Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Healthcare Mathematics: No Health Care = People Die

[c]2007 by Richard L Zorek

Health is a valuable commodity in America. The healthier one is, the more they can accomplish it seems (though there are exceptions to that rule). Businessmen know this and know that people will often pay a lot for their health. So they have made "healthcare" a profitable business for them by exploiting that fact. The problem with that business-ideology is that the health industry then truly caters to the rich and well-to-do. If you are rich and can afford a good doctor or good insurance, you have a better chance of lving longer and feeling better quicker when you are ill. If you are not...you could have a long hard road ahead of you.


American politics is just that "American politics." I recollect a Black Hills State University professor who used to describe politics as simply "the sruggle for power." It seemed like a shallow definition, but I have come to realize that that is really all it is. There is no right or wrong in American politics: just who has more power. There seems to be a growing number of politicians who spend all their time just trying to see "who can stay in power the longest." Sometimes that involves actually being in touch with the needs of the people, but more often than not, it just means having the most money and the slickest campaign. A bunch of "yes" men doesn't hurt. A lot of important issues get lost in the crossfire as polticians battle each other for power. Health care is one of those. The politicans, who get their health care from their government jobs are mostly clueless. The victims of their ignorance are the poor people and the uninsured.

Then there's Social Security and Disability. The stories I have heard and still hear are just pathetic. People who end up with disabilities have to fight in order to get approved to receive any aid. And the process itself can be emotionally draining. There are attorneys who specialize in this. Although, when you are applying, the office personnel will often say "you worked for this" or "you are entitled to it." This really isn't so when it comes to actually getting it. Sometimes after a few years of appeals you might get it. By then, as if the disability wasn't devasting enough, everything else in your life has been pretty much devastated also.

Social Workers for the most part are first and foremost employees of the state. A lot of them do get into the business because they have a heart for people and want to help. Government rules and regulations do not cater to that. The focus of the government's rules when it comes to these kinds of programs is to not spend anything they shouldnt have to spend. Although they don't seem to have any problem dumping money on irrelevant pork barrel projects in order to help their own state or PR standing. Being careful with how money is spent is good business. The problem is that people that need the help then become a business tool. Having been involved in the system I get a little tired of the catch-all phrase "I understand," but if they truly understood I might have receieved the medical help I needed when I needed it most.

For many years I was outside the system. I had insurance and if a health problem arose, it was covered. I remember reading something by Thomas Sowell: "Neither the affluent nor the poor are being denied access to health care, whether or not they have health insurance. The uninisured may not be given cosmetic surgeyr, and they may have to wait in line in clincis and emergency rooms, but they are not denied medical care." I embraced that back in 1995 and even put it in my newsletter. It made me feel better knowing that that was so. But, as I had to enter the world of the uninsiured I find that Thomas Sowell was very wrong and I was wrong to believe him and those who embraced his ideology. The fact of the matter is that there are two health care systems in America: one for the rich and one for the poor. The one for the poor and uninsured is, for the most part a mess and very hard to get into. And if you do get into it, many are charged as though they were a part of the "rich" side of healthcare. And if their illness had not destroyed their life be free, then the medical administrators send out collection agencies to devour anything you might have left. The hospitals and medical agencies don't care....but they might say "I understand," while at the same time destroy your credit or have a collection agency garnish your wages.


The new Democratic congress has a "health care" buzz around it, but so did many candidates from both parties. The new Bush proposal for health care helps the middle class and rich and does nothing for anyone else. So the Bush administration is continuing its policy of ignorance on the subject of health care. The fact of the matter is that tax cuts and breaks don't help those who have lower incomes or no incomes.

There is no way to end this article, because the battle is still going on. Life has no guarantees and when health becomes an issue we often find we have little or no warranty. So, this article will be continued.......

Monday, January 22, 2007

The Entertainment Value of News (Or, How CNN Helped Destroy the World)

[c]2007 by Richard L Zorek

Once upon a time, in days of old, people got their TV news every evening. It was usually to the point and delivered in a few words. If one needed more information, there was the newspaper or in some cases some extra news show like "60 Minutes," "Face The nation," or "Meet the Press."

When Cable TV started to expand during the 80s, along with specialized channels for movies and shopping, came specialized news channels. CNN (Cable News Network) was launched on June 1, 2005 by Turner Broadcasting CEO, Ted Turner. Soon came all the other news channels like MSNBC and Fox. But, CNN, goes on record has having started the path to news media chaos.


Now, you have the ability to deliver news every hour on the hour and even on the half hour. What do you do to fill in the time in between? I believe it is that dilemma that has contributed to TV-News and its credibility issue. In order to fill minutes, news teams have had to interview the friend of a friend of friends in order to draw out a story. And if there is interest, all the other news channels do the same. They are often not credible and the "experts" aren't that expert. But they are loaded with opinion.


And how do they decide if there is interest? Not necessarily by importance as much as how many watch and how much advertising investors are interested in financing. It didn't take long before news became entertainment, image and and a financial investment.


The problems with all this is that it still come to us under the title called "news." Granted, there is some news, but in most cases that seems secondary to everything else.

Predominantly, anchors are exceptionally good looking men or women. Not that good looking women or men can't be good news people, but how much did their looks play into their ability to get their job? Alex Witt? I think she is beautiful and I will admit I have watched her because of that. She came to MSNBC in 1999 and had previous reporting experience. And I am not suggesting she used her looks to get her job because, of course, I do not know and no one would admit it if it were so. But her looks certainly do not hurt her popularity. We are, after all, largely an "image driven" society.


And what news is interesting and will drive people to watch? Scott Peterson? OJ Simpson? Rosie vs Trump? I can't tell you how many reporters and anchors seemed to add an "disclaimer" suggesting the Rosie vs. Trump feud was ridiculous, but then went on to report it over and over again. Was the Laci Peterson murder an isolated incident in the USA? No. There were others similar. This one just happened to catch the attention of someone in the media and it. This story became fodder for the news media and elevated Scott Peterson to notoriety he did not deserve.

Then comes the case of the two boys who had been kidnapped by Michael Devlin in Missouri. Immediately upon their discovery, this became a media circus. Reporters interviewed people who lived in the apartment complex and "just heard noises" and though they knew they shouldn't ask the kids anything, they certainly tried. Even Oprah Winfrey got in on it. (Although I will also fault the Hornbeck parents for getting involved in that one). Then there is the New York Times reporter who somehow got an interview with Devlin in jail. Followed by new stations reporting that this probably shouldn't have been done but, at the same time, reporting what they say shouldn't have been done. And how much further will it go? I do not believe any of these reporters were motivated by their "right to know" creed they taut so often, but rather they did it for ratings. They did it to get an edge. It is what American journalism and news reporting has evolved into.


As with any issues, the media has so much time to create and re-create stories. Many stories would probably pass without incident, except, the news media has to fill some time. They have to edge out their competing station. They have to make it sensational to sell. The answer? Unfortunately there isn't one. The media is like politicians who spend more time campaigning then actually doing something productive. In that case we as citizens have to fend for ourselves often against them. With the media, we have to fend for ourselves to find out what is really going on.

Sunday, January 21, 2007

American Idol: Calculated PR




"American Idol"


REVIEW: American Idol: Simon Cowell, Paula Abdul, Randy Jackson. Just entering its sixth season, it appears to be a show that isn't going to stop. But, it is a show that has entertainment for all. It is usally as enjoyable to watch the people in the auditions as it is to watch those who actually make the competition. Though it is kind of sad that some of the people in the auditions probably think they can sing. It's like that awful karaoke singer who gets up and sings everytime because she or he has convinced themselves they truly have talent. Clearly, some show up just to get on TV and be part of the "in" thing even though they know they have no talent. All the controversies that follow the show are just soundbytes that make it stronger. And every competition....if it is really looking for a true winner....needs critic like Simon. As the new season premiered, two issues kept American Idol before the press: an interview with Paula Abdul where she appeared drunk or falling asleep, and some really cruel comments by the judges toward some contestants. Excecutive Producer Ken Warwick, however, made no apologies. And why would he? The cruel comments could have been edited out, but they were purposely left in. That was no mistake. And, I dont think there is anything going on with Paula as far as drugs, but maybe she is a better actress than we give her credit for. The incidents bought them soundbytes and new interest in the show. American Idol does not have "controversies," just calculated PR stunts. And they work every year.

Thumbs Up!!! Michellle Arrow to Trump: I quit!!

Michelle Arrow was a 34 year old contestant on Donald Trumps's "The Apprentice: LA." Tonight (01.21.07), she quit, instead of being fired. The reasons: the interview process. She cited specifically the "living in a tent"
as part of the process. Amen to her!!! No one should have to do such degrading stuff to get a job, no matter how important the CEO thinks he is. Donald Trump, in the board room, tried to turn the tables and make it look like she was a quitter--but, though she did technically quit--it was not one of defeat. Sometimes you have to draw the line.