SICKO: Unmasking The Industry Puppeteers

Cross-posted at the DailyKos

LithiumCola did a great diary this morning on Michael Moore's SICKO, and an example of some of the kinds of news articles we're seeing, and likely to keep seeing. If you haven't read it already, you oughtta. I agree with almost all of it. But I do have a little problem with this part:


So now begins the spin, the smear, the blinders from the mainstream media.  All provided in an alleged "news" piece about . . . well, about something.  

My problem? The mainstream media's a problem, but it's the wrong target here.  If you want to know how to change the puppet show we call the mainstream media, you have to go after the puppeteers.

Welcome to the wonderful world of corporate public relations.

Let's go back to the LA Times piece and see what we can learn about messing up the health insurance industry's most excellent puppet show.

We start off on the flip.

This is a coordinated, sophisticated PR campaign waged by the health insurance companies and the Lobbyists Who Love Them.  To cope with these kinds of people, you first have to know who they are, and turn their campaigns against the people who fund them.  The Center For Media And Democracy sum it up this way:

"A multifaceted counteroffensive against Michael Moore's film about the health care industry" is beginning, reports Elizabeth Solomont. To counter the movie Sicko, "free market think tanks and the drug companies are already mobilizing. ... Several organizations staging responses to 'Sicko' receive funding from pharmaceutical companies, including the Manhattan Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Pacific Research Institute," notes Solomont, citing SourceWatch. "It definitely has to be rebutted," said the Pacific Research Institute's Sally Pipes. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America's Ken Johnson called the film a "biased, one-sided attack." Health Care America, "whose Web site says it is funded in part by pharmaceutical manufacturers," held a conference call with reporters, "to discuss what Michael Moore left out of his movie." A press release from FreedomWorks says the conservative lobbying group will also weigh in, with its "nationwide grassroots army ... handing out information at movie theaters that exposes Moore's hypocrisy, points out the problems associated with government-run health care, and promotes the FreedomWorks solution of removing existing government barriers that prevent Americans from being able to use the free market to choose the care that suits their individual needs."

How does this kind of "multifaceted counteroffensive" work, exactly?  Mostly by finding credible "experts" -- surrogates for the industry who are not closely, or even publicly identified with the industry, through employment, through research funding, or even payments under the table.  This is important, since there are very few people and companies less popular or less trusted in America than health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and their lobbyists.  The only way a spokesperson for the industry can be effective is by not being seen as a spokesperson.  At all costs, the industry must keep its fingerprints off its ads, articles and spokespeople.

This need for anonymity is our opportunity.  These are corrupt connections, and given the facts of them, most people will reject the speakers, or at least question their objectivity.

That leads us to the LA Times piece that LithiumCola analyzes in his diary.  Journalists, being time poor and deadline challenged, are going to sources who can help them get their job done.  I'm willing to make a few conjectures about how Times Staff Writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar put this story together:

  1. He spoke to a number of people on background and formulated his "take" on the story.  You can bet quite a bit that one of them was an industry lobbyist or PR flack. But Alonso-Zaldivar doesn't quote this person.  Lack of space?  Probably not.  I don't think the flack wanted to be quoted.  He or she did not want any fingerprints on this story.

  2. The writer decided that the hook for this story was "Democrats in disarray over SICKO and single-payer healthcare.  My guess: the industry flack thought this was a really, really good idea.  And had lots of useful contacts and materials to make available to our writer.  Had them right there, and handy, for some reason :-)

  3. Our Times staffer needed color quotes. Now the choice of hook becomes important: the journalist has the story he wants to tell, and the quotes need to tell the story.  So either he needs to quote people who agree with his narrative frame for the story, or he needs quotes that can be "made to fit", even if the person quoted might be (and probably is) scandalized at being used in a pretty sleazy way.

Now back to Punch and Judy here.

Now, I've already made my guess who the puppeteers are: paid industry PR flacks and corporate lobbying firms.  But who are the puppets?  Look at who Alonso-Zaldivar is quoting, and look for the strings back to the puppeteers.

Now, not all (and in this story, maybe not even most) of the people quoted are our puppets.  Some are more likely misquoted, and are not very happy with our Times Staffer right now.  But let's see what we know:

  • Rose Ann DeMoro of the California Nurses Association.  She's one of Alonso-Zaldivar scary, scary radicals -- a villain of the piece. She's not, of course: the CNA are real heros here, and are some of the most effective advocates for health care reform you'll find anywhere.  The quote is likely accurate, but in its context, it helps tell his story.

  • Ron Pollack of Families USA: sure sounds like Ron has a problem with single payer, doesn't it?  Well, he doesn't, since Families USA is an advocate of single payer, last I heard.  Ron's being quoted out of context. Somebody should ask him about that :-)

  • UC Berkeley health economist James Robinson: here we need to ask what kind of research Prof. Robinson does, and who pays for the research if he is funded.  Most of his research appears to involve the economics of health insurance.  I don't know who his sponsors are, but if our Kaiser Permanente Distinguished Professor of Health Economics is getting a lot of money from the industry, we are looking at some serious strings.  And very possibly, a puppet for our off-the-record, deep-background lobbyist is pulling those strings.

  • Robert D. Reischauer, "one of Washington's leading health policy experts": Reischauer is the president of the Urban Institute, an establishment "non-partisan" think tank.  As president, one of his major jobs is raising money to keep the institute going.  We need to ask: who's funding the Urban Institute.  Follow the link; it's a fun read. Lots and lots of strings for the industry to pull, and such usual idiots as the American Enterprise Institute is on the list.  Our staff writer is in the wrong here; this really should have been disclosed. If they were disclosed, Reischauer's nose would grow like Pinoccio.

So here's your assignment, kids.  You're going to see lots of articles like this one. Here's what to do about them:

  • Work the ref.  You can reach our staffer at ricardo.alonso-zaldivar@latimes.com.  Be factual, and be polite.  We want this young man to choose a better class of friends than my posited off-the-record source.  He's not necessarily a villain here, only mistaken.

  • Help others figure out who the puppets are. The Center For Media And Democracy runs a wonder wiki at SourceWatch.org where various PR firms and their lackeys are tracked. It's very useful, but it has gaps.  Our friend Reischauer, for example, does not yet have an entry. If he is going to be a point man on this issue, he has earned the right to one.  Help deliver him from his current obscurity!

This puppet show goes on in large part because it happens behind the curtain. Let's do what we can to lift it up a bit, and let the sunshine in.



Display:


SiCKO: Unmasking Puppeteers-State & Nat'l (none / 0)

Re: "Help others figure out who the puppets are."

The puppets we have here in Massachusetts on this issue are unbelievable.

They include the leadership of the non-profit called "Health Care For All MA" (HCFA MA) for god's sake.  Their E.D. John McDonough is a former legislator who's crossed over to the dark side; another case of "if ya can't beat em', join 'em" (and make a lot more money and fame).

Follow the money trail.  Connect the dots.  Who wins and who loses???

HCFA MA's $2Mil annual budget is a first "big clue", that jumps out at you when you go down to the MA AG's office (as I did last summer) and look at HCFA MA's IRS 990's.

On recent 990's you'll see these funders listed:

> Blue Cross Blue Shield MA (the state's largest health insurance co.- the group that friggin wrote our famed Romney-Care Fake Reform Law, WITH THE HELP OF THE URBAN INSTITUTE, called Chapter 58 that Gov Terminator IN CA is copying and usign to derail SB 840 the Single Payer bill);

> Partner's Health Care (the state's largest hospital chain, a "public charity" that posted $600 Mil in profits, no i guess that's "surplus", last year)

> The state's wealthiest HMO Harvard Pilgrim (another of of our fine "non profit "public charities" posting Million$ in profits and now in a partnership deal with UnitedHealth, one of the nation's largest FOR PROFIT HMO's)

---

On a recently created NPR-WBUR "MA Health Reform" blog (that's really more of a mouthpiece for the hc industry and ad revenue source for NPR-WBUR) the E.D. of HCFA MA J McD posted another of his misleading/give the industry cover items (link below).

Somebody had to respond without holding back.  Enter Ann E Malone, RN, an extremely pissed off person/EPOP (that's me, who at this moment has a 2 yo and 7 yo boys crawling all over me so excuse my formatting here):

"There's More to Health Reform than "Health Reform" by John McDonough"
http://www.wbur.org/weblogs/commonhealth /?p=93#comments

 "  * Ann E Malone, RN, MSN posted:
      Comment posted May 7th, 2007 at 1:42 pm

     Tonight is Health Care For All MA's annual fundraiser where they are giving a lifetime achievement award to the past CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of MA, Bill VanFaasen.

     Mr. VanFaasen was pulling down over $3Mil annual salary heading up our MA "non profit public charity" health insurance co. BCBS during the period when health insurance premiums rose almost 100% in eight years in our state.

     Does anyone else see something terribly wrong with this picture?

     I'd say it's a lot more disturbing than "industry lobbyists are flies in the ointment", `tho that needs attention, too.

     Yes, let's work together for system reforms that will achieve meaningful healthcare for all, including quality mental healthcare for both kids and adults. Learn more about this ongoing work at http://www.MassCare.org/legislation
      and at
http://www.DefendHealth.org
---

   * Tom Garvey posted:
      Comment posted May 7th, 2007 at 2:09 pm

     Isn't it a CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST when the FOX is being invited into the HEN HOUSE by the biggest hen???!!!
---

   * John McDonough posted:
      Comment posted May 8th, 2007 at 6:29 pm

     Permit me to explain why HCFA chose to honor Bill VanFaasen (BVF):

     First, Bill VanFaasen was responsible for establishing the Blue Cross Blue Shield of MA Foundation which played an indispensible role in the passage of MA health reform (chapter 58), and which has provided critical support to many organizations across MA doing first rate work to provide and expand access, combat racial and ethnic health disparities, improve children's mental health coverage, and a lot more.

     Second, BVF played a major role in supporting health access reform way back in 1996 when we created the first MassHealth waiver which resulted in near-universal coverage for children, and which expanded MassHealth to enroll more than 350,000 lower income persons.

     Third, BVF played a key role in the 1996 reform of the MA individual insurance market which banned medical underwriting so no one in MA can be refused coverage or charged higher rates based on their health status -- a critical reform that most insurance companies everywhere routinely work to kill.

     Fourth, BVF is responsible for BCBSMA starting and solely funding the MA eHealth Collaborative, which is the most ambitious and realistic program in the nation to wire all providers in a state with electronic health records.

     And a whole lot more...

     Do we have disagreements with BCBSMA? Sure. But when I go around the nation and talk with other consumer groups about the strikingly progressive role BCBSMA has played in MA health reform, people's jaws drop. There's not another BCBS plan in the nation that has played such a constructive role.

     We thought this unprecedented track record was worth noting and celebrating.
      John McDonough
---

   * Sarah posted:
      Comment posted May 8th, 2007 at 8:46 pm

     But, HC-Business Lobbyist McDonough, you're not a consumer group.

     The only interests Health Care For All advocates for are the hc related companies-I'm sorry "advocates"-that pour money into your payroll.
---

   * Chris posted:
      Comment posted May 8th, 2007 at 10:40 pm

     "But when I go around the nation..."

     Er, those are travel expenses right? Something tells me you don't solicit door-to-door for those.

     But never let it be said that John McDonough doesn't sing for his supper"
---

Connect the dots between HCFA MA that lead DIRECTLY TO SEIU 1199 AND SEIU 615 for another list of unbeleivabley disappointing faux "progressive" puppeteers in this fight of epic proportions.  And to add insult to injury my husband is a 12-yr dues paying member of SEIU 1199 as a public health TB COntrol nurse for the city of Boston!!!!

Our battle to flush these industry puppets out into the open is slowly taking shape and maybe is having an effect...thank F-ing God that My DD and others are sending in reinforcements -- that's what it feels like to me.

FYI i'm in this for the long haul and to reach our goal of healthcare justice for all (I've been at it for 20 years already)...just got back from being one of the many nurses with the "Scrubs for SiCKO" campaign in DC and NH with Michael Moore, Rose Ann DeMoro from Cal. Nurses.

Did my best to speak truth to power with some of the media; it's hard when there's so much stacked against you including the Puppeteers.

Battle raging.  Many people dying and countless more being maimed by our SiCKO HC System. Send reinforcements.

Thank you.


First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. - Gandhi
by Ann E Malone RN on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 09:27:40 AM EST

Not what Andy Stern said (none / 0)

For me and (my impression) for most of the lefty sphere, union doings are strictly below the radar.

We might register Stern saying

Employer-based healthcare is dead. It's a relic of the industrial era.

But the fact that an SEIU local (1199 I'd never heard of, but it looks huge!) backed the MA scheme (which is, if I understand it correctly, employer-based) passed me by.


by skeptic06 on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 12:36:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not what Andy Stern said (none / 0)

A lot of disappointing/infuriating shit is going down "below the radar".  SEIU 1199 is indeed huge which is one of many reasons it's especially important to know precisely what they are doing if it's harming the movement toward a humane and rationale health system reform.

The current 1199 was created last year when NY SEIU 1199 merged with MA SEIU 280 I think it was, and this must have developed out of SEIU breaking away from AFL-CIO in SEIU's "Change to Win" move.  But what it's got me and many others asking is this: "To win what?!!  And for whom??!!!

You know that saying "It's not what you say, it's what you do that matters".  Apply that to Stern and SEIU and what do you come up with?  It's incredible to me that so many "progressives" talk the talk but when you keep paying attention and /or dig beneath the words a lot of 'em sure don't seem to be "walking the walk".  What's up with that?

SEIU's "Change to win" included a huge dues increase for some members.  I support a progressive dues structure, for sure, but my partner is a moderate income public health nurse and his SEIU annual dues are now pushing $1,000.

That's kinda' scary if what SEIU is doing with $1,000 of our and so many others' working family incomes is going against what our working families desperately want and need -- Guaranteed universal healthcare reform!

If Andy Stern in his position is gonna say something as volatile as:

"Employer-based HC is dead"

then imho he sure as hell better IMMEDIATELY follow up that statement by saying something to the effect of"

"Employers now have the exciting opportunity and the civic obligation to participate in a reformed HC system, one where their contributions are stable, fair and affordable and assure them the best value for their HC dollars.  This reform will use streamlined public financing known as single payer and will retain our largely private system for the delivery of care across the U.S.. It is long past time to ease the financial burden on businesses and workers and to create a uniquely American program of Medicare For All."

Yeah, yeah, it's longer than "employer-based HC is dead", I know, but...

If anyone can shed some sunshine on just what SEIU and CAP are doing on the HC reform front, I would be eterninally grateful to you.  Thanks in advance.

btw you might wanna check out these cool new sites on health justice activism SickoCure.org and GuaranteedHealthcare.org


First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. - Gandhi
by Ann E Malone RN on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 06:54:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sad but true about Families USA (none / 0)

On their About Us page there's NOT  A SINGLE FRIGGIN THING about working to create a national health insurance program much less the words "Single Payer" (unless I can't see it there -- can you?).

What is up there is this: at least 2 of Families USA national board members are TOTALLY IN THE POCKET OF THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY.

John McDonough is bankrolled by the Massachusetts healthcare cartel headed up by Blue Cross Blue Shield and Partners Healthcare hospital systems in his position of "Health Care For All MA -- the preeminent voice for HC Consumers in MA".

What is with all this "consumers" crap anyway?  It's all over the Families USA website.  Sick people are people, not consumers!  And well people are people. People who need health care services, preventive and for health promotion; we're not "consumers".  Keep an eye out for that language; it's not a good sign.  

Jarrett Barrios is leaving the MA State Senate to become President of the MA Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation.  Sell out.  BCBS plucked him for a few strategic reasons, some that are more obvious than others, including that as a State Senator her served on the Legislative Public Health committee so will have all those warm and fuzzy community group relationships to use for BCBS's interests. Just like the last BCBS FOundation Prez developed them doling our "community grants"/ hush money and is now putting them to use as a BCBS Corporate VP of "Community relations"/Corporate shill. (I know about the hush money aspect. disclaimer: my 501c3 took a little bit of it and then found out it's hush money)

Connect the dots and follow the money trail. And the ego trail. It's sickening.

Blue Cross Blue Shield MA pulled all their string in the state legislature (and they've got a lot of em') to kill our citizens initiative to establish health care as a recognized and protected human right and create an affordable equitably financed universal healthcare program.

J McD's group "Health Care For All MA" sold the HC amendment down the river. They never helped to build the amendment campaign, then finally signed on as an endorser late, and then unendorsed right before a second scheduled vote by the lege that would advance the amendment on to the statewide ballot.

In their HC amendment unendorsement letter (which I have a copy of) they state a illogical reason to unendorse and the reason they gave had existed for almost a friggin year already!  Yeah, what a coincidence that  HCFA decided to do this, 2 weeks after the crappy MA Insurance mandate law was signed into law by the Mittster -- check the footage, HCFA was inside Faneuil Hall for the signing smiling away (barf bag, please) --  and one week before the amendment was scheduled to be voted on in a state legislative ConCon.

And when the leges refused to follow due process and vote on it many were able to say to the media "well we don't need this amendment anymore, our new healthcare law is so groundbeaking that even Helath Care For All MA thinks we don't need the Healthcare amendment anymore so they withdrew their support.

This is sickening.


First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. - Gandhi
by Ann E Malone RN on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 07:41:02 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.