vibinc

After 18 years of intrigue at City Hall the time is right for someone boring to take the reigns. Who that person is, is still to be decided, but whomever it is must be willing to take a back seat personally, to the issues surrounding the city in an effort to bring economic opportunity, enhanced city services, and social justice to a community that has been fraught with discord since before I arrived here in 2004.

Brad Watkins’ post at Confessions of a West Tennessee Liberal, is spot on…ISSUES FIRST, personalities and relationships should be a distant second…if not third.

So far, there are at least a dozen candidates kicking around the idea of running for Mayor. Already, people are picking sides based on previous relationships. I understand this on one level. A candidate’s past actions are often the best barometer of their future performance, but it shouldn’t be the only test. What is their vision for the future? What are their key goals? How will they govern? These are all the boring, non-tabloidy questions that voters need to be asking in this shortened election cycle.

The reality is that Memphians have been voting for style over substance in the City Mayor’s office for a very long time. The return on this investment has been the total stagflation of progress at City Hall. No new ideas, no new growth, and a higher costs for citizens (in terms of declines in quality of life, taxation v. ROI, and political strife v. smooth governance). Continuing this trend is a recipe for not just continued disaster, but escalating decline in a city that has seen little or no growth in quite some time.

Despite Mayor Herenton’s concerns that the “right” people may not be running or may not win, his decision to resign the office of Mayor means that, short of filing to run in the special election, he either has to get behind his favored candidate, or deal with the consequences of his actions. Remember, it was the Mayor that created this scenario. If he doesn’t like the outcome, he has no one to blame but himself.

The truth of the matter is that Memphis and Shelby Co. have done a poor job of grooming future leaders in a way that creates viable alternatives outside the established powers. Sure there are programs and groups dedicated to building new leaders, but the political establishment of the city and county hamstrings this effort through rigid coalitions of the consiglieri. If you’re not in, you’re out of luck around here. It’s one of the things that has been a persistent problem in this city for far longer than Herenton’s tenure at City Hall, or anywhere else in public life.

These coalitions are designed to maintain established powers and ensure that nothing happens, no matter how beneficial to the community, without their approval. Sure, some have tried to buck this system, but they have received no future support from their efforts.

The “personality campaigns” merely feed this effort to stifle positive change. Voters are distracted by personality, something that is far easier for a compliant public to wrap their collective heads around than policy or ideas that are sold to the public by these “personality merchants” as eggheaded. Rather than debate the proposals on their merits we are fed a steady diet of name-calling and innuendo, designed specifically to distract us from the lack of vision from which many of these “leaders” suffer.

So yeah, I’m ready for a boring Mayor, because a boring Mayor may just be the prescription this city needs to get out of the rut we’ve dug over decades of ineffective leadership brought on by a system that has been hijacked and shackled to a very small, self-interested population.

Bring on the boring, but make sure your ideas are exciting. Boring for boring’s sake isn’t going to get my motor going. Come to the table with some serious and well thought out ideas and I’ll work my ass off to get you elected.

A little birdy dropped this fine piece of testimony in my lap overnight. In it, former CIGNA executive Wendell Potter describes just how important profit is over care in the current healthcare system in the US. From the testimony:

The average family doesn’t understand how Wall Street’s dictates determine whether they will be offered coverage, whether they can keep it, and how much they’ll be charged for it. But, in fact, Wall Street plays a powerful role. The top priority of for-profit companies is to drive up the value of their stock. Stocks fluctuate based on companies’ quarterly reports, which are discussed every three months in conference calls with investors and analysts. On these calls, Wall Street looks investors and analysts look for two key figures: earnings per share and the medical-loss ratio, or medical “benefit” ratio, as the industry now terms it. That is the ratio between what the company actually pays out in claims and what it has left over to cover sales, marketing, underwriting and other administrative expenses and, of course, profits.

To win the favor of powerful analysts, for-profit insurers must prove that they made more money during the previous quarter than a year earlier and that the portion of the premium going to medical costs is falling. Even very profitable companies can see sharp declines in stock prices moments after admitting they’ve failed to trim medical costs. I have seen an insurer’s stock price fall 20 percent or more in a single day after executives disclosed that the company had to spend a slightly higher percentage of premiums on medical claims during the quarter than it did during a previous period. The smoking gun was the company’s first-quarter medical loss ratio, which had increased from 77.9% to 79.4% a year later.

All “for profit” companies have a duty to return value or profits to their investors. When the company sells some other commodity, service or product we expect that cost cutting will be a tactic in a larger strategy to ensure that shareholders are rewarded for their investment. This, however, takes an odd turn when the health of a nation is sold as a commodity in such a way that neglects the supposed aim of the company, to provide health insurance. It becomes even more alarming when profit becomes the ONLY motive, leaving insurers few options to positively impact their bottom line.

To help meet Wall Street’s relentless profit expectations, insurers routinely dump policyholders who are less profitable or who get sick. Insurers have several ways to cull the sick from their rolls. One is policy rescission. They look carefully to see if a sick policyholder may have omitted a minor illness, a pre-existing condition, when applying for coverage, and then they use that as justification to cancel the policy, even if the enrollee has never missed a premium payment. Asked directly about this practice just last week in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, executives of three of the nation’s largest health insurers refused to end the practice of cancelling policies for sick enrollees. Why? Because dumping a small number of enrollees can have a big effect on the bottom line. Ten percent of the population accounts for two-thirds of all health care spending. The Energy and Commerce Committee’s investigation into three insurers found that they canceled the coverage of roughly 20,000 people in a five-year period, allowing the companies to avoid paying $300 million in claims.

Maintianing profit levels by purging high risk customers may be a good way to keep investors happy, but it exacerbates the risks to the economy as a whole by increasing the possibility of health related bankruptcies (50% of all personal bankruptcies are at least partially related to debt brought on by medical bills). Further, it is estimated that health insurance costs either have or will overtake profits for most employers, further damaging the economy as a whole.

The rise in health insurance costs has not been met with additional coverage. In fact, many Americans are underinsured and don’t even know it.

There are many ways insurers keep their customers in the dark and purposely mislead them – especially now that insurers have started to aggressively market health plans that charge relatively low premiums for a new brand of policies that often offer only the illusion of comprehensive coverage.

An estimated 25 million Americans are now underinsured for two principle reasons. First, the high deductible plans many of them have been forced to accept – like I was forced to accept at CIGNA – require them to pay more out of their own pockets for medical care, whether they can afford it or not. The trend toward these high-deductible plans alarms many health care experts and state insurance commissioners. As California Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi told the Associated Press in 2005 when he was serving as the state’s insurance commissioner, the movement toward consumer-driven coverage will eventually result in a “death spiral” for managed care plans. This will happen, he said, as consumer-driven plans “cherry-pick” the youngest, healthiest and richest customers while forcing managed care plans to charge more to cover the sickest patients. The result, he predicted, will be more uninsured people.

In selling consumer-driven plans, insurers often try to persuade employers to go “full replacement”, which means forcing all of their employees out of their current plans and into a consumer-driven plan. At least two of the biggest insurers have done just that, to the dismay of many employees who would have preferred to stay in their HMOs and PPOs. Those options were abruptly taken away from them.

Less choice, less care, more cost…sounds like a winning combination for everyone except the people who are buying the coverage. It would be one thing if the consumers knew what was up, but the insurance providers are going out of their way to deceive their customers.

Secondly, the number of uninsured people has increased as more have fallen victim to deceptive marketing practices and bought what essentially is fake insurance. The industry is insistent on being able to retain so-called “benefit design flexibility” so they can continue to market these kinds of often worthless policies. The big insurers have spent millions acquiring companies that specialize in what they call “limited-benefit” plans. An example of such a plan is marketed by one of the big insurers under the name of Starbridge Select. Not only are the benefits extremely limited but the underwriting criteria established by the insurer essentially guarantee big profits. Pre-existing conditions are not covered during the first six months, and the employer must have an annual employee turnover rate of 70 percent or more, so most of the workers don’t even stay on the payroll long enough to use their benefits. The average age of employees must not be higher than 40, and no more than 65 percent of the workforce can be female. Employers don’t pay any of the premiums—the employees pay for everything. As Consumer Reports noted in May, many people who buy limited-benefit policies, which often provide little or no hospitalization, are misled by marketing materials and think they are buying more comprehensive care. In many cases it is not until they actually try to use the policies that they find out they will get little help from the insurer in paying the bills.

With all this in mind it’s baffling that anyone with the best interests of the health of Americans would put up any roadblocks to a public plan. In reality, the primary opponents of this plan are insurance companies already committing a fraud against their customers and the shareholders that benefit financially from this fraud. Unfortunately, some legislators are buying into this fraud. Health insurers are scared to death that they may have to meet or exceed the standards put forth by a plan that actually puts the health of the consumer before profits. But isn’t that what healthcare should be?

As the debate moves forward, it’s incumbent on the American people that we stand up against the deceptive rhetoric and scare tactics of health insurers. Further, it’s important that we make sure our legislators know we don’t just want insurance, but an entire healthcare system overhaul that puts the needs of the sick above the profit motives of shareholders.

If this be socialism, then so be it. Quality affordable healthcare is a right not a privilege. It’s time we get our priorities straight and stop putting the profits of the few over the health of a nation.

In his ”Exit Interview” Mayor Herenton says he’s “not a deal maker”. Of course, he also said a lot of other things, and you can read them here.

I wonder if Mayor Herenton understands the office he is seeking? Surely the Mayor knows that as 1 of 435 in the US House, he will have to seek alliances, and that means making deals, if he is to get any amendments or legislation he sponsors to make it to the President’s desk. Should the Mayor become a Congressman, he will have to make deals. That he is not practiced in this art, is a huge strike against him.

I haven’t written about Herenton’s primary challenge, or any of the on goings here in Memphis pertaining to the Mayor, because I don’t believe any of it until Council Chairman Lowery assumes the Mayor’s office on an interim basis. Once that happens, I’ll start believin’. Still, the Mayor’s antics today, including the possibility of running in the Special Election if he doesn’t like the field cast some serious doubts on how serious he really is about anything.

What this is starting to look like now, is a man who more than anything else, just wants to be in the public eye, stirring up shit, for his personal enjoyment. By resigning, or at least threatening to, he took himself out of power to seek a new office. He’s losing the bully pulpit he alone has as City Mayor. Now he’s starting to realize this, and he’s making moves to maintain his relevance at it’s current level. It must be a very lonely place for the Mayor.

I don’t think anyone believes that after Herenton leaves the Mayor’s office that he’ll be irrelevant. Quite the contrary, Herenton will have time to carefully craft his verbal grenades to lob into the race for Congress. He will have lost the bully pulpit, but he will not have lost the thing that elevated him to the Mayor’s office in the first place, his tenacity.

What will be interesting is how much media play he’s given after his departure from City Hall in comparison to his current media value, and the media play Cohen receives. Broadcast and Print media have had a pass on covering the Mayor while he held that position because as mayor everything he said was potentially newsworthy. Once he is no longer Mayor, everything he says is a part of a political campaign, which still holds some newsworthiness, but also creates the potential for the appearance of favoritism one way or the other should the media not cover them both equally.

In the end, Herenton may not be a deal maker in his political life, but he’s definitely made a deal with the media. Herenton has made a conscious decision to put publicity over policy, his personality over effective management and governance. Memphis deserves better, but we, as a city, have to step up and stop this madness. If we don’t, we can expect nothing more than more of the same, which has been devastating to the city in the long run.

Ed Note: Yes I know I’m way behind on this stuff, but hopefully I’ll get caught up just in time to get behind again

Governor Sanford:

You don’t know me. I’m not a resident of your state or a member of your political party. In fact, politically we are polar opposites. This letter isn’t about politics, it’s about something far more important.

I was pleased to hear yesterday that you won’t be making any more public statements about the affair that you engaged in, and was disclosed publicly last week. This is the best decision you’ve made since the affair started.

The public has no inherent right, or need, to know anything about the character of the emotional relationship between you, your wife, and your mistress. You opened that door through your bizarro press conference of last week, and since then have continued to not only tear off the scab, but pour truckloads of salt in the wound.

I’ve been fighting the urge to come out and slam you over this time for being a hypocrite, among other things, but have resisted. Now I think it’s important that you someone tell you to stop thinking about yourself, for once since this thing started, and start thinking about your family.

You may have thought that putting the details of this personal issue on the table would clear the air. Perhaps you thought you would receive some kind of absolution. Perhaps you believed that by airing all your dirty laundry publicly you could somehow find the strength to move past your transgressions. In the end, all you’ve done is further expose yourself as a self-centered, thoughtless prick.

Did the world need to know that you consider your mistress your “soul mate”? Seriously, what outcome did you expect from making such a screwed up statement? What was your aim? Were you trying to further humiliate your wife, a woman who has faithfully stood by you for some 20 years? Were you trying to bring more shame on your children, who are the most innocent victims of your transgressions? Whether that was your aim or not, that is what you have done.

Some have said that you need to stop embarrassing yourself. Frankly, I don’t give a damn about what you do to yourself, but what you’re doing to your family is a far greater sin than just the affair.

In order for there to be any resolution to this you have to do the one thing you haven’t done since the affair started…stop putting yourself before your family.

All these confessions, all these weird ill-advised statements aren’t about reconciliation with your wife, they’re about reconciling with yourself. You obviously feel that by making these public statements some level of guilt will be lifted from your soul, in the process, you’re further damaging your relationship with your wife, and making any reconciliation that much harder.

Stop it.

Sir, you brought this on yourself. The guilt is your cross to bear. You were more than willing to enjoy the spoils of the affair, now, for any real reconciliation to occur, you MUST be willing to carry the consequences of your actions on your own. Putting them out in public only makes matters worse, and is one of the most selfish things you could possibly do.

Stop it.

I truly, and with all my heart hope that you can man up enough to put yourself aside and do what’s right, both for your wife and your children. I truly hope that both of you can find a way to trust, love and honor each other and rebuild the relationship that you obviously once had. For this to happen, you have to take the first step, and that means reaching out to your wife and your children, focusing solely on them instead of focusing on yourself.

Reconciliation is a long and difficult road, but you must find the strength within yourself to make the first step. I pray you find that strength and do what’s right by your family, who have stood by you and sacrificed so much to make you successful in your public life. It’s time for you to return the favor and become the husband and father that you never should have stopped being.

Good luck and Godspeed.

Sincerely,

Stephen Ross

It’s not the voting that’s democracy, it’s the counting.
Tom Stoppard, Jumpers (1972) act 1
British dramatist & screenwriter (1937 - )

Since the beginning of this legislative session, the efficacy of your vote has been under attack. HB0614/SB0872 sought to delay the implementation of the Tennessee Voter Confidence Act.

The Act, passed in 2008, mandates a “Paper Ballot” rather than the unverifiable “Electronic Ballots” that are currently in use in 93 of 95 Counties here in Tennessee.

Mary Mancini at Liberadio! has been all over this issue, both through her posts and the Facebook Group she and several others created and maintained.

Thankfully yesterday, the last day of the legislative session, HB0614/SB0872 failed to get a majority in the State Senate by 1 vote, and was sent back to the Calendar Committee. Since the session is now over, the legislature can no longer try to delay the implementation of TVCA.

Unfortunately, that’s not the end of the story. Newly appointed State Elections Coordinator Mark Goins has stated that his office will go to court to stop paper ballots if necessary. Citing a dubious at best fiscal note which has been thoroughly debunked, Goins’ intentions seem less about stifling your right to vote, but more about hindering the verification process mandated in the Tennessee Voter Confidence Act.

Goins says he’s an advocate for paper ballots, but also says

“I’m a friend of paper ballots,” he said again, “But when you push your friends too far, sometime they bite back.”
And, he added, “I’m this close to biting back.” (source)

Nice, so statewide confidence and verifiability of the whole voting system hinges on whether or not an appointed administrator feels pressure to do the job he was appointed to do. Be still, my beating heart. (/snark)

It seems certain that the State will go to court to delay or otherwise challenge the implementation of a verifiable paper ballot in Tennessee, and in doing so, call into question the voting systems here in Tennessee, the motives of the Republican appointed State Administrators.

The question facing Election Commissions in 97.8% of the counties in Tennessee is a much more practical, “What next?” Are they going to hang back and wait to see what happens in court…should any case appear, or are they going to start making plans to comply with the law? What about all the training that will be necessary for their employees? This stuff doesn’t just happen overnight. It seems to me that in order to be in compliance with the law, as it stands now, Election Commissions have to get going on this, no matter what happens or could potentially happen. So I decided to ask around and find out some answers.

Turns out, it’s not only been on their radar, they’ve been looking at solutions since the beginning of the delay debate. Shelby Co. budgeted money to deal with any shortfall that may from HAVA funding not that there should be any. Obviously, it sucks for the taxpayers that Shelby and some 92 other counties have spent scads of money on touch screen voting machines, but there are lots of lingering questions out there about these machines, and Diebold the company that makes the machines we have here in Shelby Co., hasn’t done ANYTHING to answer these questions.

These allegations would be less unsettling if there were some other mechanism than just the “word of the computer and its programmer”. Unfortunately, the idea of using a receipt printer or some such other device isn’t within the letter of the law, and to my knowledge, no such device is certified under the necessary standards. So, it looks like some unfortunate state is going to be buying a whole bunch of used touch screen voting machines from Tennessee Election Commissions…or not Turns out nobody wants these so the market may be saturated with these unwanted beasts. In short, we may just have to let them rot in some warehouse somewhere.

Of course, until Mr. Goins makes a decision on whether to take this case to court, all of this is just speculation. It is good to know that, at least here in Shelby Co. someone’s thinking about the consequences and ready to deal with it when they become reality. I just hope, for the safety of our votes that we don’t have a long and costly legal fight on our hands.

Like the quote at the beginning of this post says, “It’s not the voting that’s democracy, it’s the counting.