************

Recently, some local city and county governments around the state have been citing a recent Missouri Dept of Transportation study as a reason to continue and/or expand their red light camera programs. In their press release, MoDOT proudly proclaims ” We believe automated enforcement is a good tool for keeping motorists safe”. Yet, incredibly, in the very next paragraph of the same PR release, they acknowledge that their own study data revealed accidents at the intersections with red light cameras ACTUALLY INCREASED 14% overall! What the?

If MoDOT really believes that increasing accidents at intersections is a great way of keeping motorists safe, the motoring public needs to immediately storm the statehouse and demand the summary termination of every employee involved in the commission and analysis of this study. After all, think of the children!! Otherwise, with that kind of thinking, we should probably expect them to begin installing large sink holes around the state to reduce congestion, requiring all drivers to operate their vehicles in reverse on Wednesdays to “take some wear off our roads,” and randomly shoving large boulders onto 4-lane interstates to slow people down and get them to buckle up. Seriously, MoDOT, are you as dimwitted as you sound?

“But!” the MoDOT dimbulbs will hurriedly exhort, “The study also found a whopping 45 percent reduction in right angle crashes causing fatalities and serious injuries at intersections using red-light cameras.” Ahh, touche, perhaps? Hmmm, well no, not really. Looking at their own raw data, we find that whopper 45% figure represents a grand total reduction of 3 (that’s THREE) accidents over a grand total of 55 intersections studied over a three-year period (a reduction from 9 to 6 serious accidents). And even that data is sketchy because when looking at the intersections both pre- and post-red light camera installation, they looked at a full 3 years data when compiling the “pre” camera data, but only a 12-36 month “post” camera period, citing not having full data on all of the intersections as a reason. So, were we to actually compare apples to apples, it’s quite possible there would be zero difference in the number of serious right angle accidents, or even an increase in them if comparable and complete data were available.

And that’s not all. There are legitimate questions about the methods and sources used in the MoDOT study which cast serious doubt upon the results and their impartiality. For instance, they failed to use data from the city of Washington, MO, even though the data were available to the authors and fit the purposes of the study. Why would they not use data from the city of Washington? Hmmm, could it be because the data wasn’t helpful to the conclusion they desired? Could it be because American Traffic Solutions, one of the “vendors” who had input into the study, but who’s name was not disclosed by MoDOT, asked that it be excluded? Could it be because Washington has seen fit to take down their cameras (why on earth would they do that? Think of the children, Washingtonians, think of the children!!) and thus pissed off ATS? Who knows, but it is certainly curious that no data made it into the study from one of the first towns in Missouri to install red light cameras. Just the fact that ATS contributed to the creation of MoDOT’s study trashes their statement of impartiality and should therefore be looked upon with skeptical eyes and a grain of salt.

Also consider this: Just in the immediate St. Louis city and county, where red light cameras have been in place since 2005, over 267,000 tickets have been issued. And at $100 a pop, that comes to nearly $27 MILLION in revenue for those municipalities. That’s 27 million reasons for American Traffic Solutions, installation vendors, and city and county government employees to deeply desire proof that red light cameras are more than just an illegal violation of citizens’ constitutional rights, they’re downright good at making people safer! And in the end, all of those conflicted parties just want us to be safe! Right? I mean after all, they couldn’t implement alternative solutions like, oh I don’t know, increase yellow light times, or install “red light ahead” signals at busy intersections, instead of going with the revenue-generating solution that actually INCREASES accidents……could they?

And according to this review of MoDOT’s study:

“The use of Bayesian analysis on the severe crash data is not a good fit for the data due to the extreme rarity of severe crashes at the studied intersections, for example more than 85% of the intersections studied had no severe right angle crashes at all during the before period, making the statistical change shown for severe right angle crashes insignificant.”

In sum, MoDOT’s study is severely flawed, to the point of being little more than a justification tool by cities and counties who want to continue automated enforcement for the benefit of their coffers, all while being opposed in every location where they are used by a large majority of the citizens they are supposed to “protect.”

Golly gosh, at least our incompetent, lobbyist-run, and political cash-compromised government is thinking of the children. At least there’s that.

To fully understand how local and state governments are working to fill their coffers while simultaneously violating your constitutional rights via red light and speed cameras, please visit the excellent www.WrongOnRed.com. It’s a site run by a former city council member for the city of Arnold, MO, the first Missouri town to put red light cameras into use in the state. It has copious amounts of data, research, links, and much more showing the true purpose and behind-the-scenes corruption surrounding the red light camera issue.

UPDATE:

Here’s some evidence that renders even the deeply flawed MoDOT study superfluous. Using the city of Arnold’s own records to prove his point, WrongOnRed’s Matt Hay charts the number of red light violations in Arnold, MO before and after traffic engineers lengthened the yellow light times at the intersections with red light cameras. Note the dramatic reduction in number of violations (and thus citations issued) after yellow light times were adjusted to reflect actual traffic flow. It proves pretty conclusively that simple adjustments are all that is needed to “make us safer,” and that expensive, constitution-violating, money-generating red light cameras operated by for-profit corporations are demonstrably unnecessary, not to mention strongly disliked by the majority of the driving public.

Prepare your shocked-face muscles: OBL has never been connected to anything related to the 9/11 tragedy. Don’t believe me? Here it is straight from the FBI’s mouth.

What’s more, contemplate just for a moment what all of this nationalistic pride and glee over the death of this one man has cost us as citizens. It is almost too grotesque to be believed in its totality: 10 years + of endless war in 3 locations, over 5,000 deaths of US servicemen and women, many tens of thousands more wounded and permanently damaged soldiers, the deaths of countless hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children from the countries we’ve invaded, the ruining of the lives of millions more via the destruction of their cities, homes, families, and livelihoods, the institution of a global system of inhumane torture and detainment, the 1,000 BILLION (that’s a Trillion) plus dollars in taxpayer funds to conduct these wars and enrich the warmongers who will only use those funds to do it again, and the too-numerous-to-list erosions of our civil liberties and invasions of our privacy as a result of the most successful propaganda campaign the world has ever known.

It doesn’t matter your political stripes, your ideological bent, or your proximity to those affected by any of the above. These are all facts and will remain so always.

Are we really better off because of it?
Who really has benefitted from all of this?
What could we have done with all of the lives, money, and time these wars have taken from us?

There are so many offshoot topics that could be discussed here relating to all of this, but I think the 3 questions above really should be the focus now as we hear the echoes of “USA…USA…USA” being shouted by the mobs at this latest news.

As the national surveillance state marches on, I hope you’ll voice your opposition to this profit-driven deception.

UPDATE: Watch this video from a 30 year law enforcement official about the rampant corruption of ATS and how they operate. Coming to a Missouri town near you unless you decide to do something about it.

*****************************

Profits, Not Safety, Drives Push for Red Light Cameras in Missouri

The red light camera advocacy group “National Coalition for Safer Roads” (NCSR) recently began a media campaign throughout Missouri, with its Director, David Kelly, citing dubious statistics about the cameras’ popularity among residents.  Their TV commercials feature victim testimony complete with graphic crash videos.  However, it is clear their identity and goals don’t always jive with their PR blitz.

NCSR was founded less than a month ago. This “national” coalition is only licensed in Texas, Washington, D.C., and Missouri, where there is significant opposition to and serious debate about the efficacy of red light and photo radar cameras.  NCSR’s Kelly is actually a Washington D.C. lobbyist for Storm King Strategies, a lobbying firm specializing in transportation regulation and policy.  Kelly, formerly Chief of Staff at the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), represents the ever-increasing ranks of bureaucrats trading government insider experience and influence for large salaries and top positions at Washington lobbying firms.

At NCSR’s website, they disclose being supported by American Traffic Solutions (ATS), one of the largest manufacturers of red light cameras in the country.  Not surprisingly, ATS is a paying client of Kelly’s lobbying firm.  Digging deeper, one finds a long and sordid history between ATS and various citizen groups opposed to photo-enforced cameras throughout the country.  ATS has even created bogus look-a-like sites to discredit its detractors, like Missouri’s own WrongOnRed.com, whose founder, Matthew Hay, is a long-time opponent of red light cameras.

But why would citizens be against red light cameras, and thus, increased safety?  The answer is clear.  First, studies not commissioned by ATS or other traffic camera makers and their front groups demonstrate that red light cameras actually increase accidents at intersections where they are placed.  Both the Virginia and New Mexico state DOTs, plus several other independent studies, have concluded this.  In Arizona, where strong opposition exists and red light cameras are being banned, the city of Peoria saw a 480% increase in accidents at one intersection where the cameras were installed.  The results are so clear that 15 states have banned red light cameras, and the Missouri legislature is considering such a ban, with House bill HB406 and Senate bill SB16.

Second, red light and photo radar cameras deprive drivers of their constitutional rights to face their accusers.  This is a basic right all citizens enjoy as outlined in our state and federal Constitutions. It’s rather difficult to cross-examine a red light camera, much less subpoena it to appear in court.  As a result, cases all across the country are being dismissed.  Municipalities are also failing to enforce their own/state laws by refusing to report “points” to a driver’s record for these moving violations.  Normally in Missouri, you receive “2 points” for a moving violation, but cities with red light cameras routinely book them as “non-moving” violations.  Why?  So that public outrage is minimized, and they (and ATS) can continue realizing revenue by assessing the fines to repeat offenders without negative licensing consequences.     

Citizens should look closer at who is sponsoring these astroturf organizations, and what their motives are for pushing red light camera usage.  Already, the city of Washington, MO and Jefferson County, MO have either removed their cameras or won’t be renewing their contracts with ATS.  Money spent on this media blitz is nothing compared to the profits ATS plans to strip from Missouri’s citizens if this surveillance camera use is codified. Missouri should join the growing number of states who realize that red light cameras are a profit-driven menace that infringe on citizens’ rights while failing to increase public safety.

UPDATE: Now these cash-bilking companies are targeting school buses as a way to increase their profits. Read THIS excellent article by a pissed-off parent of 4 to see what I mean.

American Traffic Solutions (ATS) and its subcontractors have spent $230,648 in an effort to deprive voters in Baytown and Houston, Texas of a chance to decide whether red light cameras should be used in their city. On November 2, residents will likely have the chance to adopt charter amendments banning the use of automated ticketing machines, although ATS lawyers are working overtime to attempt to have the courts overturn the citizen-led petition drive. Earlier this month a similar ATS-funded legal attack failed in Mukilteo, Washington, but the company last year had some success finding a judge in College Station willing to overrule the public.

This kind of behavior should be all you need to know that this scam is all about bilking drivers. The citizens don’t want the cameras, so much so that they are willing to petition the government to have them removed. Yet, ATS makes so much money from these “scameras” as they are referred to by many that they and the other companies in on this scheme will spend a quarter million dollars trying to interfere with the Democratic process in one location alone to prevent citizens from having the chance to vote on the matter. Apparently, there is so much money to be made from bilking drivers that ATS can successfully recruit the camera installation companies to contribute thousands of dollars to the efforts to defeat the will of Houston’s citizens. This is the very height of despicable corporate behavior.

In Houston, ATS kicked off the fight by creating and funding the group “Keep Houston Safe” with $150,000 in cash payments. Signal Electric, a Washington-based contractor that installs red light cameras for ATS, kicked in $15,000. Horsepower Electric, a Florida-based installation company, kicked in $5000. Red Light Design of Missouri contributed $5000. ForceCon Services, a Texas-based red light camera installation subcontractor, gave $3500. No citizen contributed any money to the pro-camera cause.

Remember, ATS and their fake advocacy groups like NCSR are claiming that large majorities of citizens approve of the cameras. Yet, at least in this instance, not a single individual citizen contributed a single dime to the cause. But, you say, they have the polling numbers to back themselves up, don’t they? Well, as you might have guessed, ATS is the one paying for the polls. And if you’re paying for the polls, don’t you think you’re going to get the results you want? Unfortunately, that’s how this whole process works. It’s one big shell game of 1) paying off gov’t officials by giving them “consulting fees” in the form of a percentage of the ticket revenue, 2) lying to the public via fake advocacy groups to “build support,” 3) paying for polls which give you whatever results you desire, 4) giving key players like signal installation companies a big enough cut that they will actively work to keep the program in place, and 5) fight any opposition by the public using any means necessary to prevent the removal of your program.

A key element to all of this is to make sure you build the kind of awareness most suitable to getting your plan locked into place via multiple PR agencies, consultants, as well as exploiting vicitms and their tragedies to ensure you get the “emotional buy-in” so critical to sustaining these rip off campaigns.

Most of the funding went into the pockets of consultants and lawyers. Hired gun Jim McGrath was paid $35,592 to be the pro-camera spokesman. ATS paid polling firm Wilson Research $25,125 to conduct a push poll. Walker Entertainment Group was paid $19,500 for consulting and radio ads. Jessica Colon was paid $19,073 for consulting. Strategic Public Affairs received $5000 for consulting. RazorIT was paid $14,000 to create the appearance of support for red light cameras in online social networks. Advarion, the company hired to create identical websites for each anti-camera referendum, was paid $6702. Lawyer Roger Gordon received $15,160, Andy Taylor received $8343 and the law firm Baker and Botts $10,004. The front group spent $27,200 on radio ads in June.

The above quote really shows the internal machinations of a corporate money machine that is near impossible to stop once it is entrenched among city and county governments. This is further solidified with ironclad, long-term contracts that governments sign onto that makes it virtually impossible for them to cancel before they expire. And if all else fails, the money-grubbing corporations use the court system to try and turn the courts against the will of the people in both the government and the citizenry at large.

That’s who ATS is. That’s what ATS does. Companies like ATS have no place in Missouri (or any state for that matter), and no right to try and force red light and photo enforcement cameras down the public’s throat, especially when it’s clear they neither reduce accidents, nor increase safety. When their only function is to enrich the companies involved in installing and operating them, then it’s clear they are not contributing to the public good.

The MOST important message here is that this process is just standard operating procedure for what is happening all over this country by corporations who buy their influence, hire former bureaucrats, and spend millions upon millions of dollars in lobbying. It’s what happened with the health care bill, it’s what caused the near total collapse of our financial industry, and it continues unabated in the energy industry and many others. What this series of articles does is show how YOU and ME are the only ones who pay. Everyone else in this chain of deception gets paid. The question now is: What are we prepared to do to stop this BS?

UPDATE: As if they’d been reading my mind the last few days, The Pitch has a short article highlighting the scummy, underhanded methods employed by ATS in their efforts to create fake support, as well as their attempts at discrediting legitimate critics of their work. This company is truly the bottom of the barrel.

It is truly amazing to see the level of disguising, deception, and propaganda employed by corporations when they are looking to take money out of the pockets of average citizens. There are many tentacles to this ongoing fraud, so I’m presenting a series of smaller “pieces” of this puzzle for your consideration.

Fake-advocacy group NCSR’s Facebook page

NCSR is really a Washington lobbyist-run, corporate-funded propaganda site, and that is only reinforced by looking at their Facebook page. Currently, the company behind this site is exploiting the tragedies of families who’ve lost loved ones to red light runners, by posting on their Facebook page and insinuating that their cameras could have prevented these tragedies without being able to properly correlate or otherwise prove whether or not a red light camera would have stopped those drivers, or even slowed them down. There is no possible way to know this, and for them to throw that assumption out there as if the answer is obvious is pretty despicable.

Unfortunately, NCSR restricts who can “like” things or comment on this page, which is not at all surprising for an organization not being honest about what it really is and that wants to strictly control the message it puts out. The lobbyists that run NCSR will say that it’s common for non-profits to monitor and approve who can like/comment on their page, but that is not true of many, many actual non-profit, advocacy/charity organizations that truly want to benefit citizens. But let’s put that aside for a second and look at how some of the authorized “likers” are actually connected together.

1) Of the 43 people who “like” the NCSR page, only 3 are visible, making me wonder just who the other 40 people are who clicked their affection. Why aren’t the other 40 visible? Is there any logical reason why someone would not disclose their “liking” of such a seemingly concerned, safety-oriented, and beneficial group? One has to wonder when 93% of one’s “fans” apparently wish to remain anonymous. If I were a betting man (which I am), I’d wager most of those 40 are closely affiliated with American Traffic Solutions, the lobbying firm running the site, or it’s PR affiliates.

2) Of the 3 official “Likers” shown on the page, one of them is ATS itself (it’s good to know ATS likes itself, given they put up the NCSR website in the first place), the second is Stop on Red Florida, also one of the main “supporters” listed on the NCSR website, and the third is M3 Motivational Concepts. M3 is really Melissa Wandall, who is President of the Stop Red Light Running Coalition of Florida. Florida is a hotbed of ATS-supporters, including many of the cities who currently use red light cameras, as well as those cities’ law enforcement members and politicians. (Tragically, Mrs. Wandall’s husband was killed by a red light runner, so her affiliation on a personal level is understood). Given her active support and location in Bradenton, Florida, it seems likely she is affiliated with many of the numerous Florida-based “supporters” listed on ATS’s NCSR website.

So, of the entire collection of 43 “Likers” of the NCSR facebook page, 40 are a total mystery and the other 3 are ATS itself, or have close ties to ATS. Does this smell badly to anyone besides me?

3) Of the individual posts put up by NCSR, a guy named John Wintersteen seems to just love them all right to pieces! He’s clicked his affection 4 different times on the first 9 or so NCSR postings. Who is John Wintersteen? Well coincidentally, he’s one of the top 3 leaders pictured on the NCSR website and former Chief of Police for the city of Paradise Valley, AZ, which just happens to be the first and longest running city to have red light cameras installed in their intersections. Hmm, I wonder if Chief Wintersteen has any financial interest in Arizona-based ATS or not? I don’t know, but I’m going to try and find out when I get more time.

4) Check this out–Regarding their current top post announcing the launch of an “education campaign” in Missouri of the benefits of red light cameras, 4 “people” like the post (as of this writing). One of them (John Duckwitz) is a PR flack for a Washington, DC-based PR firm called Home Front Communications. Now why would a DC-based PR guy care a whit about a supposedly home-grown Missouri-based education campaign? Hmmm.

Another one (Scott Charton) is trying pretty hard to hide who he really is, as evidenced by his facebook page which is totally devoid of visible profile information, as well as a black and white picture of Jackie Gleason shooting pool instead of a picture of himself. He has no Twitter account that I can find, but he is apparently in charge of University Communications for the University of Missouri System, in addition to owning and operating his own PR side business, Charton Communications and Consulting. Hmmmm. How weird is it that at least two of the 4 “likers” of that post just happen to be high level PR executives? Pretty weird, I’d say. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence, though. Wouldn’t it be an even weirder coincidence if it just so happened that Scott Charton is working a side job for NCSR/ATS through his side business? Yeah, that’d be pretty coinky dinky, wouldn’t it… I’ve emailed him to ask about this, and will update this post if I receive a response.

A third one (Shelby Novy) appears to be a totally fake profile or one created for the sole purpose of pimping NCSR, given their profile picture is a red light camera, they list under “activities and interests” over 150 entities that either are ATS, are cities throughout the U.S. that use red light cameras, or are organizations that support red light camera usage, including M3 Motivational Concepts mentioned above.

The fourth person (Michelle Williams Burrell) has zero information on her facebook page other than she apparently went to Civic Memorial High School. When I Googled her name plus the high school name, I did find a school in Bethalto, Ill that lists her, but it is locked up and unviewable unless you are a classmate from that school. She shows up on MySpace, but with zero information other than a picture, and zero information comes up on Twitter under that name. Zero information at LinkedIn as well. How ding dang mysterious!

In other words, all 4 of these “likers” appear to be either PR flacks with possible connections to the red light camera issue, or total mysteries with virtually no information available. And a couple of them are parts of both. Is this really a likely scenario? You be the judge.

5) Frank Hinds. Frank was the other person “authorized” to comment on posts on the NCSR page. Frank is a board member of Arizona’s Red Means Stop Traffic Safety Alliance. This group is also sponsored by ATS as well as the other leading corporation producing and pushing red-light cameras all over the country, Redflex Traffic Systems (who aren’t even a US corporation, but instead are based in Australia). The state of Arizona is another hotbed of cities employing red light cameras, as well as home to ATS, and not coincidentally, is also home to one of the largest groups opposing the red-light camera ticketing scheme, CameraFraud.com.

Excellent article explaining the inherent conflicts-of-interest present and why Red Light cameras should be removed in Houston, Texas

The linked article above is, admittedly, a much less pissed-off (and thorough) version of my efforts to expose the red-light camera scam. A must read in order to understand the profit-motive issues involved in the red light camera scam. The only part of this article I might disagree with is the author’s questioning of whether red light cameras increase safety (he says the evidence that they do is only anecdotal). From what I’ve read so far, there is ample evidence to suggest that red light cameras actually DECREASE safety via the increase in the number of accidents at intersections where they are installed, particularly rear-end type collisions.

When looking at the this very large pile of stinking data, one would need to make quite a mental pretzel not to conclude that this entire red light camera fiasco is anything but an attempt by a large corporation to create fear (red light running is terrorizing our streets and children!!), and fleece citizens and city governments of as much cash as possible, all while forcing drivers to give up their constitutional rights to face their actual accusers in a court of law.

UPDATE: Thanks to Matt Hay over at WrongOnRed.com for confirming for me that Shelby Novy is in fact an ATS employee. Nothing like knowing the shills you’re dealing with. Oh, and while we’re connecting the dots, HERE’S A PIC of both Shelby and Frank Hinds from the ATS Facebook page.

UPDATE II: Here’s another astroturfing site advocating the installation of red light cameras as the only solution (totally false) to reducing red light runners/crashes: Missouri Familes for Safer Roads. Lo and behold! Scott Charlatan, er, excuse me Charton, admits right there on the home page he works for ATS. And for MUCH MUCH more on the corruption going on between ATS and state and city lawmakers/law enforcement in the state of Missouri, CHECK OUT THIS PAGE

It is becoming perfectly clear that the entirety of the red light camera issue has little to nothing to do with saving lives, and everything to do with buying off officials, deceiving the public, and siphoning off as much cash as possible, all without increasing safety, or considering simpler, cheaper, and more effective solutions. All wrapped up nicely by slick PR firms to make it look like a grassroots movement. This is a textbook case revealing the “wizard” behind the curtain when you follow the money.

UPDATE III: This comprehensive article from the St. Louis Riverfront Times documents the deceit and corruption that’s been taking place for years in St. Louis on this subject. I highly recommend you check it out.

Money quote:

“The object of the business should not be to screw the public,” reasons Specter. “That’s going to kill red-light programs across the state. The thing is, these systems work. They prevent accidents and save lives. But ATS wanted to make as much money off them as they could. Shortening the warning period is just another way to increase revenue.”

The article just oozes corruption from beginning to end. Do read it, and then do everything you can to oppose this fraudulent, due-process-excising corporate money machine scam. Because that’s what it is. Plain and simple.

This morning on Fox 4 News, the “on-camera readers” read what is essentially a press release by a group called the National Coalition for Safer Roads (NCSR), and interviewed it’s Executive Director, David Kelly. They cited unspecified, unsourced statistics about how overwhelmingly Missouri citizens support red-light cameras. Fox4 did not question, dispute, or otherwise challenge the information, as actual journalism isn’t exactly the media’s forte anymore. When I saw this I thought to myself, “that doesn’t jive with everything else I’ve heard about how people I know in Missouri and elsewhere seem to feel about red-light cameras.” So I spent 45 minutes digging around and found some very interesting information. Needless to say, it does NOT support the one-sided PR spiel I heard on Fox 4 this morning.

Just by the name of the group, National Coalition for Safer Roads (a name surely any mother could love!), I suspected it was an astroturf organization, and I was right. Five minutes on their website makes that apparent. Most of their “supporters” are city officials, city governments, or city law enforcement and/or their officials who either directly profit from the use of red-light cameras, or are otherwise in a conflict-of-interest as a result of their involvement with their use. It should go without saying that virtually no one is against stopping red-light runners, and a few of the listed supporters probably don’t have a vested interest in seeing these cameras profit those who put them in place. But discreetly placed in the middle of page two of their “supporter” list is a company called American Traffic Solutions, with no link to further information. So I headed back to the NCSR website’s “About Us” page (which can be found at the innocuously-named site www.saferoadssavelives.org), and saw this statement:

NCSR was established to advance the cause of road and traffic safety and to support the road safety technology industry. It is a national coalition whose members and supporters include those who represent the traffic safety industry, safety organizations, and individuals who are active in advocating for safer roads through the use of technology. NCSR is supported by American Traffic Solutions.

Let’s look at this a little more closely.

That last sentence pretty much says it all. The site is paid for by American Traffic Solutions. On ATS’s website they state their mission clearly: “Our mission is to deliver the most effective technology and services that reduce operating costs or generate revenue to pay for its use.”

So what we have so far is a really nice-sounding “advocacy” organization that was founded less than two weeks ago (as of this writing) supposedly dedicated to safety, with a website paid for by a corporation that sells red-light and photo-radar cameras to cities and governments, many of whom are also listed as “supporters” of this so-called “safety-related” organization. Wow. The PR flacks don’t seem to even be trying anymore. But wait…..it gets better.

This “coalition’s” executive director, and the person who was “interviewed” on Fox4 this morning is David Kelly. Mr. Kelly is (you guessed it) a Washington lobbyist. He’s a principal at Storm King Strategies, a lobbying firm that represents corporate transportation industry interests. Funny how Fox4 didn’t mention that apparently useless fact to their viewers. Before that, he was the Acting Administrator/Chief of Staff at the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA). Which is no surprise, given the sleazy revolving door between government-appointed employees and the corporate sector. It’s one of the worst-kept secrets in Washington–become a well-placed government bureaucrat so that when you leave you can cash-in immediately by peddling your knowledge, contacts, and influence to the highest-paying corporate bidder. It’s the career-move of choice for all kinds of retiring military officers and congresspeople. Why? Because it’s very lucrative. For more on the corrupt influence-peddling interchangeability between gov’t employee and lobbyist, see THIS excellent article. The whole article should be read, but this paragraph in particular captures what is going on with the David Kellys of the world:

It’s vital to understand how this really works: it isn’t that people like Mike McConnell move from public office to the private sector and back again. That implies more separation than really exists. At this point, it’s more accurate to view the U.S. Government and these huge industry interests as one gigantic, amalgamated, inseparable entity — with a public division and a private one. When someone like McConnell goes from a top private sector position to a top government post in the same field, it’s more like an intra-corporate re-assignment than it is changing employers. When McConnell serves as DNI, he’s simply in one division of this entity and when he’s at Booz Allen, he’s in another, but it’s all serving the same entity (it’s exactly how insurance giant Wellpoint dispatched one of its Vice Presidents to Max Baucus’ office so that she could write the health care plan that the Congress eventually enacted).–Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com

This organization isn’t a bunch of concerned moms or victims’ families (although I’m sure such parties can and would rightly get behind the idea of reducing red-light running motorists). It’s the exact opposite. It’s a corporation deceitfully disguising itself as an advocacy group in order to con citizens into believing they are just looking out for the safety and well-being of average folks commuting around town. That is the very definition of propaganda, and it’s being put out by American Traffic Systems, Storm King Strategies, and then being mindlessly repeated without any kind of simple fact-checking by your hometown media stations. The short-term goal, of course, is to whip up support and offset the real citizen resistance that has been building in Missouri and other states for many years against red-light cameras and their dubious benefits. The long-term goal is to extract as much money and profit as possible from the average driving citizen by creating fake support so that more cities and municipalities will enter into binding and uncompromising leasing contracts with companies like ATS, and then incent those entities to write as many tickets as possible (more on that in subsequent posts).

I’d love to read your thoughts and comments about this post. Please use the comment section below. Also, please tag, “like,” link, and otherwise spread this article to other Missouri residents so they can be let in on what’s really behind the red-light camera scam.

In part 2, we’ll look at what better alternatives already exist to stop red-light runners, as well as what other concerned citizens in other states are finding out about these red-light camera initiatives and their backers. HINT: It isn’t about keeping people safe.

UPDATE: As if to bolster one of my arguments above, former Senator Evan Bayh joins the sleazefest, in a dual role no less.

UPDATE II: HERE is a top-notch TV investigation on the use of red-light cameras in the southern California area. You be the judge as to whether or not this is really all about “increasing safety.”

UPDATE III: Here is the video evidence from a week ago of an ATS official exploiting the death of a teenage girl in a city council meeting as referenced by commenter Matt Hay below. I’m not sure if that is Matt who slams the ATS official in response, but I’m glad someone did, and it sounds like the audience was, too.

UPDATE IV: An excellent site chock full of information showing the scam for which red-light cameras are is WrongOnRed.com. THere you will find, among many other helpful tidbits, a list of about 25 different studies showing the efficacy (or lack thereof) of red light cameras from all over the country. Truly, it cannot be more clear this is just another form or taxation without representation from well-funded, lobbyist-supported corporation looking to line its pockets at your expense.

Some time ago, I had an ongoing discussion in this space with my friend Vince about the usefulness and future viability of this thing we call Twitter. In essence, he hailed it as the greatest thing since sliced bread, and I panned it as something that would eventually go the way of the beeper. The rather obvious reality: it is neither.

After watching closely the past couple years at what people whom I respect in the worlds of media and politics have done with the Twitter medium, I no longer believe it to be a “useless junkyard” in cyberspace. In fact, it CAN be an incredibly valuable communication and social awareness-raising tool. The first time I realized this was when watching the events involving the civil unrest in Iran a couple years ago during which a young female protester was needlessly shot and killed by the Iranian military. During the subsequent media blackout, Twitter was used to communicate and spread the word about what was happening, and it was very effective at training the world’s attention on what might have otherwise been just a “series of unfortunate events.” Indeed, the recent events in Tunisia, exposing the idiocy that is Sarah Palin, and most recently the events involving Wikileaks, have all been issues heavily influenced by the use of Twitter.

But where I’ve really seen Twitter at its best has been in the way that Salon.com blogger Glenn Greenwald has hammered numerous subjects into the social and political dialogue of the day via his “tweets.” In my opinion, few individuals have done more social good with the Twitter universe than Greenwald. Often called “Glenzilla” by his ever-increasing fan base due to his tenacious pursuit of the truth, Glenn was the guy who first brought to light the inhumane, cruel, and coercive treatment of Bradley Manning, the alleged source of many of the recent Wikileaks releases.

Through his writing as well as his Twitter feed, Greenwald has been able to influence not only the national conversation about Manning and his alleged actions, but also about Wikileaks itself. He has almost single-handedly demolished one mainstream media lie after another being promulgated about Wikileaks and Julian Assange, many times via “tweets” which expose the lies and the liars telling them, followed up with links showing the facts as they are, vs how the mainstream media attempts to distort the truth and demonize the whistle-blowing organization. On numerous occasions, his tweets to the authors of those falsehoods have led to published corrections which would almost certainly not have come without his persistent advocacy.

In addition, Greenwald has called out the journalistic malfeasance of several employees of Wired Magazine, who have steadfastly refused to release the entire chat logs which supposedly implicate Manning as Wikileaks’ source for many of the government docs released thus far. With over 35,000 followers and growing every day, there is little doubt that Twitter has expanded the influence of Greenwald greatly, and helped feed and direct national conversations about important topics to which even more people should be paying close attention. THAT is an example of the good Twitter is capable of, and I hope there is much more of that on the horizon.

Don’t get me wrong–I see the flipside to this as well. There are just as many, if not more, influential morons, idiots, thieves, and all-around scofflaws promoting their insanity via the Twitter tool as well, and that may very well neuter a lot of the good being done by guys like Greenwald. But I don’t think it negates it, because I think there are a lot more people in the Twitterverse with common sense and smarts that can see what the truth really is. And revealing the truth, no matter how ugly it might be, is something Greenwald simply excels at.

I still believe that the majority of the “tweets” out there are junk and useless bits of broadband that could be used more wisely elsewhere. That will probably always be the case. I am still not on Twitter, but with getting a new Smartphone, and starting a new blog, I’m likely going to try it out and see if I’m able to inject “something to the good” now and then into the Twitterverse. One thing’s for sure: no Twitterheads will ever hear about my latest grocery purchase or what my burps smell like.

Well America, get ready for another massive ass-fucking at the hands of our own health insurers (apologies for the strong language, but there really isn’t a better term for what is happening). At least this time you’ll have an insider’s view of how it works. Unless of course, you get off your collective asses and do something about it.

Mr. Potter, while certainly a part of the problem for many years, is doing all he can to expose the Insurance Industry for what it is so that you can see what is really happening to your health insurance. Enjoy.

September 14th I addressed a gathering at the Center for American Progress in Washington, DC and delivered these remarks:

During my 20 years in corporate communications and public affairs, I participated in the steady growth and influence of largely invisible persuasion — and at a time when newsrooms are shrinking and investigative journalism seems to be vanishing. The number of PR people long ago surpassed the number of working journalists in this country. And that ratio of PR people to reporters will continue to grow. The clear winners as this shift occurs are big, rich corporations and other special interests. The losers are average Americans, most of whom are completely unaware how their thoughts and actions are being manipulated to achieve corporate goals on Capitol Hill.

THIS is the kind of stuff that’s meant when talking about “astroturf” organizations. It is this exact same process that is behind the tea-party protesters, birthers, and other organizations that are sponsored by shill groups like Dick Armey’s “FreedomWorks.”

You are being lied to, manipulated, and convinced to work against your own interests by these groups. If you don’t believe me, just ask insiders like Wendell Potter.

Bill Moyers did a great interview with Potter that can be seen HERE. Another very interesting Moyers show on healthcare reform and who’s influencing and controlling what ultimately gets done (or not done) can be found HERE and is highly recommended viewing.

Here is a bit more information on Wendell Potter.

One final note: Notice how the insurance companies, nearly all of the news media, and virtually 100% of right wing conservatives completely ignore Wendell Potter and the very damning statements he’s put forth about health insurers and the process of passing health care reform? I wonder why that is……

by digby

There’s a lot of talk today about the Baucus plan, and some serious sturm and drang over whether or not it actually presents an improvement in people’s lives. Matt Yglesias and Marcy Wheeler take on the question and both make good points although they come to different conclusions. The details on all this are, surprisingly, just being looked at, and it’s revealed that health care will still be expensive for the average, middle class person like me who has to buy insurance on the private market.

To that, I can only say, yup. And anyone over 45 who is self employed is fucked in the current system and not a whole lot better off under the proposed new one. For us, just being allowed to buy into Medicare at any price would be a dream come true since it covers everything and can’t be taken away. At my age, my friends are starting to drop with cancer, heart disease etc (which I’m sure they all deserve for having eaten fried snickers bars and everything, but still …) And my husband and I can’t buy even a crappy policy with gigantic deductibles and ridiculous out of pocket expenses for less than $550.00 a month. That’s a big bill, particularly for the self-employed whose income is often unpredictable. The Baucus plan isn’t going to improve much of anything for me. I’m an older,self-employed middle class American and I basically have to just keep my fingers crossed that I stay very healthy for the next 13 years or I’ll lose whatever sad retirement savings I have.

But we’re stuck with what is, not with what works, and the fact is that there will be some material improvements for people other than me and my useless middle aged loser cohort, and that’s something. The Baucus plan does provide some rather substantial help for the poor, caps out of pocket expenses (at a pretty high rate, but it’s better than most private insurance which pays out a total of about $3.72 when you add up all the exclusions.) But I’m very skeptical of the plan actually bringing improvement over the long haul for reasons that have little to do with the actual policies they contain (the final mix of which we can’t know yet.)

The problem is the politics. Any plan that forces the uninsured to pay their hard earned money to wealthy private insurance companies under penalty of law is a huge political risk. These are the same companies that have brought us to this place where people are routinely denied the care they were promised, lied to about what was covered, scammed into paying huge sums of money for no security and no guarantee. Health insurance companies have dealt with their customers in bad faith for years and years and now we are being told that everyone must pony up and pay them even more. For all the talk of reform, when you whittle this down, that one fact comes roaring back at you and it sticks hard in the craw of anyone who considers themselves progressive.

The Democrats simply do not understand that as much as many people mistrust the government and believe it is inept and malevolent, just as many mistrust the private sector and believe it is greedy and malevolent — and those beliefs don’t break down as neatly between right and left as one might think. What they are going to do is force the currently uninsured to write a check to a private company for a large sum of money every month, the subsidies for which will show up as some kind of “credit” on their tax returns. How do you think most people are going to mentally and emotionally process that expense? As a good deal or a bad one?

Income taxes which nobody particularly enjoys paying, are at least taken out of your paychecks before you see the money and are theoretically going to pay for things which go to the common good: defense, police, air traffic control, roads, “volcano monitoring” etc. The payroll tax goes into the pool for disability, medicare and social security — the safety net. But the for-profit health insurance business is in business to make money for its shareholders, period. And everybody knows that you simply can’t expect Wellpoint to not act like a capitalistic enterprise and try to make as much profit as they can from that transaction. We’ve just witnessed the Masters of the Universe thumb their noses at any call to decent human behavior even immediately after they nearly destroyed the financial system. Corporations are not designed to give a damn about anything but profits and they have the political system so wired that regulation is just another bargaining chip.

In any case, the insurance companies may be regulated under the law, but the remedy for the average person is to hire a lawyer and take them through the legal system all the way to that wholly owned industry subsidiary they call the Roberts Court. That’s a rather inefficient way to ensure that costs come down and people are covered. Especially since the people who are suing are probably dead by the time they get there.

Aside from its (dubious) merits as a cost control measure (which relies on that notorious commie concept of competition!)the public plan at least ensures that the people who object to being forced by law to contribute to obscene CEO salaries could choose instead to pay their money to a highly regulated non-profit government program. That program, rather than putting profits into the pockets of executives and shareholders, would put it back into the system to pay for more health care and would be structurally in place for future improvements. Since the party took Medicare for all Americans off the table before we even got here, it’s not too much to ask for at least that one paltry choice, especially since it actually solidifies the compact between the people and their government, something that Democrats should always be trying to do.

As for whether or not it’s a deal breaker, well that isn’t really up to me or you. It’s up to Barack Obama. I’m afraid that as much as we like to think we can “hold the progressives’ feet to the fire” on health care reform, it’s always been highly unlikely that at the end of the day progressive Democrats would vote against their new president on his signature piece of domestic legislation (which also happens to have been the Liberal Holy Grail for the past 60 years) no matter how much we might scream and yell and issue threats. Health care is not going to be the issue on which the left defies Barack Obama and bands together with Republicans to defeat him. If Obama wants to pass a Health Care reform bill that opens up Medicaid to more poor people, ostensibly regulates the insurance industry and provides some modest subsidies to the uninsured middle class, even if its a rube Goldberg set-up that is unlikely to be sustained, progressives are not going to be the ones to stop it. I’m sorry, they just aren’t. Obama himself must be persuaded that the public option is in his own and the country’s best interest for it to pass. And even then it might fail at the hands of the “centrist” corporate shills for whom this paltry effort goes too far.

The price that’s paid for a compromised Obama plan with meager subsidies and big mandates which line the pockets of insurance companies is likely to be very high indeed for the Democratic Party and its relationship to the middle class. Maybe they think they can finesse it, but the economy is likely to be in distress for some long time to come, more and more people are going to be thrown into the private insurance market and what they find is going to be far less than promised.

The riskiest thing Obama can do is to put in place a plan from which a majority of people will not see the benefit and many will see something worse. The beauty of social security was that every citizen had a stake in it. On health care, the only people anyone refers to as “stakeholders” are members of the medical industry. I think that tells you exactly where things went wrong.

Update: Here’s a nice headline:

Fines proposed for going without health insurance

AP – Tuesday, September 08, 2009 6:04:53 AM By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR

Americans who don’t get health insurance once the system is overhauled would be fined up to $3,800 under a proposal that circulated in Congress on Tuesday as Democratic leaders cast doubt on prospects for creating a government-run insurance plan.

Update II: Via dday below, I see that Baucus has provided for state level ombudsmen, which presumably would have to be accessed before any lawsuit could commence. So I feel pretty confident that they will work out the kinks in the regulatory scheme by 2109.

Update III: Belay that opinion that Baucus will be an improvement for the poor. Some working poor are likely to be worse off — because they can’t get a job:

The proposal has serious flaws, including the following:

Biasing Hiring and Firing Decisions Against Low-Income Workers

* The proposal would make it considerably more expensive for employers to hire workers from lower-income families than workers from higher-income backgrounds to do the same job. As a result, it would distort hiring decisions. Employers would have strong incentives to tilt hiring toward people who have a spouse with a good income (or have health coverage through a family member), teenagers whose parents make a decent living, and people without children (since the eligibility limit for the subsidies in the new health insurance exchanges will increase with family size). Low-income women with children in one-earner families would be particularly disadvantaged.

While language could be included to try to ban such discriminatory effects, it would be virtually impossible to enforce effectively. It would be extremely difficult to prove in court that an employer has passed over one applicant and hired another because of the health surcharge that employers would face if they hired people receiving health insurance subsidies. Moreover, most low-income job applicants who do not get hired could not afford to hire attorneys to initiate legal proceedings. For the tiny number that might be able to institute proceedings, the legal complaint likely would take months and, more likely, years to adjudicate. In short, the fact that low-income workers would cost an employer up to several thousand dollars more to perform the same job could not easily be overcome.

* This differential treatment of workers based on their family income also would likely influence employer decisions about which of their employees to let go when they trim their workforces to cut costs, such as during a recession. Workers from low-income families would cost the firm significantly more to retain than other workers who are paid the same wage to do the same job.

* Although this clearly is not intended, the proposal likely would have discriminatory racial effects on hiring and firing. As noted, it would discourage the hiring of lower-income people. And since minorities are more likely to have low family incomes than non-minorities, a larger share of prospective minority workers would likely be harmed.

In lieu of that, however, I’ve found a brilliant interview that contains nearly all of the points I wanted to make. What makes it even better is the fact those points are all made by a former high-ranking executive for Cigna Healthcare, one of the 7 largest health insurance companies in America. Better still is the fact this executive, Wendell Potter, is the former head of corporate communications for both Humana Healthcare and Cigna. Potter quit his lucrative job at Cigna after realizing how much health care companies and Wall Street were hurting Americans, literally, while putting profits before peoples’ health. Below is an interview he did this month with Guernica magazine, and it is reprinted in its entirety, with my emphasis added at key points throughout.

Read this, and you will have your simple and accurate understanding of the Health Reform issue, coming straight from the insider’s mouth, about why you likely won’t be getting a public option, or any real meaningful health care reform, any time soon.

NOTE: If you prefer a video interview of Wendell Potter, he appeared on PBS’ Bill Moyers Journal a few months ago and said many of the same things. That interview can be found HERE along with several other articles and interviews involving this consummate health care executive whistleblower.

**********************************************************************

August 2009
Last Temptation
An interview with Wendell Potter

The former mouthpiece for insurance giant Cigna divulges his role in misleading the public, the emotional day that led to his whistle-blowing, and what should really scare you.

In June 2007, Wendell Potter was head of corporate communications at Cigna, one of the largest health insurance companies in America, when he attended the U.S. premier of Michael Moore’s Sicko. Potter was part of the team charged with discrediting Moore’s film, which advance word said was highly critical of the health insurance industry. Potter “sat quietly in the back and took notes,” but soon realized he had a problem. “When I saw the movie, I’ll be honest: I thought it was a real good documentary. I knew from my own studies of other healthcare systems that it was an accurate portrayal of those systems and how they are able to provide universal coverage.” Yet he was being paid by Cigna to tell people the opposite, that the film was full of lies.

Just a few weeks later, Potter, who is from Tennessee, read in a local paper about a free healthcare expedition being held in Wise County, Virginia. He decided to check it out. Walking through the fairground gates, Potter saw hundreds of people waiting in the rain while physicians attended to patients in animal stalls or on gurneys lying on the rain-soaked pavement. Tents had been pitched across the fairground lawns, creating a scene “like something that could’ve been happening on a battlefield or in a war-torn country.” Tears mixed with the rain to cloud Potter’s vision. “What I thought was: ‘Is this the United States?’ It was so remote from my reality. It just seemed impossible.”

In months and years prior, Potter had grown increasingly skeptical about his job as chief spokesman for Cigna. Though he insists he never intentionally lied to a reporter, he began to spout what he thought were either misleading or less than honest statements. Moreover, his job required him to hype new programs he felt were not in the best interest of patients or the U.S. healthcare system—particularly when it came to high-deductible, or “consumer driven” plans. He came to feel he was on the wrong side of the healthcare debate and would catch himself gazing into a mirror, wondering, “Who is this? How did this happen to me?” After Sicko and Wise County, he resigned.

Since then, Potter has become an outspoken advocate for healthcare reform. Why reform? Because of statistics like these: The U.S. healthcare system is the most expensive in the world, with each person spending more than twice as much on care than people in other industrialized nations. Yet our system ranks 29th in infant mortality, 28th in healthy life expectancy, and 37th overall. In June, Potter testified before the Senate on the devastating effects that Wall Street has on our healthcare system. The overwhelming demand to satisfy investors, Potter told the committee, is what causes insurance companies to “confuse their customers and dump the sick.”

With twenty years of industry experience—he was head of corporate communications with Humana before moving on to Cigna—Potter is an important voice in the healthcare debate. As a former insider, he is uniquely positioned to reveal the industry’s secrets, like its obsession with the medical-loss ratio—the difference between what health insurance companies pay out in claims and what it has left over—which, Potter says, causes otherwise good people in the industry to allow patients to die in order to increase profits. Yet in another sense, Potter is not so unique. We’ve seen them before, former insiders who reap huge financial benefits from an industry or system only to publicly denigrate it years later. If things were so bad, we’re left wondering, why didn’t Potter say something earlier? I recently spoke with Potter by phone.

—Jake Whitney for Guernica

Guernica: During your time in the industry, you created health insurance front groups to mislead the public. Can you give me an example of one of these front groups?

Wendell Potter: When the Clinton plan collapsed [in 1994], there was an effort to pass legislation that would give enrollees in managed care more protections. The industry saw this as anti-managed care legislation, so they established a group called the Health Benefits Coalition. The Health Benefits Coalition, with the funding it got from the insurance industry, killed off the effort to get a Patient’s Bill of Rights passed. A more recent example of a front group I was involved with was trying to blunt the effect of [Michael Moore’s documentary] Sicko. Through a PR firm, the industry created a front group to disseminate misleading information about the healthcare systems featured in Sicko—particularly in Canada, the U.K., and France. This front group was set up specifically to try to counter [Moore’s positive depiction of them].

Guernica: What were your duties with these front groups?

Wendell Potter: To help form messaging and develop strategy with public relations firms. PR firms help create the front groups and serve as the back offices to get the work done. The insurance industry contributes advice and counsel and feedback, but the real work gets done by the PR firms that the insurance industry hires.

Guernica: Was it difficult for you to discredit a movie you felt was accurate?

Wendell Potter: It was very difficult. I was beginning to hate my job. I’d look in the mirror and say, “Who is this? How did this happen to you?” But I had a job to do and was being paid quite a bit, so I soldiered on. I wouldn’t have stayed as long as I did if I didn’t believe that the company I worked for was honest and trying to meet the needs of people. I believed I was making some kind of positive contribution. As I was climbing up the corporate ladder, I got to understand more about how the companies make money and how they are so beholden to Wall Street—both investors and Wall Street analysts—and the things that they do to meet Wall Street’s expectations.

Guernica: You worked in the industry for twenty years. It doesn’t seem like it should have taken so long.

Wendell Potter: You don’t really focus on it or understand the significance of it. I’ll admit I knew that Wall Street looked at the medical-loss ratio. I knew it was an important measure. I didn’t know until, frankly, very recently how important it was. As recently as fifteen years ago, the medical-loss ratio in this country was 95 percent. Since then, there’s been great industry consolidation to the point that now there are seven companies that dominate. They’re all for-profit. During the time that this consolidation, this shift to for-profit occurred, the medical-loss ratio has continued to drop. Now it’s around 80 percent. That means twenty cents of every dollar goes to something other than paying medical claims. Just fifteen years ago, ninety-five cents of every dollar went to paying medical claims. This trend is due to pressure from Wall Street. If a company misses Wall Street’s expectations—if the medical-loss ratio starts to inch up—the company will suffer. I’ve seen companies lose 20 percent of their stock value in one day by disappointing Wall Street with their medical-loss ratio.

Our current reality is far scarier than the fear-mongering. What people have now is a corporate bureaucrat who stands between a person and his or her doctor.

Guernica: So are you saying our healthcare system would be better off if medical insurance companies weren’t publicly traded?

Wendell Potter: We would not have the same problems. Just look at what’s happened since 1993, the beginning of the conversion to for-profit status. The two biggest companies now are Wellpoint and United. In 1993, they were very small. They’ve grown to their size and influence through very aggressive acquisition strategies. In Wellpoint’s case, they bought up many non-profit Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans around the country, which have since converted to for-profit status. United has had a similar strategy. Aetna and Cigna are third and fourth in size, and they, too, have grown largely by acquisition. The fixation that Wall Street has with the medical-loss ratio has created huge problems because investors look at that measure even more than they look at earnings-per-share, which is the primary measure that investors look at in most industries.

Guernica: Shifting to President Obama’s plan: critics often say that Obama’s healthcare plan would be detrimental to care because it would take decisions away from doctors and patients and put them in the hands of a government bureaucrat. Is this a legitimate concern?

Wendell Potter: No. But it is one of those talking points the industry repeats every time we have a debate about reform. They said it in 1993. They say it whenever the industry is under threat of increased government involvement. What I’m telling people is that our current reality is far scarier than the fear-mongering. What people have now is a corporate bureaucrat who stands between a person and his or her doctor. That’s much scarier than the specter of more government. In any event, there is nothing in any healthcare plan that is being proposed that would put a government bureaucrat between a person and his or her doctor.

Guernica: Why is a corporate bureaucrat scarier?

Wendell Potter: Because every person who works for a for-profit company knows that the company has to meet Wall Street’s expectations. Every manager of the company has to pull his or her weight to make sure he and his team are doing all that they can to help the company meet that objective. That includes medical directors. Same with the nurses. They know what the company has to do to meet Wall Street’s expectations and to stay in the good graces of investors.

Guernica: So in other words, corporate bureaucrats have a profit incentive to deny care to people who are enrolled in their plans.

Wendell Potter: Absolutely. It doesn’t have to be stated directly to them that you will be paid a particular bonus if you deny X number of claims; it’s known, and it’s part of the culture.

Guernica: You said you’re familiar with the healthcare systems featured in Sicko and believe them to be superior to the U.S. system.

Wendell Potter: They’re better in many regards. No system is perfect. Every system has flaws and challenges.

Guernica: What about the long wait times we’re warned about, and that government-run healthcare would be one step on the path to socialism? Is there any legitimacy to these claims?

Wendell Potter: No. In fact, we can look at the wait times in this country as more horrific than anything you’ll see in the Canadian system, for example. For elective procedures in many of these countries, yes, you might wait longer for some elective procedure. You might wait longer for an MRI than you would in this country because, on a per capita basis, there are often more machines here than in some of those other systems. But life expectancy in almost every one of these other countries is greater than ours. People do not have to wait long for urgent or necessary care. In fact, in many countries it’s more likely that you would be able to get a same-day appointment with a doctor than here.

Guernica: How do you know?

Wendell Potter: I’ve traveled abroad a lot and I’ve studied them. I’ve been a student of statistics of these other systems, so I do know this, and yes, I have been there.

Guernica: Much was made during the Democratic primaries of health insurance contributions to Democrats. I believe Hillary Clinton raked in a record amount from healthcare companies. Do you think these donations have helped stall legislation?

Wendell Potter: Oh, absolutely. Every step of the way. Let me tell you a story. I am a great admirer of Hillary Clinton’s. I think she’s done terrific things for this country and is a great public servant. But money talks and relationships make a difference. These [insurance] companies contribute more to Democrats than they used to, and they’ve begun hiring lobbyists from the Democratic side of the aisle. They look for the best-connected lobbyists. The CEO of Cigna [H. Edward Hanway] wanted to spend a few minutes with Hillary when she was running for president. One of the lobbyists that Cigna hired was known to be very close to the Clintons, and Hillary Clinton, in particular. Lo and behold, she was able to arrange a meeting for [Hanway] to come to Washington and spend a few minutes with Hillary. I don’t think that [Hanway] necessarily persuaded her to see things from his point of view. She’s not a huge fan of insurance companies. But he was able to get in the door and spend a few minutes with her. And that’s what I’m talking about. It’s the influence insurance companies have been able to buy through hiring people who are well-connected, often former members of Congress or former staff members.

Guernica: Then there are the Blue Dog Democrats and their role in holding up legislation. What’s their motivation?

Wendell Potter: The industry has contributed so heavily to the Republicans over the years that they are pretty much assured that every single Republican in Congress will vote exactly the way they want on any issue pertaining to healthcare. This has not occurred just with campaign contributions. It’s also ideology. The industry has been very determined to carve out its niche on the right side of the political spectrum and, along with the business community, be advocates of a free-market approach to any aspect of our economy—and make sure that there is minimal regulation of any economic sector. So there is a great ideological kinship between the insurance industry and the Republican Party. And this is close to the ideology of the Blue Dog Democrats, who tend to be in border states of the south or where there are more Republicans. Industry has been feeding the Blue Dogs talking points and working overtime to make sure they see things from their philosophical and business perspectives.

Guernica: It was reported late last month [July 29] that a tentative agreement was reached with the Blue Dogs in the House that would omit the “public option.” Do you think that’s a good thing?

Wendell Potter: There have been some compromises that have been made to the Blue Dogs. But Nancy Pelosi said today that the public option is not being sacrificed. I think the leadership in the House and Senate will be fierce defenders of the public option. The Blue Dogs are insurers’ best hope of gutting healthcare reform and removing the public option from legislation. So they are very, very important to the industry, which is why you’re hearing so much about them right now.

Guernica: Do you think the public option is important?

It’s essential. Reform without the public option would be far less meaningful and effective. The public option may not go as far as people would like in some ways, but we need a mechanism that controls costs and makes healthcare more available to citizens. It would go a long way toward keeping the insurance industry more honest, as the president has said.

Guernica: Conservatives’ opposition to the public option is confusing. Shouldn’t conservatives welcome a system that gives more choices to the consumer, which is supposed to be a tenet of conservatism?

Wendell Potter: It doesn’t make a lot of sense. On the one hand, they’re saying that [a public option] would put the private sector at an unfair disadvantage, while they’re also saying that the private sector can operate more efficiently. They are trying to have it both ways. But the reality is that the free-market simply does not work in the healthcare sector as it might in other sectors. A public insurance plan wouldn’t need to have the sales, marketing, and underwriting expenses—and would certainly not need to pay executives exorbitant salaries, and would not need to set aside a significant chunk of every premium dollar to pay shareholders—that private plans do.

Guernica: The [July 30] New York Times had a story that said this: “Obama’s ability to shape the healthcare debate appears to be waning as opponents portray the effort as a government takeover.” Apparently conservative messaging is working.

Wendell Potter: The industry knows through many years of focus group testing what messages scare people. “Government takeover,” is one of those terms.

The reason I started speaking out is I knew the insurance industry would come out with guns blazing to kill reform. I knew the tactics they’d be using and buzzwords they’d be repeating—especially through their shills in Congress, media and business. It’s the same old playbook. I know it because I essentially helped write it. I knew that when the time came, they’d be unleashing that crap. And I knew that it would have the impact it’s having on people and Congress. It’s basically a political contest. At first, it seemed like Obama was just going to walk into office and transformative healthcare legislation would get passed. But I knew it would be a contentious fight—that the industry would be throwing everything conceivable to keep significant reform from happening. Because we’re talking about billions and billions of dollars at stake for those companies and investors. But it’s not a lost cause. Over the next few weeks, we will see one hell of a battle in the districts and over airwaves as proponents and opponents of change spend tons of money on TV and radio advertisements. We’ll be hearing fear mongering like we’ve never heard before, but also be hearing, I hope, effective advertising from the proponents of reform.

Guernica: The Times story really attests to the power of opponents of healthcare reform; don’t most Americans favor reform and some type of universal coverage?

Wendell Potter: They are in favor of it, yes. But the industry knows through many years of focus group testing what messages scare people. And the term you mentioned a few minutes ago, “government takeover,” is one of those terms that they’ve tested and know will scare the bejesus out of people. They know that in the past, people have been so afraid of anything that approaches socialism that you’ll hear that comparison all the time; that if we go with reform, we will have a government takeover of healthcare; that we’ll be on the slippery slope toward socialism.

Guernica: But what about programs like Medicare and the Veteran’s Administration? These are large, extremely effective, government-run programs that have been around a long time, despite the slippery slope rhetoric.

Wendell Potter: The health insurance industry knows this. That is why they’re so careful with language. Medicare is far more popular than almost any private health insurance program in the country. And people in other programs you mentioned are certainly very grateful. But many of them don’t know that it’s a public program.

Guernica: But we’ve heard this exact same talk of socialism decades ago during the battles over Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, etc. And I don’t think very many people want to lose these programs now.

Wendell Potter: Conservatives are so bound to ideology they refuse to take a serious, open-minded look at how for-profit insurance companies have wrecked our healthcare. They don’t want to take the blinders off. What gives me hope is that despite all the lies and all the disinformation that opponents of reform have spread over the years, real reform has nevertheless been enacted. Like the Medicare program during the Johnson years; like the Medicaid program that is such an essential safety net for so many of our people; the Veteran’s program you mentioned. We have plenty of examples of government programs that work great and have done so much for so many billions of people over many years.

Guernica: You’ve mentioned that when you worked for Cigna, you liked your co-workers. You’ve said that you respected your bosses and still do. Have you had contact with them? Are they aware of what side you’re on these days?

Wendell Potter: Oh, there’s no doubt they know what side I’m on. I have not had contact with my former boss or CEO. My former boss was the company’s general counsel [Carol Ann Petren]. She reports to the CEO [Hanway]. I worked and served [Hanway] throughout my career, knew him very well, and like him personally. But he’s one of those people who we just talked about who are committed to privatizing all aspects of the economy. And he’s benefited enormously—earning many millions of dollars in compensation [According to Forbes, Hanway earned over $30 million in 2007]. So has my former boss, also one of the most highly compensated employees [Petren made $2.18 million in 2008]. She is of the same philosophy. I respect their right to have those opinions. But they’re dead wrong.

Guernica: This is an industry that allows people to die so it can increase profits. I would think that it would be difficult to respect people who remain in that industry.

Wendell Potter: When you’re in an executive office in a skyscraper, and you’ve got people bringing your lunch, who take you home in a company-owned limousine with a driver on the company payroll, you get a very skewed understanding of America. You are removed from the reality of how most people live. And the number—46.7 million people without insurance—remains just a number when you’re in that environment. It’s only when you let yourself be around people who are without insurance, who are underinsured, who wait in line… [long pause]

Guernica: Hello?

Wendell Potter: [Choked up] Yes, I’m here.

Guernica: Sounds like this is very emotional for you.

Wendell Potter: Yes. It’s crazy but I still get choked up when I remember the Wise County experience. Talking about it brings back the vision of all those people standing in line in the rain to get care in animal stalls.

Guernica: Did you ever express your concerns with colleagues at Cigna?

Wendell Potter: I talked to friends, but I didn’t muster the courage to [talk to co-workers]. When I decided to quit, I thought I’d just kind of go quietly. I announced it as a retirement, but I could have made a lot more money had I stayed. But I was okay with that. I wasn’t ready to go fishing, but I was ready to take a break. At one point, I thought I might have a chance to change things inside the company and the industry. But I realized very quickly that that was just wishful thinking. The industry is controlled by Wall Street investors. These companies are for-profit. Their first rule is to enhance shareholder value. That is what’s important. If what I said hindered a company’s profitability, I was not going to be listened to, plain and simple.

Guernica: What I’m getting at is this: You’ve become a significant voice in the healthcare debate. But there’s a portion of the public that looks at you skeptically. We’ve seen this before—Scott McClellan is a recent example—someone who is in an industry or system, they make a lot of money, they get out and that’s when they start crying corruption. They write a book and make a little more money. Some are left wondering; “If it was such a bad industry, why didn’t you speak up earlier?” Maybe you could have made a difference in the nineteen nineties.

Wendell Potter: I understand that completely. Looking back, I wish there had been a moment when I could’ve spoken up. On the other hand, I needed to spend time in the industry to gain the perspective I have. I bought into the industry and what it was doing for many years. The company treated me very well for fifteen years, and I didn’t want to be fired; I had to think about the needs of my family. So there was a lot I had to think about as I was sorting through everything. But I can’t help people from thinking that. To those that question my motives, I’d just like to say that I’m doing this because I think it’s the right thing to do. And the timing was something that… I don’t know if it would have been better had I done this earlier. Maybe so; I don’t know. But the way it’s turned out may be just as effective. Right now, the debate is at its peak.

Guernica: Let’s talk about these contentious town hall meetings. What role, if any, does the industry play in causing the disruptive, or what Senator Claire McCaskill called “rude” behavior?

Wendell Potter: One of the big PR firms [for] the insurance industry is APCO Worldwide. They’ve represented the industry for quite a long time. They’re skilled at setting up front groups to spread disinformation to challenge proposals. So they will get talking points into the hands of conservative radio talk show hosts and editorial writers at conservative publications. It all comes from the health insurance industry, but they spread this stuff in such a way that their fingerprints are not directly on it. A guy named Bill Pierce works for APCO; he is an executive there. He used to work as a spokesman for Blue Cross Blue Shield and the Bush Administration. So if you called the number for Healthcare America, you would be connected with Bill Pierce’s office at APCO… The tragic thing about these town hall meetings is how some of these angry citizens are being manipulated. When you see these stories about the meetings and how the participants are so concerned about government takeover of our healthcare system, they use the very words that were fed to them by the health insurance industry, not realizing that that’s where they came from, not realizing that they are unwitting pawns of the industry. Because they hear that stuff from people they believe are credible, like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.

Guernica: What are the chances that the industry is actually busing people in to disrupt the meetings?

Wendell Potter: I think indirectly they are. APCO and other PR firms do stuff like that. It would be hard to trace it directly because they go through a lot of trouble to funnel the money in ways that it’s not directly traceable to them. When I say money, of course we’re talking about insurance premiums that people pay, and it’s being used for these purposes.

Guernica: So you’re saying these PR firms could potentially be sticking people on buses and sending them to these town hall meetings in order to disrupt them?

Wendell Potter: Yeah, they know where to go, what kind of organizations to turn to to get that kind of stuff done. There’s no doubt about it. On the other hand, I’m sure there are individuals who show up at these meetings who show up on their own and feel like they need to make sure their voices are heard… But other people there are very orchestrated.

Guernica: When you were with Cigna, did you have any first-hand knowledge of these kinds of tactics?

Wendell Potter: I am very aware of the efforts the industry goes to to bus people to Washington. It’s one of the most sophisticated grass-roots operations you will find in any industry. They have a long list of senior citizens, for example, who are enrolled in the Medicare Advantage plan. Insurance companies will pay for these people to fly to Washington for a day of citizen lobbying. [The senior citizens] will give the impression that they are there speaking on their own, but it’s completely orchestrated by the industry. What these seniors don’t know is that the only way they would lose their Medicare HMO is if the insurance company dumps them because they don’t think they’re profitable enough anymore. That happened back in the nineties, Cigna did it, Aetna did it—all the insurance companies that participated in the Medicare HMO program did it. That’s when Congress reduced the reimbursements a little bit, these big insurance companies dumped seniors by the millions…

Guernica: You’ve said that Cigna purges small businesses whose employees have serious health problems by raising premiums on these businesses until they can’t pay them. Senator Rockefeller recently asked Cigna about this practice, but I believe they denied it.

Wendell Potter: Cigna denied it, but there is evidence in a transcript that Rockefeller has in which the president of Cigna Healthcare uses the exact word: purging. So within the last couple of days, Rockefeller sent them a letter asking them to prove that they don’t purge. Because Cigna is saying they don’t [purge], but there’s evidence that they do. So essentially Rockefeller has caught them in a lie.

Guernica: How do we get other health insurance industry executives to see this from the point of the view of the uninsured?

Wendell Potter: It’s hard. My own process of doing this—it was the hardest thing I’ve ever done in my life. To say: “Okay, I’ve got a good job here, I’ve got a family to support, I’ve got a mortgage, I’ve got kids in college; but I’m going to quit my job and do what’s right”—that just doesn’t happen every day. And when you’re in a company, you also are thinking, “I am making a positive difference?” The people who work at these companies by and large are not evil people. But they only see their small part of it; they don’t see the broader picture of what the industry is doing to our healthcare system.

Guernica: If you had a few minutes in a room with some of these executives—maybe some of your former colleagues and friends like Hanway and Petren—who look only at profits. What would you say to them to get them to change their minds?

Wendell Potter: I’d say: “Look at what has happened to our healthcare system and look honestly at the role the insurance industry has played in that. Be honest as you look at this. You know what I’m saying is true. If you were like me, you probably don’t want to think about it. But look at what I’ve been saying, and you’ll recognize what I’m saying as true. You know it’s true. Do the right thing—which in my view is stepping away from the industry and speaking out.” I would also like to say to the critics of healthcare reform: “Open your minds a little bit and take a realistic look at our healthcare system and what has happened to it and the reasons for it. I think you’ll come to the same conclusions that I did.”

Guernica: Knowing people like Hanway, Petren—do you think they will ever come around to seeing things your way?

Wendell Potter: I’m doubtful. I’ve read that people are basically hard-wired to feel the way they do and see the world the way they do. Many people are just born Republican and Conservative. They’re just inclined to believe that the free market is the best thing regardless of in what sense of the economy it is. They have that element; those are the people who control these companies. They might just be hard-wired to see the world like that.
***********************************************************************

That about says it all I think. Straight from a high-level insider who participated in it all. If you would like to call your Senators and Representatives, here are the numbers:

List of Senators (Click here)

List of Representatives (Click here)