As featured on p. 218 of "Bloggers on the Bus," under the name "a MyDD blogger."
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Maybe Everyone In The Country Can Send A YouTube Testimonial
Ann Minch sent a debtor's revolt video to YouTube a couple weeks ago, refusing to pay off her credit card debt with Bank of America unless the company negotiated a lower rate, which they could easily do since they are receiving interest-free loans from the Federal Reserve. After some Internet notoriety and a handful of conversations, she actually succeeded in getting BofA to lower her interest payment.
The executive "tried to get me to agree to 16.99 percent and I said, 'No, nope, I believe because you guys are getting your money from the Fed at zero percent interest... that 12.99 percent is a more than generous profit margin for you guys.' So he did finally agree to that and he also agreed to send me that in writing."
Unfortunately, it's not practical for everyone facing an exorbitant usury fee from a major bank to shame them into compliance. We need the federal government undertaking a debtor's revolt, not individuals who don't have the same leverage.
However, with respect to Bank of America we may be turning a corner. The SEC is broadening its investigation against the bank, perhaps in response to the company's foot-dragging on compliance with that probe. BofA just missed a Congressional deadline to turn over documents to the House Oversight Committee about the takeover of Merrill Lynch. And as Chris Dodd sought to hammer banks for their automatic overdraft fees to customers, BofA and other banks are moving to change their practices.
Yesterday I wrote about the shocking video of a Congressional hearing where health insurance CEOs, having admitted to canceling customers after they turn in claims for treatment, refuse to stop doing so. I'm pleased to report that we got up to 11,644 views as of this morning, and the video is already the #30 top rated of the week in the News & Politics section of YouTube. Keep going, keep retweeting, keep using Digg and Reddit to vote it up, use the Health Care for America Now page to email it to your friends. We can get this out.
And we have an ally in Paul Begala.
It's unusual for Begala, a longtime commentator for CNN and a member of the traditional media, to excoriate his own industry so forcefully for failing to inform the public. But he does exactly that here, in writing about this specific hearing, and the relative lack of attention paid to it.
You probably have never heard of Robin Beaton, and that's what's wrong with the debate over health care reform.
Beaton, a retired nurse from Waxahachie, Texas, had health insurance -- or so she thought. She paid her premiums faithfully every month, but when she was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer, her health insurance company, Blue Cross, dumped her.
The insurance company said the fact that she had seen a dermatologist for acne, who mistakenly entered a notation on her chart that suggested her simple acne was a precancerous condition, allowed Blue Cross to leave her in the lurch.
Beaton testified before a House subcommittee this week. So did other Americans who thought they had insurance but got the shaft [...]
It was as dramatic as congressional testimony gets. Yet it got no airtime on the networks, nor, as far as I can tell, on cable news, although CNN.com did run a story. Time's Tumulty was all over it, as was Lisa Girion of The Lost Angeles Times. But the story did not make The New York Times.
Nor The Washington Post, which found space on the front page the morning after the hearing for a story on the cancellation of Fourth of July fireworks in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, but not a story on the cancellation of health insurance for deathly ill Americans who've paid their premiums.
I know the right wing is outraged by ABC News airing a health care town hall meeting with President Obama next week, but isn't the real outrage that such prime-time coverage is the EXCEPTION and not the RULE? Shouldn't we have lots and lots of news and information from the biggest megaphones about a domestic policy issue that faces every single American? Shouldn't everyone have access to that debate, and all the perspectives contained therein? Since when is the fact of a television network allowing an hour of coverage on the issue that means life or death to everyone in the country something to be reviled?
And that's basically Begala's complaint here. The media is failing in their job. In a way, so is the Administration, because they need to bring the spotlight to their most important domestic issue. Robert Reich argues the same thing, that Obama needs to drop as much as possible and focus like a laser on health care in order to get it done.
Put everything else on hold. As important as they are, your other agenda items -- financial reform, home mortgage mitigation, cap-and-trade legislation -- pale in significance relative to universal health care. By pushing everything at once, you take the public's mind off the biggest goal, diffuse your energies, blur your public message, and fuel the demagogues who say you're trying to take over the private sector.
You have to win this.
But I cannot let the media completely off the hook here. The story of rescission makes the health care issue personal. It exposes the mission of insurance companies, the "murder by spreadsheet" dedication to profits over people. And until their incentives are changed, until they need to compete on price and quality instead of competing on how to get out of paying for medical care, absolutely no reform can possibly work. But that requires the facts to be delivered by a media simply resistant to them.
Fortunately, we live in an age of two-way media, where citizens can force discussions into the national conversation. And that starts with you making everyone you know aware of this video exposing the agenda of the insurance industry. I recognize that it lacks a certain amount of context; I am working on a project this weekend to provide that additional context. But I think it does make its point well enough. And when you send this to friends, you can explain it even more.
We need 10 million views of this YouTube by next week
I mentioned earlier John Dingell bringing up the hearing in the House on rescission, the practice of insurers dropping people the moment they get sick, sometimes for technical violations on their applications like misspelling their name.
I know a fair bit about rescission, because in California, it's become a major issue. Former LA City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo has doggedly pursued those companies, like Blue Cross, who have engaged in the practice, and to date insurers have agreed to pay over $37 million dollars in fines. Another case is about to go to trial. Blue Cross encouraged this with performance bonuses for employees who found a reason to cancel coverage for the sick.
Now check out what these insurance CEOs said after being confronted with all of these examples of them denying coverage to sick people.
An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period [...]
Late in the hearing, Stupak, the committee chairman, put the executives on the spot. Stupak asked each of them whether he would at least commit his company to immediately stop rescissions except where they could show "intentional fraud."
The answer from all three executives:
"No."
Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) said that a public insurance plan should be a part of any overhaul because it would force private companies to treat consumers fairly or risk losing them.
"This is precisely why we need a public option," Dingell said.
Here's the YouTube of that hearing. It should have 10 million hits by the end of next week.
Here's a Splicd version of the moment where they all refuse to commit to stop rescinding people when they get sick. In the above YouTube, that comes in around 4:47.
Health insurance CEOs refuse to stop screwing their customers: http://splicd.com/_29CCVI1ao4/288/371 please RT! #publicoption
Email this to everyone you know. Retweet. Put it up on Facebook. Do whatever you can to get this in front of people's eyeballs. Without a public option, we give our health care future over to people who have vowed not to cover you if you're sick. Politicians can stand with people, or with these insurers.
Thanks.
...Health Care for America Now has a page up with this incredible video. You can forward an email to a friend with the video using their page.
Not knowing much about how turkeys are slaughtered, I'm not even sure what the guy is doing in the background while Sarah Palin blabbers on about herself after an event where she "pardoned" a turkey. But the fact that it's perfectly framed, with the makeshift slaughterhouse completely visible behind her, makes me think that the cameraman has a wicked sense of humor. And maybe was an Obama voter.
"Certainly we'll probably invite criticism for even doing this, too -- but at least this was fun."
While Barack Obama is likely to have to give up his Blackberry after being sworn in as President (owing mainly to a lack of email security, as well as record keeping under the Presidential Records Act), he will have a laptop on his desk in the Oval Office, a first. And he just finished up the first-ever Presidential YouTube address, which will become a regular feature.
It already has 630,000 views, probably 620,000 more than those weekly radio addresses which air at 4am. The even more interesting development is Valerie Jarrett's address at change.gov, a completely transparent update on who will be leading key agencies, which has NINETY-EIGHT THOUSAND VIEWS. This is a wonky and fairly dull address about ethics requirements and lobbyists, but because it's being made widely available and people are hungering for knowledge about the incoming Administration, it's getting widespread attention.
I find this to be very significant. Obama enters office with 3.1 million donors and an email list of 10 million. How these lists are put to use and allowed to engage with the Administration will signal how much the President-elect will live up to his expression that change begins from the bottom up. By using these Web tools, Obama can bypass traditional filters and deliver action items to his audience on issues can have relevance and immediacy.
"He can do a half-hour YouTube address every Saturday, addressing millions," Trippi said. "The networks would never give the president that much television time each week, but the press is still going to have to cover what he says on YouTube."
Aides say the Obama team will staff a robust "new media" operation out of the White House and plans a complete overhaul of the White House Web site to make it more interactive and user-friendly. On the campaign trail, Obama promised to use the Internet to make his administration more open, such as offering a detailed look at what's going on in the White House on a given day or asking people to post comments on his legislative proposals.
The Internet outreach team includes some really great people, and I'm sure they will push the technology (White House Twitter feed, anyone?) in the years to come. As for this nonsense that Obama has to be careful reaching his supporters in a partisan way, I think that's a deep misreading of his Internet fan base. My personal view is that an overwhelmingly substantial portion of his Web supporters are not just Democrats, but more progressive than he is. And not only that, they are not passive creatures who have to be told what to think and what to support. They were TRAINED in the campaign to be self-starters. It's going to be a bit less about how Obama wants to use these supporters and more how these supporters want to use the technology, whether to support policy or push Obama from the left.
The other very good outcome of a President who gets technology and its promise is that it makes him more likely to sign a net neutrality bill into law. Keeping the Internet open and free helped Obama win the White House - now he can return the favor by ensuring that freedom well into the future. Sen. Byron Dorgan plans to introduce a net neutrality bill in January - I'm hoping the Congress acts swiftly on it.
And this one shows that they can do the short, funny viral video as well:
Today we're going to see Obama take over the airwaves for a 1/2 hour informercial, a testament to their fundraising muscle. But what the Obama campaign is doing OFF the air is really something to look at. These mini-docs now have a viewing audience for the first time in the history of Presidential campaigns. And they are solidly put together, with as much care and creativity as something that would air on TV. I don't know if these will be a part of tonight's program, but the off-air work ha been BETTER than the on-air commercial campaign, which has been unusually phlegmatic. To quote Christopher Beam:
It's a prime example of the Internet gap in 2008. Obama's people understand the Web—what works, what doesn't, and what's funny about it. They realize that you can take a popular YouTube clip (and a great moment of FAIL), add some silly Photoshopping, and make a better ad than a snoozy Fred Thompson pep talk. Now if only they'd BarackRoll McCain.
The impending doom of Western civilization into an anarchic Lord of the Flies mass has me jittery, so I think I'll sit back and watch this literal music video version of a-ha's "Take On Me." You should too, it'll take the edge off.
Before anybody says this is cruel, understand that Sarah Palin was apparently working with notes in that interview where she gave those half-literate answers. I think she's so afraid of making a mistake that she's cracking under the pressure, but that makes the comparison to Miss South Carolina MORE acute. In fact, those answers Palin is giving are classic beauty queen b.s. answers.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Friday running mate Sarah Palin has never asked for money for lawmakers' pet projects as Alaska governor when in fact she has sought nearly $200 million in earmarks this year.
They are running a campaign based on lies. Lies about their opponent's record. Lies about their own record. Lies on all things great and small.
And the Obama campaign responds by saying, b-but I'll offer real change! And anyway, McCain is old and out of touch!
The first ad is useless (does talking to the camera directly really work anymore?), the second ad would have been good three months ago but we're in a different phase of the campaign. Sen. McCain is lying about the record, lying about everything, actually, and the only antidote is to call this what it is. And then hit back with the truth, which is actually more shocking than the lies in this case.
I mean sheesh, if you wanted to go the "out of touch" route, how about the fact that just yesterday McCain called himself "divorced from everyday challenges"?
Ari Berman shows how it's done, you call these hacks liars, you call them dishonorable, you do it again and again.
The best political ads this season are coming from YouTubers - no question about it. Here are two examples, neither of which shift gears in the middle to give you bland slogans like "securing America's future" or "better jobs". They have a target and they attack it, beautifully.
Yeah, uh, dude, "in lockstep" and "almost half the time" doesn't exactly match. This is also a replay of calling John Kerry a radical liberal AND a flip-flopper. You can't have both. Obama either is "in lockstep" with Bush or a socialist radical. Take your pick of broad-brush misstatements.
Death Of All Marriages As We Know It Watch - Day One
In the first day A.M. (After Marriage), amazingly enough not every couple in California spontaneously divorced as a result of city clerks handing out licenses with "Party 1" and "Party 2". There actually are still married people out there, and now they've been joined by thousands of LGBT couples. And here are some of the highlights from today:
• It seems like every couple has an accompanying news article chronicling their wedding, but I think it's a good thing for now (though I long for the day when this is unexceptional and not a news event). Putting a human face on what can often be an abstract discussion about legal rights seems to me to be vital. There's a great series of videos featuring couples in the LA area at this link.
• There are of course detractors, although most of them are staying quiet for now. One group who isn't is the LA Archdiocese, which posted a statement denouncing "redefining marriage, which has a unique place in God’s creation." Maybe this is just me, but after the events of the last decade, I don't think the Catholic church should be making any statements about sexuality whatsoever.
• True Majority and The Human Rights Campaign are but two of the organizations delivering petitions in support of marriage equality. I expect many more.
• In Bakersfield, where Kern County clerk Ann Barnett has halted her office from officiating all weddings, an under-the-radar recall campaign has commenced. By the way, there's nothing new about such actions; historian and author of "Nixonland" (which you all need to read) Rick Perlstein reminds us that this is exactly what school districts in the South did after the Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka decision, shutting down entire school systems rather than integrating them. They called it Massive Resistance.
Of course, the people who thought like that then—here's an excellent article on one of them, Lester Maddox—are now looked upon as history's losers, as monsters, as embarrassments, and have no defenders. Now, every conservative claims to have always been on the opposite side of the Lester Maddoxes of the day. The people who think like this now will look just as bad to history as Maddox did then. I try to mention this every time I speak to a conservative audience: that I pity them. They should take care to stay off the record when they oppose basic human rights, because it will eventually come back to bite them on the ass.
But ultimately, I'm not worried about them (though if I were a Christian, I'd worry for their immortal souls), because, twenty years down the road, most will successfully maintain they were for marriage equality all along. Moral relativism has its advantages.
I am a film and video editor, stand-up comedian, and blogger. My editor resume is here. A sample of my stand-up is here. The blog is what you're reading right now. Wasn't that easy?
View blog reactions
