Your Medicare Withholding at Work!

[michaeledward]

The New York Times published an article titled "U.S. Videos, for TV News, Come Under Scrutiny." This article describes how the Bush administration, through the deptartment of Health and Human Services, fabricated news stories regarding the new medicare bill. They pulled out all stops; they had fake news reporters, fake pharmecists, and fake consumers praising the new bill and the administration. All of them were actors paid by the deptartment. These were sent to networks across the country, and were aired as actual news stories, despite the many missing facts. Packaged, fabricated news stories such as these are cleverly called "video news releases" and have been used since the 80's by both large corperations and government agencies. The spokesperson for the dept., Kevin W. Keane, responded, "The use of video news releases is a common, routine practice in government and the private sector. Anyone who has questions about this practice needs to do some research on modern public information tools."

This is manufactored consent at its worsed. It makes me wonder what kind of Orwellian society we are becoming? It also makes one wonder; how many other stories like these were passed to the public as news?

The full story is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/15/politics/15VIDE.html


Your thoughts ?
Mike

 

[Andi]

Any chance you could post the article? It's asking me to subscribe which is no fun. Lazy I am.

What type of paper is the NY Times?

 

[Cruentus]

When I read this, I was appalled! If this isn't evidence as to how extreme and unethical the influence of our government in cahoots with wealthy multi-national corporations is on public opinion through propiganda then I don't know what is.

I copied and pasted the story. Come one, people? What do you think about this!? :xtrmshock

MADE FOR TV: Segments the government produced for local news programs praise the new Medicare law and feature Tommy G. Thompson, secretary of health and human services, top, and President Bush.

U.S. Videos, for TV News, Come Under Scrutiny
By ROBERT PEAR

Published: March 15, 2004


ASHINGTON, March 14 — Federal investigators are scrutinizing television segments in which the Bush administration paid people to pose as journalists praising the benefits of the new Medicare law, which would be offered to help elderly Americans with the costs of their prescription medicines.

The videos are intended for use in local television news programs. Several include pictures of President Bush receiving a standing ovation from a crowd cheering as he signed the Medicare law on Dec. 8.

The materials were produced by the Department of Health and Human Services, which called them video news releases, but the source is not identified. Two videos end with the voice of a woman who says, "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting."

But the production company, Home Front Communications, said it had hired her to read a script prepared by the government.

Another video, intended for Hispanic audiences, shows a Bush administration official being interviewed in Spanish by a man who identifies himself as a reporter named Alberto Garcia.

Another segment shows a pharmacist talking to an elderly customer. The pharmacist says the new law "helps you better afford your medications," and the customer says, "It sounds like a good idea." Indeed, the pharmacist says, "A very good idea."

The government also prepared scripts that can be used by news anchors introducing what the administration describes as a made-for-television "story package."

In one script, the administration suggests that anchors use this language: "In December, President Bush signed into law the first-ever prescription drug benefit for people with Medicare. Since then, there have been a lot of questions about how the law will help older Americans and people with disabilities. Reporter Karen Ryan helps sort through the details."

The "reporter" then explains the benefits of the new law.

Lawyers from the General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, discovered the materials last month when they were looking into the use of federal money to pay for certain fliers and advertisements that publicize the Medicare law.

In a report to Congress last week, the lawyers said those fliers and advertisements were legal, despite "notable omissions and other weaknesses." Administration officials said the television news segments were also a legal, effective way to educate beneficiaries.

Gary L. Kepplinger, deputy general counsel of the accounting office, said, "We are actively considering some follow-up work related to the materials we received from the Department of Health and Human Services."

One question is whether the government might mislead viewers by concealing the source of the Medicare videos, which have been broadcast by stations in Oklahoma, Louisiana and other states.

Federal law prohibits the use of federal money for "publicity or propaganda purposes" not authorized by Congress. In the past, the General Accounting Office has found that federal agencies violated this restriction when they disseminated editorials and newspaper articles written by the government or its contractors without identifying the source.

Kevin W. Keane, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said there was nothing nefarious about the television materials, which he said had been distributed to stations nationwide. Under federal law, he said, the government is required to inform beneficiaries about changes in Medicare.

"The use of video news releases is a common, routine practice in government and the private sector," Mr. Keane said. "Anyone who has questions about this practice needs to do some research on modern public information tools."

But Democrats disagreed. "These materials are even more disturbing than the Medicare flier and advertisements," said Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey. "The distribution of these videos is a covert attempt to manipulate the press."

Mr. Lautenberg, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and seven other members of Congress requested the original review by the accounting office.


U.S. Videos, for TV News, Come Under Scrutiny

Published: March 15, 2004


(Page 2 of 2)


In the videos and advertisements, the government urges beneficiaries to call a toll-free telephone number, 1-800-MEDICARE. People who call that number can obtain recorded information about prescription drug benefits if they recite the words "Medicare improvement."

Documents from the Medicare agency show why the administration is eager to advertise the benefits of the new law, on radio and television, in newspapers and on the Internet.

"Our consumer research has shown that beneficiaries are confused about the Medicare Modernization Act and uncertain about what it means for them," says one document from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Other documents suggest the scope of the publicity campaign: $12.6 million for advertising this winter, $18.5 million to publicize drug discount cards this spring, about $18.5 million this summer, $30 million for a year of beneficiary education starting this fall and $44 million starting in the fall of 2005.

"Video news releases" have been used for more than a decade. Pharmaceutical companies have done particularly well with them, producing news-style health features about the afflictions their drugs are meant to cure.

The videos became more prominent in the late 1980's, as more and more television stations cut news-gathering budgets and were glad to have packaged news bits to call their own, even if they were prepared by corporations seeking to sell products.

As such, the videos have drawn criticism from some news media ethicists, who consider them to be at odds with journalism's mission to verify independently the claims of corporations and governments.

Government agencies have also produced such videos for years, often on subjects like teenage smoking and the dangers of using steroids. But the Medicare materials wander into more controversial territory.

Bill Kovach, chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists, expressed disbelief that any television stations would present the Medicare videos as real news segments, considering the current debate about the merits of the new law.

"Those to me are just the next thing to fraud," Mr. Kovach said. "It's running a paid advertisement in the heart of a news program."


Jim Rutenberg contributed reporting for this article.

 

[Ender]

*LOL..it's the NY TIMES!!...you might as well have gotten the story out of the National Enquirer*L

 

[Cruentus]

*LOL..it's the NY TIMES!!...you might as well have gotten the story out of the National Enquirer*L

The NY TImes is credible enough, even if they are a bit "liberal" in their world view.

But, excuse me, ender? What is so far fetched in the idea that large companies and government agencies with the dollars to spend pay big bucks for a packaged story to be aired as news? I see it in fitness mags all the time, where at the end of an 8 page "article" you are being told to buy hydroxycuts, or some other product; that was written, produced, and paid for by the company who is selling the product.

And, in the article, Keane (spokesperson of the Dept. of Health and Human Services) Said, "The use of video news releases is a common, routine practice in government and the private sector. Anyone who has questions about this practice needs to do some research on modern public information tools."

Was this commentary just fabricated by the NY Times as well?

I think that some questions need to be asked here, instead of brushing off the information because its source doesn't agree with your world view.

I am in wonder myself as to why this story wasn't widely covered by other sources, even though I think I may have an answer. I wonder how true it is, to what extent this is done, and why this is legal? I have a lot of unanswered questions myself.

I could look for answers. Or, I could just laugh at the source because it doesn't fit my view of the world.

 

[oldnewbie]

I read the article, and found nothing that says the information given in the promos was incorrect, just that the "Actors" were not real reporters.

Should there have been a disclaimer, probably..., not a big problem from my P.O.V.

When I read this, I was appalled! If this isn't evidence as to how extreme and unethical the influence of our government in cahoots with wealthy multi-national corporations is on public opinion through propiganda then I don't know what is.

Isn;t this staement a bit over the top for the actual problem?

 

[MisterMike]

I saw that the "reporters" were not "journalists" but where are the fake doctors and clients? Did it explicitely state that? Just curious is all...

 

[Cruentus]

I read the article, and found nothing that says the information given in the promos was incorrect, just that the "Actors" were not real reporters.

Should there have been a disclaimer, probably..., not a big problem from my P.O.V.

That is the whole problem with the process of "manufactored consent" or government and large companies manufactoring the ideas and the consent of the public. It is often seen as "no big deal" because a few of the facts may be accurate. But, often, your not getting ALL OF THE FACTS. Furthermore, when you have actors playing "the public" who are talking about how great something is, it creates the illusion that the public supports that something, when this isn't nessicarily true.

It is all about presenting the information to fabricate your acceptance of a biased viewpoint, not the information in itself. My momma always told me that not telling the whole truth can be just as bad as lying. Heck, sometimes it can be worse.

Isn;t this staement a bit over the top for the actual problem?

Not in my opinion. It isn't the general public who can pay for packaged news stories, its large corporate entities and Government agencies. They do so for the purpose of swaying public opinion, and it involves at the least biased information and omission of all the facts, and at the most outright lies. And often one is funding the other (Government paying a private entity or a private entity paying the government through many different means). So, yes, I believe that this entities with the Cash and Government are in cahoots with one another trying to control the public through propaganda. I don't see how this could be anything else but that.

And THAT is the larger problem. The question is, what can we do about this smaller problem of packaged news stories? Maybe write to the right people to try to tighten up any loopholes in our laws so that this sort of thing won't be allowed. WE have the right to know who is putting out our information, and WE have the right to know how accurate that information is. If something is a paid advertisement, then we have the right to know it as such. And, the law should protect these rights.

Or maybe, we could just go on pretending that these sorts of problems don't exist. :shrug:

 

[michaeledward]

I read the article, and found nothing that says the information given in the promos was incorrect, just that the "Actors" were not real reporters.
Should there have been a disclaimer, probably..., not a big problem from my P.O.V.
Isn;t this staement a bit over the top for the actual problem?

I agree that it seems that all the statements in these 'reports' are true. But what I see as the bigger issue is that the New Medicare Law that these 'Reports' are promoting don't go into effect for another two years, with the exception of a discount drug card that can be purchased by a select few starting in June.

So, why is the medicare administration running these advertisements now?

• Could these series of 'reports' actually be campaign advertisements for the President?
• Aren't they functioning that way?
• Should our Medicare Withholding tax be used to support an election campaign?

It's bad enough that the Bush Adminstration hid the true math of this new entitlement until after the votes in congress. But now to use Medicare Money to pay for the Bush-Cheney '04 election is reprehensible. It's one thing to run your campaign on what you have accomplished, it's quite another thing to run your campaign on something that might happen in two or four or ten years.

Mike

 

[Cruentus]

I saw that the "reporters" were not "journalists" but where are the fake doctors and clients? Did it explicitely state that? Just curious is all...

Me too, frankly. The problem is, the story implies that more then just the reporters were actors, but it doesn't specifically say so one way or the other. I heard in another news account on television that the pharmicists and some members of "the public" were also paid actors, but I can't find a written source to collaborate this at this time. The fact is, when they are paying actors at Public Relations firms to fabricate news storys, we don't know who could have been a paid actor, who could have just been a nonpaid person told to say a something "positive" to end up on TV, and who was genuine.

How many other news stories have been "packaged?" They say it's been done since the 80's, but how many? Where are the records of these to seperate what has been packaged and what hasn't? Where are the records from these PR firms that can verify to what extent these news stories were fabricated? Where does it say without a shadow of doubt who was paid as an actor, and who was not? Where are the sources for the facts that these stories have presented?

We have no way of checking or knowing the answers to these questions at this time. Yet, most people don't seem to care that our information is being tampered with to control us. Most media sources aren't even covering this (probably because they are guilty of airing such stories).

This isn't a partisen thing. Mike Edwards bring's up a good point about the administration, but that is actually not what concerns me the most about this. I am concerned by the control of our society through propaganda; an issue that crosses all party lines, in my opinion.

 

[michaeledward]

The Medicare bill passed by the Republican Congress, and signed into law by a Republican President is now getting some press on its own merits. ... . maybe, that's not such a good idea.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/08/national/08medicare.html?ex=1294376400&en=058469559dfb4bca&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 - Low-income Medicare beneficiaries around the country were often overcharged, and some were turned away from pharmacies without getting their medications, in the first week of Medicare's new drug benefit. The problems have prompted emergency action by some states to protect their citizens

Gov. Jim Douglas of Vermont, a Republican, said the state would pay drug claims for low-income people until the federal government fixed problems in the new program, known as Part D of Medicare. Michael K. Smith, the state's secretary of human services, said, "The federal system simply is not working."
On Thursday, the Vermont Legislature passed a bill declaring, "There is a public health emergency due to the federal implementation of Medicare Part D, which has resulted in serious operational problems, causing Vermonters to be turned away at the pharmacy without the drugs they need."

Beverly R. Churchwell, an aide to the Alabama commissioner, said: "Some Medicare beneficiaries have not been able to get their medications. They are being turned away at the pharmacy."

 

[lonecoyote]

My mother couldn't get her blood pressure medication today. I live in a small town with only one pharmacy, a lot of retirees, and the drug store was a little nuts today from what she said. Lots of medicare, lots of confusion. No one could figure out what was up. Lot of people in the same boat. She is worried that she filled something out wrong, etc. She is 78 years old and all the recent paperwork has frankly, frightened and confused her. She said she took all the cards she usually takes. I'm not real clear on what the problem was at the drugstore or how it came about, just that she is scared, and shaking, and I'm pissed. She is somehow enrolled in a part of medicare which will charge her 89 dollars a month. She only gets 577 a month from Social Security to live on! She supposedly has both medicaid and medicare, part A and B already, but she says she didn't enroll in part D, whatever, confuses me too. The druggist just flat gave her some pills, and said they would figure it out. I'm sure it will all get straightened out, but in the meantime, it sucks for her to live with that kind of fear.

 

[lonecoyote]

Okay, just talked to her, maybe she did enroll in part D but wasn't supposed to, said the problem was that she didn't have a letter from medicare. What letter? She has no idea. She took something to them, apparently the wrong info. Just about broke her today. Hope to god it gets fixed before she needs her other medication.

 

[jdinca]

I hope it works out for her. Yet another government program that is inundated with mindless bureaucracy.

 

[lonecoyote]

Thanks, jdinca, I appreciate that. Tomorrow I begin my fight with medicare, state health insurance provider and anyone else who wants a piece. If anyone here is interested I'll tell you how it goes. Might be interesting if you're a senior struggling with this or know one.

 

[arnisador]

I've read several articles about confusion over the new law keeping people from getting their medication. Sheesh!

 

[KenpoEMT]

I'm usually not a big supporter of government programs, but medicare and medicaid should definitely be fully funded. These programs should be made easy for our seniors to work with.

The wealthiest nation in the world has the responsibility of taking care of its senior citizens when their family is unable/unwilling to care for them.

Personalyy, I think out entire approach to medicine needs to be revamped.

 

[lonecoyote]

I've been on the phone all day. I think I've got some answers. If anyone else is having problems with this, PM and I'll help all I can.