November 26, 2016

No Image

Inside The Climate Change Dispute Between Exxon Mobil And Rockefeller Family

Exxon Mobil is accusing the Rockefeller family of masterminding a conspiracy against the company on climate change. New York Times reporter John Schwartz tells the story.

LAKSHMI SINGH, HOST:

Oil and gas giant ExxonMobil is accusing one of America’s best known philanthropic families, the Rockefellers, of using their wealth and influence to mastermind a conspiracy against ExxonMobil. To find out more, we reached John Schwartz, a science writer for The New York Times. He joined us from New York, and I asked him to walk us through Exxon’s allegations.

JOHN SCHWARTZ: They’re saying that the Rockefeller family through funding lots of private organizations and encouraging attorneys general has been at the center of a network of activism that has gone after ExxonMobil both for its past research and its present statements and past statements about climate change. And they used the word conspiracy in saying it, and the attacks have gotten pretty fierce.

SINGH: It’s not unusual for them to use the word conspiracy or is it?

SCHWARTZ: It’s not the kind of language that you normally hear from corporations, but Exxon when challenged can be pretty tough. Now, the point of contention is over how much Exxon actually knew. There’s a whole hashtag and activist movement built around the idea that Exxon knew uniquely that climate change had catastrophic consequences for the planet and used this knowledge both to improve its processes and to plan its – for instance, floating platforms and stuff like that, but that it also fought climate change regulation and fought action in Washington by funding activist groups, by funding groups that would spread doubt about whether climate change is real or not to emphasize the controversy.

SINGH: How is the Rockefeller family responding to ExxonMobil’s accusations?

SCHWARTZ: You know, they’re very private people. I mean, Rockefellers have run for office, but they don’t generally go out and make big public statements about things. And, in this case, as they’ve increasingly come under fire, they’ve decided to fight back.

And so David Kaiser and Lee Wasserman who runs the Rockefeller Family Fund, they together wrote a piece for The New York Review of Books that lays out the Rockefeller family positions over time, how they’ve tried to work with Exxon quietly as large shareholders to get the company to change its ways and then talked about their funding and who they funded and why, what they’re doing is civic engagement and not a conspiracy. And so they are going out and, you know – and standing their ground.

SINGH: You know, John, your article points to irony in these claims because much of the family’s wealth actually comes from John D. Rockefeller’s founding of Standard Oil which later became ExxonMobil. So how does this generally – taking a step back – how does this generally square with the family?

SCHWARTZ: Well, first of all, they are fully conscious of the fact that Rockefellers going against Exxon is news in and of itself. And they hoped that the weirdness of that would propel the story, and it has. Look, they got in the New York Times, OK? You know, it’s – it is an attention-getting stand for them to take, but it is not a stand inconsistent with the way the family has been over the last few generations that they have been very big in conservation, environmental protection and very, very focused on climate change both in their personal work and their philanthropies since the ’80s.

You know, when they talk about their – like David Kaiser’s great-great-grandfather John D. Rockefeller and other members of the family I’ve spoken with, what they say is, look, he was a very smart person. If he were alive today, he wouldn’t be betting everything on fossil fuels, and he would be looking toward moving into renewable and alternative energy because those things are going to be the profit centers of the future. And he was always looking toward the future.

SINGH: That’s New York Times science writer John Schwartz. John, thank you so much for joining us.

SCHWARTZ: It’s a pleasure.

Copyright © 2016 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Paul Ryan's Plan to Change Medicare Looks A Lot Like Obamacare

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., speaks to the media during a briefing on Capitol Hill in September. Mark Wilson/Getty Images hide caption

toggle caption

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

President-elect Donald Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan agree that repealing the Affordable Care Act and replacing it with some other health insurance system is a top priority.

But they disagree on whether overhauling Medicare should be part of that plan. Medicare is the government-run health system for people aged 65 and older and the disabled.

Trump said little about Medicare during his campaign, other than to promise that he wouldn’t cut it.

Ryan, on the other hand, has Medicare in his sights.

“Because of Obamacare, Medicare is going broke,” Ryan said in an interview on Fox News on Nov. 10. “So you have to deal with those issues if you’re going to repeal and replace Obamacare.”

In fact, the opposite appears to be true — Obamacare may actually have extended the life of Medicare.

This year’s Medicare trustees report says the program would now be able to pay all its bills through 2028, a full 11 years longer than a 2009 forecast — an improvement Medicare’s trustees attribute, in part, to changes in Medicare called for in the Affordable Care Act and other economic factors.

Article continues after sponsorship

And the irony of the Ryan Medicare plan, say some health policy analysts, is that it would turn the government program into something that looks very much like the structure created for insurance plans sold under the ACA.

“The way it works is comparable to Obamacare,” says physician and conservative policy analyst Avik Roy, founder of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity.

Ryan’s plan would set up “Medicare exchanges” where private insurance companies would compete with traditional government-run Medicare for customers. Obamacare exchanges sell only private insurance plans.

People would get “premium support” from the government to pay for their insurance under the Ryan Medicare plan.

The subsidy would be tied to the price of a specific plan offered by an insurer on the exchange, much like the Affordable Care Act subsidy is tied to the second-cheapest “silver” plans.

And the payment would be linked to a recipient’s income, so lower-income people would get a bigger subsidy. The subsidy would rise as beneficiaries get sicker, to ensure access to insurance. Like in Obamacare, people who choose plans that cost more than the government subsidy would have to pay the balance.

Insurers would have to agree to issue policies to any Medicare beneficiary, to “avoid cherry-picking,” and to ensure that “Medicare’s sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive coverage.”

The changes would start in 2024, when people who are now about 57 become Medicare eligible.

Roy agrees with Ryan that Medicare is going broke and that a program structured in this way would save money through “the magic of competition.”

“If you have 10 insurers competing for that business, you’re going to negotiate a better deal,” he said.

Medicare is already a dual public-private program. Most seniors today are enrolled in what’s known as traditional Medicare, where the government pays for medical appointments, tests and hospital stays on a fee-for-service basis.

Alongside that program is Medicare Advantage, an insurance plan provided by a private insurer which may offer seniors additional services like dental care at the same price.

The government pays a fixed monthly fee to the insurer for each Medicare Advantage patient, rather than paying for every service separately, as it does in traditional Medicare.

About half of Medicare’s new enrollees choose Medicare Advantage plans, says Henry Aaron, a health care economist at the Brookings Institution.

Aaron says Ryan’s proposal aims to move almost all seniors into Medicare Advantage-style insurance by making traditional Medicare too expensive for the consumer.

But, he says, there are risks to that approach.

“The real question here is whether the requisite safeguards are in place to ensure that the elderly and people with disabilities would be able to maneuver in such a system,” he says.

That’s because the health care and health insurance systems are very complex. Doctors move in and out of networks, copayments can vary and plans can change.

Millions of people on Medicare are also eligible for Medicaid, meaning they are poor and vulnerable, Aaron says. And at least 8 million Social Security beneficiaries have been declared financially incompetent and are assigned a representative to manage their money.

“What you’ve got here is a group of people who are very sick, poor, and often cognitively impaired one way or the other,” Aaron says. “Tossing people like that into a health care marketplace and saying, ‘Here, go buy some insurance,’ is a recipe for problems.”

Seniors may feel the same way. Researchers at Brown University last year found that as people get older and sicker, they tend to drop Medicare Advantage and opt for traditional Medicare.

Ryan has been working on his plan to change Medicare for many years. A version of his “premium support” plan was included in several budget proposals he put forth when he was chairman of the House Budget Committee.

The Congressional Budget Office says the proposals would reduce federal spending on Medicare.

At this point it’s unclear whether Trump shares Ryan’s ambitions to upend the current Medicare system. Trump didn’t include Medicare reform on his campaign web site. But since his election, “modernize Medicare” has been included on the list of health care priorities on his transition web site.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

The Latest In Sports: Cuban Edition

NPR’s Scott Simon talks to Howard Bryant of ESPN about major figures in Cuban sports and the potential expiration of Major League Baseball’s collective bargaining agreement.

SCOTT SIMON, HOST:

And now it’s time for sports.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

SIMON: Among the many changes that Fidel Castro imposed on his country after his 1959 revolution was a ban on professional sports. That ban lasted until 2013, and it made it difficult for the country’s best athletes to compete professionally abroad. Many made dangerous escapes to try to do that. Howard Bryant of espn.com and ESPN The Magazine joins us.

Howard, thanks so much for being with us.

HOWARD BRYANT, BYLINE: Good morning, Scott.

SIMON: And sports is very popular in Cuba. It’s an important part of the Cuban nation. I want to bring up the name Teofilo Stevenson, one of the great boxers of all time, I think – one of the great Cuban athletes, certainly. He won three consecutive Olympic gold medals for Cuba, the first in 1972. I always thought he was the one boxer of his time, until Joe Frazier, who might’ve defeated Muhammad Ali. But we’ll never know.

BRYANT: Yes. And a lot of people did. It’s the fight that never took place. And I think one of the things about the death of Fidel Castro is it is so generational. And if you are of a certain age, that little island 90 miles away from where I am right now in Key West was a gigantic figure in your life because of the raging Cold War battle.

And the Olympics made so much headway for us. They made – Olympics were everything. And Stevenson was one of the guys that you knew – if you were watching the Americans fight at the heavyweight level, that if they had to face Stevenson, they were going to lose. Nobody beat him in Olympic competition in three Olympics.

And he’s another one of those athletes that you always wondered what could’ve been. And the tension between these two countries – it’s really difficult to understand if you weren’t really a child of the Cold War how big sports played in it.

SIMON: Yeah. And I have to wonder how many great Cuban baseball players never got their chance to play in the United States because jumping off the Cuban national team or trying to figure out passage to the U.S. or Mexico or the Dominican Republic or someplace where a professional athlete could simply try and play at the highest level to which he or she was entitled to play – that was a very dangerous proposition.

BRYANT: Well, no question. And also, let’s not forget about the history – as you well know – the history of baseball in Cuba in general. The Brooklyn Dodgers – Jackie Robinson in 1947, 1948 – they trained in Cuba. And the relationship between that sport and that island is so powerful. We always think about, once again, the great Dominican players, the great Puerto Rican players, the Venezuelan players.

And the Cuban players are some of the ones that we remember most because of the road that they’ve had to take to get to the major leagues. Let’s not forget Orlando Hernandez, the great El Duque, in 1998, defecting and finally succeeding in defecting…

SIMON: Yeah.

BRYANT: …After being a national hero in Cuba – and then was essentially banned from playing by Fidel Castro because he would not turn on some of the players who had defected. He would not rat on his friends.

SIMON: Yeah.

BRYANT: And then what happened? He was stripped of all of his glory and then finally came to the New York Yankees and was an indispensable member of that team. Luis Tiant, Boston Red Sox and Aroldis Chapman with the Cubs – there’s just so many figures. Baseball, Cuba – it’s – and 1997, obviously, as well, when the Orioles went over as well. It’s just such an incredible, incredible history.

SIMON: Howard Bryant from ESPN, thanks very much for being with us.

BRYANT: Thank you.

Copyright © 2016 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)