Some memories we bury.
And by chance we find,
Their unmarked graves.
We shall discover,
Alive are some remains.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
Reply from Rep. DeFazio, March 30th
Dear Mr. Hudkins:
Thank you for contacting my office in support of health care reform. I appreciate hearing from you. I am pleased to report that I supported final passage of this historic bill.
By passing this bill we have brought relief to millions of Americans one catastrophic illness or accident away from personal bankruptcy. We have improved the health care coverage of all Oregonians.
For those who have health insurance they like, they can keep it and the reforms will make it better and more secure. Those who don't have health insurance will have better, more affordable options to get it. For the nearly 600,000 Medicare beneficiaries in Oregon, they will have better benefits and improved access to health care services.
The bill outlaws the worst abuses of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries: no more discrimination by insurance companies for preexisting conditions, cancellation of a policy if the person becomes sick, small print, life time caps on health care coverage or health care coverage exclusions for specific health problems. It reduces the deficit, provides stability and security for Americans who currently have health insurance, and affordable, quality options for those who don't.
This bill will help the woman I met who had an individual insurance policy, on which she had faithfully paid her premiums, and was refused a renewal when she was diagnosed with cancer. She was told 'sorry, we don't renew policies of people with cancer. Thank you very much for your premiums.' For her, this legislation will finally put an end to that type of abusive practice.
Let me be clear; I had serious concerns with the Senate bill. It eliminated some of the most important reforms that I had fought to get into the House bill; allowing people without insurance to join a national pool that included a public option, removing the insurance industries antitrust exemption and overhauling the unfair Medicare reimbursement formula.
The insurance industry has operated beyond the reach of America's anti-trust laws since the McCarran-Ferguson Act was passed by Congress in 1945. This essentially means that insurance companies are free to collude amongst themselves to drive up prices and deny care. Since the Senate stripped these reforms from the final health care bill I successfully fought to have it passed as its own bill. It passed the House on February 24 by a vote of 406 to 19. I have spoken directly with Senator Pat Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee and he is pushing to have the bill brought directly to the Senate floor for a vote.
Because of a faulty 40 year old formula, Oregon suffers from one of the lowest Medicare reimbursement rates in the country, despite creating some of the highest quality and best outcomes. Many Oregon doctors and other providers refuse to take new Medicare patients because reimbursements are too low. Hospitals that treat Medicare patients are also under reimbursed and have to make up for this shortfall by shifting these costs to the privately insured.
The provision to fix this problem was to be included in the final bill but was apparently stripped out at the request of a few powerful east coast senators who represent states with extremely high Medicare reimbursements. As a result I told House leaders and the President that if this was not fixed, I would vote no. If we could not reform the flawed reimbursement formula hundreds of thousands of seniors in Oregon and millions more around the country would continue to suffer. I worked late into the night with the administration and congressional leaders and was able to secure language in the bill that would increase reimbursements to doctors and hospitals that are currently being underpaid for the next two years. We have a commitment in writing from the Secretary of Health and Human Services and verbal assurances from the President that they will implement permanent changes into law that will end this inequity once and for all by 2012.
This bill is not perfect and is lacking many provisions that we passed in the House bill that I felt were a better approach. I also don't believe that the bill has enough cost controls. But, if nothing is done, the powerful insurance and pharmaceutical companies will continue to do whatever they want to protect their profits at the expense of people's lives, health care and well-being. This bill is an important first step towards shutting down the special interests and putting the well being of people first.
Most importantly, the bill is fiscally responsible. When Republicans controlled Congress and the White House they passed the nearly one trillion dollar Medicare Part D program. None of it was paid for. Every single cent of it was simply added to the deficit. Furthermore, the bill gave massive subsidies to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and created the dreaded "donut hole".
The health reform bill the President just signed into law will immediately begin to phase out this doughnut hole, helping over 14,000 seniors in my district. It also will provide a 50% reduction on brand name drug prices for seniors while the donut hole is being transitioned out. More importantly, it does not add one penny to the deficit. In fact the bill lowers the deficit by $143 billion over ten years and by a staggering $1.2 trillion over the next ten years.
We must rein in the escalating health care costs and insure access to quality health care for all Americans. This bill, with all its flaws, achieves that goal.
Thanks again for contacting me. Please keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Rep. Peter DeFazio
Fourth District, OREGON
Thank you for contacting my office in support of health care reform. I appreciate hearing from you. I am pleased to report that I supported final passage of this historic bill.
By passing this bill we have brought relief to millions of Americans one catastrophic illness or accident away from personal bankruptcy. We have improved the health care coverage of all Oregonians.
For those who have health insurance they like, they can keep it and the reforms will make it better and more secure. Those who don't have health insurance will have better, more affordable options to get it. For the nearly 600,000 Medicare beneficiaries in Oregon, they will have better benefits and improved access to health care services.
The bill outlaws the worst abuses of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries: no more discrimination by insurance companies for preexisting conditions, cancellation of a policy if the person becomes sick, small print, life time caps on health care coverage or health care coverage exclusions for specific health problems. It reduces the deficit, provides stability and security for Americans who currently have health insurance, and affordable, quality options for those who don't.
This bill will help the woman I met who had an individual insurance policy, on which she had faithfully paid her premiums, and was refused a renewal when she was diagnosed with cancer. She was told 'sorry, we don't renew policies of people with cancer. Thank you very much for your premiums.' For her, this legislation will finally put an end to that type of abusive practice.
Let me be clear; I had serious concerns with the Senate bill. It eliminated some of the most important reforms that I had fought to get into the House bill; allowing people without insurance to join a national pool that included a public option, removing the insurance industries antitrust exemption and overhauling the unfair Medicare reimbursement formula.
The insurance industry has operated beyond the reach of America's anti-trust laws since the McCarran-Ferguson Act was passed by Congress in 1945. This essentially means that insurance companies are free to collude amongst themselves to drive up prices and deny care. Since the Senate stripped these reforms from the final health care bill I successfully fought to have it passed as its own bill. It passed the House on February 24 by a vote of 406 to 19. I have spoken directly with Senator Pat Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee and he is pushing to have the bill brought directly to the Senate floor for a vote.
Because of a faulty 40 year old formula, Oregon suffers from one of the lowest Medicare reimbursement rates in the country, despite creating some of the highest quality and best outcomes. Many Oregon doctors and other providers refuse to take new Medicare patients because reimbursements are too low. Hospitals that treat Medicare patients are also under reimbursed and have to make up for this shortfall by shifting these costs to the privately insured.
The provision to fix this problem was to be included in the final bill but was apparently stripped out at the request of a few powerful east coast senators who represent states with extremely high Medicare reimbursements. As a result I told House leaders and the President that if this was not fixed, I would vote no. If we could not reform the flawed reimbursement formula hundreds of thousands of seniors in Oregon and millions more around the country would continue to suffer. I worked late into the night with the administration and congressional leaders and was able to secure language in the bill that would increase reimbursements to doctors and hospitals that are currently being underpaid for the next two years. We have a commitment in writing from the Secretary of Health and Human Services and verbal assurances from the President that they will implement permanent changes into law that will end this inequity once and for all by 2012.
This bill is not perfect and is lacking many provisions that we passed in the House bill that I felt were a better approach. I also don't believe that the bill has enough cost controls. But, if nothing is done, the powerful insurance and pharmaceutical companies will continue to do whatever they want to protect their profits at the expense of people's lives, health care and well-being. This bill is an important first step towards shutting down the special interests and putting the well being of people first.
Most importantly, the bill is fiscally responsible. When Republicans controlled Congress and the White House they passed the nearly one trillion dollar Medicare Part D program. None of it was paid for. Every single cent of it was simply added to the deficit. Furthermore, the bill gave massive subsidies to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and created the dreaded "donut hole".
The health reform bill the President just signed into law will immediately begin to phase out this doughnut hole, helping over 14,000 seniors in my district. It also will provide a 50% reduction on brand name drug prices for seniors while the donut hole is being transitioned out. More importantly, it does not add one penny to the deficit. In fact the bill lowers the deficit by $143 billion over ten years and by a staggering $1.2 trillion over the next ten years.
We must rein in the escalating health care costs and insure access to quality health care for all Americans. This bill, with all its flaws, achieves that goal.
Thanks again for contacting me. Please keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Rep. Peter DeFazio
Fourth District, OREGON
Friday, March 19, 2010
Letter to Congressman DeFazio
Congressman DeFazio,
I will make this short and sweet. My hope is that in these last hours you are attempting to have the "Medicare disparities" fixed in the health care reform bill. And in that, you have my support. If and when it comes time to vote, you stand full-heartedly against health care reform legislation, then I will make this promise to you: you will lose my support in all future elections. A vote against this bill is a vote against the Democratic Party, your party. I don't believe that you are representing the people of your district. Or their hearts. I fully trust that the Medicare problem needs to be fixed, but I believe this can happen in the future. Please stand behind your President and vote "yes". Thank You.
I will make this short and sweet. My hope is that in these last hours you are attempting to have the "Medicare disparities" fixed in the health care reform bill. And in that, you have my support. If and when it comes time to vote, you stand full-heartedly against health care reform legislation, then I will make this promise to you: you will lose my support in all future elections. A vote against this bill is a vote against the Democratic Party, your party. I don't believe that you are representing the people of your district. Or their hearts. I fully trust that the Medicare problem needs to be fixed, but I believe this can happen in the future. Please stand behind your President and vote "yes". Thank You.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
T.R. Reid's The Healing of America
In 2003, USA Today conducted a poll in America asking if they believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks: 70% believed he was. In 2007, a Newsweek poll revealed that the number dipped to 41%. According to the 9/11 commission, it was concluded there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda.
In a rational debate, there must be clear separation between what is believed to be true and what is true; what is popular and what is right. T.R. Reid of the Washington Post, wrote a wonderful book called “The Healing of America.” In it he describes the differences between our current health care system in America and those in countries around the world. What follows are direct passages from his book that illustrates some of the problems we face and some of the solutions:
“Our nation’s health care system has become excessively expensive, ineffective and unjust. In 2000, when a Harvard Medical School professor working at the World Health Organization developed a complicated formula to rate the quality and fairness of national health care systems around the world, the richest nation on earth ranked thirty-seventh. That placed us just behind Costa Rica, and just ahead of Slovenia and Cuba. France came in first.
The one area where the U.S. unquestionably leads the world is in spending.
Health Expenditure as a % of GDP, 2005
USA 15.3, Switzerland 11.6, France 11.1, Germany 10.7, Canada 9.8, UK 8.3, Japan 8.0 and Taiwan 6.2
Japan spends about $3,000 per person on health care each year; we average $7,000 per person.
The thesis of this book is that we can bring about fundamental change by borrowing ideas from foreign models of health care. Whenever somebody suggests that the United States might usefully study foreign health care systems the response is usually; “But it’s socialized medicine.” This is supposed to end the argument. The contention is that the U.S., with its commitment to free markets and low taxes, could never rely on big-government socialism the way other countries do. There are two basic flaws in this argument:
1. Most national health care systems are not “socialized.” Many foreign countries provide universal health care of high quality at reasonable cost using private doctors, private hospitals and private insurance plans. Some countries offering universal coverage have a smaller government role than the United States does.
2. Socialized medicine” may be a scary term, but in practice, Americans rather like government-run medicine. The US Department of Veteran Affairs is one of the world’s purest models of socialized medicine at work. In the Medicare system, covering about 44 million elderly or disabled Americans, the federal government makes the rules and pays the bills. And yet both of these “socialized” health care systems are enormously popular with the people who use them and consistently rate high in surveys of patient satisfaction.
So the problem isn’t “socialism.” The real problem with those foreign health care systems is that they’re foreign. Anybody who dares to say that other countries do something better than we do is likely to be labeled unpatriotic or anti-American.
For all the local variations, health care systems tend to follow general patterns. In some models, government is both the provider of health care and the payer. In others, doctors and hospitals are in the private sector but government pays the bills. In still other countries, both the providers and the payers are private. There are four basic arrangements:
The Bismarck Model:
This system-found in Germany, Japan, France, Belgium, Switzerland, and to a degree, in Latin America-is named for the Prussian chancellor Otto von Bismarck, who invented the welfare state as part of the unification of Germany in the nineteenth century. In Bismarck countries, both health care providers and payers are private entities. The model uses private health insurance plans, usually financially jointly by employers and employees through payroll deduction. They cover everybody and they don’t make a profit.
The Beveridge Model
In this system, health care is provided and financed by the government, through tax payments. There are no medical bills; rather, medical treatment is a public service, like the fire department or the public library. In Beveridge systems, many (sometimes all) hospitals and clinics are owned by the government; some doctors are government employees, but there are also private doctors who collect their fees from the government.
These systems tend to have low costs per capita, because the government, as the sole payer, controls what doctors can do and what they can charge. Countries using the Beveridge Model, or variations on it, include its birthplace, Great Britain, as well as Italy, Spain, and most of Scandinavia.
The Nation Health Insurance Model
This system has elements of both Bismarck and Beveridge: The providers of health care are private, but the payer is a government-run insurance program that every citizen pays into. The national, or provincial, insurance plan collects monthly premiums and pays medical bills. The paradigmatic NHI system is Canada’s; Taiwan and South Korea have adopted variations on the NHI model.
The Out-Of-Pocket Model
Only the developed, industrialized nations-perhaps forty of the world’s two hundred countries-have any established health care payment systems. Most of the nations are too poor and too disorganized to provide any kind of mass medical care. A hallmark of these no-system countries is that most medical care is paid for by the patient, out of pocket, with no insurance or government plan to help. Generally, the world’s poorest countries have the highest percentage of out-of-pocket payment for health. Out-of-pocket payments account for 91 percent of total health spending in Cambodia, 85 percent in India, and 73 percent in Egypt. In contrast, the figure for Britain is 3 percent. The United States, with more than 45 million uninsured, ranks fairly high among wealthy countries on this scale with 17 percent of health care costs funded by out-of-pocket payments.
The major reasons our national medical bill is so much higher than any other country’s are two things that the United States does differently from every other country: the way we manage health insurance and the complexity of our health care system.
The United States is the only developed country that relies on profit-making health insurance companies to pay for essential and elective care.
About 80% of non-elderly Americans have health insurance; generally they get it through the job, with the employer paying part of the premium as well. The monthly premium goes toward paying the worker’s medical bills, but the insurance firms also soak up a significant share of the premium dollar to cover the costs of marketing, underwriting, and administration, as well as their profit. Economists agree that this is about the most expensive possible way to pay for a nation’s health care.
Basic health insurance must be a nonprofit operation. According to the SEC most for profit insurance companies maintain a medical loss ratio of about 80%, which is to say that 20 cents of every dollar people pay in premiums for health insurance doesn’t buy health care. Americans tend to believe that the private sector can manage any type of business better than government can. This is not the case when it comes to health insurance. Medicare, the government run single payer system created by Congress in 1965 to pay for basic health care for the elderly, has administrative costs of about 3 percent. This is about the same for Canada’s health care system. Britain’s National Health Service, a system where government both provides and pays for health care, has administrative costs of 5 percent.
In other developed countries, health insurance plans are required by law to guarantee coverage for anybody (“guaranteed issue.”) American insurance firms are allowed to pick and choose their customers. That way, they avoid selling health insurance to the people who need the most health care-and are the most expensive to cover. American insurers have to pick and choose their customers to avoid a problem known as “adverse selection.” That term refers to people who refuse to buy health insurance when they’re healthy but go shopping for a plan after they’ve been diagnosed with a serious disease. If an insurance company had to sell coverage to all those people, it would quickly face claims in excess of the premiums it took in. The solution to adverse selection is to mandate that everybody pay for health insurance, through either a private company or a government program. That requirement is known as the “individual mandate,” and it is a necessary corollary to “guaranteed issue.” If insurance companies have to cover everybody who applies, they need to have everybody in the insurance pool to cover the costs. All other developed countries require both “guaranteed issue” and the “individual mandate.” The United States has neither.
In other developed countries, insurers are required to pay every claim. US insurance companies deny about 30% of all claims, although some of these are eventually paid through an appeal process. “Rescission” is another practice to maximize process. Rescission is a legal term that means “We’re canceling your coverage.” This occurs when an insured person who has been paying premiums for months or years has a serious accident or contracts a serious disease, and the insurer’s Rescission Department looks through the injured person’s records, looking for a reason to cancel the sick person’s coverage.
Americans under sixty-five can’t get health insurance that is permanent. If you leave your job, voluntarily, or otherwise, you lose your insurance. No other country uses that model. In France, Germany, Japan, etc., people get health insurance as a benefit of employment, but the coverage continues if the jobs ends. Government pays the premium until the unlucky employee can get back to work.
Other countries do allow health insurance companies to make a profit on some supplemental policies-but not on the basic coverage plan available to everybody.
The second major anomaly of the US system-the flaw that forces us to spend more money than any other country on health- is sheer complexity. We have the most developed the most fragmented health care system with “providers” sending bills to a vast array of different players.
There is one system for Americans over sixty-five.
There’s on for military personnel and a different one for veterans
There’s a separate system for Native Americans and another for people with end-stage renal failure
There’s one system for Americans under sixteen living in poor families.
In addition to the hundreds of different private insurance plans.
Each paying entity has its own distinct rules about what care it will pay for and how much it will pay for and how much will it pay. Quite often, neither the buyer (the patient) nor the seller (the doctor) know how much a particular treatment costs. The presence of countless different payers and fee schedules drives another unique feature of American health care: the cost shift. Medical providers-doctors, hospitals, labs-naturally try to shift the costs toward the highest payer. If Medicare, with its recurrent budget problems, cuts the fee it pays a hospital for a particular procedure, the hospital will raise the price for other payers to make up the difference. That’s another reason why the same operation in the same hospital on the same day can have ten different prices, depending on who is paying. The administrative patchwork makes everything more complex and expensive than it needs to be. A British hospital, a Taiwanese hospice, or a Canadian clinic will deal with one paying entity and one standard payment schedule. When you go to the doctor in France, the standard fee schedule for each potential treatment is posted on the wall, showing exactly what the bill will be and how of it the insurance plan will cover. One of the fastest-growing aspects of the American health care industry is the booking business for “compilers,” middlemen who compile bills that doctors submit and then shuttle them through the payment system. This makes life easier for doctors, but at a price: It adds an extra level of complexity and yet another layer of bills to the overall cost of American medicine. The US Government Accountability Office concluded that if the country could get the administrative costs of its medical system down to the Canadian level, the money it saved would be enough to pay for health care for all the Americans who are uninsured.”
In a rational debate, there must be clear separation between what is believed to be true and what is true; what is popular and what is right. T.R. Reid of the Washington Post, wrote a wonderful book called “The Healing of America.” In it he describes the differences between our current health care system in America and those in countries around the world. What follows are direct passages from his book that illustrates some of the problems we face and some of the solutions:
“Our nation’s health care system has become excessively expensive, ineffective and unjust. In 2000, when a Harvard Medical School professor working at the World Health Organization developed a complicated formula to rate the quality and fairness of national health care systems around the world, the richest nation on earth ranked thirty-seventh. That placed us just behind Costa Rica, and just ahead of Slovenia and Cuba. France came in first.
The one area where the U.S. unquestionably leads the world is in spending.
Health Expenditure as a % of GDP, 2005
USA 15.3, Switzerland 11.6, France 11.1, Germany 10.7, Canada 9.8, UK 8.3, Japan 8.0 and Taiwan 6.2
Japan spends about $3,000 per person on health care each year; we average $7,000 per person.
The thesis of this book is that we can bring about fundamental change by borrowing ideas from foreign models of health care. Whenever somebody suggests that the United States might usefully study foreign health care systems the response is usually; “But it’s socialized medicine.” This is supposed to end the argument. The contention is that the U.S., with its commitment to free markets and low taxes, could never rely on big-government socialism the way other countries do. There are two basic flaws in this argument:
1. Most national health care systems are not “socialized.” Many foreign countries provide universal health care of high quality at reasonable cost using private doctors, private hospitals and private insurance plans. Some countries offering universal coverage have a smaller government role than the United States does.
2. Socialized medicine” may be a scary term, but in practice, Americans rather like government-run medicine. The US Department of Veteran Affairs is one of the world’s purest models of socialized medicine at work. In the Medicare system, covering about 44 million elderly or disabled Americans, the federal government makes the rules and pays the bills. And yet both of these “socialized” health care systems are enormously popular with the people who use them and consistently rate high in surveys of patient satisfaction.
So the problem isn’t “socialism.” The real problem with those foreign health care systems is that they’re foreign. Anybody who dares to say that other countries do something better than we do is likely to be labeled unpatriotic or anti-American.
For all the local variations, health care systems tend to follow general patterns. In some models, government is both the provider of health care and the payer. In others, doctors and hospitals are in the private sector but government pays the bills. In still other countries, both the providers and the payers are private. There are four basic arrangements:
The Bismarck Model:
This system-found in Germany, Japan, France, Belgium, Switzerland, and to a degree, in Latin America-is named for the Prussian chancellor Otto von Bismarck, who invented the welfare state as part of the unification of Germany in the nineteenth century. In Bismarck countries, both health care providers and payers are private entities. The model uses private health insurance plans, usually financially jointly by employers and employees through payroll deduction. They cover everybody and they don’t make a profit.
The Beveridge Model
In this system, health care is provided and financed by the government, through tax payments. There are no medical bills; rather, medical treatment is a public service, like the fire department or the public library. In Beveridge systems, many (sometimes all) hospitals and clinics are owned by the government; some doctors are government employees, but there are also private doctors who collect their fees from the government.
These systems tend to have low costs per capita, because the government, as the sole payer, controls what doctors can do and what they can charge. Countries using the Beveridge Model, or variations on it, include its birthplace, Great Britain, as well as Italy, Spain, and most of Scandinavia.
The Nation Health Insurance Model
This system has elements of both Bismarck and Beveridge: The providers of health care are private, but the payer is a government-run insurance program that every citizen pays into. The national, or provincial, insurance plan collects monthly premiums and pays medical bills. The paradigmatic NHI system is Canada’s; Taiwan and South Korea have adopted variations on the NHI model.
The Out-Of-Pocket Model
Only the developed, industrialized nations-perhaps forty of the world’s two hundred countries-have any established health care payment systems. Most of the nations are too poor and too disorganized to provide any kind of mass medical care. A hallmark of these no-system countries is that most medical care is paid for by the patient, out of pocket, with no insurance or government plan to help. Generally, the world’s poorest countries have the highest percentage of out-of-pocket payment for health. Out-of-pocket payments account for 91 percent of total health spending in Cambodia, 85 percent in India, and 73 percent in Egypt. In contrast, the figure for Britain is 3 percent. The United States, with more than 45 million uninsured, ranks fairly high among wealthy countries on this scale with 17 percent of health care costs funded by out-of-pocket payments.
The major reasons our national medical bill is so much higher than any other country’s are two things that the United States does differently from every other country: the way we manage health insurance and the complexity of our health care system.
The United States is the only developed country that relies on profit-making health insurance companies to pay for essential and elective care.
About 80% of non-elderly Americans have health insurance; generally they get it through the job, with the employer paying part of the premium as well. The monthly premium goes toward paying the worker’s medical bills, but the insurance firms also soak up a significant share of the premium dollar to cover the costs of marketing, underwriting, and administration, as well as their profit. Economists agree that this is about the most expensive possible way to pay for a nation’s health care.
Basic health insurance must be a nonprofit operation. According to the SEC most for profit insurance companies maintain a medical loss ratio of about 80%, which is to say that 20 cents of every dollar people pay in premiums for health insurance doesn’t buy health care. Americans tend to believe that the private sector can manage any type of business better than government can. This is not the case when it comes to health insurance. Medicare, the government run single payer system created by Congress in 1965 to pay for basic health care for the elderly, has administrative costs of about 3 percent. This is about the same for Canada’s health care system. Britain’s National Health Service, a system where government both provides and pays for health care, has administrative costs of 5 percent.
In other developed countries, health insurance plans are required by law to guarantee coverage for anybody (“guaranteed issue.”) American insurance firms are allowed to pick and choose their customers. That way, they avoid selling health insurance to the people who need the most health care-and are the most expensive to cover. American insurers have to pick and choose their customers to avoid a problem known as “adverse selection.” That term refers to people who refuse to buy health insurance when they’re healthy but go shopping for a plan after they’ve been diagnosed with a serious disease. If an insurance company had to sell coverage to all those people, it would quickly face claims in excess of the premiums it took in. The solution to adverse selection is to mandate that everybody pay for health insurance, through either a private company or a government program. That requirement is known as the “individual mandate,” and it is a necessary corollary to “guaranteed issue.” If insurance companies have to cover everybody who applies, they need to have everybody in the insurance pool to cover the costs. All other developed countries require both “guaranteed issue” and the “individual mandate.” The United States has neither.
In other developed countries, insurers are required to pay every claim. US insurance companies deny about 30% of all claims, although some of these are eventually paid through an appeal process. “Rescission” is another practice to maximize process. Rescission is a legal term that means “We’re canceling your coverage.” This occurs when an insured person who has been paying premiums for months or years has a serious accident or contracts a serious disease, and the insurer’s Rescission Department looks through the injured person’s records, looking for a reason to cancel the sick person’s coverage.
Americans under sixty-five can’t get health insurance that is permanent. If you leave your job, voluntarily, or otherwise, you lose your insurance. No other country uses that model. In France, Germany, Japan, etc., people get health insurance as a benefit of employment, but the coverage continues if the jobs ends. Government pays the premium until the unlucky employee can get back to work.
Other countries do allow health insurance companies to make a profit on some supplemental policies-but not on the basic coverage plan available to everybody.
The second major anomaly of the US system-the flaw that forces us to spend more money than any other country on health- is sheer complexity. We have the most developed the most fragmented health care system with “providers” sending bills to a vast array of different players.
There is one system for Americans over sixty-five.
There’s on for military personnel and a different one for veterans
There’s a separate system for Native Americans and another for people with end-stage renal failure
There’s one system for Americans under sixteen living in poor families.
In addition to the hundreds of different private insurance plans.
Each paying entity has its own distinct rules about what care it will pay for and how much it will pay for and how much will it pay. Quite often, neither the buyer (the patient) nor the seller (the doctor) know how much a particular treatment costs. The presence of countless different payers and fee schedules drives another unique feature of American health care: the cost shift. Medical providers-doctors, hospitals, labs-naturally try to shift the costs toward the highest payer. If Medicare, with its recurrent budget problems, cuts the fee it pays a hospital for a particular procedure, the hospital will raise the price for other payers to make up the difference. That’s another reason why the same operation in the same hospital on the same day can have ten different prices, depending on who is paying. The administrative patchwork makes everything more complex and expensive than it needs to be. A British hospital, a Taiwanese hospice, or a Canadian clinic will deal with one paying entity and one standard payment schedule. When you go to the doctor in France, the standard fee schedule for each potential treatment is posted on the wall, showing exactly what the bill will be and how of it the insurance plan will cover. One of the fastest-growing aspects of the American health care industry is the booking business for “compilers,” middlemen who compile bills that doctors submit and then shuttle them through the payment system. This makes life easier for doctors, but at a price: It adds an extra level of complexity and yet another layer of bills to the overall cost of American medicine. The US Government Accountability Office concluded that if the country could get the administrative costs of its medical system down to the Canadian level, the money it saved would be enough to pay for health care for all the Americans who are uninsured.”
Saturday, February 6, 2010
The Motion of the Ocean
Preface
I had every intention to write my next blogggggggg on health care. It morphed into explaining why I’m pro-socialist, anti-fascist. And an organ donor. Well, maybe not the last part. I love America. I love America so much I would put lipstick on it and spank its butt. That’s how much I love America. I never imagined that when I became old enough to care about watching the news and reading the newspapers that I would be bombarded with sludge. As a child, my grandparents watched the evening news every night. I didn’t care much about politics in those days but I could tell that what was going was important and mattered. Growing up I tried to be as open minded to everyone’s points of view and tried to see that if they believed in their p.o.v. there must be a seed of truth in it. In forming my own beliefs, I found it was impossible to be both pro-choice and pro-life. Imagine that! If you want your own identity you have to pick, and hopefully have a good reason why. Although, I have found, this isn’t a prerequisite. Chapter II will focus on what changes should be made in America’s health care system. Chapter Uno starts now:
Chapter Uno
At first appearance, health care is a large immovable beast. A closer look will reveal small legs that cannot support the weight of its body. The more you observe it the larger it grows. And what appears to be a simple problem can become a task that seems endless.
In tackling the health care problem of America, you are in fact, attacking the idea of America. In questioning if government should cover every American, you are questioning the idea of America. It isn’t a medical problem as much as it is an ideological civil war.
In these times, with these questions being asked, it is a reminder of how young of a nation we are and how far we still have to go. The same questions we are struggling with today are the same questions we had when we were constructing our idea of government after the American Revolution. There appears to be only two parties standing: those who want government as far away as possible and those that want government to be a collective body that can act better than any individual could alone. The pendulum seems swing back and forth whenever one has more political power than the other.
It is an illusion to think that it is a battle between the two major political parties: the Democrats and the Republicans. Behind the scenes lurks the almighty dollar: mightier than the church, mightier than the government. Its influence leaves a trail wherever it’s been. In the case of health care it is no different. Ideas are great, but money is real. The lines are drawn in this battle, not between Democrats and Republicans, but between Business and the People. The strength of people is its numbers. The strength of business is its finance. Both are very powerful. It is an ideological belief to say that true power lies in the People, but the battlefield is littered with those who have fallen by the power of finance.
Almost a page has been written, and I’ve barely mentioned the subject: health care. It is impossible to tackle the idea of health care without confronting head on the differences between the political parties in America. Still, it would be a simpleton’s error to say that the Republican Party is the Business party and the Democrats are the People's Party. With the recent election of Senator Brown in the Massachusetts, the political tides have turned. As often they do once one political party has had the upper hand. What seems lost in this change in power appears to be the “Obama Plan.” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health-care/plan.) The President has been in office for over a year and his Plan has been his Marching Song. From Joe Wilson’s “you lie” outburst during a speech President Obama gave to Congress; to the Massachusetts woman that compared the Plan to Nazi policies, the health care debate has been a lively one.
57% of America believes that health care should be the President’s top priority according to Pew Research. Health Care is behind, in order: Economy (83% believe this should be the President’s top priority), Jobs (umm..), Terrorism, Social Security, Education, Medicare (this is health care-63%), and finally, deficit reduction.
The last time there was an attempt to reform health care in America was in 1993 when President Clinton took office. The failure to pass universal health care in his first year led to the “Republican Revolution,” the first time the Republicans gained control of both the House and Senate since 1953. In retrospect, the people spoke out against “big government.”
Big! Scary! Government! It seems like such a rallying cry these days. Why is it so big, bad and scary? Ooooooooh! Just saying “big government,” I half expect ghosts to come out from behind me. In addition to the ghosts of big government, I have already seen two bumper stickers describing the United States as a socialist/communist country because of the push for universal health care.
And why is there fear? When we hear “big government,” maybe we think of Jimmy Carter. When we hear socialist/communist maybe we think of the Cold War, the U.S.S.R., East Germany, Stalin, government control, etc.
I guess when I hear “big government” I think of the New Deal. I think about government’s intervention in ending slavery, ending Jim Crow laws and making it mandatory to provide free education to its citizens. When I hear the fears of Communism I wonder why I don’t hear about the fears of fascism. Fascism is the far right of the political spectrum. (Left wing=liberals, socialists, communists; Right wing: conservative, monarchists, fascists.) In monarchy, the people were loyal to its king. In fascism, the people are loyal to business, aka profit. If “big government” gets in the way of profit, then “big government” needs to get out of the way. Government only works when it works to make more money for the few, higher income people, not the many, lower income people.
In recent times, the government has been criticized for bailing out Wall Street and not helping Main Street. I hope that the consensus of this recent collapse in the economy was due to the lack of regulation by the government. In other words, government was too small. It was kept small because the belief was that the market should have regulated itself. It didn’t. Alan Greenspan testified to Congress in 2008 following the recent economic collapse, “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and the equity in the firms.” Without government intervention, most economists agree that we would currently be in the Great Depression part Deux.
In President Obama’s inauguration speech he said, “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.” There are in fact times that a government take a larger role (Troubled Asset Relief Program). There are times that the government should take a lesser role (prosecuting marijuana anyone?). It gives new meaning to the saying, "It is not the size of the ship, but the motion of the ocean."
I believe it is right for government to take on health care. In my next chapter, I hope to show how. Whether it passes now isn't important, because it won't. The question is: Should it?
I had every intention to write my next blogggggggg on health care. It morphed into explaining why I’m pro-socialist, anti-fascist. And an organ donor. Well, maybe not the last part. I love America. I love America so much I would put lipstick on it and spank its butt. That’s how much I love America. I never imagined that when I became old enough to care about watching the news and reading the newspapers that I would be bombarded with sludge. As a child, my grandparents watched the evening news every night. I didn’t care much about politics in those days but I could tell that what was going was important and mattered. Growing up I tried to be as open minded to everyone’s points of view and tried to see that if they believed in their p.o.v. there must be a seed of truth in it. In forming my own beliefs, I found it was impossible to be both pro-choice and pro-life. Imagine that! If you want your own identity you have to pick, and hopefully have a good reason why. Although, I have found, this isn’t a prerequisite. Chapter II will focus on what changes should be made in America’s health care system. Chapter Uno starts now:
Chapter Uno
At first appearance, health care is a large immovable beast. A closer look will reveal small legs that cannot support the weight of its body. The more you observe it the larger it grows. And what appears to be a simple problem can become a task that seems endless.
In tackling the health care problem of America, you are in fact, attacking the idea of America. In questioning if government should cover every American, you are questioning the idea of America. It isn’t a medical problem as much as it is an ideological civil war.
In these times, with these questions being asked, it is a reminder of how young of a nation we are and how far we still have to go. The same questions we are struggling with today are the same questions we had when we were constructing our idea of government after the American Revolution. There appears to be only two parties standing: those who want government as far away as possible and those that want government to be a collective body that can act better than any individual could alone. The pendulum seems swing back and forth whenever one has more political power than the other.
It is an illusion to think that it is a battle between the two major political parties: the Democrats and the Republicans. Behind the scenes lurks the almighty dollar: mightier than the church, mightier than the government. Its influence leaves a trail wherever it’s been. In the case of health care it is no different. Ideas are great, but money is real. The lines are drawn in this battle, not between Democrats and Republicans, but between Business and the People. The strength of people is its numbers. The strength of business is its finance. Both are very powerful. It is an ideological belief to say that true power lies in the People, but the battlefield is littered with those who have fallen by the power of finance.
Almost a page has been written, and I’ve barely mentioned the subject: health care. It is impossible to tackle the idea of health care without confronting head on the differences between the political parties in America. Still, it would be a simpleton’s error to say that the Republican Party is the Business party and the Democrats are the People's Party. With the recent election of Senator Brown in the Massachusetts, the political tides have turned. As often they do once one political party has had the upper hand. What seems lost in this change in power appears to be the “Obama Plan.” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health-care/plan.) The President has been in office for over a year and his Plan has been his Marching Song. From Joe Wilson’s “you lie” outburst during a speech President Obama gave to Congress; to the Massachusetts woman that compared the Plan to Nazi policies, the health care debate has been a lively one.
57% of America believes that health care should be the President’s top priority according to Pew Research. Health Care is behind, in order: Economy (83% believe this should be the President’s top priority), Jobs (umm..), Terrorism, Social Security, Education, Medicare (this is health care-63%), and finally, deficit reduction.
The last time there was an attempt to reform health care in America was in 1993 when President Clinton took office. The failure to pass universal health care in his first year led to the “Republican Revolution,” the first time the Republicans gained control of both the House and Senate since 1953. In retrospect, the people spoke out against “big government.”
Big! Scary! Government! It seems like such a rallying cry these days. Why is it so big, bad and scary? Ooooooooh! Just saying “big government,” I half expect ghosts to come out from behind me. In addition to the ghosts of big government, I have already seen two bumper stickers describing the United States as a socialist/communist country because of the push for universal health care.
And why is there fear? When we hear “big government,” maybe we think of Jimmy Carter. When we hear socialist/communist maybe we think of the Cold War, the U.S.S.R., East Germany, Stalin, government control, etc.
I guess when I hear “big government” I think of the New Deal. I think about government’s intervention in ending slavery, ending Jim Crow laws and making it mandatory to provide free education to its citizens. When I hear the fears of Communism I wonder why I don’t hear about the fears of fascism. Fascism is the far right of the political spectrum. (Left wing=liberals, socialists, communists; Right wing: conservative, monarchists, fascists.) In monarchy, the people were loyal to its king. In fascism, the people are loyal to business, aka profit. If “big government” gets in the way of profit, then “big government” needs to get out of the way. Government only works when it works to make more money for the few, higher income people, not the many, lower income people.
In recent times, the government has been criticized for bailing out Wall Street and not helping Main Street. I hope that the consensus of this recent collapse in the economy was due to the lack of regulation by the government. In other words, government was too small. It was kept small because the belief was that the market should have regulated itself. It didn’t. Alan Greenspan testified to Congress in 2008 following the recent economic collapse, “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and the equity in the firms.” Without government intervention, most economists agree that we would currently be in the Great Depression part Deux.
In President Obama’s inauguration speech he said, “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.” There are in fact times that a government take a larger role (Troubled Asset Relief Program). There are times that the government should take a lesser role (prosecuting marijuana anyone?). It gives new meaning to the saying, "It is not the size of the ship, but the motion of the ocean."
I believe it is right for government to take on health care. In my next chapter, I hope to show how. Whether it passes now isn't important, because it won't. The question is: Should it?
Saturday, January 16, 2010
McGwire & the Dopeman
In 1987, I was an eleven year old boy growing up in the Bay Area watching Mark McGwire play for the Oakland A’s. That year he hit 49 home runs and won Rookie of the Year. One year later, my room had two posters of his teammate Jose Canseco, the first player to hit 40 home runs and steal 40 bases. Almost 20 years later, I am in my house watching the Bob Costas' interview with Mark McGwire admitting that he used steroids.
McGwire reports that he didn’t use steroids during his rookie season and that he first used steroids for health purposes. Then comes the question that makes my internal lie detector go off. Costas points out that’s all fine and great, but that the performance enhancing aspects must have become evident. McGwire goes on to deny that he saw any evidence that the steroids had any performance enhancing aspects and avoids answering if steroids made him stronger. He insists he took the steroids for “health purposes.” He goes on to label himself the “walking mash unit.” Let me put some emphasis on this: The Walking Mash Unit.
Costas, ever the baseball historian, gives him some pretty, clear, undeniable evidence of the impact of steroids in baseball. “During the stretch from ‘85-‘94 there were 21 players who hit forty home runs. From ’95-‘03 there were 104 players who hit forty home runs.” McGwire attributes his increase in home runs to better technique. Costas goes on and asks McGwire to explain how Bonds averaged a home run every 15 at bats before 2001 and then in 2001 averages a home run every 6.5 at bats. Then Costas has a brilliant quote, almost flabergasted, “something was happening.”
Something was happening. It was then that McGwire told Costas that he wishes that “we had drug testing. You and I wouldn’t be having this conversation.” For me, it felt like the first truthful thing he said in the conversation.
The point is this: the McGwire story is a distraction from THE question: why wasn’t there drug testing? That is the only question that matters. It is the only question of importance. And if you have the answer for that one, all of this other crap means nothing. The answer is of course, the reoccurring, drumroll, please: mo’ money, mo’ money. And look no further than the dopeman himself: “Don” Bud “Dopeman” Selig, aka the Commish.
Bud “Dopeman” Selig’s contract is currently set to expire at the end of 2012 at which time it is reported he plans on retiring. Selig took over the position in 1992 as the acting commissioner, becoming the official commissioner of baseball in 1998. According to an article by Andrew Bagnato of sfgate.com, revenue increased by almost 5 billion dollars, between ’92 and ’07. If you want to know the reason Selig is still the commissioner- that is the reason.
When did Selig know about steroids being used in baseball? According to Greg Stejskal, a retired FBI agent, reports that he shared the results of their investigation that “led to more than 70 steroid-related convictions” to MLB’s security boss, Kevin Hallinan in 1994. Stejskal confirmed that in their investigation both Canseco and McGwire were identified. Asked in the last week when Selig had found out about McGwire’s steroid use he reported “beforehand, but not by much.” Sixteen years seems like it should qualify as “much.”
The NFL began testing for steroids in 1987. In 1994, when Stejskal shared this information with MLB there was no “drug testing program at the time.” According to MLB.com’s own article on MLB’s drug policy in 1998, the year McGwire hit 70 home runs: “A jar of androstenedione is discovered in the locker of St. Louis slugger Mark McGwire, …McGwire admits he uses the steroids precursor …Using steroids, precursors or performance-enhancing drugs is not illegal at that point in Major League Baseball.” The timeline goes on to say that in 2001, MLB implements random drug testing (steroid, performance enhancing drugs (PEDs), and drugs of abuse (marijuana, cocaine) for the minor leagues. In 2002, it states that no MLB player can be tested without probable cause. At this same time, it was public knowledge that Ken Caminiti admitted to Sports Illustrated that he used steroids during in NL-MVP season in 1996.
In March of 2003, all MLB players all MLB players are subject to be tested once during the season. After the season it was announced that 5-7 percent of those tested returned positive. According to the article, “Commissioner Bud Selig said in a statement that he was pleased to learn ‘that there is not widespread steroid use in baseball.’” Six years later, a report surfaces that AL-MVP Alex Rodriguez tested positive for steroids. Soon after, Rodriguez confirms that he was using steroids between 2001-2003.
It appears that it wasn’t until Congress became involved that MLB began to reform, tighten their permissive drug policy. In this case, the cliché it takes an act of Congress to get something done is dead on.
On January 11th, 2010, the Dopeman declared that “the so called steroid era is clearly a thing of the past…” and reports that in 2009 there were two positive tests for banned substances out of 3,722. According to a New York Times article, Michael Schmidt interviewed Travis Tygart, head of the US anti doping agency: “He said that? “If so, it sounds like the same stick-your-head-in-the-sand approach that led to this whole mess. I find it hard to believe that is what he said.” According to Jay Marrioti of the Chicago Sun-Times, there were 108 exemptions who supposedly were diagnosed with attention deficit disorder; therefore, ok’d by MLB to use amphetamines. (Off Subject: I am not sure how amphetamines would classify as a PED. It sounds like the Robin Williams skit on the snowboarder who lost his gold medal because he tested positive for marijuana and the Olympic committee classified pot as a PED.) Marrioti did the math and figured that while it is estimated that 4.5 percent of the American society has ADD, 9 percent of major leaguers have ADD. In addition, MLB does not even test for human growth hormone (HGH.)
With all the debate about whether McGwire, Bonds, Rodriguez, Ramirez, Clemons should be in the Hall of Fame (and most pundits agree that any player to have used PEDs shouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame) there is very little discussion about the man in charge of the league when this was allowed to happen. The lesson here is, I guess, if you can increase profits by 5 billion dollars you can do whatever you want.
McGwire reports that he didn’t use steroids during his rookie season and that he first used steroids for health purposes. Then comes the question that makes my internal lie detector go off. Costas points out that’s all fine and great, but that the performance enhancing aspects must have become evident. McGwire goes on to deny that he saw any evidence that the steroids had any performance enhancing aspects and avoids answering if steroids made him stronger. He insists he took the steroids for “health purposes.” He goes on to label himself the “walking mash unit.” Let me put some emphasis on this: The Walking Mash Unit.
Costas, ever the baseball historian, gives him some pretty, clear, undeniable evidence of the impact of steroids in baseball. “During the stretch from ‘85-‘94 there were 21 players who hit forty home runs. From ’95-‘03 there were 104 players who hit forty home runs.” McGwire attributes his increase in home runs to better technique. Costas goes on and asks McGwire to explain how Bonds averaged a home run every 15 at bats before 2001 and then in 2001 averages a home run every 6.5 at bats. Then Costas has a brilliant quote, almost flabergasted, “something was happening.”
Something was happening. It was then that McGwire told Costas that he wishes that “we had drug testing. You and I wouldn’t be having this conversation.” For me, it felt like the first truthful thing he said in the conversation.
The point is this: the McGwire story is a distraction from THE question: why wasn’t there drug testing? That is the only question that matters. It is the only question of importance. And if you have the answer for that one, all of this other crap means nothing. The answer is of course, the reoccurring, drumroll, please: mo’ money, mo’ money. And look no further than the dopeman himself: “Don” Bud “Dopeman” Selig, aka the Commish.
Bud “Dopeman” Selig’s contract is currently set to expire at the end of 2012 at which time it is reported he plans on retiring. Selig took over the position in 1992 as the acting commissioner, becoming the official commissioner of baseball in 1998. According to an article by Andrew Bagnato of sfgate.com, revenue increased by almost 5 billion dollars, between ’92 and ’07. If you want to know the reason Selig is still the commissioner- that is the reason.
When did Selig know about steroids being used in baseball? According to Greg Stejskal, a retired FBI agent, reports that he shared the results of their investigation that “led to more than 70 steroid-related convictions” to MLB’s security boss, Kevin Hallinan in 1994. Stejskal confirmed that in their investigation both Canseco and McGwire were identified. Asked in the last week when Selig had found out about McGwire’s steroid use he reported “beforehand, but not by much.” Sixteen years seems like it should qualify as “much.”
The NFL began testing for steroids in 1987. In 1994, when Stejskal shared this information with MLB there was no “drug testing program at the time.” According to MLB.com’s own article on MLB’s drug policy in 1998, the year McGwire hit 70 home runs: “A jar of androstenedione is discovered in the locker of St. Louis slugger Mark McGwire, …McGwire admits he uses the steroids precursor …Using steroids, precursors or performance-enhancing drugs is not illegal at that point in Major League Baseball.” The timeline goes on to say that in 2001, MLB implements random drug testing (steroid, performance enhancing drugs (PEDs), and drugs of abuse (marijuana, cocaine) for the minor leagues. In 2002, it states that no MLB player can be tested without probable cause. At this same time, it was public knowledge that Ken Caminiti admitted to Sports Illustrated that he used steroids during in NL-MVP season in 1996.
In March of 2003, all MLB players all MLB players are subject to be tested once during the season. After the season it was announced that 5-7 percent of those tested returned positive. According to the article, “Commissioner Bud Selig said in a statement that he was pleased to learn ‘that there is not widespread steroid use in baseball.’” Six years later, a report surfaces that AL-MVP Alex Rodriguez tested positive for steroids. Soon after, Rodriguez confirms that he was using steroids between 2001-2003.
It appears that it wasn’t until Congress became involved that MLB began to reform, tighten their permissive drug policy. In this case, the cliché it takes an act of Congress to get something done is dead on.
On January 11th, 2010, the Dopeman declared that “the so called steroid era is clearly a thing of the past…” and reports that in 2009 there were two positive tests for banned substances out of 3,722. According to a New York Times article, Michael Schmidt interviewed Travis Tygart, head of the US anti doping agency: “He said that? “If so, it sounds like the same stick-your-head-in-the-sand approach that led to this whole mess. I find it hard to believe that is what he said.” According to Jay Marrioti of the Chicago Sun-Times, there were 108 exemptions who supposedly were diagnosed with attention deficit disorder; therefore, ok’d by MLB to use amphetamines. (Off Subject: I am not sure how amphetamines would classify as a PED. It sounds like the Robin Williams skit on the snowboarder who lost his gold medal because he tested positive for marijuana and the Olympic committee classified pot as a PED.) Marrioti did the math and figured that while it is estimated that 4.5 percent of the American society has ADD, 9 percent of major leaguers have ADD. In addition, MLB does not even test for human growth hormone (HGH.)
With all the debate about whether McGwire, Bonds, Rodriguez, Ramirez, Clemons should be in the Hall of Fame (and most pundits agree that any player to have used PEDs shouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame) there is very little discussion about the man in charge of the league when this was allowed to happen. The lesson here is, I guess, if you can increase profits by 5 billion dollars you can do whatever you want.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Meet Zucker Fucker: The Conan-Leno Clusterfuck
You never quite know the whole story until you start looking into the story you are going to write. This is what I discovered when I found myself upset that NBC was looking to fuck over Conan O'Brien. I admit I am not a diehard Conan fan. The show is DVR'd in the house but I wasn't the one that set the series recording. I don't watch Letterman. I don't watch Leno now. I didn't watch Leno then. For my money, Conan is the funniest of them all.
There are rumors floating out in rumorland that Leno will be moving back into the 11:30 slot. What's the big deal right? Perhaps no big deal, unless you have committed yourself to writing a blog for ten years and need a topic to write about. For me the difference between a blog and a rant, is a story. My rant started off something like "NBC sucks ass!" And although this still remains true, I basically didn't have anything to write after that. Why does NBC suck ass? Why is NBC doing it? Who is responsible?
It seems the man responsible is Jeff Zucker, according to a wonderful article by the Chronicles' Tim Goodman( http://www.seattlepi.com/tv/412579_DDE61AMFQT.html) written in November of 2009. It is difficult for me not to think of Alec Baldwin's character on 30 Rock when thinking of Zucker. In 2004, Zucker was the one that made the deal so that O'Brien would take over for Leno. It seemed, based on Leno's own words that he was willing to leave on his own terms. "In 2009, I'll be 59 years old and will have had this dream job for 17 years. When I signed my new contract, I felt that the timing was right to plan for my successor and there is no one more qualified than Conan." That seems pretty straightforward, right? A-ha, not so fast. In 2008, David Letterman, Leno's chief rival, was quoted in Rolling Stone saying: "Unless I'm misunderstanding something, I don't know why, after the job Jay has done for them, why they would relinquish that." This isn't exactly the bloody knife, but if Leno had felt that the "timing was right," why would he want he want to do a similar TV program, an hour and a half earlier, for an hour, on the same network? In December of 2008, it was reported that NBC would keep Leno and give him his own one hour show. This is when I would have been saying, "What the fuck?" if I was Conan.
Let's give Leno the benefit of the doubt. He probably changed his mind and realized that doing stand-up in Las Vegas for the rest of his life wasn't exactly how he wanted to end things. Keeping Leno on NBC guranteed that a rival network wouldn't land the man that "defeated handily" Letterman year after year. Either way you look at it, it's a classic clusterfuck!
It is easily understandable as to why NBC is looking to replace Conan with Leno. What is the bottom line in business? Mo' money, mo' money! Conan and Leno, according to the cryptic Nielson ratings, aren't delivering compared to their competitors. I suppose the ratings aren't as cryptic as it would seem (I think). The higher the ratings the more money you make. That is my simple guess. How do you fix this problem? Put the man that has been beating the shit out of his competitors for over 15 years back in the slot that he orignally came from. Voila'! Problem solved! Ah, but there is one slight problem. Probably, not a problem in business: an agreement, aka, a promise. A promise made by the man, the company to Conan in September of 2004.
So, now six months after Conan took over the show with the curtains and the backdrop of L.A., an executive is panicking. I'm certain this shit happens all the time in Hollywood. I am sure a man's word isn't worth a lot, and an executive's word is a lot less.
Jeff Zucker should be the one exiting his seat, not Conan. It's not even that Conan deserves a shot. He has been waiting five years. He is the same great talent at 11:30 as he was at the 12:30 time slot. Zucker, admit it. You fucked up. You are the unnamed man in the middle of all of this. Conan deserves more than six months. You should exit stage left.
There are rumors floating out in rumorland that Leno will be moving back into the 11:30 slot. What's the big deal right? Perhaps no big deal, unless you have committed yourself to writing a blog for ten years and need a topic to write about. For me the difference between a blog and a rant, is a story. My rant started off something like "NBC sucks ass!" And although this still remains true, I basically didn't have anything to write after that. Why does NBC suck ass? Why is NBC doing it? Who is responsible?
It seems the man responsible is Jeff Zucker, according to a wonderful article by the Chronicles' Tim Goodman( http://www.seattlepi.com/tv/412579_DDE61AMFQT.html) written in November of 2009. It is difficult for me not to think of Alec Baldwin's character on 30 Rock when thinking of Zucker. In 2004, Zucker was the one that made the deal so that O'Brien would take over for Leno. It seemed, based on Leno's own words that he was willing to leave on his own terms. "In 2009, I'll be 59 years old and will have had this dream job for 17 years. When I signed my new contract, I felt that the timing was right to plan for my successor and there is no one more qualified than Conan." That seems pretty straightforward, right? A-ha, not so fast. In 2008, David Letterman, Leno's chief rival, was quoted in Rolling Stone saying: "Unless I'm misunderstanding something, I don't know why, after the job Jay has done for them, why they would relinquish that." This isn't exactly the bloody knife, but if Leno had felt that the "timing was right," why would he want he want to do a similar TV program, an hour and a half earlier, for an hour, on the same network? In December of 2008, it was reported that NBC would keep Leno and give him his own one hour show. This is when I would have been saying, "What the fuck?" if I was Conan.
Let's give Leno the benefit of the doubt. He probably changed his mind and realized that doing stand-up in Las Vegas for the rest of his life wasn't exactly how he wanted to end things. Keeping Leno on NBC guranteed that a rival network wouldn't land the man that "defeated handily" Letterman year after year. Either way you look at it, it's a classic clusterfuck!
It is easily understandable as to why NBC is looking to replace Conan with Leno. What is the bottom line in business? Mo' money, mo' money! Conan and Leno, according to the cryptic Nielson ratings, aren't delivering compared to their competitors. I suppose the ratings aren't as cryptic as it would seem (I think). The higher the ratings the more money you make. That is my simple guess. How do you fix this problem? Put the man that has been beating the shit out of his competitors for over 15 years back in the slot that he orignally came from. Voila'! Problem solved! Ah, but there is one slight problem. Probably, not a problem in business: an agreement, aka, a promise. A promise made by the man, the company to Conan in September of 2004.
So, now six months after Conan took over the show with the curtains and the backdrop of L.A., an executive is panicking. I'm certain this shit happens all the time in Hollywood. I am sure a man's word isn't worth a lot, and an executive's word is a lot less.
Jeff Zucker should be the one exiting his seat, not Conan. It's not even that Conan deserves a shot. He has been waiting five years. He is the same great talent at 11:30 as he was at the 12:30 time slot. Zucker, admit it. You fucked up. You are the unnamed man in the middle of all of this. Conan deserves more than six months. You should exit stage left.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)