This is normally a pretty quiet time of year here at the office.

The phones calls taper off. The press releases fade away. And the endless stream of e-mail dries up to a trickle. And the communication that does take place is light-hearted and dare I say jolly?

So imagine my surprise when I fired up the computer earlier this week to find this e-mail from a clearly frustrated reader:

“I'm an independent broker … and have just attempted to use the [Buyers Guide for Brokers]. Out of 10 calls I connected once and that particular source said that he would send me information that I requested. The other nine calls were to no avail--no one answered at all, leave your name and number, three pass offs (not dialing the CIA), and other feeble excuses.

“One wonders what ever happened to service. Perhaps the good news is the rest of the country has obviously pulled out of the recession and doesn't want or need additional business. Perhaps … we'll be so fortunate.”

I’ll leave the guy unnamed, but you have to feel bad for him. I mean, he’s right. In this economy, can any of us afford to be so nonchalant about the simplest of customer service tasks? Or have most of you bounced back so high that you can pick and choose your business?

Ben Bernanke is the man of the year, apparently. (Yeah, and Nickelback’s the band of the decade. Hey, don’t look at me; ask Billboard.)

Time magazine, after mulling over finalists such as President Obama (again), Steve Jobs (are we sure he’s still alive?) and the Chinese worker (not touching that one), settled on a fed chairman who’s struggling to hold on to the country’s jobs, as well as his own.

Bernanke earned the mag’s top honor this year, because “"he is the most important player guiding the world's most important economy.” And, in case, you haven’t noticed, the economy’s been in the news a lot lately.

Well, as I read through the story, I thought, why don’t we do something like this? So, after sifting through obvious – and sometimes objectionable – choices such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid or Joe Lieberman, I decided to go in another direction, and offer up my own candidate for health care reform’s person of the year.

(Quick aside here: Where has Kathleen Sebelius been throughout all of this debate?) Am I the only one who finds it a strange that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has been missing in action? I mean we are talking about health care reform…)

Anyway, after a lot of deliberation (and even more coffee), I decided to nominate the Congressional Budget Office. The numbers and reports that emerge from this collective often cut through the rhetoric and hype with cold hard facts. Such as, pointing out that the president’s numbers don’t quite add up. Or that 10 million could lose employer coverage. Or that, sure, coverage will be increased, but premiums will, too.

And, going forward, when dollars and cents are more important – and scarce – than ever, the people at the CBO will almost certainly remain a much-needed voice of reasoned calm.

So, that’s my two cents. Who would you pick?

President Obama, who claimed McCain would carry on the Bush legacy, is the one now following in George W.’s size 12s.

It wasn’t that long ago conservatives blasted Bush for “selling them out” on issues such as “No Child Left Behind,” steel tariffs and Medicare expansion.

How else do you explain this administration’s consistent inability to jump off the fence and pick a side? Look at the so-called surge in Afghanistan. President Obama committed just enough to upset the left (and render his vice-president irrelevant) but with a deadline that sent Republicans into an exasperated frenzy. And never mind the Nobel Prize committee members who are probably wondering what the hell just happened.

Now we have a late-night Senate deal that jettisons the public option in favor of an expanded, opt-in Medicare program. So, once again the left is seething and the right is dissatisfied. Details remain sketchy on the specifics of this new compromise, but one thing you can count on is an inflated price tag.

Thing is, Bush the Second eventually learned that governing from the middle satisfies no one and alienates everyone. How long will it take Obama? And how much will it cost?

My criticism of AIG in this week’s blog is far from personal, hardly frequent and certainly not limited to this single carrier or its legion of subsidiaries.

Fed Chairman Bernanke’s on the Hill today for confirmation, and I couldn’t agree more with the Republican Senator from Alabama, Richard Shelby, who flatly said, "The Fed has done a horrible job as a regulator.”

And Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., took it a step further, calling him a “moral hazard” and insisting the embattle Fed chief should return to Princeton.

(And don’t even get me started on Treasury Secretary Geithner.)

My stance – based solely on the facts on hand and my own personal opinion – is quite simply, that in this market, there is no such thing as too big to fail. I have been (and will continue to be) on record as standing firmly against bailouts and/or stimulus in any shape or form.

The core of our free market system hinges on the freedom to fail as well as succeed – and the equality of opportunity is sacrosanct. When we allow – even condone – the federal government’s interference, we instantly undermine the free in the free market. It no longer exists. I know this an age-old argument, but we clearly need a reminder.

We’ve always demanded individuals and companies alike succeed or fail on their own merits. Why should that change now?

The latest? Appears the taxpayer-owned insurance giant hasn’t been completely honest with its investors (us) or regulators (in God knows how many states).

Not only that, but a new independent analysis reveals the company’s P&C arm might be thin on reserves – to the tune of, oh, say almost $12 billion. It’s no wonder the company’s stock tumbled 15 percent this week – falling faster than Obama’s poll numbers.

I mean, we’ve all heard the rumors that the company’s undercut rivals with their Sam Walton pricing strategy, but that’s just business. Besides, bigger brains than mine – over at the GAO and NAIC, among others – never found any fault with AIG’s business practices. As long as they followed the various state laws and kept enough cash (or reinsurance) on hand, it was their prerogative. Now it seems they did neither.

But it’s our money they’re playing with now, so play time’s over. At the very least, this new report begs investigation. And if laws were, in fact, broken, it’s time we – as in, we, the taxpayers – called in that $120 billion they still owe us, or break the conglomerate up and sell it off for parts.

They’ve gone all Tiger Woods on us and destroyed what little public trust they had left. Somebody hand me a nine iron. 

Few things cause as much confusion these days as health care, the health care reform bills and the continued popularity of John Mayer.

I think a big part of that, of course, is that we can’t even seem to agree on the basic goal – do we want to “bend the curve” as the big brains insist and cut costs or are we looking to hand out “free” health care cards to everyone we see? So, it’s no small wonder the Senate can barely muster enough votes just to open the debate, let alone pass a fully formed bill.

And if you think it’s just the average tea partier (or single payer) who remained confused about health care reform, you better think again. While Joe (which party?) Lieberman drops a new anti-public option argument every few weeks, the polls remain as erratic as Lindsay Lohan. One poll shows Americans in favor of it; the next they’re terrified of it.

The Dems, however, almost seem obsessed, determined to pass something – anything. Call me crazy, but I’m not sure “just because” is ever a good reason to pass a law. And is it just me, or does the president himself seem as distant from this debate as he ever was? Too bad it’s not helping his poll numbers. Now there’s something that could use some stuffing.

Speaking of which, I’d like to wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving (and a productive enrollment season). I’m just thankful I’m part of such a fantastic (if underserved) community.

Americans want their cake. They want a fork to eat with. But don’t tell them they can’t have seconds. Cuz then you’re just being mean. Or worse, “violating their rights.” 

On the other hand, the feds seem to have more daddy issues than Carrie Prejean. I can’t decide who’s ticked me off more this morning: voters, the elected elite or marketing reps who can’t return phone calls. (I know one way big carriers can cut costs ... but that’s another story.)

But I’m getting ahead of myself here.

A new AP poll shows Americans love the idea of a public health care plan that competes with the private carriers. But, when they hear the rest of the story – that the feds will also influence the medical care they receive – they change their minds faster than Geithner on Wall Street.

Bottom line, Americans want it both ways. And it makes about as much sense as my son getting sent to the principal’s office last month, then scribbling out his wish list to Santa as soon as he gets home.

Then we have the recent federal study this week that stirred nearly everyone into a frenzy with its declaration that maybe we don’t need so many mammograms after all. This study – which, for the most part, simply reinterpreted existing data – declared that women don’t need the life-saving exams until they’re 50. And those self exams simply aren’t necessary.

I don’t know about you, but its sounds like the best argument I’ve heard yet for keeping the suits in the beltway, and out of our exam rooms.

For those of you who know me, it might surprise you to learn that I come from a military background. The U.S. Army stationed both of my parents in Honolulu, where I came along so many years ago.

Growing up in the ’70s, the public (rather unfairly) pilloried our nation’s veterans. The bitter taste of Vietnam lingered far too long, and the blame spilled over the politicians who earned it and stained our men and women in uniform. But it did nothing to tarnish my respect for them. They were my original role models. I even joined ROTC in junior high, where the all-black unit took it upon themselves to teach this scrawny white kid how to march. In those two short years, I learned about responsibility, respect and rhythm.

What does any of this have anything to do with employee benefits? Or Medicare? Or health care? Nothing. And everything. Given all the ink I’ve given to Nancy Pelosi and Sarah Palin, I figured the least I could do is give our soldiers today’s space.

So while you and I argue over mandates, tax hikes, the public option and, yes, even abortion, let’s keep in mind (at least for today) why we’re able to do so. And let’s show some gratitude to those who fight to allow us that simple privilege.

 So, I’m taking a time out today. (Hope that’s OK.)

While everyone else argues over last night’s election results, the House bill, the GOP alternative and Meghan McCain’s Twitter account, I think I’ll take a step back today.

A new survey caught my eye this morning and I thought I’d share. It deals with the now-threatened consumer-driven health care market. You know, that entire segment of our industry that no one is D.C. seems to give a damn about.

According the big brains over at the Employee Benefit Research Institute, there seems to be a shift in the consumer-driven marketplace. Based on their numbers, among the 4 percent or so of covered Americans with these health plans, employer contributions are shifting, with workers with employee-only coverage watching their annual employer contributions drop, while those with family coverage enjoy increased annual employer contributions.

Overall, the survey reports, while the number of employees enrolled in these plans remains relatively small, the market is growing steadily, “with 4 percent of the adult population with private health insurance was enrolled in an HRA or had a high-deductible plan with an HSA, up 1 percentage point from the previous year. An additional 4.9 percent were eligible for an HSA but did not have such an account. Overall, 8.9 percent of adults with private insurance were either in a consumer-driven health plan or were in a high-deductible plan that was eligible for an HSA, but had not opened an account.”

It’s also worth noting that this market also enjoys growth in other areas, such as average rollover amounts, time spent in these plans and overall account balances.

So while those Beltway suits preach about evils of our industry and the ineptitude of the people we serve, I thought it might help if today, we let them know that we know better. 

So just what is it about politicians and their utter inability to commit?

Do we need mandates? Well, maybe. But we need exceptions. How about taxes on those so-called Cadillac plans? Well, sure, but only for some of them. And that public option? Well, yes, but it’s optional.

At least that’s the latest half-commitment to come out of D.C. It’s enough to make John Kerry look dependable.

As you might have heard, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid insists on a public option. Thing is, he also wants states to be able to “opt out” of the public option.

Regardless of how I might personally feel about the so-called public option, I’d honestly appreciate a political stance that, you know, took an actual stand. These wishy-washy bills that slink out of committee often do more harm than good. What we end up with, invariably, is just more legislation, more taxes and more regulations that really don’t improve the lives of consumers or carriers.

It’s enough to make me want to opt out of this debate altogether.

I’m afraid I’ve found myself bogged down with the same sad epiphany as Charles de Gaulle, who once said “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.”