Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Hank Campbell | August 5th 2009 05:54 PM | 16 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More Science 2.0 articles

All

About Hank Campbell

A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone ever had. Others may prefer Newton or Archimedes.

Probably no one ever said a website was the greatest idea anyone ever had, but a website... Full Bio

As you might imagine, I get a lot of press releases.  As I have said here before, I like getting them because it's difficult for me to know all the good things happening out there, especially if an organization lacks the budget to hire an expensive PR firm.  A little proactive work helps get your message out.

Sometimes, in an unintended consequence, I make fun of the releases I get, like the organization that sent me a release about their group devoted to 'living smaller' and saving the environment (Live Small, Live Better - And They Really Mean Live Small).   I thought I understood what they meant - fewer McMansions (well, for  the rest of you, anyway) and a generally smaller footprint - until I discovered that by 'smaller footprint' they meant they literally wanted to shrink humans.  By a foot.   If you send me a press release advocating shrinking humans, you are basically putting it on a tee for me and I will hit it out of the park.

Health care is big news in 2009.   The Democrats are in a full-court press to pass government health care and they have a bulletproof majority right now - heck, they could pass a Constitutional amendment requiring forced sodomy zones and mandatory abortions if they wanted - but they also seem to want to be liked so they're trying to be bipartisan about it.   I don't see the need.  Just pass it and hope it doesn't turn our economy into Bulgaria.

People have remarked that my opinions on health car seem to be all over the place.   I will clarify.  If you don't think health care quality will drop once the government starts messing it up, you are naïve.   If you don't think it is going to cost you a fortune in new taxes once the government starts messing it up, you are naïve.    I am personally against it.   But if Republicans don't think that nuanced arguments about our high end health care quality are lost on people who would just like to not get a bill for thousands of dollars when their kid breaks an arm or pay $400 a month for a $3,500 annual deductible, they deserve the butt whuppin' they will take in 2010 also.

So though I am personally against it, I am publicly for it - because I have paid a fortune in taxes in my working career and gotten very little for it.  So if I continue to pay a fortune but a poor family gets free access to health care, even crappy health care, I am okay with that.  

I got a  plea today from an organization called Mom's Rising.   They seem very earnest.   They also might be a total political action scam - you can help me decide because I am writing this live while researching, except for editing some spelling errors after I click 'publish'.   It's sort of an experiment in science blogging, except it has no science, so it's just blogging.    

My first impression is also a first hint for organizations who want to be 'grass roots'  - I know how much https: servers cost, I run an internet company.   If you had the forethought to get an https server, you knew you were raising money and wanted to do it securely, and that ain't cheap.    I could be wrong but at first blush this is not a group of concerned moms who had an idea in their kitchens and had it get popular.

If you go to their website, like I just did - https://momsrising.democracyinaction.org/ - this is the screen you will see.

momsrising

"Industry leading division"?    Looking up the blurb on the company hosting the Moms Rising group, you find ...

"DemocracyInAction.org believes technology can be a decisive force for social change. We exist to empower those who share our values of ecological and social justice to advance the progressive agenda."

That means this is likely a DNC politically funded organization, right?    Non-partisan groups do not use the word 'progressive.'  Sometimes RNC funded ones do, but only sarcastically.

Now, I get that Political Action Committees (PACs) spend money and grassroots politics is big business:   If you think hordes of people showing up to shout down Congresspeople trying to give them free health care are not organized by some Republican group, you are naïve.   If you think ACORN is simply helping people exercise their right to vote and did not blatantly inventing Democratic voter registrations , you are naïve.

Back to their press release.   It reads:
"The voices and needs of mothers and families are too often ignored. But  
when we ignore them, we all lose out. Their stories provide valuable real  
life lessons about the shortcomings of our nation's healthcare system--and  
their voices that will lead us to a healthier America" said MomsRising.org  
Executive Director Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner

So we have a name.  Googling her for 15 seconds gets me ...
When Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner’s first child was born, she left her job as political and field director of a political action committee ...

Bingo.   

But it gets better because I have written this sort of freeform while I researched.  Farther down her bio I see ...
Kristin’s writing on family policy in the US caught the attention of grassroots activist and MoveOn.org co-founder Joan Blades.

and then ...
MomsRising, which Kristin and Joan Blades co-founded in 2006

Oh geez.  So much for grassroots effort.   MoveOn.org spends more money on lobbyists than Exxon.  

This kind of thing enrages me.    Like I said, I don't mind press releases.  But if you are part of a well-oiled PR machine trying to come across all earnest and grassroots folksy but you're a blatantly partisan, political shill, I don't have a lot of respect for you.  Not only do you not get positive press, you get negative press.   Because on science sites, we hate to be manipulated, even by causes we otherwise agree with.

Because they are part of MoveOn.org, it brings a whole lot of intellectual baggage, like knowing they have no problem framing data to suit their agenda (Republicans - you don't catch a break.  If you do this stuff, you will get nailed too, you are just smart enough not to bother trying to deceive us because most everyone here is an academic and never voting for you anyway) ... so we get the tearful stat I have seen too many times to count, namely that an 'estimated 46 million Americans have no health insurance'.   

Like divorce rates in the 1970s, which got Republicans up in arms about the death of the culture, it's an intentionally misleading stat.   46 million Americans are not permanently without health care any more than 50% of all marriages end in divorce.   People get fired, people change jobs.   As a snapshot, there may be 46 million Americans without health insurance at any given time but they are not chronically uninsured nor are they the same 46 million people.

And this tidbit from their press release is silly:
Seven in ten working-age  women have no insurance, are underinsured, or are in debt because of medical bills.

'Underinsured' and 'in debt because of medical bills' is, like, 'saved jobs', blatantly made up and unquantifiable.  When did Americans get this sense of entitlement that everything needs to be covered under insurance and no one should ever have to contribute?   That ain't what made America great, folks.

Scientists have been driven crazy by companies and the public conscripting terms like 'evolution' for their own evil ends.  If  legitimate 'grassroots' organizations ever want to have any credibility with the public in the future,  they need to drive out the well-funded corporate grassroots political machines who bastardize the term.

Of course, you can't argue with results because history is written by the winners and they clearly have a lot more members than we do.  They brag about their success using social media and have gone from 160,000 to over 1,000,000 participants thanks to generous funding, savvy PR people and clever framing of statistics that gets concerned mothers mobilized.

I certainly don't discount the power of social media and it's hard to dislike a group that claims to want to help kids stay healthy but everything about them feels a little ... slick.   I'm used to Republicans being the manipulative greaseballs but I'm not so naïve I can't see how and why Democrats would adapt their tactics ... and then optimize them.

Comments

Politics, politics, politics. Anonymous wants science!

Hank's picture
Yes, investigative journalism is not my thing.   But companies have to learn that scientists are not in the tank for whatever ridiculous deception they want to throw at this community just because of party registration.

My next article is on spacetime, if that helps.   But then after that I have to address making the web work for science, because they invited me to their conference for that reason.

Gary Herstein's picture
My next article is on spacetime

Cool! That's something I'm arguably (depending on who you argue with) qualified to comment on!

Gary Herstein's picture
Just pass it and hope it doesn't turn our economy into Bulgaria.

About the only country in Europe that does NOT have a superior health care system to our own.

If you don't think health care quality will drop once the government starts messing it up, you are naïve.

Indeed, just look at the gross inferiority of every country in Europe (other than Bulgaria) to US care. Oh, wait, no. Don't do that ...

If you had the forethought to get an https server, you knew you were raising money and wanted to do it securely, and that ain't cheap.  I could be wrong but at first blush this is not a group of concerned moms who had an idea in their kitchens and had it get popular.

Did you actually see their kitchens? ... I'll bet they are bigger than mine! On the other hand, in what LOGICAL respect is this even relevant? If this is the direction you are going, then you are committing a kind of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html).

Finally, as to the 46 Million Americans number: Your claim that it fails to distinguish a permanent underclass is not evidently relevant (by the bye, an instance of the Ignoratio Elenchi fallacy, http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html, if you are interested), since you fail to compare it to anything else. Why should it be acceptable that so many Americans are uninsured AT ANY TIME? How many persons in France or England are denied basic health coverage at any particular time, regardless of how many of them might be permanently denied? Surely it does not need to be made explicit here that crawling into an emergency room does not qualify has having basic health coverage? So how is it that providing meaningful coverage for all Americans is too expensive when 38 or more countries in the world with fewer resources than our own manage to accomplish this supposedly unachievable goal?

I mean clearly government is incompetent to accomplish any meaningful goals; this is why things like going to the moon or defeating Nazism were handed over to private businesses ...

The above is obviously a rhetorical snark for which I'll not insult your intelligence with a feigned apology. (And it is not as though you were ever above such things.) If we presume this is NOT what you are arguing, then exactly how might you reconcile what you claimed with what are, after all, facts? Since you generally seem to declare yourself above ideological kerygmas, perhaps you could offer us something here that is, well, not merely that? How is it that every other industrialized nation, and more than a few that are not, are capable of doing what we (apparentely) should not even consider?

Hank's picture
I think it's a difference in perspective.   I am not a crazed libertarian, I just don't know why it should become de facto public policy that our sense of entitlement gets increased just because Europeans do.  I have already said I am personally against it yet support it from a policy perspective but  
France and England are hardly Utopian, in health care or anything else.  

I agree that in a civilized society we shouldn't have people starving or bleeding in the streets but I have never accepted that a perfectly healthy person who makes less money than me should cause me to be punished monetarily.    Now, of course, I am already punished monetarily so I am less concerned.   Republicans claim to worry about having the tax burden of those European countries but we already do.    So if they pay 50% taxes and get free health care and I pay 50% and do not, that is unfair.

In this particular article, I mostly object to deception, plus I wrote it as I researched the company so my annoyance went directly from brain to page without any real filter.   If this had been a legitimate grass roots movement started by a concerned mom rather than a professional Democratic activist who was friends with another professional Democratic activist who had their PR group write us, assuming that because most of the academics here voted Democrat we will be ideological lapdogs ... well, that would have been different.

But pulling the "do it for the kids" routine when the intent was 'we want to manipulate you into endorsing our policy goals" is annoying.   Maybe less so to you, but that's why you didn't write this piece.

Gerhard Adam's picture
...our sense of entitlement...

I always hear that phrase, but I don't understand why it occurs.  After all, it is our money, so how is that "entitlement"?  I don't think it's too much to ask that we get something in return for our tax dollars besides congressional boondoggles and pork projects.

Hank's picture
It's entitlement if people think they are entitled to more than they have earned with the tax dollars you mentioned.    If anyone says your money is now 'our' money that's entitlement.   Now, I have already said I am not anti-tax or even anti-government run health care, as long as we don't expect more of it than we know we will get; equal access to a fairly inferior product, like they have elsewhere.  I think it will be an improvement for a lot of people who have no access at all but free doctor visits are not a 'right' just because countries in Europe do it.

I am never going to get back from government what I have put in, I know that, and I don't mind even doing more than my part, it just baffles me that someone - anyone - can think because they have done less they are still entitled to what I have.  

It's going to pass.  It's a done deal (*).   But if this is the congressional porkbarrel and porkbarrel you dislike, we aren't really better off.

(*) The only sticking point may be abortion.   Obviously they want to include it but that will drive away the pro-life groups who currently support goverment health care - and send the detante issue it is now back to open warfare.

Gerhard Adam's picture
 I think it will be an improvement for a lot of people who have no
access at all but free doctor visits are not a 'right' just because
countries in Europe do it.

Understood, but why should it be a "right" simply because someone works for GM, or GE?  If it's truly to be a "free market" then have everyone pay their own way and let's stop the corporate subsidies of these services.  However, I'd be willing to bet if that occurred, there would be a totally different mood in the country regarding health care. 

Hank's picture
That's a different issue.   You're certainly right that corporate benefits are a WW2 legacy, when wage controls were in force so the only way to recruit employees was with non-wage perks like health insurance, that have long outlives their usefulness.

But you are reaffirming what conservatives have said; fix health care, don't make it into a government boondoggle.

The easiest way to fix health insurance is to make it a tax deduction for everyone, not just companies.    Then people could have the health care they want - young healthy people could spend $75 a month for something basic or none at all.   With a government program, it's young healthy people who are going to get hammered - all with the promise that when they get old, they will get a better return too.  They will have no choice in paying now.

When I was born there were 20 workers for every person on social security and now there are 4, and that's without baby boomers retiring.    There is no chance I am ever going to get the return on social security that I was promised 20 years ago and I would hate to see our kids have that plus health care debt.

Only yesterday I heard a new term for false grassroots political action; "astroturfing". I love it.

As someone who hasn't had access to health care of any kind for over a decade (and suffers multiple health problems), I really can't see how reform could possibly make it any worse. I have already long since made peace with the notion of living and dying like an animal in the wild, and my studies in evolution actually bring me some comfort in this regard. I actually feel worse for others than for myself, such as a young man I met recently who will walk with a limp for the rest of his life because an L.A. emergency room refused to set the broken bone in his leg and instead gave him ibuprofin and told him to leave. He had been an avid snowboarder, and is now a permanent cripple because running an xray on his leg would be too much of an extravagance to waste on a young uninsured person.

Hank's picture
How much better would this article have been with "Grass roots or astroturf?" somewhere in the title?

I agree that for you, government health insurance is better than none.   Heck, for anyone it is, if they need it, but for others it is not so great.    A Commonwealth Fund report yesterday says 30% of young adults don't have health insurance.  They probably don't need it - but they are going to get it and have to pay for it so unless a multi-trillion dollar solution is both better than what we have now and doesn't have people working to pay taxes until September in each fiscal year, there are better solutions out there, like just fixing the inefficiencies we have now instead of creating new ones.

Obviously making health insurance a writeoff for individuals is a no-brainer neither party seems to want to take the tax hit.   At some point the number of people getting more than what they pay is going to overwhelm the overpaying people - then we'll have a collapse like we're having in California right now, where actual good programs for poor people are reduced and eliminated because contracts to teacher's unions and prison guards and other big contributors to big politics have priority.

Gerhard Adam's picture
Hank, I agree with you.  My problem is that too many people view any social program as "socialism" and their position is simply that of an "every person for themselves" kind of mentality.  It's hard to argue against entitlement when the whole purpose of lobbying is to gain entitlements for special interests.  While many are non-business, it is hard to accept the concept of a free market economy when all the evidence suggests that businesses have the preferred status over citizens.

Health care isn't like buying an iPod or a Gameboy.  You've mentioned young people not needing health care, but that's not true.  They are just as likely to get into accidents and have injuries that may be every bit as expensive as older people.  

There may be many potential solutions to this problem, but as long as people insist on maintaining the status quo and protecting the businesses that profit from health-care then the only solutions are overly expensive and play into the business model that doesn't work.

Health insurance is the exception and not the rule.  Virtually every other kind of insurance is intended to protect assets (at least until it is paid off) or to provide legal protections against lawsuits.  There is no instance of where an insurance company acts as the "middle man" between the customer and the business (except in health care).   This is an artificial construct in market economics and is the single biggest cause of our expenses because no one has to address the problem when there is a payer in the middle profiting from this arrangement.

Hello! Thanks for posting about our campaign to spread the word about health reform. This is such an important issue to moms and families. We hear from our members on this all the time-- real moms, dads, grandparents, even people without kids. Yep, I'm a real mom working from my laptop at home, as are all our staff. Please feel free to email me back with your questions anytime!

Bigot
Grassroot healthcare reform will start regardless of what the Federal government does. The people have the power and they will FORCE their own local governments to provide universal healthcare just like San Francisco.

Hank's picture
I don't think you know what the word 'bigot' means.    San Francisco does not provide universal health care and California could well be the first state in US history to declare bankruptcy because it spends too much on special interests.   The mayor of SF had to give up on the race for governor because he's too fringe kooky even for most Californians.

Generally, the only people who want to be like SF can't do math.

Bigot is a 16th centry name for people who disagree with you.

After many years living under socialized health care, and many other years under private health care, I would like to read the fine print before deciding whether or not to support the latest proposals in Washington.

I guess you could call this topic social science, or political science, but it clearly belongs in some science category.

In socialized health care the lower income half of society is covered by something like Medicare, but with very small co-pay or none, and fewer restrictions on services.

The other half of society gets the same benefits from an employer, usually through an insurance company.

Care is largely standardized, and virtually free to everyone. So it is abused, leading to rationing and long waiting times. Otherwise some people would use hospitals like hotels, when the plumbing at home needs repair.

Emergency treatment service has the largest difference to what we see in the states.

During years of residence in Europe, I saw people lying in the street for an hour or more begging for emergency medical care. An official, usually a medical doctor, or other trained person must decide if the need is genuine or fake. The local police stand by to direct traffic around the person and prevent a passerby from giving first aid. First aid is allowed before the police arrive. Then the health care rules tale over.

The fastest emergency response I saw was 45 minutes for a car crash in front of a hospital, with blood loss, cracked skull, and broken bones. After that the hospital care was very good, like one of the best American hospitals.

In the states many people are not getting the care they need, and other people are getting care they don't need, even when it detrimental to health. With a good insurance plan I feel like a victim of racketeering on occasions when I go for health care in USA. In those situations it helps a lot to ask advice from friends about where to get health care and how to make decisions about the type of care to get.

Your health care is poorly managed in the United States unless you manage it your self.

In socialized medicine, management takes 2/3 of the budget, so people pay higher taxes on average and get less health care. Those highly developed wealthy countries in Europe still only spend about half as much as we spend per person in the United States on health care.

As I get older and well into the senior category, my opinions on socialized medicine have changed slowly.

The biggest change in my opinions about socialized medicine compared to deregulation and operation of a free market place, occurred at the end of the previous administration, which produced an financial panic in an election year. Everyone should realize there is no future in that type of leadership.

So I lived long enough to see the end of communism, and long enough to see the end of capitalism.

Now socialism is on the rise again in all of the foreign countries where I have professional contacts. I wonder if I will live long enough to see the end of socialism, and how high the tax rates will go before then.

It's a scientific question. Social science? Or Political science?

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.