He thought 'out loud' to see if a self-consistent structure could be imagined to mitigate the destructive 'reverberations'.
A private company, XYZ structured to cater to individuals (one person, one vote, unitary value) is formed. Its very existence is subject to fair treatment of each shareholder on an equal basis. Organizations cannot have any shares. Each individual can have just one controlling share.
Health insurance premiums come to XYZ and go into escrow. The escrow funds are released to a given insurance company by XYZ when certain conditions are met as determined by an internal accountable committee of disinterested but competent insurance players.
Once again, recurrent themes arose having to do with liberty and public interest with private organizational freedom. Each time a theme became a bit clearer. Organic benefits could be orchestrated with in place mechanisms. Yet, the general perception is that something else has to be added or corrected. That perception maintained by those who had an interest in maintaining the deficiency?
Blown away … it may be a bit informal but accurately described his wonder at how she was able to own (in the responsibility sense) the implicit conditions of a 'complex' arrangement of considerable consequence. It was just a short time ago that he felt the need to work around the verbal interaction barrier with her.
His theory was the temporary barrier existed because of the experience disparity in the communications modality (verbal dialog). The turnaround happened in just weeks. His expectation was that it would take much longer.
The perception of intractability serves whom?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment