Joshua Benton wrote about Elon Musk’s grandfather in The Atlantic. Benton spent more time researching him than did Musk’s biographer Walter Isaacson. It’s not a pretty picture but it might provide insight into Musk’s worldview. I hope not.
Benton wrote:
In Walter Isaacson’s new biography, Elon Musk, a mere page and a half is devoted to introducing Musk’s grandfather, a Canadian chiropractor named Joshua N. Haldeman. Isaacson describes him as a source of Musk’s great affection for danger—“a daredevil adventurer with strongly held opinions” and “quirky conservative populist views” who did rope tricks at rodeos and rode freight trains like a hobo. “He knew that real adventures involve risk,” Isaacson quotes Musk as having said. “Risk energized him.”
But in 1950, Haldeman’s “quirky” politics led him to make an unusual and dramatic choice: to leave Canada for South Africa. Haldeman had built a comfortable life for himself in Regina, Saskatchewan’s capital. His chiropractic practice was one of Canada’s largest and allowed him to possess his own airplane and a 20-room home he shared with his wife and four young children. He’d been active in politics, running for both the provincial and national parliaments and even becoming the national chairman of a minor political party. Meanwhile, he’d never even been to South Africa.
What would make a man undertake such a radical change? Isaacson writes that Haldeman had come “to believe that the Canadian government was usurping too much control over the lives of individuals and that the country had gone soft.” One of Haldeman’s sons has written that it may have simply been “his adventurous spirit and the desire for a more pleasant climate in which to raise his family.” But another factor was at play: his strong support for the brand-new apartheid regime.
An examination of Joshua Haldeman’s writings reveals a radical conspiracy theorist who expressed racist, anti-Semitic, and antidemocratic views repeatedly, and over the course of decades—a record I studied across hundreds of documents from the time, including newspaper clips, self-published manuscripts, university archives, and private correspondence. Haldeman believed that apartheid South Africa was destined to lead “White Christian Civilization” in its fight against the “International Conspiracy” of Jewish bankers and the “hordes of Coloured people” they controlled.
Benton writes that Haldeman wrote a self-published book, and there is only one copy in all of North America, at Michigan State University. Benton traveled there to read it. It’s title:
The International Conspiracy to Establish a World Dictatorship and the Menace to South Africa.
In this book, Haldeman expressed his hope that South Africa would become “the leader of White Christian Civilization as she is becoming more and more the focal point, the bulwark, and the subject of attack by anti-Christian, anti-White forces throughout the world.”
He was, quite simply, a vociferous racist and anti-Semite. Isaacson’s father was Jewish. It’s surprising that he paid so little attention to Musj’s lineage.
Governor Ron DeSantis is a big supporter of the Hillsdale College model for K-12 education, which Hillsdale calls a “classical education.” The model focuses on white, European history and literature and minimizes issues of race, gender, and diversity.
The Miami-Dade School District is beginning the process of opening a Hillsdale-style classical school.
The Miami Herald reported:
Miami-Dade Schools is considering implementing a classical education curriculum in at least one elementary school for the upcoming school year — introducing a politically debated education model and potentially displacing students and teachers if they do not wish to participate.
The tentative plan, provided to the board ahead of its Wednesday committee meeting, calls for picking a school, recruiting students, selecting a curriculum and training staff and faculty during the current school year and rolling out the curriculum over the next three years.
The district could also collaborate with the University of Florida’s Hamilton Classical and Civic Education Center — an academic center that was proposed during the 2022 Legislative Session by a group whose representative had a long history of working with conservative groups and advancing the mission of religious organizations. (The University of Florida received $3 million when Gov. Ron DeSantis approved the state budget.)
The model has been championed by conservatives, including DeSantis. Supporters of the model say it offers an alternative education to the traditional public school, which in recent years has been accused of focusing too heavily on discussions of race, gender identity and other social issues.
Critics say the model’s spotlight on Western civilization teaches a whiter, glossier version of American history and leaves out more contemporary subjects, such as global warming.
District staffers maintain they’re exploring it to see if the curriculum model would be feasible. Chief Academic Officer Lourdes Diaz told board members Wednesday it’s just the “first layer to see what is potentially possible.”
The plan does include a three-year implementation schedule to begin next school year, but that timeline could change. Grade configurations, geographical locations and partners, if any, would be considered when determining the program’s feasibility, the district said.
The education model, which DeSantis and other conservatives have championed, was first brought before the board in June by board member Monica Colucci, whom DeSantis endorsed in last year’s election.
The curriculum, which emphasizes a return to core virtues and subjects like math, science, civics and classical texts, puts a strong emphasis on Western tradition — or a historical focus on white, Western European and Judeo-Christian foundations — and demands a school culture of “moral virtue, decorum, respect, discipline, and studiousness among both students and faculty,” according to Hillsdale College’s Barney Charter School Initiative. Hillsdale College, a private college in Michigan with ties to DeSantis, is one of the most prominent proponents of the model.
Jan Resseger writes brilliantly about the importance of education in a democracy. She reads widely in the work of authors who understand why education should not be privatized and turned into a consumer good. You will enjoy reading this essay.
She writes:
I find myself struggling these days to understand how those of us who prize our U.S. system of public education seem to have lost the narrative. As I listen to the rhetoric of today’s critics of public schooling—people who distrust or disdain the work of school teachers and who believe test scores are the only way to understand education, I worry about the seeming collapse of the values I grew up with as a child in a small Montana town whose citizens paid so much attention to the experiences its public schools offered for the community’s children. The schools in my hometown provided a solid core curriculum plus a strong school music program, ambitious high school drama and speech and debate programs, athletics, a school newspaper, and an American Field Service international student every single year at the high school. While many of us continue to support our public schools, what are the factors that have caused so many to abandon their confidence in public education?
It is in this context that I found myself reading “Education and the Challenges for Democracy,” the introductory essay in the current issue of Education Policy Analysis Archives. In his essay, Fernando M. Reimers, a professor in the graduate school of education at Harvard University, explores the interconnection of public education and democracy itself. Reimers explains, for example, that the expansion of our democracy to include more fully those who have previously been marginalized is likely to impact the public schools in many ways and that these changes in the schools will inspire their own political response:
“(T)he expansion of political rights to groups of the population previously denied rights (e.g. women, members of racial or religious minorities) may lead to increased access for these groups to educational institutions and a curriculum that prepares them for political participation. These changes, in turn, feed back into the political process, fostering increased demands for participation and new forms of representation as a result of the new skills and dispositions these groups gained by educational and political changes. But these increases in representation may activate political backlash from groups who seek to preserve the status quo. These forces may translate into efforts to constrain the manner in which schools prepare new groups for political participation. In this way, the relationship between democratic politics and democratic education is never static, but in perpetual, dynamic, dialectical motion that leads to new structures and processes. The acknowledgement of this relationship as one that requires resolution of tensions and contradictions, of course, does not imply an inevitable cycle of continuous democratic improvement, as there can be setbacks—both in democracy itself, and in education for democracy.”
Reimers continues: “Democracy—a social contract intended to balance freedom and justice—is not only fluid and imperfect but fragile. This fragility has become evident in recent years… In order to challenge the forces undermining democracy, schools and universities need to recognize these challenges and their systemic impact and reimagine what they must do to prepare students to address them.” While Reimers explains that the goal of his article is not only, “to examine how democratic setbacks can lead to setbacks in democratic education, but also how education can resist those challenges to democracy,” he presents no easy solutions. He does, however sort out the issues to which we should all be paying attention—naming five specific challenges for American democracy:
“The five traditional challenges to democracy are corruption, inequality, intolerance, polarization, and populism… The democratic social contract establishes that all persons are fundamentally equal, and therefore have the same right to participate in the political process and demand accountability. Democracy is challenged when those elected to govern abuse the public trust through corruption, or capturing public resources to advance private ends… Democracy is also challenged by social and economic inequality and by the political inequalitythey may engender… One result of political intolerance is political polarization… Political intolerance is augmented by Populism, an ideology which challenges the idea that the interests of ordinary people can be represented by political elites.” (emphasis in the original)
Reimers considers how these threats to democracy endanger our public schools: “The first order of effects of these forces undermining democracy is to constrain the ability of education institutions to educate for democracy. But a second order of effects results from the conflicts and tensions generated by these forces….” As the need for schools and educators to prepare students for democratic citizenship becomes ever more essential, political backlash may threaten schools’ capacity to help students challenge the threats to democracy.
In their 2017 book, These Schools Belong to You and Me, Deborah Meier and Emily Gasoi articulate in concrete terms what Reimers explains abstractly as one of the imperatives that public schools must accomplish today: “(W)e need a means of ensuring that we educate all future citizens, not only to be well versed in the three Rs, and other traditional school subjects, but also to be able to see from multiple perspectives and to be intellectually curious and incisive enough to see through and resist the lure of con artists and autocrats, whether in the voting booth, the marketplace, or in their social dealings.” (These Schools Belong to You and Me, p. 25) Schools imagined as preparing critical thinkers—schools that focus on more than basic drilling in language arts and math—are necessary to combat two of the threats Reimers lists: corruption and populism.
But what about Reimers’ other threats? How can schools, in our current polarized climate, push back against intolerance, inequality, and polarization? Isn’t today’s attack on “diversity, equity and inclusion” in some sense an expression of a widespread desire to give up on our principle of equality of opportunity—to merely accept segregation, inequality and exclusion? This is the old, old struggle Derek Black traces in Schoolhouse Burning—the effort during Reconstruction to develop state constitutions that protect the right to education for all children including the children of slaves—followed by Jim Crow segregation—followed by the Civil Rights Movement and Brown v. Board of Education—followed by myriad efforts since then to keep on segregating schools. Isn’t the attempt to discredit critical race theory really the old fight about whose cultures should be affirmed or hidden at school, and isn’t this fight reminiscent of the struggle to eliminate the American Indian boarding schools whose purpose was extinguishing American Indian children’s languages and cultures altogether? Isn’t the battle over inclusion the same conflict that excluded disabled children from public school services until Congress passed the Individuals with Disability Education Act in 1975? And what about the battle that ended in 1982, when, in Plyler v. Doe, the U.S. Supreme Court protected the right to a free, K-12 public education for children of undocumented immigrants? Our society has continued to struggle to accept the responsibility for protecting the right to equal opportunity. As Reimers explains, action to address inequality has inevitably spawned a reaction.
Educators and political philosophers, however, have persistently reminded us of our obligation to make real the promise of public schooling. In 1899, our most prominent philosopher of education, John Dewey, declared: “What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all of its children… Only by being true to the full growth of all the individuals who make it up, can society by any chance be true to itself.” (The School and Society, p. 1)
In 1992, political theorist Benjamin Barber advocated for the very kind of public schooling Reimers would like to see today: “(T)he true democratic premise encompasses… the acquired virtues and skills necessary to living freely, living democratically, and living well. It assumes that every human being, given half a chance, is capable of the self-government that is his or her natural right, and thus capable of acquiring the judgment, foresight, and knowledge that self-government demands.… The fundamental assumption of democratic life is not that we are all automatically capable of living both freely and responsibly, but that we are all potentially susceptible to education for freedom and responsibility. Democracy is less the enabler of education than education is the enabler of democracy.” (An Aristocracy of Everyone, pp. 13-14)
In a 1998 essay, Barber declared: “America is not a private club defined by one group’s historical hegemony. Consequently, multicultural education is not discretionary; it defines demographic and pedagogical necessity. If we want youngsters from Los Angeles whose families speak more than 160 languages to be ‘Americans,’ we must first acknowledge their diversity and honor their distinctiveness. English will thrive as the first language in America only when those for whom it is a second language feel safe enough in their own language and culture to venture into and participate in the dominant culture. For what we share in common is not some singular ethnic or religious or racial unity but precisely our respect for our differences: that is the secret to our strength as a nation, and is the key to democratic education.” (“Education for Democracy,” in A Passion for Democracy: American Essays, p. 231)
These same principles are prophetically restated by William Ayers in his final essay in the 2022 book, Public Education: Defending a Cornerstone of American Democracy: “In a free society education must focus on the production—not of things, but—of free people capable of developing minds of their own even as they recognize the importance of learning to live with others. It’s based, then, on a common faith in the incalculable value of every human being, constructed on the principle that the fullest development of all is the condition for the full development of each, and conversely, that the fullest development of each is the condition for the full development of all… Schools don’t exist outside of history or culture: they are, rather, at the heart of each. Schools serve societies; societies shape schools. Schools, then, are both mirror and window—they tell us who we are and who we want to become, and they show us what we value and what we ignore, what is precious and what is venal.” (Public Education: Defending a Cornerstone of American Democracy, p. 315)
Governor Greg Abbott really, really wants vouchers. The State Senate agrees with him. The House of Representatives is controlled by Republicans but it thus far has refused to pass them. Rural Republicans in the House have allied with urban Democrats because both know that vouchers will harm their community public schools.
But Abbott is pulling out all the stops. He even refused to raise teachers’ salaries or increase public school funding until he gets a voucher bill.
The Texas Observer comments:
Governor Greg Abbott has called lawmakers back to a special legislative session starting this coming Monday, October 9. His message to them: Pass school vouchers—or else.
“There’s an easy way to get it done, and there’s a hard way,” Abbott said during a September 19 tele-town hall. “If we do not win in that first special session, we will have another special special session and we’ll come back again. And then if we don’t win that time … We will have everything teed up in a way where we will be giving voters in a primary a choice.”
From bullying legislators to “co-opting” churches and religious services, Abbott “wants to force a voucher at all costs,” said Patty Quinzi, legislative director of the Texas American Federation of Teachers. Pulling the purse strings of Abbott’s voucher campaign are a handful of billionaires who have invested millions to weaponize far-right culture war propaganda to fund what the governor has branded as “school choice” for parents.
Meanwhile, many public school districts started this school year with a budget deficit after the Senate refused to use the state’s $33 billion budget surplus to increase school funding without the condition of passing universal vouchers.
During the regular session, the House twice rejected proposals for vouchers or “an educational savings account,” citing constituent concerns that voucher programs would siphon money from public schools. When the Senate attempted to force the House to accept universal vouchers in return for passing its school funding proposal, its author, Representative Ken King, pulled the bill.
“In the end, the Senate would not negotiate at all. It was a universal ESA or nothing,” King wrote in his public statement. “I am committed to protecting the 5.5 million school kids in Texas from being used as political hostages. What the Governor and the Senate [have] done is inexcusable, and I stand ready to set it right and continue to work for the best outcome for our students and schools.”
In early August, the House’s 15-member committee on Educational Opportunity and Enrichment issued its interim report, signaling some members’ willingness to compromise on school vouchers if they were limited to students with special needs and if the money to fund a voucher program came out of the state general revenue instead of the Permanent School Fund. Earlier this year, the Observer revealedhow limited voucher programs in other states served as a trojan horse for larger, universal voucher programs, leaving public schools with large deficits and a loss of federal civil rights protections for parents who took their children out of public schools.
“We are $40 billion below the national average for school funding, so we have no business talking about any kind of program that takes more money out of our public schools,” said Representative Gina Hinojosa, who serves on the committee but declined to endorse its recommendations.
Greg Abbott has vowed to keep calling special sessions until the Legislature passes a voucher bill.
Child labor laws have been in place for more than a century. Republican-controlled states are weakening so that children are “free” to earn some money. Florida is the latest state to entertain the idea that children need “freedom” to work, not protection from dangerous working conditions. This is not progress. This is turning back the clock.
A proposed Republican bill to loosen child labor laws in Florida is part of a national trend aimed at repealing or weakening workplace protections for young people that have been in place for more than 100 years.
The bill could worsen graduation rates and hurt lower-income families, experts said, and could also be a way to replace some immigrant labor as Florida and other GOP-led states continue to crack down on undocumented workers.
“Are we willing to return to a world where we accept that children of the poorest families are working more than full-time jobs under hazardous conditions?” said Jennifer Sherer, director of the Economic Analysis and Research Network at the nonprofit Economic Policy Institute.
State Rep. Linda Chaney, though, said in a statement that her bill “intends to provide teenagers with the flexibility to work whatever hours they deem fits best with their schedule and financial goals.”
“Families are struggling in the worst economy in decades and I want to do what I can to help by providing opportunity,” said Chaney, R-St. Petersburg. “Government should not be in the way of people wanting to learn skills and make a living.”
The bill (HB 49) would remove all work guidelines for 16- and 17-year-olds, including the current requirements that they can’t work more than eight hours on school nights and more than 30 hours a week during the school year.
It also prevents local governments from passing ordinances stricter than state law.
In addition, the measure includes what Sherer called a “confusing” change to the language about 14- and 15-year-olds.
Where the current law states 14- and 15-year-olds “shall not” work before 7 a.m. or after 7 p.m. for more than 15 hours a week during the school year, or more than three hours per day on school days, the bill would replace “shall not” with “may not.”
Sherer said it was unclear whether the proposed language revision was meant to make work standards for younger teens “optional” rather than mandated.
Terri Gerstein, a fellow at the Center for Labor and a Just Economy at Harvard Law School who testified before Congress earlier this year about child labor, said she couldn’t see any other reason to change it.
“To me, as a normal human being, ‘shall not’ and ‘may not’ sound like the same thing, right?” Gerstein said. But, she added, “‘shall’ is obligatory and ‘may’ is optional. … I can only infer that there’s something nefarious [going on], because otherwise, why would you change the language? It makes no sense…”
Child labor laws were one of the premier achievements of the Progressive Era of the early 1900s, when presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson helped usher in major changes to social and public policy at the state and national levels.
Florida passed laws at the time to protect children working in cigar factories and in agriculture. But now, it’s the 16th state in the past few years to have legislation filed to roll back those protections, Sherer said.
“Those are state laws that have often been in place for over a century,” Sherer said. “States began regulating child labor before the federal government did. And they play a really important role in regulating certain aspects of child labor protections that the federal government doesn’t cover.”
The most notable rollback was in Arkansas, where Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee signed the Youth Hiring Act that repealed a Progressive Era law requiring employers to verify a child’s age, acquire a permit and get parental consent for 14- and 15-year-olds to work.
“The Governor believes protecting kids is most important, but this permit was an arbitrary burden on parents to get permission from the government for their child to get a job,” Sanders’ communications director Alexa Henning told NPR.
Iowa also passed “what is probably the most extreme bill on child labor,” Sherer said, weakening guidelines on which work is considered too dangerous for minors.
“We know that certain jobs have proven dangerous and even fatal more often for youth and teens,” Sherer said. “That’s why those restrictions were put in place decades ago. So it’s a real slippery slope.”
The changes came as the Federal Labor Department has reported a significant increase in child labor violations over the past five years, Gerstein said, including minors working the night shift or being employed at places such as poultry processing plants and construction sites.
A meat-processing plant in Minnesota paid $300,000 in penalties after an investigation showed it employed children as young as 13, while a Michigan meat plant owner pleaded guilty to employing a 17-year-old in a dangerous job. The boy’s hand was severed by a meat grinder.
The Boston Globe reported that teachers in New Hampshire are torn between two laws: one requires teaching the Holocaust, the other bans teaching “divisive concepts.” The reactionary “Moms for Liberty” has offered a $500 bounty to anyone who turns in a teacher for violating the “divisive concepts” law. The Anti-Defamation League has documented a sharp rise in anti-Semitic incidents in New England; the majority of those incidents occurred in New Hampshire.
New Hampshire schools have become battlegrounds in the culture wars over racism and gender identity, and comprehensive education on the Holocaust is in danger, experts and teachers say. In 2020, after events including the mass shooting two years earlier that killed 11 people at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, New Hampshire passed a law requiring instruction on the Holocaust and other genocides in grades 8 through 12. But then, in 2021, as part of a backlash to the nation’s racial reckoning after the murder of George Floyd, New Hampshire banned the teaching of “divisive concepts” such as implicit bias and systemic racism.
Now these two laws are colliding in the state’s classrooms. Some of the topics that the divisive concepts laws restrict are precisely the ones that Holocaust education experts say must be covered to prevent a repeat of history. A key part of teaching about the Holocaust and other genocides is examining how one group of people could agree to participate in the mass murder of another. The answer, in part, lies in the use of propaganda that asserts one group as inferior. Adolf Hitler modeled his depiction of Jews as an inferior race on America’s racist treatment of Black people and the study of eugenics in this country.
Letters of concern to the New Hampshire Legislature and interviews with teachers reflect that, in teaching about the Holocaust, many feel scared to discuss certain topics as a way to draw contemporary parallels because of the state’s divisive concepts law.
Kingswood social studies teacher Kimberly Kelliher is among them. She says the state’s reporting mechanism for parents to accuse teachers of violating the law — plus a monetary award offered by the parent activist group Moms for Liberty aimed at encouraging such reports — frightens her. “The Holocaust is not a single event. It is a series of attitudes and actions that led to an atrocity,” says Kelliher, who has taught social studies for more than two decades. “When we look at the divisive concepts law, if we are denying people from talking about certain things, then we’re not honestly talking about the attitudes and actions.”
Kelliher, like other teachers I spoke with, said she now avoids the word “racism” when talking to students about the Holocaust. Others say they avoid mentioning current events and hot-button topics such as implicit bias.
But a New Hampshire scholar says it’s impossible to avoid subjects like these if we truly want to learn from the atrocities of the past. “You can’t teach about Nazi perpetrators without teaching about implicit bias. You just can’t do it. What motivates the perpetrator?” says Tom White, the coordinator of educational outreach at Keene State College’s Cohen Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies. Hitler took advantage of implicit bias and conspiracy theories against Jews that had existed through thousands of years of antisemitism. “The central crux of fascism is to make their followers afraid that they’re under attack by another group, that they’re threatened by another group,” White says. “Implicit bias,” he adds, “is the crux of all of this….”
Under New Hampshire’s law, instruction must include facts about the Holocaust and other genocides, plus teach students “how and why political repression, intolerance, bigotry, antisemitism, and national, ethnic, racial, or religious hatred and discrimination have, in the past, evolved into genocide and mass violence.” Teachers, state Department of Education guidelines say, should help students “identify and evaluate the power of individual choices” in preventing such behavior.
Reports of antisemitic incidents and propaganda are on the rise nationally and regionally, according to the Anti-Defamation League of New England. In 2022, the nonprofit tracked 204 antisemitic incidents in New England, a 32 percent increase from the previous year. In New Hampshire, where 183 of those incidents took place, the spike of white supremacist propaganda activity included a classmate shouting antisemitic comments at a Jewish student; a swastika and the phrase “Kill all Jews” scrawled on a rock in a public place; and a neo-Nazi group distributing stickers with the Star of David and message “Resist Zionism…”
The divisive concepts law in New Hampshire prohibits students from being “taught, instructed, inculcated or compelled to express belief in or support” that someone is “inherently superior” to another based on a particular trait, including sex, race, and religion, and also states that students cannot be taught that an individual is “inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.” Educators who run afoul of this provision can face sanctions, including loss of their teaching licenses…
The state’s two largest teacher unions are suing the New Hampshire education commissioner, the attorney general, and the head of the human rights commission to repeal the divisive concepts law, citing the chilling effect it is having on teaching. Deb Howes, president of the American Federation of Teachers-New Hampshire, says the law’s title, which includes the words “Right to Freedom from Discrimination,” is downright Orwellian in its doublespeak, given the law itself “is in effect chilling speech on the very concept of discrimination against various marginalized groups.”
The vagueness of the divisive concepts law is one of teachers’ biggest concerns, Howes adds. “The divisive concepts law is so broadly worded. None of us are teaching that anyone deserves to be inherently oppressed, but we also know that when you’re talking about either history or the impact of history on current events, there are people who are oppressed and it comes from somewhere,” she says.
A reader called “Artsmart” called on Californians to contact Governor Newsom.
Artsmart wrote:
Very important charter accountability bill is on Gavin Newsom’s desk. “Right now sitting on Gov. Newsom’s desk is AB1604 (Bonta). This bill will tighten loopholes on the selling of charter school properties. AB1604 is important as it will capture public dollars that should be returned to the state but instead end up in the pockets of charter school operators. Wanna read more about this scam? Check this out- https://medium.com/…/the-charter-school-real-estate…
Public school families in Los Angeles need to call the Governor and tell him to sign this bill by October 14!!!
Just a heads up, we should be aware that billionaire political donors like Reed Hastings (he owns Netflix and LOVES charters) will be putting their thumbs on the scale. Of course, the usual suspect, the California Charter Schools Association (CCSA) wants this bill to die. Let’s fix it by pushing the Governor to sign the AB1604.
Phone number and email below. I am going to put a script/template as the first comment. Do this today!
At present, about half of all retirees are enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan. MA takes the place of Medicare. In this article, Thom Hartmann explains why Medicare Advantage is a very bad deal. In New York City, the city administration and the municipal unions (!) are trying to push 250,000 retirees into a Medicare Advantage plan instead of Medicare. The retirees have formed an organization and have fought back in court. The city says that switching to MA will save $600 million a year. The retirees won the last round in court. To learn more, go to the website of the New York City Organization of Public Service Employees. (NYCRetirees.org).
He writes:
President George W. Bush and Republicans (and a handful of on-the-take Democrats) in Congress created the Medicare Advantage scam in 2003 as a way of routing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of for-profit insurance companies.
Those companies, and their executives, then recycle some of that profit back into politicians’ pockets via the Citizens United legalized bribery loophole created by five corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court.
Just the overcharges happening right now in that scam are costing Americans over $140 billion a year: more than the entire budget for the Medicare Part B or Part D programs. These ripoffs — that our federal government seems to have no interest in stopping — are draining the Medicare trust fund while ensnaring gullible seniors in private insurance programs where they’re often denied life-saving care.
Real Medicare pays bills when they’re presented. Medicare Advantage insurance companies, on the other hand, get a fixed dollar amount every year for each of the people enrolled in their programs, regardless of how much they spent on each customer.
As a result, Medicare Advantage programs make the greatest profits for their CEOs and shareholders when they actively refuse to pay for care, something that happens frequently. It’s a safe bet that nearly 100 percent of the people who sign up for Advantage programs don’t know this and don’t have any idea how badly screwed they could be if they get seriously ill.
Not only that, when people do figure out they’ve been duped and try to get back on real Medicare, the same insurance companies often punish them by refusing to write Medigap plans (that fill in the 20% hole in real Medicare). They can’t do that when you first sign up when you turn 65, but if you “leave” real Medicare for privatized Medicare Advantage, it can be damn hard to get back on it.
The doctors’ group Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) just published a shocking report on the extent of the Medicare Advantage ripoffs — both to individual customers and to Medicare itself — that every American should know about.
The report, titled Our Payments, Their Profits, opens with this shocking exposé:
“By our estimate, and based on 2022 spending, Medicare Advantage overcharges taxpayers by a minimum of 22% or $88 billion per year, and potentially by up to 35% or $140 billion. By comparison, Part B premiums in 2022 totaled approximately $131 billion, and overall federal spending on Part D drug benefits cost approximately $126 billion. Either of these — or other crucial aspects of Medicare and Medicaid — could be funded entirely by eliminating overcharges in the Medicare Advantage program.
“Medicare Advantage, also known as MA or Medicare Part C, is a privately administered insurance program that uses a capitated payment structure, as opposed to the fee-for-service (FFS) structure of Traditional Medicare or TM. Instead of paying directly for the health care of beneficiaries, the federal government gives a lump sum of money to a third party (generally a commercial insurer) to ‘manage’ patient care.”
With real Medicare and a Medigap plan, you talk with your physician or hospital and decide on your treatment, they bill Medicare, and you never see or hear about the bill. There is nobody between you and your physician or hospital and Medicare only goes after the payment they’ve made if they sniff out a fraud.
With Medicare Advantage, on the other hand, your insurance company gets a lump-sum payment from Medicare every year and keeps the difference between what they get and what they pay out. They then insert themselves between you and your doctor or hospital to avoid paying for whatever they can.
Whatever you decide on regarding treatment, many Advantage insurance company will regularly second-guess and do everything they can to intimidate you into paying yourself out-of-pocket. Often, they simply refuse payment and wait for you to file a complaint against them; for people seriously ill the cumbersome “appeals” process is often more than they can handle.
As a result, hospitals and doctor groups across the nation are beginning to refuse to take Medicare Advantage patients. California-based Scripps Health, for example, cares for around 30,000 people on Medicare Advantage and recently notified all of them that Scripps will no longer offer medical services to them unless they pay out-of-pocket or revert back to real Medicare.
They made this decision because over $75 million worth of services and procedures their physicians had recommended to their patients were turned down by Medicare Advantage insurance companies. In many cases, Scripps had already provided the care and is now stuck with the bills that the Advantage companies refuse to pay.
“We are a patient care organization and not a patient denial organization and, in many ways, the model of managed care has always been about denying or delaying care – at least economically. That is why denials, [prior] authorizations and administrative processes have become a very big issue for physicians and hospitals…”
Similarly, the Mayo Clinic has warned its customers in Florida and Arizona that they won’t accept Medicare Advantage any more, either. Increasing numbers of physician groups and hospitals are simply over being ripped off by Advantage insurance companies.
Not only is the Medicare Advantage scam a screw job for healthcare providers and people who are on the programs and are unfortunate enough to get sick, it’s also preventing Americans from getting expanded benefits from real Medicare.
As the PNHP report notes, for real Medicare to provide comprehensive vision, dental, and hearing benefits to all Medicare recipients would cost the system around $84 billion a year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Instead, though, the Medicare system is burdened with at least that amount of money in over-payments to Medicare Advantage providers — over-payments that have no health benefit whatsoever and merely inflate the companies’ profits.
A hundred billion dollars in excess profits can be put to a lot of uses, and the health insurance industry is quite good at it. The former CEO of UnitedHealth, “Dollar” Bill McGuire, for example, made off with over $1.5 billion dollars for his efforts.
And, because five corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court legalized political bribery with their Citizens United decision, some of these companies allocate millions every year (a mere drop in the bucket) to pay off loyal members of Congress and to dangle high-paying future jobs to high-level employees of CMS who have the power to keep the gravy train going and thwart prosecutions.
“Medicare Advantage is just another example of the endless greed of the insurance industry poisoning American health care, siphoning money from vulnerable patients while delaying and denying necessary and often life-saving treatment. While there is obvious reason to fix these issues in MA and to expand Traditional Medicare for the sake of all beneficiaries, the deep structural problems with our health care system will only be fixed when we achieve improved Medicare for All.”
We’re on the edge of the open enrollment period for Medicare, and the Advantage scammers will be carpet-bombing America with advertisements over the next few months. Representatives Pocan, Khanna, and Shakowsky have introduced the “Save Medicare Act” that would ban Advantage companies from using the word Medicare in their advertising.
They made a video about it that’s well worth sharing with friends and family:
As Shakowsky, Khanna, and Pocan note, “Only Medicare is Medicare.” Don’t be fooled by the Medicare Advantage scam.
And now that you know, pass it on and save somebody else’s health!
Steve Nelson, retired educator, objects to the simulated experiences that young people are increasingly exposed to. Technology has become a means of depriving them of direct encounters with life. Life should not be a simulation. It should be real. For the reasons he describes, I do not write about ChatGPT or AI. Sometimes it’s inevitable, but I don’t consider these technological gimmicks to be educational.
He writes:
“This car climbed Mt. Washington.”
This bumper sticker is commonly seen in New England and refers to the highest peak in the East. As implied, there is a winding road to the summit. These bumper stickers never fail to irritate, as the “achievement” is remarkably unremarkable. It’s rather like having a CD player with a label reading, “This electronic device played the Brahms Violin Concerto.”
This long-standing pet peeve was rekindled by the explosion (one can wish) of the e-bike phenomenon. Many areas in Colorado are allowing the use of e-bikes on mountain bike trails and in wilderness areas. On my local single track trails it is now common to be passed on uphills by rather smug looking riders half my age and half again my weight.
There are legitimate benefits to the e-bike phenomenon, including emission-free commuting and expanded opportunities for the elderly or impaired. I suppose riding an e-bike is a notch above a recliner and a beer – but only a notch.
But I come to bury, not praise.
I admit to being a physical purist. There are certain experiences that should be earned, at least if the “earning” is possible. At the very least, if one chooses ease and convenience over commitment and effort, don’t brag about it, whether Mt. Washington or Brahms.
Most alarming, at least in my community, is the proliferation of e-bikes among young folks. Many riders are careless, helmet-less, and riding far too fast for conditions. I expect a rapid increase in head injuries. I suspect that the serious injury curve is lagging just behind the soaring sales curve.
The segue from e-bikes to AI or ChatGPT should be obvious. Like an e-bike, ChatGPT produces results that are disproportionate to effort. Perhaps the analogy is a bit tortured, but creating cogent prose demands conscious effort resulting in real satisfaction , just as pedaling with your own effort to the top of single track trails elevates one’s heart rate and spirit.
I worry that in these ways and many others we are denying children the experiences they most need. They can sit on an e-bike to get to school, use a calculator to calculate, write an essay with a few prompts, “paint” a picture on a computer screen, “play” music on a pre-programmed electronic keyboard, create a cinematic masterpiece on an iPhone and go home to a dinner prepared by scanning a QR code.
As an educator I often ranted about the digital representation of life. Such representations are not life, although advances in technology can make one hard to distinguish from the other. The conveniences and efficiencies of technology have benefits, I suppose, but technology can also deprive children (and adults) of the most valuable and meaningful learning experiences – and life experiences.
A central principle of progressive education is learning by doing. It is not merely a philosophical slogan. It is rooted in the most sophisticated understanding of neurobiology and cognition. A mathematical concept is better understood through using all senses. Truly making music is finding perfect bow speed on a violin string, adjusting lip position to turn futile blowing into a glorious tone on a flute or feeling the deep sonorities of a cello in your bones. The feeling of a brush stroke transmits emotion directly to the canvas.
The phrase “no pain, no gain” is trite but true, although perhaps more aptly phrased, “no effort, no gain.” My life and the lives of most people have been immeasurably enriched by striving. (It is a concept that should be untethered from its more toxic companion, achievement.) At age 76, partially impaired and slowed by age, I still feel great satisfaction from summiting a small peak or charging down a pump track on a mountain bike, knowing I earned the gift of gravity by investing effort. The pace and duration are irrelevant. The feeling is undiminished from decades ago.
Years ago, the cardiologist/writer George Sheehan wrote that we are, at the core, simply mammals and that our first responsibility is to be a good animal. That means running, playing, sucking air deep into your lungs, reaching a destination by dint of your own power and knowing the joy of exhaustion.
I am sufficiently self-aware to know that I may be seen as a strident romanticist. I plead guilty. But I fervently believe that children must be exposed to real things, not their convenient digital or electric doppelgänger. They should pedal bikes, not just sit on them. (And wear helmets!!) They should climb mountains, not ride up in the family car. They should play instruments, finger paint, and bake cookies.
When small humans have real experiences they will prefer them to technologically-enhanced imposters. Providing those experiences is our primary responsibility as parents, grandparents and educators.
On September 21, a bus carrying the Farmingdale (Long Island, New York) High School marching band to band camp in Pennsylvania crashed through a guard rail and plummeted down a 50-foot ravine, killing the band director and a retired teacher chaperoning the group. Many in the community thought the marching band would not perform this season, given the tragic circumstances.
But perform they did, to the great pleasure of thousands who turned out for the homecoming football game. The musicians thought it was a way to honor the memory of their lost leader.
FARMINGDALE, NY — Thunderous cheers and applause. Tears. Pride. Hugs. Hope. All of that was in abundance as a sea of Dalers green, black and white descended upon Farmingdale High School for the school’s homecoming on Friday night.
Of the thousands surrounding the perimeter of the football field, many of them were there to celebrate the marching band’s return to the field, just two weeks after the horrific bus crash that claimed the lives of two educators: Gina Pellettiere, 43, of Massapequa, and Beatrice “Bea” Ferrari, 77, of Farmingdale. The bus overturned in Orange County on Sept. 21 as it was transporting the marching band to its annual band camp in Greeley, Pennsylvania.
For the first time in more than a decade, the Daler Marching Band performed without the guiding baton of Pellettiere — or “Ms. P,” as her students affectionately knew her. But while Pellettiere was not physically on the field during the pre-game and halftime performances, her students knew she was there in spirit.
“This is definitely what she would’ve wanted,” Philip Sullivan, a senior trumpet player in the Farmingdale marching band, told Patch. “I know she’s looking down on us right now, happy that we’re back performing, carrying on her legacy.”
The band first took the field before the opening kick-off between the Farmingdale Dalers and Baldwin Bruins. It performed “The Star-Spangled Banner” in front of an emotional crowd, followed by the school’s fight song.
Diane Ravitch's blog 