I Pander to the Base

How the hit song of the summer becomes the surprise hit of the fall:

Because you know I pander to the base,
to the base, (no middle)
I pander to the base, to the base (no middle)
I pander to the base, to the base (no middle)
I pander to the base, to the base.

Yeah, it's pretty clear, I don't care 'bout you
unless you pay me, pay me like you're supposed to
'cause I need that cha-ching to stay in this race
Keep my attack ads on the right stations.

I see the media working that 'moderate' junk
we all know that shit ain't real
Come on now, make it stop!
If you've got extremist views just raise 'em up
'Cause every lie I tell is OK
As long as it gets me votes.

Yeah, the Party Boss told me don't worry about nothin'
He says, Voters? They like the lies, they're so afraid of the truth
So, sling mud if you have it
Then go ahead and tell more lies!

Because you know I pander to the base,
to the base, to the base (no middle)
I pander to the base, to the base (no middle)
I pander to the base, to the base (no middle)
I pander to the base, to the base.

I'm really not a hack
Honest, I'm a nice guy ask my fam'ly, hey!
Nah, I'm just playing, trying to win this race
'And every ad I run is OK as long as it gets me votes

Yeah, the Party Boss told me don't worry about nothin'
He says, Voters? They like the lies, they're so afraid of the truth
So, sling mud if you have it
Then go ahead and tell more lies!

Because you know I pander to the base,
to the base, (no middle)
I pander to the base, to the base (no middle)
I pander to the base, to the base (no middle)
I pander to the base, to the base.
I pander to the base, to the base.
I pander to the base, to the base.

Wondering, on Wednesday (v9)

I'm on of those old fogies who still watches the evening news, both a local version and a national version. And I live in the NY24 congressional district, which puts me smack dab in the Big Pharma demographic from January to the end of August and then in the thick of political campaign ad season, which runs from roughly Labor Day through the first Tuesday in November.

It feels like the local news broadcast has gotten about two or three minutes shorter in the past couple of weeks, as the political ads really ramp up. And then I read that, in one week there were around 4,500 ads tied to the US Senate races in Michigan and Iowa alone -- one ad every two minutes -- and I thank my lucky stars that we don't live where anything like that will ever happen.

We have our share of negative ads here, whether the candidates want to admit it or not, on both sides. And that got me wondering, on Wednesday, what if all of our ads were like that?  I mean, think about it: everywhere we shop, the restaurants where we eat, the cars we drive -- they're all just votes we make, the same as we vote for one politician over another.

What would it look like, if everyone did the same thing as the pols?  Here are a few examples, just for fun:

• Price Lower says the have the lowest prices, but that's a lie. They lower prices on crap no one even buys, and then the use those numbers to screw up the calculation and make you think all their prices are lower. Plus, their fish smells funny.  Price Lower? They're not good for you, or your wallet. This ad was paid for by the consortium for expensive grocery stores.

• Mama's Kitchen likes to say they have the best food, the best atmosphere, and they even pretend that Mama, who's now 87 years old and only has one leg, is there doing the cooking every day. Well, Mama's Kitchen is nothing like your mother's kitchen -- it failed their health inspection this year.  I wouldn't let Mama wash the dishes in my restaurant!  Come to Papa, and leave Mama behind. Papa's BarBeCue is responsible for the content of this advertisement. 

• I'm Mr Green Jeans, and I'm the owner of The Grass is Greener Sod and Turf.  My competitor, The Auld Sod, likes to say that his sod is the best in town.  But we know better. He uses dyes on his sod to make it look greener.  His sod dies if you don't water it for hours each day, but you won't know about that unless you read the really fine print in your contract. He used to be a lawyer in the big city, so he's really good at writing contracts. And he hires undocumented aliens to mow his sod. So remember, on our side of the fence, the grass is always greener.  Paid for by the Grass is Greener Sod and Turf, locally owned and operated since well, forever. No undocumented migrant workers were used in the filming of this ad.

• FastFill gas? That's not American gas, that's Muslim gas. The gas from their pumps comes straight from terrorist countries, countries that are just here to take our money and bomb our buildings and destroy the American Dream. If you're buying FastFill gas, you're just as bad as they are. Think about that before you put it in your tank and drive it. North American Tar Sands Petroleum Stations Franchising Company is responsible for the content of this advertising. 

So, how long would it take for you to stop doing business with the advertisers, to be completely turned off by them?  How long before you complained to the businesses or organizations behind the ads?  Or would you fall hook line and sinker for the content, without even trying to find out the truth? 

And would television stations even accept ads like that?  I seriously doubt it.

And one more thing I'm wondering tonight: would it be possible to quarantine the word Pelosi?

Tuesday's Number: $389,479

Tuesday is the day my local paper, the Syracuse Post-Standard, publishes the weekly business section. In addition to special features, tips from stock experts, budgeting advice and the like, we get the judgment and bankruptcy listings.

Each week, I track health care related filings. I include anything that is clearly a debt owed to a hospital, nursing home, physician or physician group, medical supplier, and so on; I do not include filings by insurance companies, many of which are so diversified it would not be a fair assumption that the filing is related to medical care or health insurance.

·         This week, there were 28 new judgments to hospitals, doctors, or other medical providers totaling $378,882.

·         There were no satisfied judgments.

·         And there was one health care related bankruptcy, for $10,597.

New this year, I’m tracking filings for each of the four Syracuse hospitals. Here’s the breakdown for this week:

·         Crouse had five, for $47,793

·         St Joe’s had one, for $13,879

·         SUNY Upstate had 23, totaling $327,807

·         Community General, a part of Upstate, had none

The paper publishes only those accounts of at least $5,000.

Education: A Blank Canvas

Have you seen the latest Andrew Cuomo campaign ad?

You know, the one where he and his daughter are sitting in the kitchen, doing homework together. If not, you can take a look below, and then we'll talk.

 If you were to describe the ad in  one word, what  would it be?

 For me, it was 'white'. White  pumpkins, white  kitchen, white  sweaters, white paint.

 White white white white.

 I think the message tries to be  black and white;  however, I think  it misses the mark, because in  reality 'education' is not that  simple and doesn't  translate well  to a 30-second campaign ad.

It's not all white and shiny like Cuomo's kitchen, and it's not black and white. It's more like someone loaded up a palette with paint, dragged a brush through all of the colors and then splashed that paint onto a canvas.

When I talk about the color of education being something other than white, or black and white, I'm talking about the whole picture that is 'education' in New York and other states. Think of that picture as an actual painting and you'll understand that it is painted with many brushes, all having different hues and perspectives:

• It includes the teachers, unions, administrators, and local Boards of Education, who should be effectively collaborating on education at the local level. 
• It includes money: property taxes, school aid and the school aid formula itself, and the relative wealth of a district, which directly influences the completeness of the educational experience kids get. 
• It includes grassroots community groups, local faith-based initiatives, and large philanthropic organizations which interject themselves (welcomed or not) from many viewpoints and with varying degrees of influence and success.
• It includes law enforcement agencies, which not really by design but out of necessity engage with students, families and districts, particularly urban ones.
• It includes local, state and national elected officials, armed with their own agendas and, frankly, arms full of threats and promises, and a host of unelected bureaucrats at state and federal Education Departments.
• It includes parents, and those acting as parents, such as aunts and uncles, older siblings, and mentors.

It also includes perfectly decorated 'classrooms' in perfectly appointed kitchens, and twin daughters who are attending Harvard and Brown, as Cuomo's are; and teacher and school evaluations, and Common Core, and high tech classrooms, all of which are referenced in Cuomo's ad.

And, it sadly includes 911 calls, horrible test scores, low graduation rates and high dropout rates, and 'watch lists' and abject frustration and anger, things the Cuomo girls probably never experienced, things which no children should have to experience.

The students are the canvas on which everyone else paints. They absorb or reflect the colors that are put on them, some positively and some negatively.  The goal of everyone involved should be ensuring that the students' right to a safe, appropriately funded, fully evolved educational experience is not impeded by anyone's actions, and that their responsibility to participate actively, productively and fully in the educational process is encouraged, supported, and reinforced.

We'll take a look at some of these issues in more detail in upcoming posts.

Wondering, on Wednesday (v8)

Nancy Snyderman, the NBC News doctor who didn't pay attention to her voluntary Ebola quarantine, is now officially free to pick up soup in Princeton, NJ. And Ashoka Mukpo, the freelance cameraman who Snyderman associated with in Liberia, and who was diagnosed with the disease, is now Ebola-free and has been released from the hospital.

The two nurses who treated Thomas Eric Duncan, the Liberian man who succumbed to the disease, are doing better since contracting Ebola, according to reports.

Syracuse University rescinded an invitation to an award-winning photojournalist, on the 21st day of his symptom-free return to the US from covering the Ebola epidemic; they'll have him back later, if he's willing.

Idiots who yell "I have Ebola" on buses, planes, trains and automobiles, are not making any more appearances.

That leaves politicians and their associates in the media as the last remaining Ebola constituency we continue to hear from; they make (or grab) the headlines, and monger fear with their calls for border closings and flight bans and the like.

I'd love to know what their thoughts are on the statements below, which were included in a letter submitted by Dr. Thomas Welch, Medical Director of Syracuse's Golisano Children's Hospital.  The full letter is a worth a look; these excerpts will give you a sense of  that.

Preening politicians, ever ready for cameras, harass one of the world's most expert public health professionals in a theatrical performance billed as a Congressional hearing.

Children, including some in Syracuse, die in the US every year from vaccine-preventable diseases. Where are the Congressional hearings demanding to know why parents can "opt out" of immunizations and send their children to school, putting everyone elses's children at risk of fatal disease?

Thousands of Americans die of influenza, a disease which can be prevented by immunization and spread through the air.  Where are the calls for restrictions on air travel by unimmunized travelers or those with coughs?  

The economies of these impoverished regions are drawing to a standstill. The devastation of the disease will be followed by famine, and likely, political and social collapse. Such conditions breed terrorism and even worse political instability. This is the real threat of Ebola, not an American returning from vacation on a plane with a Liberian. This is the face of Ebola, not a stranded luxury cruise liner outside Belize. 

Would our politicians recognize themselves in these comments?  For example, I'm thinking specifically of the ones who wrote the Republican platform for the state of Texas, ground zero for Ebola in America, which addresses (in the worst possible way) the immunization issue Dr. Welch discusses in his letter:

All adult citizens should have the legal right to conscientiously choose which vaccines are administered to themselves, or their minor children, without penalty for refusing a vaccine. We oppose any effort by any authority to mandate such vaccines or any medical database that would contain personal records of citizens without their consent. 

Would our media companies recognize themselves?  Perhaps the major news organizations might see a chance to step back from the panic (Shep Smith being a notable exception)?

I'm wondering, on Wednesday.

Tuesday's Number: $783,160

Tuesday is the day my local paper, the Syracuse Post-Standard, publishes the weekly business section. In addition to special features, tips from stock experts, budgeting advice and the like, we get the judgment and bankruptcy listings.

Each week, I track health care related filings. I include anything that is clearly a debt owed to a hospital, nursing home, physician or physician group, medical supplier, and so on; I do not include filings by insurance companies, many of which are so diversified it would not be a fair assumption that the filing is related to medical care or health insurance.

·         This week, there were 39 new judgments to hospitals, doctors, or other medical providers totaling $764,274.

·         There were no satisfied judgments.

·         And there was one healthcare related bankruptcy, for $18,886.

New this year, I’m tracking filings for each of the four Syracuse hospitals. Here’s the breakdown for this week:

·         Crouse had sixteen, for $227,252

·         St Joe’s had two, for $27,204

·         SUNY Upstate had 21, totaling $523,223

·         Community General, a part of Upstate, had none

The paper publishes only those accounts of at least $5,000.

Look No Further, Media Outlets

In yesterday's post, I offered up five things that political candidates can do to help get some of the money, particularly outside money, out of campaigns.

They say they want to do this, but struggle with how to go about it, or can only offer up putting more money - our tax dollars - into the process. However, if the goals are to empower voters in the district up for grabs, and reduce the stranglehold that special interest and political parties have on our elective process, we need less money in the mix, not more.

While a courageous candidate should be able to do the five things, they have to want to be honest and ethical and accountable more than they want to be elected.  They have to be willing to buck the system, and I appreciate that's not easy, particularly if their opponent doesn't take the same path.

It also won't be easy without some significant cooperation from the media. Republican John Katko, who's in a close battle against incumbent Dan Maffei in my district, put it in perspective when he allowed that

I think it's very troubling to see the amount of money it takes to run for Congress. It puts a challenger at a distinct disadvantage.

Katko is absolutely right. It's particularly hard for challengers, whether they're newcomers to politics or veterans, to raise enough money from within the district to pay for ads, signs, billboards, and the rest. That's why it's so easy to take help from the special interests, party committees, unions, PACs and deep-pocketed individual donors.

I'm convinced that a level playing field that favors the voters but does not hinder either of the candidates is possible; here are four things that television and radio stations, newspapers and outdoor advertising companies, and online outlets can do:

(1) Set aside free time or space during the primary and the general election season for political advertising. TV and radio stations would determine the number of minutes that will be available for each candidate, and let the candidates determine how to use their minutes. It could be 15 second spots, 30 second spots, 30 minute spots - however they want to use the time, all of which  must be during prime time.  For print, it's equally prominent space on equally prominent pages, again with the candidates determining how to use their allotment.  Billboards could be allocated to each team, equally visible locations, up for equal time, with a drawing or coin toss to determine who ends up where.  Heck, they could even play Rock, Paper, Scissors to determine the placement. Online ads could be managed the same way, I would think; might take some doing but there are plenty of really good local ad agencies who can help figure it out.

(2) Make time available for individual and joint sessions with the candidates, using different formats (town hall style, formal debates, single issue sessions, online chats, and so on). Post videos and transcripts from the sessions quickly and prominently on your websites and through social media. On your news broadcasts, mention the information is available, show the links on the screen when you go to commercial, that kind of thing. Present these sessions with limited commercial interruption (none for 30-minute segments, one commercial block for hour-long segments). Establish these as collaborations with your partner stations, including cable news and public television, rotating them so that no one station bears the burden of the lost revenue. Radio stations can do the same, particularly the ones that have local shows already. Some of the local papers already offer the Q&A chats, and should continue to do so. They can also 'black box' notices on their web pages, and in print, letting people know the transcripts are available.

(3) Manage the sessions. Solicit questions from residents of the district for the sessions outlined above. The reasoning behind this is simple: the sessions are for the benefit of the voters, not for the promotion of the hosts, anchors and reporters, or stations or newspapers that participate.  And when the hosts, anchors and reporters do ask questions, keep them short and to the point. We are not interested in learning about how well you ask  questions, we're interested in getting answers from the candidates. When the candidates don't answer the question(s), respectfully point that out. And fact-check their statements, and post that information along with the transcripts and videos.

(4) Refuse all ads that are not expressly approved by candidates. Regardless of how much money is dangled in front of you. If we're asking the candidates to disavow the money, we can't have you taking it behind their backs.  Serve the public interest, and just say no.

With these options and guidelines in place, and with commitment to abide by the five suggestions from yesterday's post, challengers like Katko can be less reliant on outside money, outside endorsements, and 'support' from interest groups which frequently comes in the from of less-than-truthful advertising crammed down everyone's throats, and can instead focus on getting out, meeting voters, (from all parties, not just their base) and putting their positions front and center.

Incumbents like Maffei would have the opportunity to do their own talking, defend their own record, and show us why we should give them another chance, without all the noise, name-calling, and mud-slinging that seems to be a benefit of incumbency.

This is a challenge for our local media companies - I get that. And I hope it's the kind of challenge they'd be willing to tackle.  I like to think that they'd rather be doing this kind of reporting, this kind of broadcasting, and being associated with this kind of advertising, than what they're faced with today.

And if the candidates have these opportunities, and choose to waste them by slamming the other guy, going negative, slinging mud, refusing to talk about their own positions, their own plans, well, so be it. We'll know for sure then what they stand for.

And isn't that the point?

Look No Further, Candidates

Ladies and gentlemen, THIS is what's wrong with our system.

• Dan Maffei, Democrat running for re-election my district (the NY-24), has received over 83% of his campaign contributions from outside the district; 54% of his money comes from political action committees (PACS), those god-awful ATMs that candidates rely on so desperately.

• John Katko, Maffei's Republican challenger, has received significantly less money across the board than Maffei, but has also taken 30% from outside the district, all the while complaining about Maffei's outside-the-district money. (Should Katko win in November, he can rest assured the big money will swing his way come 2016 when we have to do this all over again.) 

While they both participate in the big-money process, they both think it's wrong, and think it should be fixed. Maffei, like most Democrats, wants some kind of public financing of campaigns. Katko, like many Republicans, doesn't have any answers, other than just saying no to public financing.

For example, here's what one Republican, Oneida County's Richard Hanna, said in 2013 (emphasis added):

I am loathe to see public financing because it's just one more big bill for the public. Clearly the system is broken, but I don't know how to fix it. I don't see an easy solution. But I do recognize there is too much money in campaigns. I have friends in Washington who spend way too much time raising money. 

And here's newcomer Katko, this past Friday:

I fully support campaign finance reform. Far too much money is spent on these races. But, I don't think that American taxpayers should be required to use their hard-earned dollars to fund negative attack ads like the ones Dan Maffei is running.  The big difference between me and my opponent is that Dan Maffei wants taxpayers to pay for his mudslinging and I don't.  

Back in July, this is what he said (again, emphasis added):

I think it's very troubling to see the amount of money it takes to run for Congress. It puts a challenger at a distinct disadvantage. Our Founding Fathers probably never envisioned anything like this. It's clear everyone is sick of it. But that being said, I think it will be difficult to limit this (campaign spending) going forward because the Supreme Court has spoken on this issue. 

I love that everyone's unhappy with the money and think it's wrong and all that, but I'm boggled by why they can't figure out what to do, can't even put anything forward to help. And it's not just here in my district, not just here in New York with our voracious 'anything that's legal' political fundraising rules.  It's everywhere, it's pervasive, and no one is leading.

Like the Republicans, I don't want public financing for campaigns - interjecting more money into the mix doesn't seem like the way to solve the problem, even if it's different money. And we've already seen how candidates will leave public dollars on the table and instead take the unlimited support that is available under our current big money system.

So, if public financing is not the answer, what is?  Well, I've done lots of posts on this subject, and (unlike the Republicans) I continue to try and come up with ways that things could be different.

Today, I'm suggesting five things the candidates can do, most of which require them to look no further than the mirror and ask themselves if they really want to get the money out of politics. If the answer is yes, the five suggestions below are easy:

1. Publicly state your intention, at the beginning of your campaign and frequently throughout your campaign, that you are refusing all outside money, regardless of the source, and that you are refusing any money that does not come from an actual living breathing person, and that you will disavow and return any of this support if it comes your way.
2. Do not accept more than three contributions from any one individual, and limit the total you accept from any one person, even if legally they can contribute more. Limits are different in different races and jurisdictions, but you should be able to come up with a percentage of the legal limit for the race you're in that you can stomach, that doesn't make you beholden to the donor, and then stick to it.
3. Specifically reach out to your party's traditional supporters within the district and advise them you will not be taking their money. Instead, seek their support as boots on the ground, knocking on doors, handing out literature that your campaign paid for, helping register voters, painting signs, running phone banks, and so on - anything they want to do that doesn't cost anything, or that can be paid for using campaign contributions you have accepted from living breathing people residing in the district. 
4. Make frequent open appearances in the district (not the pay-per-view kind) to educate voters on your positions. You see, we voters understand what the money wants you to do; it's harder for us to understand what you want to do. Your obligation is to tell us, for free, in person, early and often. If we like you, maybe we'll drop some money in a bucket on the way out, or hop on your website and donate when we get home. 
5. Publicly commit to joint appearances with your opponents, as painful as that may be. Don't fight over the rules, talk about the issues. Certainly once the rosters are set, we voters are entitled to at least one joint discussion a month, preferably more. During primaries, we also need at least one of these sessions.

There's more that can be done by folks once they're in office, by media companies, and by us, the voters. I'll talk more on that in upcoming posts. In the meantime, let me know what you think of these ideas.  Are they completely crazy?

Is it too much to ask that our candidates refuse to participate in a system they think is broken?

Is it too much to ask that our candidates stop short of doing whatever is legal, and instead do what they think is right?  

Wondering, on Wednesday (v7)

A few months ago I wondered about how out of touch politicians at all levels seem to be with their constituents on most issues. I had the opportunity a week later to do another post, the one where I was happy to report that a significant majority of us believe we'd be better off if we threw Congress out -- even our own elected representatives.

Six months later, almost to the day, where are we?  Well, pretty much right where we left off. Except that we're now only three weeks away from the mid-term elections, and we're being bombarded by political ads, most of them paid for by outside money, which regular readers know drives me to distraction. (Click here for a link to my campaign finance reform posts and here for my election reform posts.)

The ads for the race in my Congressional District, NY-24, are horrendous. Negative. Obnoxious. Untruthful. Fear-mongering. Name-calling. Pandering. Least-common-denominator stuff. Our race is so important that Crying John Boehner himself had to come to town to raise money for the Republican, and Joe Biden is literally coming to town to raise money for the incumbent Democrat. Those things alone will likely inspire more negative ads.

And yet, according to a poll  of regular television viewers conducted by Rasmussen Reports earlier this month, people don't like negative ads and don't believe they're necessary for a candidate to win.

Seriously. Check out these numbers:

• 63% think most political ads on television are attack ads
• 57% say negative ads make them less likely to vote for the candidate who produced the ad
• 56% think a candidate can win without negative ads
• 55% think the government should be able to review political advertising content first
• 35% think that political ads should be banned from television.

Obviously, there are some party-line differences in those numbers, but if you take party out of the picture, the picture is clear: we don't like what the candidates are doing to get elected. And they don't care.

Even before they get sworn in, they're already out of touch. 

So why do candidates continue to go negative?

I appreciate it's hard to run on your record when you're an incumbent in the 113th Congress, as of September tied with the 112th edition for the least productive Congress we've had. Not a lot you can say that's positive about how you've spent the past two years spinning your wheels, even if you've been spinning in a bipartisan manner, as some claim.  But if you're an incumbent and you want to stay in office, you should be able to outline a vision for your next term, why you want to continue serving, and how you'll act if you're re-elected.  

Similarly, if you're a newcomer to politics, or if you're 'upgrading' to a higher level of elected office, running on your record might be hard too.  But again, you should be able to articulate your vision, describe your principles and what matters to you. If you're all the things you think you are, and you have all the ideas you think we need, you should have no problem explaining your positions, rather than slamming the other guy.   

Why? Because I'm wondering, on Wednesday, if the candidates realize that these ads will always represent them, even long after they're done representing us.  

Tuesday's Number: $961,631

Tuesday is the day my local paper, the Syracuse Post-Standard, publishes the weekly business section. In addition to special features, tips from stock experts, budgeting advice and the like, we get the judgment and bankruptcy listings.

Each week, I track health care related filings. I include anything that is clearly a debt owed to a hospital, nursing home, physician or physician group, medical supplier, and so on; I do not include filings by insurance companies, many of which are so diversified it would not be a fair assumption that the filing is related to medical care or health insurance.

·         This week, there were 45 new judgments to hospitals, doctors, or other medical providers totaling $950,147.

·         There were two satisfied judgments, totaling $11,484.

·         And there were no healthcare related bankruptcies recorded.

New this year, I’m tracking filings for each of the four Syracuse hospitals. Here’s the breakdown for this week:

·         Crouse had fifteen, for $128,522

·         St Joe’s had three, for $104,428

·         SUNY Upstate had 28, totaling $718,807

·         Community General, a part of Upstate, had none

The paper publishes only those accounts of at least $5,000.

What Was She Thinking?

Statement from NBC News*

 Dr. Nancy Snyderman, the chief medical editor for NBC News, had been in Liberia covering the Ebola epidemic, and while there, worked with a free-lance cameraman who contracted the disease and is currently being treated.

popscreen.com photo

Snyderman and others of our team were brought home shortly after the cameraman was diagnosed, and were asked to honor a 'voluntary quarantine' lasting 21 days, during which they would be monitored for symptoms. 

As a "health professional" (which is how Dr. Snyderman refers to herself), she should have known better than to go out in public while under quarantine, and should have done everything in her power to prevent other members of the group from doing the same.

Sadly, that was not the case: multiple media outlets have reported that Snyderman and others were seen in a car outside a popular New Jersey restaurant, and that one of the people left the vehicle, went into the restaurant, and came back with soup. For that, we are deeply sorry. 

 In a statement that's being read on all of our broadcasts, Snyderman notes that she and others "remain healthy" and their "temperatures are normal" and that she  is "deeply sorry for the concerns this episode caused" but she does not state that she herself violated the quarantine, only that "members of our group" did. For her lack of candor at this time, we are deeply sorry. 

While we talked with Dr. Snyderman, and were happy to read her statement, we made no mention of the specific incident which led us to this point, instead generically mentioning that Snyderman has been in the news. We did not report on our own employee's ill-advised behavior, and for that we are deeply sorry. 

The strongest message that Dr. Snyderman could have delivered at this time was to obey the voluntary quarantine, and  follow the advice of those who are best equipped and experienced with combating something like Ebola, which Snyderman, a cardiologist, is less prepared to do.  Instead, she chose to ignore the request. For her ignorance, we are deeply sorry.

She and her team are now under mandatory quarantine for the remainder of the 21-day period.  Police are now patrolling the area where Snyderman and members of her group are staying, probably as much to protect them from potential threats from the angry, frightened, confused and disillusioned people of Princeton as to ensure that the group stays inside for the duration of the quarantine. For the extra costs and the disruption to the people of Princeton, we are deeply sorry. 

Whether or not you believe that Ebola is a threat to Americans at home, and whether or not you believe the quarantine was necessary, are not at issue here. What is at issue are the actions taken by Snyderman and others under her sphere of influence. We strongly believe that her actions were irresponsible, and that they have embarrassed all of us here at NBC. For that, we are deeply sorry. 

We also strongly believe that the best place for you to get the medical information you need is from your doctor, and from your local public health officials, not from our photogenic medical editor or from our broadcasts. 

*which we'll see maybe on the twelfth of never.

John Katko: Let's Talk Health Care Reform

Former prosecutor John Katko is the Republican running for New York's 24th district House seat, currently held by Dan Maffei, who took the seat back from Ann Marie Buerkle after she took it from him in their first battle.

Katko has a few of his own ads running; he's also got a boatload of outside-the-district money behind him, hammering away at Maffei on positions both real and imagined. (Maffei and his supporters are doing the same, by the way.)

I've made the case repeatedly about how the politicians we need are the ones who are more interested in talking about what they stand for and believe in, instead of those who simply badmouth their opponent. I know from Katko's ads that his wife loves him, that he's a great mentor, and that as a prosecutor he was strong on crime and helped get rid of several of the gangs that used to hang about a mile or so up the block from where I live.

For that last part, I offer my thanks, but I'm not sure how that equates to representing our district, unless his intention is to go to DC and break up the gangs that are holding Congress (and the country) hostage?

To find out what he believes, I checked out his website, where he posts issues videos called Katko Comments. I started with the one on health care, and after watching it I have some questions.

(1) Like most Republicans, you talk about people who lost their coverage after being told by President Obama they could keep it. Since most people with insurance have it through their jobs, and since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) did not force companies to drop coverage, reduce employee hours, change carriers (and provider networks), etc. have you talked with any business owners or company benefit reps to find out if they've changed their employee health insurance plans, and if yes, why? Will you share those details?

(2) You  note that you spoke recently with a person from Auburn who pays, between premiums and out of pocket, close to $25,000 per year for insurance. We don't know his specific situation, so all we can do is respond emotionally to that number. I wonder, what would you consider a reasonable annual cost for health insurance premiums and out of pocket expenses? $1,000? $5,000? $10,000? $15,000? And in general, do you support or oppose consumer-driven health care options, commonly referred to as high deductible health plans?

(3) You mentioned you don't want Washington bureaucrats coming between patients and their doctors. I've heard this several times from Republicans. Which specific provisions of the ACA put bureaucrats in the middle of the doctor-patient relationship?

(4) Like most Republicans, you support the wellness (preventive?) provisions of the ACA, keeping kids on the parents' policies until they're old enough to leave the basement and the elimination of preexisting conditions. I'm curious whether you support or oppose these other provisions:

• Coverage for essential benefits? 
• Elimination of annual and lifetime benefit limits? 
• Subscriber refunds, if administrative costs eat up too high a percentage of the premiums paid?

(5) You favor allowing insurers to sell across state lines.Why are you so willing to sacrifice me and my several hundred co-workers by inviting deep-pocketed national carriers into New York, carriers against which it would be nearly impossible for local/regional health insurers like my employer to compete? If you're successful in getting this 'nationalization' of health insurance approved, what steps would you take to assist us if we all lose our jobs?

(6) You speak about the ACA taking hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare. Disregard for a moment that this same argument was debunked back in 2012, and that the ACA did not actually take money from Medicare, but instead reduced the proposed increases in Medicare spending over the next decade, by the same $700 billion that the Republican budget plan would have. If elected, would you ever vote for a budget that reduces actual or proposed Medicare spending?

(7) Finally, please identify at least three things you would propose to change in the ACA  to reduce health care costs - not health insurance costs, which are different -  for Central New York individuals and families, and explain specifically how you would work across the aisle to gain bipartisan support for these measures.

Thanks for clarifying your positions on this critical issue.

Wondering, on Wednesday (v6)

If you're a New Yorker and you want to be registered to vote in the general election come November, you need to have your application postmarked no later than Friday October 10th. Two days from now. And then I had a couple of simple little conversations, and that got me wondering, on Wednesday, about our power as voters.

My Sweet Baboo and I were watching the national news tonight, and of course we were smacked upside the head by the Dan Maffei/John Katko ads. Maffei and Katko are the players in the race for NY's 24th District. Before that, it was Ann Marie Buerkle vs Dan Maffei, and before that it was Dan Maffei vs Ann Marie Buerkle. Over the past six years, we've gotten more than our share of negative ads on both sides, the majority of which in the past three elections are brought to us by the national party committees and other organizations, people who don't live here but who think that they have a right to mess with our local politics. I hate that, by the way.

So we're trying our best to ignore the commercials and My Sweet Baboo says to me, wouldn't it be great if just one of these guys would say screw that, I'm not going to have any of this junk in my campaign, I'm only going to talk about what I'm going to do instead of how the other guy's a loser and all that other nonsense?

An hour or so later, I was talking with my Mom, who was once an elected official herself (Town Board; she couldn't stand the political nonsense and so did not run for a second term). Her senior citizens group was having a luncheon and a few candidates showed up, including John Katko. She and a couple of her friends thought he was interesting, sounded intelligent, and liked him - until he started bad-mouthing Dan Maffei and his record, at which point they completely turned him off and tuned him out. My mom said to me "Don't they know how much we hate hearing them talk about the other guy? Don't they get it we want to know what they stand for rather than all this negative stuff?"

Two simple conversations, happening on the same day, don't make a groundswell.  But if we all had these conversations with our friends, family, co-workers, social media contacts, and all of the other people we talk to, could we get a groundswell?

And if we took that groundswell, and told the candidates that we will not vote for them if they don't knock off the mudslinging, and if they don't stop taking outside money, and if they didn't start paying attention to us?

Imagine the power of that, the force of that groundswell, and how cool it would be to be a part of it? And then, think of how foolish you'd feel if you really wanted to participate, but couldn't, because you didn't do the one thing that would make it possible.

Put it on your to-do list. Put it in your electronic calendar. Tape a sign on the mirror. Put a note on the steering wheel. Do whatever you have to do to remember, and then do what you have to do.

Register. And then vote. Be a part of something really cool.

Tuesday's Number: Third Quarter Recap

We can now put another quarter of Tuesday’s Numbers to bed.

This morning's totals were the last of the third quarter and overall, things are not trending all that well.  While the total this quarter is marginally lower than last, and the number of filings is also down, judgment filings are up, but satisfied judgments are down. Bankruptcies are also down.

Take a look at the totals for this quarter:

·         Judgments totaled $6,817,240, up $260,845

·         Satisfied judgments totaled $94,810, down $227,323

·         Bankruptcies totaled $384,370, down $43,791

Here's a four-quarter look back; doesn't really look like all that much progress does it? 

• Q3 2014: 329 filings, for $7,296,420, an average of $22,178 per filing
• Q2 2014: 396 filings, for $7,306,698, an average of $18,451 per filing
• Q1 2014: 253 filings, for $5,499,218, an average of $21,736 per filing
• Q4 2013: 333 filings, for $6,934,379, an average of $20,824 per filing

Just to put some perspective on the numbers, a person working full time (40 hours per week) at $10 per hour, which is where some have suggested the minimum wage should be, would gross $20,800 per year. That's not even enough to pay the average per-filing medical debt for three of the last four quarters. 

For roughly this quarter's average, just over $22K, you can buy a 2014 car at most local car dealers. Purchase a full year of education at a whole host of SUNY schools, if you're a New York resident.  Make the maximum 'non-family' contribution to each of two NY State Senate candidates in the general election. Have almost enough -- almost, but not quite -- to cover the average cost of having two kids in day care in Onondaga County for a year.  

Over $19.5 million in medical debt (after taking out the satisfied judgments) in 39 weeks, just in the Syracuse area. I continue to be boggled by these numbers, and by our complacency with them. 

What do you think? Is it just me, or o are these numbers OK? Is it policy and politics, or personal responsibility, that's behind these numbers? 

I'd love to hear from folks on this -- let's talk. 

Tuesday's Number: $380,331

Tuesday is the day my local paper, the Syracuse Post-Standard, publishes the weekly business section. In addition to special features, tips from stock experts, budgeting advice and the like, we get the judgment and bankruptcy listings.

Each week, I track health care related filings. I include anything that is clearly a debt owed to a hospital, nursing home, physician or physician group, medical supplier, and so on; I do not include filings by insurance companies, many of which are so diversified it would not be a fair assumption that the filing is related to medical care or health insurance.

·         This week, there were 25 new judgments to hospitals, doctors, or other medical providers totaling $336,390.

·         There were five satisfied judgments, totaling $38,395.

·         And there was one healthcare related bankruptcy, for $5,547.

New this year, I’m tracking filings for each of the four Syracuse hospitals. Here’s the breakdown for this week:

·         Crouse had eight, for $88,308

·         St Joe’s had one, for $5,547

·         SUNY Upstate had sixteen, totaling $277,732

·         Community General, a part of Upstate, had none

The paper publishes only those accounts of at least $5,000.

Haters and Kool-Aid Drinkers

As typically happens on the first Friday of the month, economists and reporters and politicians jump all over the job numbers. My politically oriented friends and I do the same, although our obvious lack of qualifications prevent us from doing much more than sharing what we see.

And speaking of sharing, a friend shared this graphic today; you'd be correct if you figured that he's a fan of Barack Obama, and that he believed this to be a positive statement. I mean, it's over 10 million jobs, it's over four and a half years of positive job growth, right? Some of his friends do not share the same ideology - not that there's anything wrong with that - and his post was immediately hit with negative comments about how the job numbers are a sham, the real numbers are much worse, and so on.

It was the exchanges on my friend's page that got me to today's post and the discussion about Haters and Kool-Aid drinkers. In today's discussion, the Kool-Aid drinker is obviously the Obama fan, and the Hater is obviously the anti- Obama guy.

Hater Dude decided to put up a couple of links in support of his comments, the gist of which is that the real unemployment figure is much higher, that there are lots of people who stopped looking or are under-employed, and so on. We hear this argument every month, but this time, courtesy of Hater Dude, I was able to get to the actual data about the mysterious U-6 unemployment rate, the one that the R's like much more than the official unemployment rate, which is the one that Dems like. What's the difference between the rates? According to the folks at Portal Seven, who know these things:

The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate) but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons." Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the "marginally attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking but still want to work. The age considered for this consideration is 16 years and over.

The nice people at Portal Seven were able to provide the real numbers for both rates; take a look at the comparison between the Democrat Unemployment Rate (DUR) and the Republican Unemployment Rate (RUR), using the numbers for September:

• DUR: 5.9%, down 4.1% from the Obama-high 10.0%.
• RUR: 11.8%, down 5.3%  from the Obama-high 17.1%

So: while the Haters point out that the RUR is high,they fail to mention that it's actually dropped by a greater percentage than the DUR has, comparing both to their highest points during the current administration. Doesn't that seem to indicate a more wide-spread improvement in the employment picture? 

Another poster on my friend's page pointed out that most of the jobs added were"low-end minimum wage service jobs" which is another common Hater refrain. Actually, the September report shows that over 171,000 of the 248,000 jobs added in September, if my math is right, have a pretty good wage -- over $20 per hour on average, more than double the minimum wage. 

I don't think there's enough Kool-Aid to make even the most steadfast Obama fan think everything's hunky dory, but there's clearly more behind the numbers that the Haters want to talk about. And while we may need more talk, to figure out how to continue building growth so that the DUR and the RUR continue to go down, we need action more than anything.  

Any takers? Anyone with a single concrete idea to make a difference that doesn't include hating or sugary beverages?