| Number 412 | July 15, 2008 |
|
This Week, I Beg of You: Make a Pledge Today!
|
|
Greetings, I really don't want to be as annoying as public radio and public television, with their endless pleas for funding. I'll only do this as long as I need to in order to get 10 people to become new or renewing Pledgers. Then, as soon as that happens, we'll get back to the real business—the unique blend of optimism and inquiry and activism—that is Nygaard Notes. So far I have received 10 Pledges, but only THREE of them are brand new Pledgers, or people who had let their Pledges lapse and are coming back into the fold. That means that SEVEN more NEW people have to make a Pledge before this shrill and repetitive may cease. On the bright side, unlike last week I have something in this week's edition that is not Pledge Drive-related. I take a look at something that a "human resources officer" at a major corporation told the New York Times, and you'll be surprised at how much can be learned by looking at a single statement by a corporate manager. Until next week, Nygaard |
|
Three weeks ago, on June 26th, the Senate completed the Congress's passage of an incredible $162 billion-dollar war funding bill. The House had passed it a week earlier. Maybe you didn't even hear about this, as there was not a single newspaper in the USA that placed the story of the Congress's spinelessness on the front page. Even for the Mainstream Corporate For-Profit Agenda-Setting Bound Media, this is amazing. This week's "Quote" is from the Associated Press report on the story from June 27th: "The Senate passed a $162 billion war spending plan [on June 26th], sending to President Bush legislation that will pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan until the next president takes office [actually, into the summer of 2009, well after the next president takes office] . . . Last week, the House approved the war funding measure, 268-155. [Various] domestic add-ons were approved separately by a 416-12 vote. The White House has said it supports the combined measure, which technically allowed the measure to advance without senators having to vote specifically for the war funding, a distasteful matter for many Democrats." "Distasteful" !! George W. Bush signed the bill on June 30th, making a point to "thank members of both parties in Congress," according to the Associated Press. |
|
Really, honestly, truly: I need more readers to send in (or electronically transmit) a Pledge of financial support for Nygaard Notes before the 26th of July. As I said two issues ago, Nygaard Notes gets NO foundation grants, accepts NO advertising, receives NO tax exemptions, has NO corporate sponsorships. In fact, Nygaard Notes has NO source of support except for YOU, the people who read it. Many people read it for free. But many people make a Pledge to support this project precisely to make it possible for this work to be made available, unrestricted, to any and all who can use it. For Nygaard Notes to remain vibrant and for it to remain in the public domain, I really need YOU—yes, YOU!—to send in your Pledge today. Have I mentioned how to do it? Make your check payable to "Nygaard Notes"
and mail it to: OR Pledge online by clicking here. |
|
Last fall I introduced the idea of the Four Types of Nygaard Notes readers. Once you understand which one YOU are, then you will have an idea of how you might respond to this Pledge Drive. [Subliminal message: pledge now pledge now pledge now pledge now] Here are the Four Basic Types of Nygaardians: TYPE ONE is really hurting for money. I don't expect Type Ones to make a pledge. In fact, one of the reasons I try to support Nygaard Notes with Pledge Drives is precisely so that Type One people do not "have to" pay for it. And I never copyright anything, so anyone, anywhere can make use of my work to do their own work, or just to be better able to understand our world. TYPE TWO is the person who already pledges. Type Twos realize that this project and its independence means something to them, and they also realize that it means something to Type Ones. So they send in their support to make this ongoing experiment in independent journalism sustainable. Thank You, Type Twos! TYPE THREE is new to the Notes, and either hasn't thought about how such a service is supported, or imagines that it must be supported in some way that has nothing to do with her or him. After all, most "independent" projects like this have an outside source of support, of some kind, don't they? Like, a spouse or a partner who has a high-paying job, or some grant from some foundation, or family wealth, or something. That's not the case with Nygaard Notes. Your pledges are IT. That's why I have two different day jobs. [pledge now pledge now pledge now pledge now] TYPE FOUR is the average person who realizes that they "should" make a Pledge. They have been meaning to make a Pledge. They understand that their Pledge is important to the sustainability of this unique project called Nygaard Notes. Yet the Type Four, like Type Fours everywhere, just hasn't gotten around to it yet. [pledge now pledge now pledge now pledge now] It is for all of you Type Threes and Type Fours that I do these Pledge Drives. They're not my favorite things to do (although I do enjoy the tradition of using the Pledge Drive to reflect on the meaning of independent media, as I seem to do in recent years). Really, I would rather have the money that supports this project come to me just because I wish for it. Or, perhaps, through a project like the Artistic Freedom Voucher that I explained in Nygaard Notes #332 ("An End to Copyrights: The Artistic Freedom Voucher") BUT IT DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT! Most people who pledge continue to renew their Pledges faithfully, but not all of them do. That's why YOUR Pledge is so important! I need to at least maintain my current level of $500 dollars a month in total pledges. If I can increase that level, then I can spend even more time on the Notes. That would be good for everyone. And it would be good for my mental and physical health, as well. It's a lot of work doing Nygaard Notes. Please do your part to keep it going! [pledge now pledge now pledge now pledge now] Make your check payable to "Nygaard Notes"
and mail it to: OR pledge online by clicking here. Pledge Now! [thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you] |
|
Last week I wrote about the poor news coverage I this country of a major report released on June 10th by the Commonwealth Fund. The report talked about the growing number of people in the U.S. who are "underinsured." That is, the growing number of people who actually have health insurance, but who find it so costly (due to high copayments and deductibles) that they either fail to take care of themselves for fear of going broke, or else they actually do go broke when they get sick. As the lead author of the report put it, "We're moving in a direction where you can be insured all year and still face medical bankruptcy." Somehow the contracts that many people have with corporations that lead them to bankruptcy when they get sick are still called "insurance," despite the fact that Merriam Webster's defines "health insurance" as "insurance against loss through illness of the insured." Bizarre, isn't it? In writing about this major story last week, I referenced the Christian Science Monitor and the Russian newspaper Pravda. I left out the coverage in the New York Times because I knew I wanted to return to it this week, in particular to one statement that revealed some really important things about our prevailing ideology and how it affects our health care. That statement was uttered by a "human resources officer" of a large corporation, talking about why corporations might want to be a little more helpful to their employees—er, "human resources"—as they try to get health insurance. She said, "If people are incented to manage those [health] conditions appropriately, they can be more productive and our costs go down." I'll tell you why I think that quotation is so revealing in a moment. "A Lot Like the Uninsured" The June 10th article on the underinsured in the New York Times Business section had some good points, such as when they quoted Cathy Schoen, the lead author of the Commonwealth Fund study on the subject, who said, "The underinsured look a lot like the uninsured. Disturbingly, even adults with chronic diseases, when underinsured are not filling their prescriptions." It turns out that people have different ideas about why people are not doing things like "filling their prescriptions." The Times sought out the corporate perspective, saying, "Some large companies are already alert to the need to offer health coverage in ways that do not discourage their employees from getting care they might need." The alert company chosen by the Times for this article was the large corporation Pitney Bowes, which "for example, has found it critical to make sure workers with chronic diseases like asthma or hypertension get the care they need to help reduce the odds of their being hospitalized or developing complications that could otherwise be avoided." This was according to Johnna Torsone, the company's chief human resources officer. "When Pitney Bowes reduced the amount of co-insurance for asthma medications, for example," said the Times, "it had a 15 percent drop in the annual average cost of care for the disease." This is where the "human resources officer" made her remarkable statement: "If people are incented to manage those conditions appropriately, they can be more productive and our costs go down." I imagine she meant to say "incentivize," but we know what she means, don't we? I think she means three things: One thing she means, and she said it pretty directly, is that healthy people are more productive as workers. I doubt anyone would argue with her on this. She also appears to mean that health care is an individual responsibility, not a social one. She didn't say this directly, but it follows from what she did say. If something is a social responsibility, then individuals don't have to be "incented," as the larger group will arrange for it to be done. For example, I don't have to be "incented" to maintain the street in front of my house because such maintenance is understood to be a social good, and we all pay taxes to see that it is maintained. The prevailing ideology in this country at the moment, well-expressed by Ms. Torsone, says that health care is different; staying healthy is a personal thing, which institutions (like her corporation) can only address indirectly, if at all. Real "Incentives" and Real Obstacles The most interesting thing Ms. Torsone means—and this is related to the previous point—is that, to the extent that decisions about getting health care are up to the individual, individuals need "incentives" to make "appropriate" decisions. This opinion, although quite a common one, is also quite a bizarre one. Here's why I say this: If you had asthma (maybe you do), do you need an "incentive" to go to the doctor for care? I don't think most people do. The "incentive" is already there, and that incentive is the desire to get the health care you need in order to be well. When, as reported above, people "are not filling their prescriptions"—or going to the doctor, or receiving needed preventive care, or getting their checkups, or otherwise taking care of their health needs—it is not because they are not "incented." It is because they do not have the means to do what they want and need to do. That is, the reason that people are underinsured is not the lack of "incentives." The reason is that they do not have access to the care they need, and the reasons for the lack of access are the policies and decisions of the institutions that control health care. An example would be the inadequate health care offered to employees of corporations like Ms. Torsone's. Perhaps, as the Times story implies, Pitney Bowes has a better health care policy than many corporations. Why might that be? The "human resources officer" tells us: because they've figured out that they can get more out of their workers if they have better insurance. Another reason to provide people with better insurance might be that to do so would be socially desirable because it reduces sickness, thereby reducing human suffering. But nowhere in the Times article do we see the word "sick." Or the word "healthy," for that matter. Or the word "suffering." That's what I meant when I said that the Times sought out the corporate perspective. Beyond individual corporations, there is a larger system of policies, laws, and traditions that prevent people from having access to health care. Why, for instance, are corporations responsible for people having health care (or not)? Why do our policies reflect Ms. Torsone's view that the acquisition of health insurance is a problem for individuals rather than public service, like the street in front of my house, or police protection? My point here is this: The decisions about how a society deals with its people's needs for health care are made based on values and ideology. The question—although it is virtually never posed this way in places where most people will hear it—is, Which values and which ideology will be used to shape our health care system? Will it be the values of corporations and their "human resource officers"? Or will it be another set of values, one that puts people and their health ahead of profits? Apparently the New York Times, and the rest of our daily media, only have an "incentive" to present one side of this fundamental debate. |
