I wonder about the Center for Medicare Advocacy which is a group that allegedly supports health care reform and his even quoted you Mr. Potter. However, look at what their doing with the money they receive in donations. Their not suing the insurance companies. Their suing the government over regulations that cut into physician and perhaps insurance company profits http://www.medicareadvocacy.org/Litigation/LITIGATION_ActiveCases.htm . Rather, odd behavior I would say for a group that claims to advocate for health care. A closer look at the testimony of some of their allegedly advocates includes statements like "he appropriate government role is not coaching facilities in how to provide
good care. The federal law recognizes that market forces are not sufficient to assure high quality of care. Nor, I would add, is technology, important as technology is. “Pay for performance,” or its new name, “value-based purchasing,” is promoted as another panacea to quality problems, but promotion of this untested concept deflects time and attention from what is known to be necessary for high quality care, namely staff." In other give us money but don't regulate us(see http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ae0hNg62au8J:www.qualitylongtermcarecommission.org/meetings/722PH/pdf/txstmtAMPUBLICCOMMENTedelman07-19-05.pdf+%22toby+edelman%22+testimony&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh_xsEJOnzTUflOKMpUCnAqqrgMiuIom8COsYdmvafsvcy9jHVUYDFX0tdlXfYruA6NadRfFCmlkwKZUNmE4AARr-nRYZPxwOb-NLv9cCCjYBUvUvPQvr51UaAil_FgGYtEhtes&sig=AHIEtbTg12A5vHA5-8CpIbhV3GWOpdjjCQ)." They seem to want Medicare to pay more but without any oversight which seems to me to be highly inconsistent with their public statements. I also find their focus on nursing homes at the expense of looking at what's going on in hospitals to be a red flag. Of course, nursing home advocacy is important unless it used to divert attention away from the recent OIG research which shows that 2/7 medicare patients are harmed, http://www.thecre.com/blog/2010/11/hhs-oig-1-in-7-medicare-beneficiaries-harmed-in-hospital/ which in my view begs for more regulation and not less.
Keep up the good work Mr. Potter!
In response to the above comment titled "O'Dwyer Ire" by Anonymous (above), Jack O'Dwyer submits the following:
------------------------------
I thank PR Watch for opening this subject up to discussion.
The above writer wants there to be peace and writes as though this is some personal feud I have with the Society.
Far from it. The Society for 14 years until 1994 sold hundreds of thousands of copies of authors' articles without their knowledge or permission including this writer (at least 50,000 copies of O'Dwyer articles sold in packets priced at up to $55).
Twelve authors raised $6,000 and hired a law firm. The Society argued it was a non-profit library that only "loaned" articles in packets for a "loan fee." It wouldn't even talk to the authors but promised a knock-down, dragged out legal fight. Our lawyers said the Society's arguments held some water and a long fight would take place costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. The authors themselves would be counter-sued, our lawyers assured us.
Since three of the authors were college professors with little spare money or time, we all voted to give up legal recourse. But moral recourse continues. This remains a big blot on the reputation of the Society. The least it could have done for the authors was give them free ads for their books (entire chapters of which were copied and sold).
Packet volume was 3,800 a year resulting in net profits of about $60,000 yearly to the Society according to its own financial reports which I have. The Society should appoint a committee to view the box of evidence I have in my office. Instead, it treats me and the O'Dwyer Co. as if we have done something wrong--classic spin.
I don't criticize the Society. I point out abuses such as failure to defer dues (booking dues a cash when just about every assn. books the dues one month at a time as services are rendered). It cites Robert's Rules as its official guide but tramples on the most basic of these Rules including the ban against proxy voting.
No one from the Society ever challenges any of the abuses I document.
Snub and smear is their response. They only make generalizations such as we're "too negative" without ever going into any specifics.
The truth is bound to come out one way or another.
The Society's treatment of me at the 2010 Assembly deserves condemnation by every journalist group in the country.
Baba, I think you've got a nugget of insight in your comment but I'm not quite sure what it is yet. Can you expand? I'm not sure what you mean by the "system of advocating for terrorism." From what I took from Cheney's remarks was that she's worried that too much restrictions on freedom will lead to more terrorism / civil unrest. Thoughts?
Peace as always,
How do you know what is propaganda - to ignore it?
In response to the above comment titled "O'Dwyer Ire" by Anonymous (above), Jack O'Dwyer submits the following:
------------------------------
I thank PR Watch for opening this subject up to discussion.
The above writer wants there to be peace and writes as though this is some personal feud I have with the Society.
Far from it. The Society for 14 years until 1994 sold hundreds of thousands of copies of authors' articles without their knowledge or permission including this writer (at least 50,000 copies of O'Dwyer articles sold in packets priced at up to $55).
Twelve authors raised $6,000 and hired a law firm. The Society argued it was a non-profit library that only "loaned" articles in packets for a "loan fee." It wouldn't even talk to the authors but promised a knock-down, dragged out legal fight. Our lawyers said the Society's arguments held some water and a long fight would take place costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. The authors themselves would be counter-sued, our lawyers assured us.
Since three of the authors were college professors with little spare money or time, we all voted to give up legal recourse. But moral recourse continues. This remains a big blot on the reputation of the Society. The least it could have done for the authors was give them free ads for their books (entire chapters of which were copied and sold).
Packet volume was 3,800 a year resulting in net profits of about $60,000 yearly to the Society according to its own financial reports which I have. The Society should appoint a committee to view the box of evidence I have in my office. Instead, it treats me and the O'Dwyer Co. as if we have done something wrong--classic spin.
I don't criticize the Society. I point out abuses such as failure to defer dues (booking dues a cash when just about every assn. books the dues one month at a time as services are rendered). It cites Robert's Rules as its official guide but tramples on the most basic of these Rules including the ban against proxy voting.
No one from the Society ever challenges any of the abuses I document.
Snub and smear is their response. They only make generalizations such as we're "too negative" without ever going into any specifics.
The truth is bound to come out one way or another.
The Society's treatment of me at the 2010 Assembly deserves condemnation by every journalist group in the country.
Pages