Saturday, August 22, 2009

healthcare in America . . . the real issue

Conservative Democratic US Senators Max Baucus of Montana and Kent Conrad of North Dakota, both representing states with populations under 1 million people (650,000 in North Dakota and 950,000 in Montana), both of whom have had their campaigns and PACs heavily contributed to and subsidized by private insurance companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and their lobbyists in an increasing fashion over the years (all the more so as the tide in US politics turned toward the Democrats in the last two election cycles), both of whom are on the Senate Finance Committee (Baucus is the Chairman) which has a stranglehold on healthcare reform proposals because of the necessity for approving the costs of administering any new program, and both of whom have expressed their strong opposition to the President's desire for and the House's bill provisions which include a public healthcare insurance option, are holding the American people (of whom an overwhelming majority of 77% in recent polls favor a public insurance option to any healthcare reform legislation) hostage to the economically motivated designs of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, who have been largely responsible for putting these two men in office, and keeping them there for multiple terms.

If one considers the fact that each of these US Senators represents only half the population of their individual states, each state having two representatives in the Senate, then the spokespersons for approximately 800,000 American citizens are managing to overrule the will of more than 225 million Americans, all in the name of the multi-trillion dollar healthcare industry which has presided over 80% increases in health insurance costs in just the past decade and forced an already heavily burdened and rapidly escalating Medicare and Medicaid system to rise to the level of nearly 25% of the Federal budget, while still leaving more than 15% of the population, or 45 million citizens uninsured.

The Institute of Medicine with the National Academy of Sciences estimates that the lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States, and although America leads the world in spending on healthcare, nearly $7500 per every American (remembering that 15% receive no healthcare at all), it is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all it's citizens have medical coverage.

These sobering facts stand in marked contrast to the more than $13 billion in annual profits made by just the top ten health insurance corporations in the US, whose CEOs take home an average annual compensation of $12 million, not including their stock options.

Healthcare reform is arguably the key issue of President Obama's administration, inasmuch as it affects the lives of every American as a social issue as well as determining the size of the ever increasing federal deficit, and by extension the US market economy, interest rates, the value of the dollar, and by further extension the world economy, etc., and in conjunction with the withdrawal of US military forces from Iraq and the further prosecution of the war in Afghanistan, will largely determine the perceived success or failure of the Obama presidency.

We should expect the likes of Senators Grassley of Iowa and Hatch of Utah, both Republicans and members of the Senate Finance Committee (Grassley the Chairman when the Republicans had control of the Senate), to oppose healthcare reform and certainly the public healthcare insurance option, on ideological grounds. Few would be surprised to read Sarah Palin rant about Death Panel provisions in the plan, with Grassley seconding the motion. Many may also have predicted that the insurance industry and it's surrogates would have mobilized their army of concerned citizens (read paid rabble rousers. Swift Boaters, et. al.) armed with misinformation and disruptive tactics to hijack the debate on healthcare and turn it into the shouting matches we've witnessed at town hall meetings, all further inflamed by the fair and balanced news media coverage. Baucus and Conrad, on the other hand, are Democrats in a US Senate with a majority of 58 Democratic members and a filibuster-proof Democratic caucus with 60 members, and it is their efforts in committee that will have the largest stake in determining the shape, even the existence of progressive healthcare legislation, not the hyperbolic rhetoric of the pundits or the screaming class.

The sea change in America, marked by Obama's election victory and majorities in both houses of Congress, was a transformation more encompassing than issues of race in America, or of the President's pledge to end the devastating war in Iraq that was perpetrated by Bush and his neocons on the heels of the 911 tragedy. It was in fact a recognition of a fundamental ideological shift in power back to a political agenda that hadn't been seen in the US since JFK, and perhaps not successfully achieved since FDR, and it marked the beginning of the recognition that the politics of greed, the dominance of the corporate lobby and an economy driven by the financial markets was about to be more greatly scrutinized and governed by the people, all the people, just as it should be in a democracy.

Let's not allow members of the Democratic Party, Blue Dog or otherwise, to undermine the will of the American people, who, despite opinions on K Street and on Wall Street to the contrary, know all too well what is in their best interests as citizens, and what arguments, misdirections, and obfuscations are in the service of private interests, motivated by private profits, and administered by elected officials representing themselves and their benefactors at the expense of their electorates, and more importantly the nation as a whole.

If you agree, please help expose Senator Baucus' and Senator Conrad's actions for what they are and put pressure upon them in the arena of public opinion to pass universal healthcare legislation with an option to every American for public health insurance through the Senate Finance Committee and on to the floor of the Senate.

for what it's worth,


downandunder


As few articles on the subject . . .

The White House's Reality Check

Sam Stein and Ryan Grimm in the Huffington Post

Think Progress back in June . . . not much has changed

Baucus' local print review

A sample of what one gets in the Bismarck Tribune, Senator Conrad's hometown paper


Some suggestions for news agencies and public officials to whom you may be willing to write and express your own interests on the subject . . .

The President

NYTimes Letters to the Editor

Great Falls Tribune

Move On's Campaign

The California Senators

Senators Conrad and Baucus directly

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Fordham's moral compass

sydney morning herald, tuesday, 12.05.09

John Fordham, of the Fordham Company and manager of embattled former NRL player and Footy Show personality Matthew Johns said, "I don't deal with David Gallop [NRL chief executive] in relation to Matthew Johns' contractual arrangements at Channel Nine. David Gallop has no direct involvement in any way, shape or form with Matthew Johns' arrangements with Channel Nine or indeed with any other entity. I am therefore deeply surprised that he would want to involve himself in an employment issue in which he has no involvement."

sydney morning herald, wednesday, 13.05.09

David Gyngell, [chief executive of channel 9] said in a statement, "I fully endorse [NRL chief executive] David Gallop's comments concerning the indefensible conduct of some players and the lack of respect for women and the critical focus on all stakeholders to help eradicate it from our game. I join with him in extending my apologies and sympathy to the young woman involved in the incident, who clearly is still distressed as a consequence."


Dear John,

You may want to wake up to your massive PR blunder in yesterday's ill-conceived defense of Matthew Johns and realize just how much David Gallup's leadership of the NRL has to do with your client's former employers at Channel 9 and the Melbourne Storm, not to mention any public appearances and sponsorship deals you may have had planned for Johns' future.

Considering what would appear to be your level of understanding of the public's contempt in this case, and the moral issues at play, you'll probably be "deeply surprised" at today's revelations as well that 9 and the Storm are very much influenced by the opinions of the leader of a sports league who grants them the rights to work on the league's behalf; a leader I might add who actually understands the public's disgust for the actions of Johns and others, and what it means not only to the economic future of the NRL but what it says about the public's values and basic respect for human dignity, and decency. When a media personality excuses his participation in gang sex on a 19 year old by affirming that it was consensual, most of us would know that something is desperately wrong.

How a legitimate entertainment manager could have so badly misjudged public sentiment against John's behavior in '02, as revealed by the Four Corners program, and his absurd wink and nod apologia on the Footy Show last week in advance of the Four Corners' airing is beyond comprehension. Notwithstanding the lack of personal integrity for the absolute moral position any decent human being might have taken on the matter, in what must have been your advice to Johns about his comments on the Footy Show, you compound it by assaulting Gallup's right to take a stance on the employment of someone directly connected to the integrity of the league over which he has authority, and take the blundering to new heights by advising Johns to announce that there will be no public apology to the victim.

It's astounding really, but pride comes before a fall, and I can only imagine how some of your other clients will be reacting to your handling of the incident, and your seeming lack of any moral compass, especially the females like Lisa Wilkinson, Tracy Grimshaw, and Deborah Thomas.

Note for the future: the truth will always surface, and the only course of action for any person in the public eye is a full and complete admission of guilt, followed by an unequivocal apology to the victims . . . not to the hurt one's actions have caused their own family. It's media management 101, John, and more importantly, it's the right thing to do.

disappointed,

downandunder

Sunday, August 24, 2008

the good, the blond, and the ugly

More than a year after the tempest in a piss-pot created over the Imagine I'm an Opinion Editor for the LA Times scandal began, and we're treated once more to the saga of sex, lies, and what passes for journalism in the City of the Angels this past week, via stalker emails, restraining orders, and of course lawsuits.

I'm amusing myself contemplating the rogues gallery of connections, and the potent punch of one petite flack, and her curious power in LaLaLand . . . yes it's the Katie Couric of publicists, Kelly Mullens, as cute as a button and as pernicious as, dare I coin it, a Blond Widow, and maybe that's the title of the bio-pic's screenplay? . . . well at least the first draft anyway.

The casting suggestions are already in full swing I'm sure, but who could you possibly get to play Grazer, but Grazer? Well, maybe Seth Green if you starved him for a month, put his finger in a light socket, and used a ton of hair gel to cement the effect.

Let's have a virtual look at Ms. Mullens' address book.
  • Judith Regan in her lawsuit with News Ltd., Murdoch, Ailes, Giuliani, et. al.
  • AFTRA in their who's-selling-out-the-rank-and-file dispute with SAG (hey, we're all one union aren't we?) over the AMPTP contract
  • Isaiah Washington in his struggles with Grey's Anatomy, T.R. Knight . . . and homophobia of course
  • Cruise-Wagner and Valkyrie, or National Socialism meets Scientology and gets 'clear' . . . way clear, as it turns out, of a film that anyone will want to see.  I understand that the cringe factor is quite high, and definitely not up to the comedic standards of "Mein Führer, I can walk!" . . . my lone script note was for the eyepatch to move from left to right several times during the course of the film, like Marty Feldman's (Eye-Gor's) hump in Young Frankenstein
  • Quarterlife, and I never thought that after 30 Something I'd ever feel sorry for Zwick and Herskovitz, but how far one can descend from the brilliance of Blood Diamond to the depths of 20-something blog standard
  • The McCourts and their stumbling, fumbling acquisition of the easy to buy but harder to sell the increased price of DDogs and seat license Dodgers . . . and you thought that O'Malley's land grab, rape of the inhabitants of Chavez Ravine half a century ago was venal . . . then a lawsuit with the Angels over who can use the letters LA (I hear they'll be taking Water & Power to (Mc)court soon . . . but watch out for Hollis Mulray!)
  • R. Kelly and god knows what manner of depravity, was it Zappa who said "she's only thirteen, and she knows how to nasty", or is it the Firesign Theater's invocation of the great Morman leader Get'em Young that seems the more appropriate reference here?
  • Paula Poundstone, and this one is better left alone really, but just for fun, see either Michael Jackson's playroom or the curiously aggressive female gym teacher and the pubescent pupil genre of cliches and celebrity nightmares where short haircuts and pantsuits are not optional . . . note to Ellen, we understand it signifies that one of you is playing the traditional male role, but do you really think we needed the extra visual aid to figure that one out?
  • Tommy Lee and our collective cultural roll to the tattooed and pierced bottom of it all
  • Brandy and the spin of her how-to-drive-like-a-man-slaughterer habits into a small fine and an apology to the victim's family
  • And all this before the Andreas Martinez (yes there are red-headed people with Latin surnames who nonetheless look Irish), Grazergate, Sunday Opinion (are there any other kinds?), Allan Mayer-42 West-Fleishman Hillard-Universal Music, David Hiller, Chicago Tribune owned "substance-free" LATimes, editorial-news-PR-advertising-publishing-ethically challenged-everyone's in bed with everyone-no Chinese firewall-conflict of something if not interest (and who's really interested anyway), wacky, wonderful world of information we live in

Now that's what I call a
CV . . . and I'll bet she's really something when the lights dim too, or to paraphrase Loudon Wainwright III "that Little (Blond) Riding Hood, she really does it to me".

Hey all you editors and publishers out there, maybe you can have one of Ms. Mullens' clients (and what a line-up we're talking about) guest-edit your opinions page . . . who knows what
pro quo you might be able to get for a little quid?

I harken back in these ethically challenging times to the sage pronouncement of Mark Saylor, one of the great journalism-to-PR-with-no-qualms-crossover-artists in recent memory, and a former colleague of Mayer-Mullens (not that the distance between journalism and PR is the chasm it once was, morally or ideologically . . . no Snake River Canyon Knievel jump required), when he said, without dropping a stitch of irony mind you, that some of his clients may have "made mistakes or done wrong things, sure, but there's nothing I'm doing that I have the least ethical qualm about."

Says it all really.

I always get a touch nostalgic about my old home town and the tragicomic goings on in
the industry . . . at least it affords me the opportunity to channel Richard Meltzer in the process of forming a response.  In the famous words of someone, you couldn't make this shit up . . . well maybe you shouldn't anyway.  

It's just another chapter in The Dazed of Our Lives.

yours,

downandunder