics. The men he selected to run the country were truly considered by most to be the best and the brightest – but not everyone was awed. Halberstam recounts Lyndon Johnson’s response upon encountering some of these men in his first Cabinet meeting. “…he went back to his mentor  Sam Rayburn and told him with great enthusiasm how extraordinary they were, each brighter than the next, and that the smartest of them all was…[Robert] McNamara. ’Well, Lyndon’, Mister Sam answered, ‘you may be right…but I’d feel a whole lot better if just one of them had run for sheriff once’.”

In setting forth the primary weakness of the Kennedy team (their achilles heel), Halberstam describes some aspects of what I call the first challenge of change. Bringing in fresh faces; intelligent, highly-commited people who can think “outside the box” wasn’t and isn’t enough. This is particularly true today when so many people confuse information with knowledge and intelligence with wisdom. As Halberstam says, “true wisdom…is the product of hard-won, often bitter experience.” In our “get-it now” culture, very few are willing to invest the time and energy it takes to develop wisdom. It’s much easier to throw things against the wall and see what sticks. If it works, we call it “inspired”, the modern take on what constitutes wisdom.

The second challenge of change involves bridging the gap between perception and reality. By the end of the presidential campaign, particularly if Obama wins, people will have been saturated with media images promising large-scale, rapid change. Within months, this image will be dashed upon the rocks of political reality, as the new administration comes face-to-face with governmental institutions that were founded and are upheld by ideology, rules, and laws from another era – where bureaucracy and senority are the tools of power. Little did Halberstam know that he was speaking prophetically in describing the initial phase of the Kennedy presidency: “…he was charged with action against a bureaucracy and a Congress which regarded him and his programs with suspicion, the suspicion varying in direct proportion to the freshness and progressiveness of his ideas.”

There’s nothing new under the sun…kind of makes you think twice about “voting for change” doesn’t it?