This would partially explain your fascination with the existing POTUS. Managed to spend $50 Mil with zero accomplishement, but did get a $Mil earmark so his wife could have a $317K position specifically created for her hi ness. Now he wants to mortgage the future of our country on some very much unproven theories. :confused:
Originally Posted by YardleyLabs
I did not like our 43rd POTUS for his spending ways so that sets me up to really dislike this guy.
Several things not quite right here. This is not to belittle your efforts but, you picked the low hanging fruit. ;-)
Many. One that you might appreciate was that I was the architect for hospital closings. Literally on the back of an envelope, I did an analysis of hospital bed and occupancy rates for existing hospitals in the Bronx and hospitals under construction along with a cohort analysis of projected population trends over the next 20 years. It was apparent that there would be too many underutilized hospitals requiring massive investment in maintenance of unneeded buildings. That became the basis for halting construction of two new hospitals for which land had already been acquired and to a series of policies in which ultimately resulted in closure of about 30 public and private hospitals in a manner that reduced costs while improving health care. For Medicaid, I designed and implemented system changes that resulted in spending reductions of more than $300 million over a period of 18 months at a cost of less than $200k. Thos same systems provided the basis for identifying and tracking down fraud resulting in multiple prosecutions and millions more in savings.
Why would you input into private hospitals? or were they private in title only? The government has had their hand in this cookie jar too long & we all get to see what it is costing.
Now if you had created a model to allow a competitive atmosphere with substandard care providers being allowed to fail, then I would be very impressed. :o
Is this why everything costs so much, too much specialization? During my management career we were expected to make these decisions in the course of doing our normal work.
Individual situations varied. In my case I was hired in the hope that my political connections would help sell more public sector work. I agreed on condition that I did not have to work on public sector projects and would not be prevented from selling work to private corporations. Initially, drawing on my public sector experience, I built a practice in which we reviewed the effectiveness of insurance companies in managing the employee health benefit programs in small companies like Mobil Corp and Western Electrick. Subsequently, and also based on my experiences in the public sector, I became one of the first successful developers of what were then called decision support systems. It grew into one of the most profitable practices we had. The customers were all private sector -- primarily investment banks, brokerage firms, and law firms in involved in major litigation. None of that business was based on any personal or political connections and that was the business that got me promoted to Partner.
These people are hidden in the structure, generally behind or in front of, someone who is competent enough to cover for them.
The reality is that most successful careers -- whether in the public or private sectors -- rest on a mix of successful networking and outstanding performance. Few businesses are stupid enough to keep hiring incompetents just because they are friends or slept in the right families.
I'm well aware of that because of my engineering & mining careers but, all too often the student/graduate assumes they have some status. The last company I worked for vetted their engineers quite well, but on occasion would let an applicant slide because of the school they had attended. On more than 1 occasion I had to point out to my supervision that some of the people they were hiring did not fit our requirements. In each case it showed on the transcript so they were counselled into other areas, as the company had many needs.
Great colleges tend to attract great students and they give them great educations. An immediate advantage of graduating from one of the great schools is that almost no one ever asks for a transcript to find out how well you actually did.;)
That is the secret to any business transaction, some very smart people in other areas can't seem to fathom that simple rule.
Instead, he said the secret to a great corporate acquisition was simple: buy it for too little and sell it for too much.
Those kind of people are very good at selling themselves. I graduated with people who on paper, were much better than my puny resume, who could'nt serve as my waterperson when it came to performance, both mental & physical. It really bothered them that "real life" was not collegial.
Outside of consulting firms, law firms and investment banks, I've known few companies that have employed large numbers of people from the "great" schools. If anything, they were suspicious of "those people" figuring that somehow their achievements were based on smoke and mirrors. I'm not sure what you call the "real world", but I think the world in which I've worked is pretty darned real.
The "real world" is one where there is a risk-reward ratio that is not out of kilter. Screwing up may send you down the road kicking "road apples" but if you perform well there will be a reward.