February 25, 2019

No Image

SEC Says Tesla Chief Elon Musk's Tweets Violated Court Settlement

Elon Musk, co-founder and chief executive officer of Tesla Inc., pictured in December, has been accused by the Securities and Exchange Commission of violating a settlement over last year’s misleading tweets.

Robyn Beck/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Robyn Beck/AP

The Securities and Exchange Commission asked a federal judge to hold Tesla Inc. CEO Elon Musk in contempt for violating a court settlement that restricted what he could publish about his company’s performance.

In a court filing Monday, the SEC argued that Musk had violated a settlement reached last year which required him to get approval from company officials before making any public statements that might impact Tesla’s stock price.

On Feb. 19, Musk tweeted that “Tesla made 0 cars in 2011, but will make around 500k in 2019.”

But that claim ran contrary to previous guidance from Tesla about the upstart car company’s productivity projections.

In another tweet about four hours later, Musk said, “Meant to say annualized production rate at end of 2019 probably around 500k, ie 10k cars/week. Deliveries for year still estimated to be about 400k.”

In its court filing, the SEC argued that Musk had failed to have the first tweet checkedand approved before sending it.

“He once again published inaccurate and material information about Tesla to his over 24 million Twitter followers, including members of the press, and made this inaccurate information available to anyone with Internet access,” said the SEC.

Musk’s legal troubles date to August 2018 when he publicly floated the idea of taking Tesla private, suggesting a share price and saying funding for the plan was “secured.” But later he retracted the statement.

The SEC filed suit alleging Musk had mislead investors. In the settlement, Musk kept control of Tesla, but he was stripped of the title of board chairman and ordered to pay a $20 million fine.

He also agreed to get approval before tweeting messages about the company. In its filing, the SEC said the requirement “is clear and unambiguous.”

A spokesperson for the company did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Controversial Serena Williams Cartoon Ruled 'Non-Racist' By Australia's Press Council

Serena Williams (left) and Naomi Osaka during the trophy ceremony after Osaka defeated Williams in the U.S. Open final on Sept. 8, 2018, that inspired a controversial cartoon mocking Williams.

Greg Allen/Invision/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Greg Allen/Invision/AP

Nearly six months after a cartoon mocking Serena Williams unleashed immediate international rebuke, with critics calling it a racist Jim-Crow-era-like rendering of the sports star, the Australian Press Council weighed in on Monday, defending the image.

The cartoon, published last September in Australia’s The Herald Sun following Serena Williams’ stinging U.S. Open loss to Naomi Osaka of Japan, shows Williams in mid-tantrum and stamping on her tennis racket. The umpire is shown asking Osaka, “Can you just let her win?”

The Council said the cartoon “uses exaggeration and absurdity to make its point but accepts the publisher’s claim that it does not depict Ms Williams as an ape, rather showing her as ‘spitting the dummy’, a non-racist caricature familiar to most Australian readers.” (A “dummy” is an Australian term for a pacifier, which was drawn lying alongside Williams’ racket on the ground.)

@Knightcartoons cartoon is not racist or sexist …. it rightly mocks poor behavior by a tennis legend … Mark has the full support of everyone @theheraldsun pic.twitter.com/KWMT3QahJh

— damon johnston (@damonheraldsun) September 11, 2018

The Council, a watchdog group responsible for promoting good media practice standards in Australia, said it “accepts that the cartoon was illustrated in response to the events that occurred at the US Open final.”

On Sept. 8, 2018, Williams was playing the Grand Slam final against an opponent 16 years her junior, when in the second set, the chair umpire determined Williams’ coach was directing her from the sidelines and called a code violation.

Williams protested. “I don’t cheat to win,” she told the ump, Carlos Ramos. “I’d rather lose.”

As the game continued and Williams grew more frustrated, she slammed her racket onto the court, bending it. It was her second violation, and Osaka automatically got a point.

Visibly upset, Williams went on to confront Ramos and demand an apology, calling him a “liar” and a “thief.”

“You will never, ever, ever be on another court of mine as long as you live,” she told him. Williams was given a third code violation.

Osaka ultimately won — becoming the first Japanese player to win a Grand Slam title — but there was little joy evinced at a game that saw both players in tears at points and the crowd jeering the trophy ceremony. Williams was fined $17,000.

Williams, a winner of nearly two dozen Grand Slam titles, and her defenders have pointed to what they say is a double standard, whereby male players can get away with on-court outbursts for which female players are likelier to be called out. Williams’ coach later said he was trying to guide her from the sidelines, but said it is a common practice that is rarely penalized.

London-based writer Tobi Oredein told NPR’s Rachel Martin that what happened was not only about sexism but also racism.

“At the heart of ‘misogynoir’ — because it only affects black women — is a caricature of the angry, black woman,” she said. “And it dehumanizes us, and it stops us showing emotion.”

Well done on reducing one of the greatest sportswomen alive to racist and sexist tropes and turning a second great sportswoman into a faceless prop. https://t.co/YOxVMuTXEC

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) September 10, 2018

Mark Knight, who penned the cartoon, told the Herald Sun, he was inspired to draw the cartoon when he saw “the world’s best tennis player have a tantrum and thought that was interesting.”

The Herald Sun has stood by Knight, even as critics have said there is no getting around the stereotypical depictions in the drawing.

The National Association of Black Journalists called the cartoon “repugnant on many levels. The Sept. 10 cartoon not only exudes racist, sexist caricatures of both women, but Williams’ depiction is unnecessarily sambo-like,” a reference to the racist Jim Crow caricatures popularized in the 19th century.

.@heraldsun cartoonist Mark Knight reflects on how he should have drawn Serena Williams #USOpenFinal pic.twitter.com/zG8zqqkGVH

— Herald Sun (@theheraldsun) September 16, 2018

Knight defended his rendering of Williams. “I drew her as an African American woman,” he said in a video published on the Herald Sun’s web site. “She’s powerfully built. She wears these outrageous costumes when she plays tennis. She is interesting to draw.”

“This whole business that I’m some sort of racist calling on racial cartoons from the past — it’s just made up,” Knight said. “The cartoon was about her behavior on the day.”

Knight said he had to suspend his Twitter account because of the onslaught he faced after the cartoon was published.

He was also criticized for his rendering of Osaka. Oredein said he “whitewashed” the player, who is of Japanese and Haitian descent. Osaka “was seen as heroic and good and within her place,” Oredein said. “And she had blonde hair, and it was straight.”

In its ruling, the Australian Press Council said it had considered complaints about how the women were depicted and “that the cartoon should be considered in the context of the history of caricatures based on race and historical racist depictions of African Americans. “

Nevertheless, the Council said it found the publication did not fail “to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial offence, distress or prejudice, without sufficient justification in the public interest,” and so it did not breach the Council’s standards of practice.

Oredein said the cartoon embodies a wider problem in the industry, “that black women and their talents, especially in sports, are treated with suspicion.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

New Mexico Eyes A 'Medicaid Buy-In' Plan To Insure More Residents

Leah Steimel (center) says she would consider buying insurance through a Medicaid-style plan that the New Mexico Legislature is considering. Her family includes (from left) her husband, Wellington Guzman; their daughter, Amelia; and sons Daniel and Jonathan.

Courtesy of Leah Steimel


hide caption

toggle caption

Courtesy of Leah Steimel

Laura Lucero Y Ruiz De Gutierrez has a heart condition and fibromyalgia and is at high risk of developing diabetes. She has health insurance through her husband’s job. But between the $800 monthly premium for the couple’s coverage and the $2,100 deductible she has to pay down before insurance starts picking up the tab, she doesn’t feel she can afford to go to the doctor when she needs to.

She hopes that this may soon change. Identical bills proposed in recent weeks in the New Mexico House and Senate would make Gutierrez eligible to buy into a public health plan modeled on the Medicaid program, with funding support from the state of New Mexico. She could receive state-funded assistance via the program that would save her hundreds of dollars a month on premiums.

Laura Lucero Y Ruiz De Gutierrez has health insurance but says she still can’t afford to go to the doctor when she’s sick. She hopes the public health plan New Mexico is considering will change that.

Courtesy of Laura Lucero Y Ruiz De Gutierrez


hide caption

toggle caption

Courtesy of Laura Lucero Y Ruiz De Gutierrez

Medicare for all” – often described as a national, single-payer health system built on the Medicare model — has become a rallying cry for some progressive Democrats. Meanwhile, New Mexico is one of several states looking at offering consumers a different type of government-sponsored plan to provide a health care option that’s more affordable than current options.

These states’ proposals are often referred to as “Medicaid buy-in” plans because, typically, they would offer benefits similar to what is available through Medicaid, the state-federal health plan for people who have low incomes.

The proposals under consideration vary from state to state. Variables include eligibility criteria, how they might be funded and whether they would be offered on the Affordable Care Act’s insurance exchange.

And depending on how they structure their plan, states may have to get approval from the federal government to move ahead.

States that are interested in a buy-in plan typically are considering taking advantage of the Medicaid program’s provider networks and reimbursement rates. Those payment rates generally are lower than for Medicare and for commercial plans.

That may help keep costs down, though in some states it also means the network of doctors would likely not be as large as that found with Medicare or some commercial plans.

“Medicare-for-all is not going to happen legislatively in the next couple years,” says Heather Howard, who directs Princeton University’s State Health and Value Strategies program and is working closely with some of the states. “In the meantime, states are saying, ‘What about “Medicaid-for-more”?’ “

In New Mexico, the buy-in plan would be similar to the state’s Medicaid program. It would be offered outside the exchange and would not require federal approval to implement. The state would provide financial assistance to help people with lower incomes buy into it.

A report commissioned by New Mexico projected that up to 16,000 people would enroll in a program like the one originally proposed in the state’s bills and that their premiums would be 15 to 28 percent lower than plans sold on the individual market.

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham favors a Medicaid buy-in option. She doesn’t have a position on the current bill, but she is following it closely, says Nora Sackett, the governor’s deputy press secretary.

In addition to the governor’s and lawmakers’ interest, other stakeholders have been deeply involved, increasing the odds of success, Howard says.

Lawmakers in Colorado, Oregon, Washington and Minnesota are among others exploring similar options, says Howard. Nevada lawmakers passed a bill last year that would have set up a Medicaid buy-in plan, but the Republican governor vetoed it.

“The proposals take on different flavors depending on the state” and what officials are trying to accomplish, she says, whether it’s increasing the number of people with insurance, making coverage more affordable or helping states avoid having “bare” counties where no marketplace plans are offered.

New Mexico’s bill would target individuals who aren’t eligible for Medicaid or Medicare and those who can’t get the Affordable Care Act’s premium subsidies because their incomes are above 400 percent of the federal poverty level (about $50,000 for one person or $103,000 for a family of four). The plan would also be available to state residents whose immigration status in the U.S. is undocumented.

And the measure would help people like Gutierrez who are vulnerable to the ACA’s so-called family glitch. Her husband’s $100 monthly premium for single coverage through his employer plan is considered affordable under the law because it costs less than 9.86 percent of their family’s income of about $46,000 a year. That makes her ineligible for premium subsidies on the exchange, even though the $800 premium for the two of them through her husband’s employer plan far exceeds that affordability percentage. Their three children already have Medicaid coverage.

“Right now, I pay to have the health care, but I can’t afford to use it,” says Gutierrez.

The bill would provide financial assistance from the state, with premiums and cost sharing for people whose incomes are less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level, or $60,340 for a family of five. The new coverage would take effect by January 2021.

Gutierrez, whose family lives in Albuquerque, would be eligible for financial assistance to help her buy into the Medicaid-like plan, while her husband stays on his employer plan. Because their $46,000 annual income is just above 150 percent of the federal poverty level, her monthly premium would likely be about $160 per month for a comprehensive plan with a $150 deductible, according to estimates by Manatt Health, which did the original state analyses of buy-in options that were published before the bills were introduced in January.

New Mexico has high levels of poverty, and 40 percent of New Mexico residents are already enrolled in the state’s Medicaid program, compared with about 23 percent nationwide.

“It’s the cornerstone” of our health care system, says Colin Baillio, director of policy and communication at Health Action New Mexico, an advocacy group. The legislation would use “those levers that Medicaid has to provide comprehensive coverage and a comprehensive provider network.”

The bills were passed by two legislative committees this month, with instructions for further study to examine expanding the buy-in plan to more groups. They now move to two other legislative committees for consideration, Baillio says.

And though hospitals and other health care providers would be reimbursed at Medicaid rates — typically lower than those for commercial plans — to the extent that people who are uninsured enroll in the new plan, some providers say they stand to gain financially.

“We’re obviously very supportive of anything that expands coverage,” says Jeff Dye, president of the New Mexico Hospital Association. “It’s the issue of getting some payment versus no payment for services rendered.”

If the Medicaid buy-in bill passes, Blanca and her husband, Hugo, could have health insurance for the first time since they moved to New Mexico 14 years ago. The couple and their oldest son, now 18, are undocumented immigrants from Mexico. (NPR is not using their last names, to protect the family’s privacy.) Their two younger children, who were born in the United States, are enrolled in Medicaid.

Hugo works as a plumber, and Blanca is studying early childhood development at a community college near their home in Albuquerque. Because they are unauthorized immigrants, they’re not permitted to buy health insurance on the ACA exchanges, even if they’re willing to pay the full price.

So like many people without insurance, they wait until they’re really sick before seeking help. When Blanca developed pneumonia a few years ago, the waiting lists for an appointment at community clinics that would see her without insurance were long. Finally, when she could no longer breathe comfortably, she went to the emergency department.

“It would bring us peace of mind not having to worry about our health care situation,” Blanca says through an interpreter.

Providing health care for residents who lack proper immigration status is “an underlying issue with many states that are considering a Medicaid buy-in,” said Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, managing director at Manatt Health, who co-authored the reports evaluating Medicaid buy-in options for New Mexico.

The New Mexico bill also would provide some relief for Leah Steimel’s family. Neither she nor her husband has employer-sponsored coverage, and with a family income of about $100,000, they don’t qualify for tax credits that would reduce their ACA premiums. They now pay more than $1,900 per month for a silver-level plan with a $10,000 deductible to cover themselves and two of their kids (the third is older than 26).

Buying into a Medicaid-like plan would be tempting, says Steimel, who works as a community health consultant with some of the groups advocating for the buy-in. Sure, she says, she does wonder if the Medicaid plan would be as easy to use as a regular commercial plan and if it would give the family access to as many providers.

“But being able to pay into something that would reduce by even a third what I’m paying now — I’d love that,” she says.

Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent news service that is part of the nonpartisan Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente. Michelle Andrews is on Twitter: @mandrews110.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)