Thursday, August 20, 2009


A WOMAN SHOULD HAVE ...
enough money within her control to move out and rent a place of her own,
even if she never wants to or needs to...

A WOMAN SHOULD HAVE ...
something perfect to wear if the employer, or date of her dreams
wants to see her in an hour...

A WOMAN SHOULD HAVE….
a youth she's content to leave behind....

A WOMAN SHOULD HAVE...
a past juicy enough that she's looking forward to retelling it in her
old age...

A WOMAN SHOULD HAVE ...
a set of screwdrivers, a cordless drill, and a black lace bra...

A WOMAN SHOULD HAVE …
one friend who always makes her laugh.. and one who lets her cry…

A WOMAN SHOULD HAVE …
a good piece of furniture not previously owned by anyone else in her
family…

A WOMAN SHOULD HAVE ..
eight matching plates, wine glasses with stems,and a recipe for
a meal, that will make her guests feel honored…

A WOMAN SHOULD HAVE …
a feeling of control over her destiny..

EVERY WOMAN SHOULD KNOW...
how to fall in love without losing herself..

EVERY WOMAN SHOULD KNOW...
how to quit a job, break up with a lover, and confront a friend
without; ruining the friendship...

EVERY WOMAN SHOULD KNOW...
when to try harder... and WHEN TO WALK AWAY...

EVERY WOMAN SHOULD KNOW...
that she can't change the length of her calves, the width of her hips, or the nature of her parents..

EVERY WOMAN SHOULD KNOW...
that her childhood may not have been perfect...but it's over...

EVERY WOMAN SHOULD KNOW...
what she would and wouldn't do for love or more...

EVERY WOMAN SHOULD KNOW....
how to live alone... even if she doesn't like it...

EVERY WOMAN SHOULD KNOW...
whom she can trust, whom she can't, and why she shouldn't take it personally.

EVERY WOMAN SHOULD KNOW...
where to go... be it to her best friend's kitchen table..
or a charming Inn in the woods.... when her soul needs soothing...

EVERY WOMAN SHOULD KNOW..
What she can and can't accomplish in a day... a month...and a year...

May Angelo

Sunday, July 12, 2009

uly 10, 2009
BILL MOYERS: Wendell Potter joins us now. Welcome to the Journal.

WENDELL POTTER: Thank you very much for having me here.

BILL MOYERS: You worked for CIGNA 15 years and left last year.

WENDELL POTTER: I did.

BILL MOYERS: Were you pushed out?

WENDELL POTTER: I was not. I left-- it was my decision to leave, and my decision to leave when I did.

BILL MOYERS: Were you passed over for a promotion?

WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely not. No.

BILL MOYERS: Had you been well-paid and rewarded by the company?

WENDELL POTTER: Very well-paid. And I, over the years, had many job opportunities, many bonuses, salary increases. So no, I was not. And in fact, there was no further place for me to go in the company. I was head of corporate communications and that was the ultimate PR job.

BILL MOYERS: Did you like your boss and the people you work with?

WENDELL POTTER: I did, and still do. I still respect them.

BILL MOYERS: And they gave you a terrific party when you left?

WENDELL POTTER: They sure did, yeah.

BILL MOYERS: So why are you speaking out now?

WENDELL POTTER: I didn't intend to, until it became really clear to me that the industry is resorting to the same tactics they've used over the years, and particularly back in the early '90s, when they were leading the effort to kill the Clinton plan.

BILL MOYERS: But during this 15 years you were there, did you go to them and say, "You know, I think we're on the wrong side. I think we're fighting the wrong people here."

WENDELL POTTER: You know, I didn't, because for most of the time I was there, I felt that what we were doing was the right thing. And that I was playing on a team that was honorable. I just didn't really get it all that much until toward the end of my tenure at Cigna.

BILL MOYERS: What did you see?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, I was beginning to question what I was doing as the industry shifted from selling primarily managed care plans, to what they refer to as consumer-driven plans. And they're really plans that have very high deductibles, meaning that they're shifting a lot of the cost off health care from employers and insurers, insurance companies, to individuals. And a lot of people can't even afford to make their co-payments when they go get care, as a result of this. But it really took a trip back home to Tennessee for me to see exactly what is happening to so many Americans. I--

BILL MOYERS: When was this?

WENDELL POTTER: This was in July of 2007.

BILL MOYERS: You were still working for Cigna?

WENDELL POTTER: I was. I went home, to visit relatives. And I picked up the local newspaper and I saw that a health care expedition was being held a few miles up the road, in Wise, Virginia. And I was intrigued.

BILL MOYERS: So you drove there?

WENDELL POTTER: I did. I borrowed my dad's car and drove up 50 miles up the road to Wise, Virginia. It was being held at a Wise County Fairground. I took my camera. I took some pictures. It was a very cloudy, misty day, it was raining that day, and I walked through the fairground gates. And I didn't know what to expect. I just assumed that it would be, you know, like a health-- booths set up and people just getting their blood pressure checked and things like that.

But what I saw were doctors who were set up to provide care in animal stalls. Or they'd erected tents, to care for people. I mean, there was no privacy. In some cases-- and I've got some pictures of people being treated on gurneys, on rain-soaked pavement.

And I saw people lined up, standing in line or sitting in these long, long lines, waiting to get care. People drove from South Carolina and Georgia and Kentucky, Tennessee-- all over the region, because they knew that this was being done. A lot of them heard about it from word of mouth.

There could have been people and probably were people that I had grown up with. They could have been people who grew up at the house down the road, in the house down the road from me. And that made it real to me.

BILL MOYERS: What did you think?

WENDELL POTTER: It was absolutely stunning. It was like being hit by lightning. It was almost-- what country am I in? I just it just didn't seem to be a possibility that I was in the United States. It was like a lightning bolt had hit me.

BILL MOYERS: People are going to say, "How can Wendell Potter sit here and say he was just finding out that there were a lot of Americans who didn't have adequate insurance and needed health care? He'd been in the industry for over 15 years."

WENDELL POTTER: And that was my problem. I had been in the industry and I'd risen up in the ranks. And I had a great job. And I had a terrific office in a high-rise building in Philadelphia. I was insulated. I didn't really see what was going on. I saw the data. I knew that 47 million people were uninsured, but I didn't put faces with that number.

Just a few weeks later though, I was back in Philadelphia and I would often fly on a corporate aircraft to go to meetings.

And I just thought that was a great way to travel. It is a great way to travel. You're sitting in a luxurious corporate jet, leather seats, very spacious. And I was served my lunch by a flight attendant who brought my lunch on a gold-rimmed plate. And she handed me gold-plated silverware to eat it with. And then I remembered the people that I had seen in Wise County. Undoubtedly, they had no idea that this went on, at the corporate levels of health insurance companies.

BILL MOYERS: But you had, all these years, seen premiums rising. People purged from the rolls, people who couldn't afford the health care that Cigna and other companies were offering. This is the first time you came face to face with it?

WENDELL POTTER: Yeah, it was. You know, certainly, I knew people, and I talked to people who were uninsured. But when you're in the executive offices, when you're getting prepared for a call with an analyst, in the financial medium, what you think about are the numbers. You don't think about individual people. You think about the numbers, and whether or not you're going to meet Wall Street's expectations. That's what you think about, at that level. And it helps to think that way. That's why you-- that enables you to stay there, if you don't really think that you're talking about and dealing with real human beings.

BILL MOYERS: Did you go back to corporate headquarters and tell them what you had seen?

WENDELL POTTER: I went back to corporate headquarters. I was trying to process all this, and trying to figure out what I should do. I did tell many of them about the experience I had. And the trip. I showed them some pictures I took while I was down there. But I didn't know exactly what I should do.

You know, I had bills of my own. And it was hard to just figure out. How do I step away from this? What do I do? And this was one of those things that made me decide, "Okay, I can't do this. I can't keep-- I can't." One of the books I read as I was trying to make up my mind here was President Kennedy's "Profiles in Courage."

And in the forward, Robert Kennedy said that one of the president's, one of his favorite quotes was a Dante quote that, "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, maintain a neutrality." And when I read that, I said, "Oh, jeez, I-- you know. I'm headed for that hottest place in hell, unless I say something."

BILL MOYERS: Your own resume says, and I'm quoting. "With the chief medical officer and his staff, Potter developed rapid response mechanisms for handling media inquiries pertaining to complaints." Direct quote. "This was highly successful in keeping most such inquiries from becoming news stories, at a time when managed care horror stories abounded." I mean, you knew there were horror stories out there.

WENDELL POTTER: I did. I did.

BILL MOYERS: You put these techniques to work, representing Cigna doing the Nataline Sarkisyan case, right?

WENDELL POTTER: That's right.

BILL MOYERS: And that was a public relations nightmare, you called it. Right?

WENDELL POTTER: It was. It was just the most difficult. We call them high profile cases, when you have a case like that — a family or a patient goes to the news media and complains about having some coverage denied that a doctor had recommended. In this case, Nataline Sarkisyan's doctors at UCLA had recommended that she have a liver transplant. But when the coverage request was reviewed at Cigna, the decision was made to deny it.

It was around that time, also, that the family had gone to the media, had sought out help from the California Nurses Association and some others to really bring pressure to bear on Cigna. And they were very successful in getting a lot of media attention, and nothing like I had ever seen before.

PROTESTERS: Shame on Cigna! Shame on Cigna!

WENDELL POTTER: It got everyone's attention. Everyone was focused on that in the corporate offices.

BILL MOYERS: You were also involved in the campaign by the industry to discredit Michael Moore and his film "Sicko" in 2007. In that film Moore went to several countries around the world, and reported that their health care system was better than our health care system, in particular, Canada and England. Take a look at this.

MICHAEL MOORE: I went across the city to a crowded hospital waiting room. How long did you have to wait here to get help?

CANADIAN WOMAN #1: 20 minutes

CANADIAN WOMAN #2: 45 minutes

CANADIAN MAN #2: I got helped right away.

CANADIAN WOMAN #3: You can see how crowded this is. They really do an amazing job.

MICHAEL MOORE: Did you have to get anyone's permission to come to this hospital?

CANADIAN MAN #2: No.

CANADIAN MAN #3: No.

CANADIAN WOMAN #1: No.

CANADIAN WOMAN #3: We can go anywhere we want.

MICHAEL MOORE: You don't have to get pre-approved?

CANADIAN WOMAN #3: No, no. You just--

MICHAEL MOORE: By your own insurance company?

CANADIAN WOMAN #3: Oh no, oh heavens no.

MICHAEL MOORE: Can you choose your own doctor?

CANADIAN WOMAN #3: Oh sure. Oh yes.

MICHAEL MOORE: What's your deductible?

CANADIAN MAN #1: Nothing.

CANADIAN WOMAN #1: I don't think we have any.

CANADIAN MAN #2: I don't know. I don't think there's any as far as I know.

CANADIAN WOMAN #3: It's really a fabulous system for making sure that the least of us and the best of us are taken care of.

BRITISH WOMAN #1: Oh, really it's not like that in the US? No. Not at all, no.

MICHAEL MOORE: So what do you pay to stay here?

BRITISH WOMAN #1: No one pays. They're asking, "How do people pay?" And I said, well there isn't, you don't, you just leave.

BRITISH MAN #1: It's just the insurance. There's no bill at the end of it, as it were.

MICHAEL MOORE: Even with insurance, there's bound to be a bill somewhere. So where's the billing department?

BRITISH WOMAN #1: There isn't really a billing department.

BRITISH WOMAN #2: There's no such thing as a billing department.

MICHAEL MOORE: What did they charge you for that baby?

BRITISH WOMAN #3: Sorry?

MICHAEL MOORE: You've got to pay before you can get out of here, right?

BRITISH WOMAN #3: No.

BRITISH MAN #1: No, no, no. Everything's on NHS.

BRITISH WOMAN #3: This is NHS.

BRITISH MAN #1: You know, it's not America.

BILL MOYERS: So what did you think when you saw that film?

WENDELL POTTER: I thought that he hit the nail on the head with his movie. But the industry, from the moment that the industry learned that Michael Moore was taking on the health care industry, it was really concerned.

BILL MOYERS: What were they afraid of?

WENDELL POTTER: They were afraid that people would believe Michael Moore.

BILL MOYERS: We obtained a copy of the game plan that was adopted by the industry's trade association, AHIP. And it spells out the industry strategies in gold letters. It says, "Highlight horror stories of government-run systems." What was that about?

WENDELL POTTER: The industry has always tried to make Americans think that government-run systems are the worst thing that could possibly happen to them, that if you even consider that, you're heading down on the slippery slope towards socialism. So they have used scare tactics for years and years and years, to keep that from happening. If there were a broader program like our Medicare program, it could potentially reduce the profits of these big companies. So that is their biggest concern.

BILL MOYERS: And there was a political strategy. "Position Sicko as a threat to Democrats' larger agenda." What does that mean?

WENDELL POTTER: That means that part of the effort to discredit this film was to use lobbyists and their own staff to go onto Capitol Hill and say, "Look, you don't want to believe this movie. You don't want to talk about it. You don't want to endorse it. And if you do, we can make things tough for you."

BILL MOYERS: How?

WENDELL POTTER: By running ads, commercials in your home district when you're running for reelection, not contributing to your campaigns again, or contributing to your competitor.

BILL MOYERS: This is fascinating. You know, "Build awareness among centrist Democratic policy organizations--"

WENDELL POTTER: Right.

BILL MOYERS: "--including the Democratic Leadership Council."

WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely.

BILL MOYERS: Then it says, "Message to Democratic insiders. Embracing Moore is one-way ticket back to minority party status."

WENDELL POTTER: Yeah.

BILL MOYERS: Now, that's exactly what they did, didn't they? They--

WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely.

BILL MOYERS: --radicalized Moore, so that his message was discredited because the messenger was seen to be radical.

WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely. In memos that would go back within the industry — he was never, by the way, mentioned by name in any memos, because we didn't want to inadvertently write something that would wind up in his hands. So the memos would usually-- the subject line would be-- the emails would be, "Hollywood." And as we would do the media training, we would always have someone refer to him as Hollywood entertainer or Hollywood moviemaker Michael Moore.

BILL MOYERS: Why?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, just to-- Hollywood, I think people think that's entertainment, that's movie-making. That's not real documentary. They don't want you to think that it was a documentary that had some truth. They would want you to see this as just some fantasy that a Hollywood filmmaker had come up with. That's part of the strategy.

BILL MOYERS: So you would actually hear politicians mouth the talking points that had been circulated by the industry to discredit Michael Moore.

WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely.

BILL MOYERS: You'd hear ordinary people talking that. And politicians as well, right?

WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely.

BILL MOYERS: So your plan worked.

WENDELL POTTER: It worked beautifully.

BILL MOYERS: The film was blunted, right?

WENDELL POTTER: The film was blunted. It--

BILL MOYERS: Was it true? Did you think it contained a great truth?

WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely did.

BILL MOYERS: What was it?

WENDELL POTTER: That we shouldn't fear government involvement in our health care system. That there is an appropriate role for government, and it's been proven in the countries that were in that movie.

You know, we have more people who are uninsured in this country than the entire population of Canada. And that if you include the people who are underinsured, more people than in the United Kingdom. We have huge numbers of people who are also just a lay-off away from joining the ranks of the uninsured, or being purged by their insurance company, and winding up there.

And another thing is that the advocates of reform or the opponents of reform are those who are saying that we need to be careful about what we do here, because we don't want the government to take away your choice of a health plan. It's more likely that your employer and your insurer is going to switch you from a plan that you're in now to one that you don't want. You might be in the plan you like now.

But chances are, pretty soon, you're going to be enrolled in one of these high deductible plans in which you're going to find that much more of the cost is being shifted to you than you ever imagined.

BILL MOYERS: I have a memo, from Frank Luntz. I have a memo written by Frank Luntz. He's the Republican strategist who we discovered, in the spring, has written the script for opponents of health care reform. "First," he says, "you have to pretend to support it. Then use phrases like, "government takeover," "delayed care is denied care," "consequences of rationing," "bureaucrats, not doctors prescribing medicine." That was a memo, by Frank Luntz, to the opponents of health care reform in this debate. Now watch this clip.

REP. JOHN BOEHNER: The forthcoming plan from Democratic leaders will make health care more expensive, limit treatments, ration care, and put bureaucrats in charge of medical decisions rather than patients and doctors.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL: Americans need to realize that when someone says "government option," what could really occur is a government takeover that soon could lead to government bureaucrats denying and delaying care, and telling Americans what kind of care they can have.

SEN. JON KYL: Washington run healthcare would diminish access to quality care, leading to denials, shortages and long delays for treatment.

REP. JOE WILSON: How will a government run health plan not lead to the same rationing of care that we have seen in other countries?

REP. TOM PRICE: We don't want to put the government, we don't want to put bureaucrats between a doctor and a patient.

BILL MOYERS: Why do politicians puppet messages like that?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, they are ideologically aligned with the industry. They want to believe that the free market system can and should work in this country, like it does in other industries. So they don't understand from an insider's perspective like I have, what that actually means, and the consequences of that to Americans.

They parrot those comments, without really realizing what the real situation is.

I was watching MSNBC one afternoon. And I saw Congressman Zach Wamp from Tennessee. He's just down the road from where I grew up, in Chattanooga. And he was talking-- he was asked a question about health care reform. I think it was just a day or two after the president's first-- health care reform summit. And he was one of the ones Republicans put on the tube.

And he was saying that, you know, the health care problem is not necessarily as bad as we think. That of the uninsured people, half of them are that way because they want to "go naked."

REP. ZACH WAMP: Half the people that are uninsured today choose to remain uninsured. Half of them don't have any choice but half of them choose to, what's called, go naked, and just take the chance of getting sick. They end up in the emergency room costing you and me a whole lot more money.

WENDELL POTTER: He used the word naked. It's an industry term for those who, presumably, choose not to buy insurance, because they don't want to. They don't want to pay the premiums. So he was saying that half... Well, first of all, it's nothing like that. It was an absolutely ridiculous comment. But it's an example of a member of Congress buying what the insurance industry is peddling.

BILL MOYERS: Back in 1993, the Republican propagandist, William Kristol, urged his party to block any health care proposal, in order to prevent the Democrats from being seen as the quote, "generous protector of the middle class." But today, you've got some Democrats who are going along with the industry.

Max Baucus, the senator from Montana, for example, the most important figure right now in this health care legislation that's being written in the Senate. He's resisted including a public insurance option in the reform bill, right?

WENDELL POTTER: That's right.

BILL MOYERS: Why is the industry so powerful on both sides of the aisle?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, money and relationships, ideology. The relationships-- an insurance company can hire and does hire many different lobbying firms. And they hire firms that are predominantly Republican and predominantly Democrat. And they do this because they know they need to reach influential members of Congress like Max Baucus. So there are people who used to work for Max Baucus who are in lobbying firms or on the staff of companies like Cigna or the association itself.

BILL MOYERS: Yeah, I just read the other day, in THE WASHINGTON POST, that Max Baucus's staff met with a group of lobbyists. Two of them had been Baucus's former chiefs of staff.

WENDELL POTTER: Right.

BILL MOYERS: I mean, they left the government. They go to work for the industry. Now they're back with an insider status. They get an access, right?

WENDELL POTTER: Oh, they do, they do. And these lobbyists' ability to raise money for these folks also is very important as well.

Lobbyists, many of the big lobbyists contributed a lot of money themselves. One of the lobbyists for one of the big health insurance company is Heather Podesta, the Podesta Group, and she's married to Tony Podesta, who's a brother of John Podesta.

BILL MOYERS: Who used to be the White House chief of staff.

WENDELL POTTER: Right. Right. And they're Democrats. And my executives wanted to meet with — and when I say my, the people I used to work for--

BILL MOYERS: At Cigna.

WENDELL POTTER: Yeah, wanted to meet with Hillary Clinton, when she was still in the Senate and still a candidate for president. Well, that's hard to do. That's hard to pull off, but she did. That just shows you that you can, through the relationships that are formed and that the insurance industry pays for, by hiring these lobbyists, you can your foot in the door. You can get your messages across to these people, in ways that the average American couldn't possibly.

BILL MOYERS: So it's money that can buy access to have their arguments heard, right?

WENDELL POTTER: That's right.

BILL MOYERS: When ordinary citizens cannot be heard.

WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely right. It's the way the American system has evolved, the political system. But it does offend me, that the vested special interests, who are so profitable and so powerful, are able to influence public policy in the way that they have, and the way that they've done over the years. And the insurance industry has been one of the most successful, in beating back any kinds of legislation that would hinder or affect the profitability of the companies.

BILL MOYERS: Why is public insurance, a public option, so fiercely opposed by the industry?

WENDELL POTTER: The industry doesn't want to have any competitor. In fact, over the course of the last few years, has been shrinking the number of competitors through a lot of acquisitions and mergers. So first of all, they don't want any more competition period. They certainly don't want it from a government plan that might be operating more efficiently than they are, that they operate. The Medicare program that we have here is a government-run program that has administrative expenses that are like three percent or so.

BILL MOYERS: Compared to the industry's--

WENDELL POTTER: They spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don't want to compete against a more efficient competitor.

BILL MOYERS: You told Congress that the industry has hijacked our health care system and turned it into a giant ATM for Wall Street. You said, "I saw how they confuse their customers and dump the sick, all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors." How do they satisfy their Wall Street investors?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, there's a measure of profitability that investors look to, and it's called a medical loss ratio. And it's unique to the health insurance industry. And by medical loss ratio, I mean that it's a measure that tells investors or anyone else how much of a premium dollar is used by the insurance company to actually pay medical claims. And that has been shrinking, over the years, since the industry's been dominated by, or become dominated by for-profit insurance companies. Back in the early '90s, or back during the time that the Clinton plan was being debated, 95 cents out of every dollar was sent, you know, on average was used by the insurance companies to pay claims. Last year, it was down to just slightly above 80 percent.

So, investors want that to keep shrinking. And if they see that an insurance company has not done what they think meets their expectations with the medical loss ratio, they'll punish them. Investors will start leaving in droves.

I've seen a company stock price fall 20 percent in a single day, when it did not meet Wall Street's expectations with this medical loss ratio.

For example, if one company's medical loss ratio was 77.9 percent, for example, in one quarter, and the next quarter, it was 78.2 percent. It seems like a small movement. But investors will think that's ridiculous. And it's horrible.

BILL MOYERS: That they're spending more money for medical claims.

WENDELL POTTER: Yeah.

BILL MOYERS: And less money on profits?

WENDELL POTTER: Exactly. And they think that this company has not done a good job of managing medical expenses. It has not denied enough claims. It has not kicked enough people off the rolls. And that's what-- that is what happens, what these companies do, to make sure that they satisfy Wall Street's expectations with the medical loss ratio.

BILL MOYERS: And they do what to make sure that they keep diminishing the medical loss ratio?

WENDELL POTTER: Rescission is one thing. Denying claims is another. Being, you know, really careful as they review claims, particularly for things like liver transplants, to make sure, from their point of view, that it really is medically necessary and not experimental. That's one thing. And that was that issue in the Nataline Sarkisyan case.

But another way is to purge employer accounts, that-- if a small business has an employee, for example, who suddenly has have a lot of treatment, or is in an accident. And medical bills are piling up, and this employee is filing claims with the insurance company. That'll be noticed by the insurance company.

And when that business is up for renewal, and it typically is up, once a year, up for renewal, the underwriters will look at that. And they'll say, "We need to jack up the rates here, because the experience was," when I say experience, the claim experience, the number of claims filed was more than we anticipated. So we need to jack up the price. Jack up the premiums. Often they'll do this, knowing that the employer will have no alternative but to leave. And that happens all the time.

They'll resort to things like the rescissions that we saw earlier. Or dumping, actually dumping employer groups from the rolls. So the more of my premium that goes to my health claims, pays for my medical coverage, the less money the company makes.

BILL MOYERS: So, the more of my premium that goes to my health claims, pays for my medical coverage, the less money the company makes.

WENDELL POTTER: That's right. Exactly right.

BILL MOYERS: So they want to reverse that. They don't want my premium to go for my health care, right?

WENDELL POTTER: Exactly right. They--

BILL MOYERS: Where does it go?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, a big chunk of it goes into shareholders' pockets. It's returned to them as part of the investment to them. It goes into the exorbitant salaries that a lot of the executives make. It goes into paying sales, marketing, and underwriting expenses. So a lot of it goes to pay those kinds of administrative functions. Overhead.

BILL MOYERS: When a member of Congress asked the three executives who appeared before the committee-- if they would end the practice of canceling policies for sick enrollees, they refused. Why did they refuse?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, they were talking to Wall Street at that moment. They were saying that because-- I guess they might have to spend some additional dollars to be more vigilant, to make sure that they were not rescinding a policy inappropriately. It makes no sense. The only reason they would have said that is to cover themselves. And to send a signal to Wall Street that you know, we're going to continue business as usual here.

You know, I've been around a long time. And I have to say, I just don't get this. I just don't understand how the corporations can oppose a plan that gives the unhealthy people a chance to be covered. And they don't want to do it themselves.

Well, keep in mind, what they want to do is enhance their profits. Enhance shareholder value. That's number one. And the way that the business that they're in is health care, certainly. But their primary motivation is to reward their shareholders.

Most of the shareholders are large, institutional investors and hedge funds. Hedge fund managers are the ones who look at the stock. And investors for large organizations. It's not mom and pop investor.

BILL MOYERS: You wrote a column with the headline, "Obama's false friends of health reform." You use as a prime example a man named Ron Williams, who is at the top of the list of insurance executives in terms of their compensation. We actually saw Ron Williams at President Obama's Town Hall meeting .

RON WILLIAMS: I would commend the president for the commitment he's made to really try to get and keep everyone covered. And I think as a health insurance company we are committed to that.

BILL MOYERS: Who is Ron Williams, and why do you use him as the example of what Wall Street expects and wants from the insurance companies?

WENDELL POTTER: He has, apparently, had a seat at the table of health care discussion. He was recruited by Aetna from WellPoint. Aetna had gone on a buying binge. There's been an enormous amount of consolidation in the health insurance industry over the last several years. Aetna bought a lot of competitors.

It reached 21 million members. And, but what it realized and what investors began to see is that a lot of the businesses that it had bought were not all that profitable. So they were in Aetna was in a pickle. And they saw their stock price starting to plummet. So they brought-- among the things they did was bring Ron Williams in. And Williams, among the first thing he did was order a revamp of the IT system, so that--

BILL MOYERS: The information technology system--

WENDELL POTTER: Exactly, so that the company could determine more about which accounts were not profitable or margining profitable. So with that new system, he was able, and the other executives to identify the accounts that they wanted to get rid of. And over the course of a very few years, they shed eight million members.

BILL MOYERS: Eight million policy holders?

WENDELL POTTER: Eight million people, men, women, and children, yes.

Some of them were shed by intention. Some, I'm sure, probably walked because the-- or left for whatever other reason, but they intentionally had this program to purge these accounts. Eight million fewer people were enrolled in Aetna's plans. Many of them undoubtedly joined the ranks of the uninsured, because their employers had been purged.

BILL MOYERS: So what happened to Aetna's stock?

WENDELL POTTER: Went up. And it has--

BILL MOYERS: And so did Ron's--

WENDELL POTTER: And--

BILL MOYERS: --compensation, right?

WENDELL POTTER: Ron's compensation and his stock on Wall Street.

RON WILLIAMS: And so I think in the context of thinking about a government plan, what we say is, let's identify the problem we're trying to solve. Let's work collaboratively with physicians, hospitals, and other health care professionals, and make certain that we solve the problem, as opposed to introduce a new competitor who has the rulemaking ability that government would have.

BILL MOYERS: You know, there's an irony, because you hear the companies and their trade groups talking about how we don't want a public option that would put a bureaucrat between a patient and his doctor. But you've just described a situation in which a CEO is actually between a doctor and the patient,

WENDELL POTTER: It's true. And that same thing happened, in the Nataline Sarkisyan case. You had a corporate bureaucrat making a decision on coverage. So, they are trying to make you worry. And fear a government bureaucrat being between you and your doctor. What you have now is a corporate bureaucrat between you and your doctor.

BILL MOYERS: Whose motive is profit. Understandably, naturally, profit.

WENDELL POTTER: Right.

BILL MOYERS: But companies, any company is in business to make a profit, right?

WENDELL POTTER: Oh, absolutely.

BILL MOYERS: So how can you object? How can we object when an insurance company wants to increase its profits? That's a serious question. I mean, it sounds like a set-up but it's a serious question.

WENDELL POTTER: It's a very serious question. And I think that people who are strong advocates of our health care system remaining as it is, very much a free market health care system, fail to realize that we're really talking about human beings here. And it doesn't work as well as they would like it to. Yeah, there's nothing wrong. And I'm a capitalist as well. I think it's a wonderful thing that companies can make a profit. But when you do it in such a way that you are creating a situation in which these companies are adding to the number of people who are uninsured and creating a problem of the underinsured then that's when we have a problem with it, or at least I do.

BILL MOYERS: This is the key question for me. Can health reform that includes a public plan actually rid our system of the financial incentive on the part of the insurance industry to provide less for more?

WENDELL POTTER: It will help. It would help. Would it rid it? No, I don't think it would, because of the for-profit structure that is now dominant in this country. But the public plan would do a lot to keep them honest, because it would have to offer a standard benefit plan. It would have to operate more efficiently, as does the Medicare program. It would be structured, I'm certain on a level playing field, so that it wouldn't be unfair advantage to the private insurance companies. But because it could be administered more efficiently, then the private insurers, they would have to operate more efficiently. And that 20 cents in that medical loss ratio we talked about earlier might get narrower. And they don't want that.

BILL MOYERS: As this debate unfolds in the next month, into the fall, what should we be watching for? Tell us as an insider what to look for that is more than meets the eye?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, what happens is they will continue this charm offensive, until there's actual legislative language. And what that means, of course, is that right now, you're not really seeing the bills before the House and the Senate that will actually be voted on. When we see the actual legislation, when there's something before Congress, and it will happen, presumably, within the next few weeks, you'll start seeing a lot more criticism of it.

And the special interests will be attacking this or that. The AMA will be upset about something. The pharmaceutical industry will be upset about something. The insurance industry will not like this or that. It's, you know, a lot of money is made in this country off sick people. And then you'll start seeing a lot more of the behind-the-scenes attacks on this legislation, in an attempt to kill it. The status quo is what would work best for these industries.

BILL MOYERS: In other words, if the industry is able to kill reform, or the Democrats and the Republicans can't agree on a proposal, that's what the industry really wants.

WENDELL POTTER: Exactly. And it happened in '93 and '94. And just about every time there has been significant legislation before Congress, the industry has been able to kill it. Yeah, the status quo works for them. They don't like to have any regulation forced on them or laws forced on them. They don't want to have any competition from the federal government, or any additional regulation from the federal government. They say they will accept it. But the behavior is that they will not-- you know, they'll not do anything after say this plan fails.

Say nothing happens. They're saying now what they did in '93, '94. "We think preexisting conditions is a bad thing," for example. Let's watch and see if they really take the initiative to do anything constructive. I bet you won't see it. They didn't then.

BILL MOYERS: Well, on the basis of the past performance, and on the basis of your own experience in the industry, can we believe them when they say they will do these things voluntarily?

WENDELL POTTER: I don't think you can. I think that they will implement things that make them more efficient. And that enhance shareholder value. And if what they do contributes to that, maybe so. But now, they do say, they are in favor of an individual mandate. They want us all to be insured.

BILL MOYERS: For the government to require every one of us to have some policy.

WENDELL POTTER: Exactly. And that sounds great. It is an important thing that everyone be enrolled in some kind of a benefit plan. They don't want a public plan. They want all the uninsured to have to be enrolled in a private insurance plan. They want-- they see those 50 million people as potentially 50 million new customers. So they're in favor of that. They see this as a way to essentially lock them into the system, and ensure their profitability in the future. The strategy is as it was in 1993 and '94, to conduct this charm offensive on the surface. But behind the scenes, to use front groups and third-party advocates and ideological allies. And those on Capitol Hill who are aligned with them, philosophically, to do the dirty work. To demean and scare people about a government-run plan, try to make people not even remember that Medicare, their Medicare program, is a government-run plan that has operated a lot more efficiently.

And also, the people who are enrolled in our Medicare plan like it better. The satisfaction ratings are higher in our Medicare program, a government-run program, than in private insurance. But they don't want you to remember that or to know that, and they want to scare you into thinking that through the anecdotes they tell you, that any government-run system, particularly those in Canada, and UK, and France that the people are very unhappy.

And that these people will have to wait in long lines to get care, or wait a long time to get care. I'd like to take them down to Wise County. I'd like the president to come down to Wise County, and see some real lines of Americans, standing in line to get their care.

BILL MOYERS: Wendell Potter thank you very much for being with me on the Journal

WENDELL POTTER: Thank you for inviting me.

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Physicians for a National Health Program

Everybody in, Nobody out

http://www.pnhp.org/cgi/mt/mt-search.cgi?SearchSortBy=title&search=single+payer+top+10&submit=Go

Key Features of Single-Payer


•Universal, Comprehensive Coverage
Only such coverage ensures access, avoids a two-class system, and minimizes expense
•No out-of-pocket payments
Co-payments and deductibles are barriers to access, administratively unwieldy, and unnecessary for cost containment
•A single insurance plan in each region, administered by a public or quasi-public agency
A fragmentary payment system that entrusts private firms with administration ensures the waste of billions of dollars on useless paper pushing and profits. Private insurance duplicating public coverage fosters two-class care and drives up costs; such duplication should be prohibited
•Global operating budgets for hospitals, nursing homes, allowed group and staff model HMOs and other providers with separate allocation of capital funds
Billing on a per-patient basis creates unnecessary administrative complexity and expense. A budget separate from operating expenses will be allowed for capital improvements
•Free Choice of Providers
Patients should be free to seek care from any licensed health care provider, without financial incentives or penalties
•Public Accountability, Not Corporate Dictates
The public has an absolute right to democratically set overall health policies and priorities, but medical decisions must be made by patients and providers rather than dictated from afar. Market mechanisms principally empower employers and insurance bureaucrats pursuing narrow financial interests
•Ban on For-Profit Health Care Providers
Profit seeking inevitably distorts care and diverts resources from patients to investors
•Protection of the rights of health care and insurance workers
A single-payer national health program would eliminate the jobs of hundreds of thousands of people who currently perform billing, advertising, eligibility determination, and other superfluous tasks. These workers must be guaranteed retraining and placement in meaningful jobs.
from the American Journal of Public Health January 2003, Vol 93, No.1

Monday, June 1, 2009

Monday, June 1st, 2009
Max Baucus Should Not Be Deciding Health Care for America ...by Kevin Zeese

The “Senator for K Street” is Putting Campaign Donor Profits Ahead of the Basic Needs of the People

Baltimore Chronicle

Senator Max Baucus and the Senate Finance Committee are too corrupted by corporate health industry profiteers donations to give America the health care policy it needs.

Health care is 15% of the U.S. gross domestic product. U.S. health care expenditures, which have been rising rapidly for several years, surpassed $2.4 trillion in 2007, more than three times the $714 billion spent in 1990. The cost of health care is projected to reach $4.4 trillion by 2018. There is a lot of room for corporate profiteering in the increasing cost of health care. The millions the health care industry has invested in Baucus and the Senate Finance Committee could therefore turn out to be very profitable.

It is evident that any bill that comes out of the Senate Finance Committee will be a pro-industry bill that will ensure trillions in profits for the health insurance industry, HMOs and the pharmaceutical industry.

Baucus has held two hearings so far and has refused to allow advocates for the most popular reform-a single payer national health policy-to even testify. Single payer "improved Medicare for all" is favored by more than 60% of Americans as well as majorities of doctors, nurses and economists. It is the most cost-effective and efficient way to provide health care to all Americans from cradle to grave.

Why aren't single payer advocates allowed to testify before Baucus' committee? Follow the money. Campaign donations explain why, and demonstrate that the Senate Finance Committee should not be in charge of health care. Senator Reid should remove the health care reform bill from Baucus and start all over before the Health Committee in the Senate.

Here's why Baucus is not doing the people's business:

According to OpenSecrets.org, over his career he has taken donations from:

* The Insurance Industry: $1,170,313
* Health Professionals: $1,016,276
* Pharmaceuticals/Health Products Industry: $734,605
* Hospitals/Nursing Homes: $541,891
* Health Services/HMOs: $439,700

Baucus has shown his bias and should be removed from leading the health care reform effort by the Democratic Party leadership.

That is a grand total of $3,902,785. Can we trust Baucus to put aside the profits of the industries that have kept him in the Senate? Will he put the people's necessities ahead of the profits of his contributors?

In 2008 Baucus had virtually no challenger in Montana. A little-known Republican was on the ballot, and Baucus won with 73% of the vote. But, Baucus sought big donations from big business anyway. He used his connections to corporations with business before his committee to raise an immense campaign fund of more than $11 million. In 2008, 91% of his donations come from individuals living outside of Montana, which is why he is more the "Senator for K Street" then the Senator for Montana. Corporate health profiteers who invested in Baucus will now benefit from his stewardship over health care reform. His 2008 donations from health care profiteers included:

* Insurance: $592,185
* Health Professionals: $537,141
* Pharmaceuticals/Health Products: $524,813
* Health Services/HMOs: $364,500
* Hospitals/Nursing Homes: $332,826

That is $1,826,652 Baucus took from these industries, and now he can reward them by deforming health care reform.

The health care profiteers knew that Baucus would determine their fate and ponied up. Now the only thing standing between them and their payback is a single payer national health care plan. Yet single payer, which would end private insurance and control the cost of pharmaceutical drugs, is not being considered-not even allowed to participate in the conversation before Baucus.

It is not just the chairman of the committee who has received massive donations. The full Finance Committee is a gluttonous embarrassment of campaign pay-offs. In 2008 the committee members received a total of $13,263,986 from industries affected by health care reform. Can we trust this committee to put the interests of the people before their donors?

The donations to the Finance Committee in 2008 included:

* Insurance: $5,103,900
* Pharmaceuticals/Health Products: $3,308,831
* Hospitals/Nursing Homes: $2,809,353
* Health Services/HMOs: $2,041,902

These industries expect to be rewarded with billions, even trillions, in profits and hundreds of millions in corporate welfare. Senator Baucus's behavior shows they have made a good investment-they've bought themselves a senator who should be called Chairman Blagojevich. He is doing his best to make sure the single payer message is not heard because he knows it is the fairest, most efficient and cost-effective way to ensure health care access for all Americans-but he can't let that be implemented because it would put some of his donors out of business and control the profits of others.

It is time to remove Baucus from the leadership of health care reform. It is time to move the critically important priority of reforming America's health care system from the Finance Committee and put it before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. At least their mission is health care, not money.

Friday, May 29, 2009

Everyone in, nobody out...

Just attended an meeting regarding the state of health care in IL and the enormaty of the issues in dismantling the corrupt system of health insurance as it exists today...

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05222009/transcript1.html

good diaglog on the Bill Moyers site

in addition:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/30/health/30patient.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&em

NY Times article on why we're only being fed crumbs...

ENOUGH!!!

Monday, May 11, 2009

Rick Scott, founder of a group called Conservatives for Patients' Rights a multimillionaire investor and controversial former hospital chief executive, has become an unlikely and prominent leader of the opposition to health-care reform plans that Congress is expected to take up later this year. While disorganized Republicans and major health-care companies wait for President Obama and Democratic leaders to reveal the details of their plan before criticizing it, Scott is using $5 million of his own money and up to $15 million more from supporters to try to build resistance to any government-run program.

The campaign is being coordinated by CRC Public Relations, the group that masterminded the "Swift boat" attacks against 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry, and is inspired by the "Harry and Louise" ads that helped torpedo health-care reform during the Clinton administration.

It's the one and the same Rick Scott who was ousterdas head of the Columbia/HCA health-care company amid a fraud investigation in the 1990s. The firm eventually pleaded guilty to charges that it overbilled state and federal health plans, paying a record $1.7 billion in fines. The one and very same Scott whos's home town of Naples, Fla., last week, a group called Health Care for America Now says of Scott: "He and his insurance-company friends make millions from the broken system we have now."

The group's national campaign manager, Richard Kirsch, said: "Those attacking reform are really looking to protect their own profits, and he's a perfect messenger for that. His history of making a fortune by destroying quality in the health-care system and ripping off the government is a great example of what's really going on."

Rick Scott is a lawyer with no formal medical training, Scott built Columbia/HCA into the largest U.S. health-care company before he was ousted by the board of directors in 1997. He was also once a partner in the Texas Rangers with George W. Bush. Scott now runs an investment firm and owns, among other things, a chain of walk-in urgent-care clinics in Florida called Solantic.

One senior Democratic staffer involved in the health-care debate said the arguments by Luntz, Scott and others are "distractions" that rely on distortions of the actual debate taking place in the House and Senate. Reform advocates note that many of the problems highlighted by Scott, such as long waits and shoddy care, are already major problems in the United States under the private insurance system.

"We are not Europe. We are not Canada," Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who is leading the debate over a health-care plan as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said in a recent speech. "We need a uniquely American solution.

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Shameful

Flashback, the campaign issue of the 1992 presidential election, and we all eagerly awaited the results of the task force created the following year with a goal to come up with a comprehensive plan to provide universal health care for all Americans. Fast forward to 2008, and another election cycle with even more contentious debates over universal health care. Now we have a plan proposing an opportunity to buy into the same health plan federal government employees use.

How many have died, how many more are in bankruptcy due to health care costs? How many have needlessly gone without essential care due to the loss of employment?
Opposition to the plan is mainly from conservatives, libertarians, and the health care industry. Why is the United States the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not provide universal health care? How can you be opposed to health care? Would you still be opposed if you had to look each and everyone in the eye and explain to them why they can’t have access to health care?

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=25945

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont introduced a single-payer health reform bill, the American Health Security Act of 2009, S. 703, in the U.S. Senate March 25. After calling for such national legislation for years, a grassroots movement of citizen coalitions, nurses, unions and progressive medical groups like Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) will surely be rallying for the bill.

PNHP calls the plan “the most fiscally conservative option for reform” because it eliminates costly administrative and bureaucratic overhead from the delivery of health care. Insurance and associated administrative costs represented one-third of every dollar spent on health care, according to some analysts.

PNHP said the $400 billion saved annually can be redirected into clinical care that would cover all 46 million presently uninsured Americans and eliminate the co-pays and deductibles that everyone with insurance current pays.

The single-player plan is at odds with the health care reform proposals now getting the most attention. Those plans are being advanced by President Barack Obama and Senators Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chair of the Senate Finance Committee, and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). Those plans, still in development, promise to maintain a central role for the insurance industry and likely would involve a public mandate to purchase insurance, and public subsidies to enroll more low-income people in insurance programs. It is unclear who would fund those new enrollments under the plans, how they would contain growing Medicare and Medicaid costs, and how they would reduce the waste in the current system.

The White House and Baucus-Kennedy proposals will be a tougher sell to the public today, particularly after disclosures about the billions contributed to members of Congress by financial lobbyists and the unpopular financial bailouts.

So what’s it gonna be this time around?

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Ayn Rand’s Credit crunch comeback
Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged
The libertarian novelist held money to be "the root of all good" and Alan Greenspan was a devotee. Why, when capitalism is in crisis, is Ayn Rand enjoying a revival?

How big is Rand's comeback?
She has always had a strong libertarian following in the US, but her magnuym opus, the 1,088-page Atlas Shrugged, has enjoyed a big surge in sales since the start of the financial crisis. It sold 200,000 copies in the US in 2008; this year it's selling at its fastest rate since first published in 1957. Sales have spiked, says the Economist, whenever the US government has tried to prop up the economy: during the sub-prime crisis, last October's bank bailouts and the passing of Obama's economic stimulus package. In January the book reached 33 on Amazon.com's bestseller list, briefly surpassing Obama's The Audacity of Hope. It is now at number 20, four places above Thomas Paine's Common Sense and The Rights of Man.

What happens in Atlas Shrugged?
Rand's fourth novel describes a dystopian United States in which industrialists and the rest of America's "producers" – oppressed by government regulation – are persuaded by the novel's hero, charismatic inventor John Galt, to forsake the world of mediocrities, parasites and "second-handers" (ie those foolish enough to care about altruism and looking after the needy) and go on strike. The strikers, or "Atlases", retreat to a mountain hideaway, where they build an independent, unregulated economy. The strike stops the "motor of the world": machines break down, factories close, Fifth Avenue shops are boarded up, skyscrapers crumble, people riot, pirates roam the seas. The litter-strewn streets become hunting grounds for beggars and criminals. In the end, the socialists who have provoked this catastrophe beg Galt to take over the economy.

To whom does the book appeal?
People more scared of governments than bankers. Many right-wing pundits and bloggers in the US see shades of socialism in the response to the present crisis. Obama's economic strategy "is right out of Atlas Shrugged", writes Stephen Moore in the Wall Street Journal. "The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you." More fanatical market liberals even predict a Rand-style revolution, in which those tired of making sacrifices for fellow citizens decide to "Go Galt", by withdrawing labour or refusing to pay taxes. On Capitol Hill, Republican congress-man John Campbell has been handing out copies of the novel to his interns. "The achievers, the people who create all the things that benefit the rest of us, are going on strike," he says.

And who was Ayn Rand?
Born Alissa Zinovievna Rosenbaum in 1905 in St Petersburg, her father was an entre-preneur whose business was seized by the Bolsheviks. In 1925 she fled to America, changed her name to Rand, and began working for Cecil B DeMille in Hollywood, before moving to New York to become a writer. She wrote two short novels before gaining popularity in 1943 with The Fountain-head, the story of a

fanatical architect driven by the "second-handers" to blow up his own building. But it was Atlas Shrugged, published 14 years later, that made her a national institution and gave the world, or at least the US, a new philosophy.

What was the name of that philosophy?
Objectivism, which she described as "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute". The only social system consistent with this morality, Rand insisted, is pure, unfettered capitalism, and the only function of government is the protection of individual rights. She rejected religion. Altruism, in her view, was evil. President Obama's view that the crisis requires all Americans to make sacrifices would have left her distinctly unimpressed. Noam Chomsky described Rand as "one of the most evil figures of modern intellectual history".

And which Americans took Objectivism seriously?
Rand attracted a group of disciples, known (with self-conscious irony) as The Collective, which included former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan. It wasn't just her ideas that inspired the group: it was Rand's charisma. At the height of her popularity in the 1950s and early 1960s, Rand cut a highly exotic figure with her bobbed hair, heavy Russian accent, dollar-sign brooches and long cigarettes, smoked with a holder. She saw smoking as a Promethean symbol of creativity and regarded health warnings as a socialist conspiracy. When she died of lung cancer in 1982, a 6ft-high floral dollar sign was erected by her open coffin.

And did Objectivism outlast the death of its founder?
Rand's turgid prose and uncomfy message made little impact in Europe, but a 1991 survey by the Library of Congress described Atlas Shrugged as the second-most influential book in the US after the Bible. Several universities have founded centres for the study of her views. Ronald Reagan was a fan; so were sports stars like Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert. But of all her prom-inent admirers it was Alan Greenspan who was most devoted. He even invited Rand to his swearing-in to Gerald Ford's Council of Economic Advisers in 1974. His 18-year reign as chairman of the Fed, during which he presided over the unprecedented growth and deregulation of the US economy, was arguably the apogee of Objectivism.

Is Greenspan still a devotee?
Not as ardent as he once was. Last year Greenspan admitted there was a "flaw" in his free-market ideology. "I was shocked," he told Congress, "because I had been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well." This admission hasn't gone down well with Rand disciples, who have distanced them-selves from their former champion. "I believe Greenspan sold his soul to the devil," says Yaron Brook, the head of the Ayn Rand Institute.
FIRST POSTED MARCH 26, 2009


http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/46853,features,ayn-rands-atlas-shrugged-gets-new-fans-in-recession

Thursday, February 26, 2009


Polish bar phrases
Popular sayings for ordering drinks—and avoiding fights—in Polish bars.

I’ll have a bottle of beer, please.
Poprosze piwo.
(Po-PRO-shay PEE-vo.)

Which vodka is the best?
Ktora wodka jest najlepsza?
(Kah-TOR-a VOOD-kah yest nigh-LEHP-shaw?)

I’ll have five shots of vodka, please.
Poprosze piec kieliszkow wodki.
(Po-PRO-shay painsh kelly-SCOOF VOOD-key.)

What’s that person’s name? Is she single?
Jak ona ma na imie? Czy ma chlopaka?
(Yak O-nah mah nah EE-mi-eh? Chay mah woe-PAH-kah?)

I don’t want any trouble.
Nie szukam zadnych problemow.
(Nyah SHU-kahm SHAHD-neek pro-BLEHM-off.)

Leave me alone.
Zostaw mnie w spokoju.
(ZOH-stahf nyeh vah-spoke-OH-you.)

Drinks for everybody!
Drinki dla wszystkich!
(DRIN-kee dah-LAH SCHVIST-keek!)


Polish Chicago
Drinking in Polish bars
What to drink, how to order it, and everything else you need to know about drinking the Polish way.

By Gretchen Kalwinski and David Tamarkin

Pay for your drinks. Don’t start a fight. No groping anybody you don’t know. There are some rules you have to follow at every bar. But if you’re trying to blend in at a Polish bar you need an extra set of edits. The first one: Don’t speak loudly and slowly to the bartenders - they’re Polish, not deaf, and they probably understand English as well as you do. For more guidelines on how to avoid acting like a typical American jackass, read on.

DO
drink at least one cocktail that’s fruity. Polish drinkers have a sweet tooth—try the bison-grass vodka with apple cider.

DON’T
order wine. You would not believe what passes for wine at a Polish bar.

DO
order Sobieski vodka. Only recently available in the States, this vodka—one of Poland’s most popular—is much more nuanced than its low price tag suggests.

DON’T
order a Bud Light. You’re in a Polish bar. Only Okocim (“oh-KO-chim”) and other light-as-water Polish lagers will do.

DO
order a shot with your beer. Poles drink their light beers with a side of something stronger—vodka, usually, or krupnik, a honey liquor.

DO
ask the bartender if he can make you a furious dog shot, which, according to TOC’s Polish intern, involves vodka, fruit syrup and Tabasco.

DON’T
be surprised if he has no idea what you’re talking about and makes you a Polish flag (vodka and cherry juice) instead.

DO
try to hit on the beautiful Polish bartender. Couldn’t hurt.

DON’T
tell her she looks like Anna Kournikova. Anna Kournikova is Russian, genius.
A huge new platform of unions, development agencies, faith and environmental groups plans to tell world leaders attending the G20 summit in April that only just, fair and sustainable policies can lead the world out of recession.

The alliance, which includes the TUC, Oxfam, ActionAid, Friends of the Earth and CAFOD, is calling on people to join a major demonstration for jobs, justice and climate in London on Saturday 28 March, five days before the summit.


Under the banner Put People First - March for Jobs, Justice and Climate, the groups will demand decent jobs and public services for all, an end to global poverty and inequality, and a green economy.

The march will assemble on the Embankment en route to Hyde Park for a rally to be addressed by speakers and celebrities from the UK and around the world.

The organizations backing Put People First say: “Recession must not be an excuse for putting off action for global justice or to stop climate chaos. The only sustainable way to rebuild the global economy is to create a fair distribution of wealth that provides decent jobs and public services for all, ends global inequality and builds a low carbon future.”

TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said: “People are angry at the job losses caused by this recession made in the world’s banks and at the slow response of world leaders to the challenges of poverty and climate change.

“But while these are going to be desperately tough times, the collapse of free market fundamentalism and the big changes already brought about by President Obama provide the hope that world leaders can change course and start to build a fair and sustainable world.”>

Director of the Stop Climate Chaos Coalition Ashok Sinha said: “We can and must tackle climate change and the economic downturn together. Only by investing in green jobs and thriving low carbon economies will a sustainable way of life be secured for generations to come.

“The lives and livelihoods of millions of poor and vulnerable people across all countries are at stake. The leaders of the G20 owe it to those most at risk yet least responsible for both the economic crisis and the threat of climate chaos to help create a global Green New Deal to tackle both.” ActionAid Head of Policy Dr Claire Melamed said: “The crisis is more than a banking failure - it is a crisis of the whole system, but also a huge chance to put the economic system on a new and fairer path.

“With rising inequality and poverty made more desperate by the impact of the financial crisis, world leaders have to step up to the challenge - and the world is watching. The time is now: to make finance transparent and accountable, to share wealth more fairly, and to make markets work for everyone.”

NOTES TO EDITORS:> > People can keep in touch with the campaign via the website www.putpeoplefirst.org.uk >

Text of the statement endorsed by organizations backing the march:

On Thursday 2 April the leaders of 20 of the world’s biggest economies meet in London to tackle the recession and global financial crisis. Even before the banking collapse caused recession, the world suffered vast poverty and inequality and faced the looming threat of climate chaos. Governments, business and international institutions have followed a model of financial deregulation that has encouraged short-term profits, instability and an economy fueled by ever-increasing debt, both financial and environmental.

There can be no going back to business as usual. The only sustainable way to rebuild the global economy is to create a fair distribution of wealth that provides decent jobs and public services for all, ends global inequality and builds a low carbon future. Recession must not be an excuse for putting off action for global justice or to stop climate chaos. Creating a just, fair and sustainable world is the only lasting way out of recession.

On Saturday 28 March thousands of people will march through London as part of a global campaign to challenge the G20 leaders.

Our message is clear. We must put people first.
Put People First: Decent jobs and public services for all.
Put People First: End global poverty and inequality.
Put People First: Build a green economy

Initial list of organizations backing the march: ActionAid, Action for Global Climate Community, ACTSA (Action for Southern Africa), Advocacy International, Akina Mama Wa Africa , BECTU, BOND (British Overseas NGOs for Development), Bretton Woods Project, CAFOD, Centre for Democracy and Development, Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, CHIC (Change is Coming), Christian Aid, Equity, Everychild, Fairtrade Foundation, Fatima Women’s Network, Friends of the Earth, Global Call to Action Against Poverty, GMB, Jubilee Debt Campaign, MRDF (Methodist Relief and Development Fund), Musicians Union, Muslim Council of Britain, National Union of Journalists, National Union of Teachers, New Internationalist, One World Action, Oxfam, Pants to Poverty, PCS, People and Planet, Progressio, Salvation Army, Save the Children, Stamp Out Poverty, Stop AIDS Campaign, Stop Climate Chaos Coalition, Tax Justice Network, Teach a Man to Fish, Tearfund, Trade Justice Movement, Trades Union Congress, Trading Visions, Traidcraft, UCU (Universities and Colleges Union), UK Aid Network, UNISON, UNITE, War on Want, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, World Development Movement, World Vision, WWF.

Monday, February 9, 2009



Just had to write... check the following link:
http://freshome.com/2007/09/08/amazing-upside-down-house/

"The house is also meant to be a profound statement about the Communist era and the state of the world. Czapiewski’s company would normally take three weeks to construct a house, but this one took 114 days because the workers were disorientated by the strange angles of the walls. Many tourists who visit complain of mild seasickness and dizziness..."

Leave it to the Poles to make a bold statement. A landmark to a remarkable culture.
One that has sustained me well these many decades. It also says we are a people of
wit and humor, this piece not withstanding. Whether you love it, hate it you have to admit it's an accomplishment.

Some will see art, some will see folly but it will evoke emotion...which is it's purpose is it not?

Sunday, February 8, 2009


Even if there is nothing to laugh about, laugh on credit. ~Author Unknown

Not much to laugh about these days...whenever I'm at a loss, I'm really not. You see I live with a JRT. Impossible to be sad when you have one in your life. Had a number of dogs share my life, nothing like a Jack Russell. I'm learning so much from her.

Her name is Bella and she's all in with every breath. That's just how she lives full out without hesitation. She sleeps deeply, loves unconditionally, plays with everything she's got and doesn't take no for an answer. Just a temporary situation with a knowing there's another moment to be seized upon. Geez, I wish I could live more like that. Maybe that's what she's here to teach me.

“Laugh as much as you breathe and love as long as you live.”

Not much to laugh about and everywhere you go there's much anger and apprehension.
Ovation TV today has lots of inspiration, a man named Pearl Fryar who made his garden an inspiration

http://www.amannamedpearl.com/

Simon Rodia's Watts Towers

http://www.wattstowers.us/

Two men compelled to make a statement in this world, no training, self taught.
A ray of light a glimmer of hope.

"I built this place to have somethin' to identify with, cause there's nothin' that I see in this society that I identify with or desire to emulate.

Here I can be in my own world with my temples and designs and the spirit of God. I don't have nothin' against other people and their beliefs. I'm not askin' anybody to do my way or be my way.

Although, when I'm dead and gone, they'll follow like night follows day."

http://www.pasaquan.com/

Ahh, all is not lost...the spirit lives on...and on...