Articles by admin

No Image

Feds Arrest Man Credited With Helping To Stop Ransomware Attack

Marcus Hutchins, seen in May when he was credited with hobbling the WannaCry attack. Now, U.S. authorities have arrested him for allegedly creating and distributing banking malware.

Frank Augstein/AP

hide caption

toggle caption

Frank Augstein/AP

Marcus Hutchins’ Twitter account suddenly went quiet a day ago when the FBI took him into custody in Las Vegas on Wednesday. The 23-year-old British citizen — who was praised earlier this year when he was credited with helping to control a global ransomware attack — was in town attending the Black Hat and DefCon cybersecurity conferences.

According to a court document and a statement from the U.S. Department of Justice, he’s accused of creating and distributing a malware program called Kronos. It’s designed to steal banking log in information and other financial data from infected computers.

The Justice Department statement said “following a two-year long investigation, a federal grand jury returned a six-count indictment against Marcus Hutchins, also known as “Malwaretech,” for his role in creating and distributing the Kronos banking Trojan.” The indictments were handed down in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

The British researcher is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit computer fraud and abuse, three counts of distributing and advertising an electronic communication interception device, one count of endeavoring to intercept electronic communications, and one count of attempting to access a computer without authorization.

The alleged crime happened between July 2014 and July 2015.

But Hutchins is known as a hacker whose career has been dedicated to stopping cyber attacks, not committing them.

He grew famous in May when he was credited with finding a “kill switch” on a malware program called WannaCry that threatened over 150 countries. The program would infect computers, lock them up and demand ransom to restore the information. The U.K.’s National Health Service was among the victims. Hutchins is a self-described “accidental hero” and fellow researchers expressed shock and disbelief at the accusations.

Andrew Mabbit, founder of cyber firm Fidus Information Security, said on Twitter that he was trying to find Hutchins a lawyer and would soon be crowdfunding cash for his legal representation.

“I refuse to believe the charges against @MalwareTechBlog,” Mabbitt said, referring to Hutchins’ Twitter handle. “He spent his career stopping malware, not writing it.”

Mabbitt didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Another researcher Kevin Beaumont tweeted that the Department of Justice had made a “huge mistake.”

Beaumont tweeted that Hutchins’ business is to infiltrate malware like Kronos, monitor them and sell that data to law enforcement.

[embedded content]

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Bill Moyers On Working With LBJ To Pass Medicare 52 Years Ago

Journalist Bill Moyers once worked as the special assistant to President Johnson, where he witnessed first-hand the political maneuvering that resulted in the landmark health care legislation.

TERRY GROSS, HOST:

This is FRESH AIR. I’m Terry Gross. The failure of the latest attempt to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act coincided with the 52nd anniversary of the passage of Medicare and Medicaid. My guest Bill Moyers has written a new article about how President Lyndon Johnson coaxed, cajoled, badgered, buttonholed and maneuvered Congress into enacting Medicare for the aging and Medicaid to help low-income people. At the time, Moyers was a special assistant to Johnson.

Later, from 1965 to ’67, Moyer’s served as Johnson’s press secretary. He was a journalist before entering the political sphere and after leaving the Johnson administration, Moyers returned to journalism. He hosted public TV shows from 1971 until just a couple of years ago. He racked up about 36 Emmys and nine Peabody Awards. Although he’s retired from hosting his own shows, he’s the managing editor of billmoyers.com, where his article about the passage of Medicare is published. Bill Moyers, welcome back to FRESH AIR. It is great to have you back again.

BILL MOYERS: And I’m delighted to be here.

GROSS: So Medicare – the idea of health coverage for older people – took a long time to pass, but it dates back to 1935, when FDR proposed it. What was his proposal?

MOYERS: He wanted to get health insurance included as part of Social Security. Social Security was quite popular but health care was not. And the Republican Party and conservative Democrats and doctors around the country and an early form of the American Medical Association won that victory. It took us 40 years and four Democratic presidents before we finally accomplished Medicare 50 years ago in 1967.

GROSS: In your article, you describe what health care was like in your family. Why don’t you tell us about that? At the time. And we’re talking about the mid-’30s.

MOYERS: Well, in 1935, when Roosevelt made his proposal, I was a 1-year-old. My family was poor. The Great Depression had robbed my father of being a tenant farmer. He took a job for a dollar a day helping to build a highway in southeastern Oklahoma, a highway I think from Dallas to Oklahoma City. And my mother was marked all of her life by the fact that she had lost twin girls, one at birth and one some months later. I don’t remember just how many because the nearest doctor – the only doctor – was too far away to get through the countryside in his horse and buggy in time to help.

So eventually, my mother and dad moved into town. And to pay the doctor who did deliver me, my father carried by hand very large sandy stones to the site that the physician had bought to build his first office. It’s still there. This was exactly at the time, Terry, when, as I said earlier, those Republicans and conservative Democrats and the AMA were winning their fight to sink President Roosevelt’s proposals. So all through my life, I was reminded of what it had meant to my parents and my family and, of course, to many others of that generation and beyond who didn’t have coverage and good health care when they most needed it.

GROSS: Truman tried and failed to pass a version of Medicare. Then, Kennedy and LBJ made it a plank in their platform. You write that, you know, Kennedy’s death helped Lyndon Johnson actually enact that agenda. How did LBJ use Kennedy’s death to try to unite people behind the passage of Medicare?

MOYERS: Well, they knew that Kennedy’s program was – his proposals on health care and civil rights and others were very important but were stalled in Congress. And on the plane back from Dallas – on Air Force One coming back from Dallas with the new president, a small coterie of aides and friends in the front compartment, and LBJ intuitively felt that this was the moment to try to move what had been a stalled agenda in the Congress. And so in a very – his first major address to Congress a few days after the funeral of Kennedy, Johnson at the end of it said in that slow Texas drawl of his but with genuine conviction, let us continue.

And that kind of sparked the awakening of America from their deep grief and a realization that life had to go on. Government had to work. We had a new president. Let’s back him as he does what he feels he needs to do. And he felt he needed to act not on some new agenda but on an agenda that had been much discussed, much very carefully conceived and stalled in Congress. And that’s how it came about that he pulled the lever and sent us into action to do what eventually came to be known as the Great Society legislation, although I often had some doubts about that sort of grandiose term. But it nonetheless was the most aggressive legislative agenda since Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, who – whose New Deal was a very important part of his surprise upset victory in 1948.

GROSS: So you became Lyndon Johnson’s press secretary. So you were his press secretary during the passage of Medicare, right?

MOYERS: Well, the first two years in the White House – I came back with him from Dallas, went right to the White House with him, stayed in his home for a few days. And then although I at the time was the deputy director of the Peace Corps and wanted to go back to the Peace Corps, he insisted I stay. And my first major assignment – I had two major assignments in 1964. One was to manage the – his campaign for election in November in his own right.

But the most important assignment I had was to put together the task forces that would lead to the legislative program of 1965. That included, by the way, the Public Broadcasting Act, which was passed in 1967 to include education. It included poverty, and it included health insurance. So for 15 months, I worked intensely on helping to shape that legislation including Medicare. Then, in the mid part of 1965, as he had run through two or three press secretaries, he insisted that I take that job, and I did reluctantly.

GROSS: Why were you reluctant?

MOYERS: I loved what I was doing. I mean, I loved – at first, I wanted to go back to the Peace Corps when I could first get free. Secondly, I thought creating this legislation and working with some of the best minds in government and from around the country was exhilarating. It was exhausting, but it was exhilarating, and there was something coming out of it. There was something being created that would make a real difference in the lives of Henry and Ruby Moyers in Marshall, Texas, and millions of people like them that I liked doing that.

I liked the anonymity of it. It was easier to get things done when you were not Scaramucci or Bannon or somebody like that. And the second thing is I did not want to be press secretary. I mean, the third time he asked me, I couldn’t say no. I said no twice. The third time, he insisted. And I still have a sore shoulder from that encounter.

And I went home. And that night, I said to my wife as we went to bed, well, this is the beginning of the end. And she said, why? And I said, because – obviously appealing to the New Testament with which I was familiar – no man can serve two masters. And I just didn’t want to get caught in the middle between the press and the president. I loved what I had been doing. And I didn’t covet that job. And the truth of the matter is in time, as I anticipated, our credibility was so bad we couldn’t believe our own leaks.

GROSS: That was in part because of the war in Vietnam, right?

MOYERS: Yes – mainly. It was also because Lyndon Johnson, you know, was a – 13 of the most complex people I ever knew. And it was – you had to deal with a different persona from day to day or from week to week. And sometimes it was difficult to figure out who he was at that particular time. And you’d find yourself contradicting yourself, even though you hadn’t intended to.

When I took the job, when it was announced, my father sent me a telegram. And he said, Bill – telegram, most of your listeners don’t know what a telegram is, but it was the end – a tweet that took a long time to come by wire and paper. But he said, Bill, tell the truth if you can. But if you can’t tell the truth, don’t tell a lie. And I tried very hard to walk that line, sometimes I felt like on the wrong side of it, but I – it was a tough and tenuous assignment.

GROSS: If you’re just joining us, my guest is journalist Bill Moyers, who’s received about 36 Emmys and nine Peabodys. And he retired from hosting his own PBS shows, but he’s still writing and is the managing editor of billmoyers.com, where his latest piece was just published. It’s about how LBJ launched Medicare 52 years ago in spite of the opposition. Moyers was LBJ’s press secretary from ’65 to ’67 and was a special assistant to LBJ before that. We’ll be back after a break. This is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF DJ RADE’S “FREAK OUT”)

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. And if you’re just joining us, my guest is journalist Bill Moyers, who is now the managing editor of billmoyers.com, in which he has a new piece about how LBJ launched Medicare 52 years ago in spite of the opposition. And it’s a very interesting piece to read in the light of the attempts by Republicans and the Trump administration to repeal and replace Obamacare. One of the people trying to influence public opinion against Medicare was Ronald Reagan. He was a spokesperson for the AMA at the time. What was his role in the debate?

MOYERS: He was hired by the AMA to be their pitchman for the campaign to stop Medicare. He was not yet in politics. He would not run for governor of California for two more years. This was 1964, remember. And he would travel the country making speeches to organize groups. And then he also cut a very persuasive audio and film – short film – that was circulated by an organization composed mainly of doctors’ wives, who in their local communities – where they knew everybody because mostly small towns in those days and small and medium-sized towns – they would get together their neighbors and the patients of their doctors – husbands and play this audio or this little film clip if they had the means to do so.

And Ronald Reagan was very persuasive on that. Not persuasive enough to stop the Medicare legislation, but he was probably our most effective adversary. And Barry Goldwater, who was in 1964 the Republican presidential candidate – and I thought about this, by the way, when John McCain flew up from Arizona recently to make his stand – Barry Goldwater interrupted his campaign in the fall of 1964, flew to Washington and voted against the Medicare legislation we were then advocating. And we lost by four votes. His was one of those four votes. But Reagan was clearly – he could touch people in those days, just as he did when president. He was a superb communicator, as the saying goes.

GROSS: Well, embedded in your article about LBJ and Medicare, you have a short excerpt of the recording Ronald Reagan made when he was a spokesperson for the AMA trying to persuade people against Medicare. So thanks to you, let’s hear a short excerpt of that recording. This is Ronald Reagan in 1964?

MOYERS: Yes.

GROSS: OK.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

RONALD REAGAN: Behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country. Until one day, as Norman Thomas said, you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.

GROSS: That sounds kind of familiar to me, the whole idea that, like, government’s going to take over medicine and then it’s going to take over your life. And that’s going to be the end of freedom in America.

MOYERS: Well, that’s a consistent conservative refrain, and it has been from the very beginning. It’s not a – it’s not one you can dismiss frivolously because none of us want to live in George Orwell’s state, a state in which government is totalitarian, tyrannical and we’re under constant surveillance. And you could hold out those fears of what was then, you know, the Stalinist, Communist state in Russia as a dystopian vision of America’s future. And, of course, none of us want to be dictated to by anyone. And it was an argument that struck home with Americans who had – with many Americans who had a strong sense of individualism.

The country was founded in no small part on liberty and justice for all and each, therefore. So it was an argument that persuaded people, particularly when their local doctors and their doctors’ local wives were saying, well, this is going to put the United States government – it’s going to put Roosevelt or Truman or Kennedy or Johnson between you and your doctor. I mean, Reagan, who voted several times for Franklin Roosevelt, by the way, didn’t seem to think then that his vote was going to diminish his freedom. And so conservatives had taken that article to a very extreme level.

I mean, there are many, many countries in the world who have some form of universal health care, even single-payer health care. And on the whole, there are always complaints because you can’t have one policy that does fit all. On the whole, most people in Norway and Sweden and Taiwan and Canada and Japan and places where they do have a form of single payer or universal health care, they don’t seem to feel that they’ve lost their freedom. It was an alarmist but effective argument.

GROSS: So Johnson had quite a reputation for being, like, a brilliant tactician in Congress. Give us an example of an arm he twisted or a deal he made to get an essential vote.

MOYERS: Well, he had very effective powers of persuasion. He knew how to phrase an issue or a challenge so that it would connect to people who had to vote on it in the House and Senate. I mean, when we were working on our bill in 1965, I and others had urged that the Medicare bill include a provision for a retroactive increase in Social Security payments because they would be an economic stimulus, and we sort of needed that at the moment. And he called me on the phone. And he said, well, I think it’s fine to be retroactive, but I think it can be defended. I think Medicare can be defended on a hell of a better basis in Congress than this. I mean, we do know that it affects the economy. It helps in that respect. And here’s a direct quote from that telephone call to me, “that’s not the basis to go to the Hill, Moyers. It’s not the justification. We’ve just got to say that, by God, you can’t treat grandma this way. She’s entitled. And we promised it to her.”

And when he talked like that to members of Congress, they got it. I mean, he could tailor his appeal to the interests and prejudices of the member of the Senate or House in front of him, but he knew how to get them to see it differently than the arcane language in the bill itself. And at one point, we were paralyzed again on the Medicare bill. We’d gotten a good bill out of the House, and it was in the Senate. And there was a conflict between the House and the Senate. And we went to him, said, how do you want us to sell it? We’re down to the last round. And if we get the argument right, we can get a good majority in the Senate and a good majority in the House.

And he said, give everybody bragging rights. He said, you go to them and you say, one day, their grandson or their granddaughter is going to look back and say – I’m paraphrasing here – my grandfather was in the Congress when they passed Medicare. And he said, you know, those grandchildren are going to be so grateful to you, and their parents are going to be so great for you because they didn’t have to find the money to pay for grandma and grandpa in the nursing home. So you go to them and say they can brag that they were there when the moment came to decide for their parents and their own generation.

And you know what? I can tell you one after – I saw the light go off in one congressional face after another when that argument was made. You’re writing history. You can brag about it to your grandchildren. That was how he did it. And then, of course, he knew how to play the tough game of threats against members of Congress who didn’t vote for it. He could offer a dam. You know, he knew – Lyndon Johnson was a genius in knowing everyone’s price. And he knew that some senators just wanted to bring their wives to dinner at the White House. Some senators wanted a photograph of them with the president. Some senators wanted a dam built on a river in their home state. He knew how to trade.

He once said to us, you know, the cardinal rule of what you’re doing up in Congress is if you don’t got something to give, you’re not going to get something to get. In other words, you got to trade. And that was his mandate. When you go up to see Wilbur Mills, the chairman of the House – powerful conservative Democrat who was chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee who could have killed this bill at any moment and did for some time kill the Medicare bill – you’ve got to give him something for what you want to get from him. That was his genius.

I mean, what all of this shows is that it takes a president who is informed and engaged and active in the legislative process respecting the differences between the branches. But it takes somebody who knows what’s going on, who cares about the details of the bill, who is willing to sit one-on-one. I mean, I can see right now Lyndon Johnson having individual and collective members of Congress to have coffee in the morning, lunch at noon, a drink at 6 o’clock, even dinner sometimes. And then he would invite in the head of the Chamber of Commerce, the head of the AFLCO (ph), very important to passage of Medicare. They brought their 14 million members to back it. That’s how he worked at it.

You know, he had a large persona. He was out doing bawdy things in public, making speeches and that sort of thing, but he on Medicare preferred to work quietly and behind the scenes because he did not want the public to think he was dominating Congress. And he wasn’t dominating Congress. He was persuading Congress.

GROSS: My guest is Bill Moyers. His article about how LBJ convinced Congress to pass Medicare is published on billmoyers.com. After we take a short break, we’ll talk about some of his experiences as LBJ’s press secretary, his thoughts about President Trump’s spokespeople. And he’ll reflect on his life at the age of 83. I’m Terry Gross, and this is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF TED NASH’S “WATER IN CUPPED HANDS – AUNG SAN SUU KYI”)

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. I’m Terry Gross, back with Bill Moyers. His latest article is about how President Johnson managed to convince Congress to pass Medicare. The latest attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare coincided with the 52nd anniversary of the passage of Medicare and Medicaid. Moyers worked as LBJ’s special assistant and press secretary. After leaving the administration, Moyers returned to journalism. He hosted public TV series from 1971 until just a couple of years ago. He’s now managing editor of billmoyers.com, where his article about Medicare is published.

You left the LBJ administration during the period when the war in Vietnam was at the center of American politics. And my understanding is when you left the administration, when you left your job as press secretary, that you and LBJ never spoke again. Why?

MOYERS: We didn’t. That was in – well, that was in January of 1967. I had been press secretary for over a year. He was escalating the war in Vietnam. I wish I could tell you that I had been a moral prophet and warning against the war. I wasn’t. As the war went on and the damage was evident, it began to be deeply troubling. I was an advocate for stopping the bombing of North Vietnam. When I used to come to meetings in the cabinet room late, as I was often late because I was also press secretary and somebody had me cornered, he would sort of half-amusedly and half-cynically say, here comes Ban-The-Bomb Bill.

And – but mainly, Terry, I had, as I said earlier, been working on the domestic legislation. It was deeply satisfying to deal with the work on education reform and health reform and a better tax system and the war on poverty and all of that. And as the war escalated, more and more of the resources that the president intended to commit to these domestic programs, to a healthier, saner society, were going to war. If you wanted to make creative policy, it was not a good time and – to be in government because of the war was consuming everybody’s energy, everybody’s passion and everybody’s time. And it was very hard to be constructive in such a destructive era. And I left.

GROSS: I understand that as a reason for leaving but not necessarily as a reason for never talking to LBJ again.

MOYERS: Well, this is difficult to talk about personally, but some people said he and I had a father-son relationship. And I don’t know if that was true. I mean I never mistook him for Henry Moyer, who’s my father whom I love deeply and who loved me. But he always had some young men recently graduated from college working for him because he had been head of the National Youth Administration for Franklin Roosevelt in Texas. That was a Depression-era organization that found jobs for young people, mostly young men. And he believed in nurturing the next generation of political leaders in Texas. And he saw in me possibly a politician of the future.

And we had a very special relationship. And I think both of us were heartbroken when we parted, with some other people feeding some rumors and some gossip and speculating, you know, what had caused us to part. And it just never – I mean I wrote him two or three letters, and he would respond tepidly but appropriately. And then – I did see him when we – at the dedication of the LBJ Library. I think that was in 1971. We just said hello, and a year – 18 months later, he was dead. And I – we never had a chance to talk again.

GROSS: Since you were the press secretary, I am really interested in hearing your reactions to what’s been happening at the White House Communications Office. So what’s your impression of how first Spicer and now Sanders has dealt with difficult questions from the press?

MOYERS: Well, let me say that I’m wary of criticizing my successors as press secretary. It’s a hard job under any circumstance, and I certainly didn’t handle the press secretary job beautifully or perfectly when I was there. You know, Terry, to be very frank, it’s very hard to be a journalist today because we are supposed to observe behavior, not examine motives or psychological issues inside the people we’re watching.

And it’s hard to be a journalist because I don’t have the language to describe adequately for my viewers or readers the malevolent furies that have been released into our body politic. This penchant for chaos, which is at the – a dagger being twisted in the heart of our political process – I don’t get it, and I don’t know how to explain it to people.

You have to watch – I watched the briefings of Sean Spicer to see if I could understand and explain the chaos that was there. It goes to the character and persona of the person they’re trying to help communicate to the public. And I cannot explain satisfactorily as a journalist – perhaps I could as a psychoanalyst or a psychiatrist – what we’re seeing.

But what we’re seeing is a kind of chaos we don’t have – have not have had. We’ve had failed presidents and brilliant and unsuccessful press secretaries. We’ve never had this situation where the president is living in a different reality from everybody else, including those who are trying to serve him in the White House. And penetrating that reality and helping the country – even his own administration – understand it is almost an impossible job. It’s like that movie “Arrival” where the aliens come from beyond and try to communicate with humans. And because neither humans can communicate with the aliens, nor the aliens with the humans, it’s a tragic exercise and a failed effort.

That’s where we are right now. This is an alien force in the persona and presence of our president. And I feel for the people who try to serve him. I mean obviously they do it because they want to, and they’re willing to put up with it. But it’s very, very difficult to understand. Sean Spicer didn’t have to do it. He could have quit. But he wanted to. He obviously felt drawn to. He wanted to try to make a difference. And it’s impossible.

And there – the fact that you have a new chief of staff – the new chief of staff is not going to change the character of the principal whom he’s trying to help. So it’s a weird, bizarre and very, very tumultuous situation that is very difficult to decipher.

GROSS: So in one of your articles, you called Kellyanne Conway the Queen of Bull.

MOYERS: Yeah, absolutely.

GROSS: So when you hear one of the White House spokespeople saying things that you know are factually not true and, say, you hear it on TV, how would you like to see it treated? I think so many journalists are just struggling to keep up with correcting misstatements that are coming out during live interviews.

MOYERS: And that’s very difficult because it changes the relationship of the conversation. But I really wish all of our interrogators, our interviewers, our hosts would, you know, try to learn from the BBC, which although it’s a state-sponsored, taxpayer-paid-for system, they really are tougher on politicians than we are. And they’re really harder on the propagandas for the other side.

And look; I was not a perfect press secretary. I made a lot of mistakes, but I did feel that the job was to try to help the reporters get what they needed to tell their stories and help the president understand what the reporters were trying to do. I never did think of myself as a propagandist for the administration or the White House. But these people I’m listening to and have been watching in the Trump administration are really just – you know, they’re lying. They’re deceiving us. And if you don’t call that out, then the lie becomes a part of the lived experience of the people who are watching or listening.

And it’s true. We haven’t found a way to deal with the Kellyanne Conways or the Sean Spicers who deliberately are lying in behalf of their president. I wouldn’t have lasted. Pierre Salinger wouldn’t have lasted. James Hagerty wouldn’t have lasted. We wouldn’t have lasted six weeks if we had said we were going to lie for the president that we served.

GROSS: If you’re just joining us, my guest is Bill Moyers. And his latest piece on his website, billmoyers.com, is about how LBJ launched Medicare 52 years ago in spite of the opposition, a piece that’s interesting to read in the light of the attempts to repeal and replace the ACA. We’re going to take a short break, and then we’ll be right back. This is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF MARCO BENEVENTO’S “GREENPOINT”)

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. My guest is journalist Bill Moyers, who’s received about 36 Emmys and 9 Peabodys. He hosted several public television shows over many years. Now he’s the managing editor of billmoyers.com, where his latest piece was published. It’s about how LBJ launched Medicare 52 years ago in spite of the opposition. And Moyers was LBJ’s press secretary from ’65 to ’67 and, before that, was a special assistant to President Johnson.

Let’s talk about you. You’re 83 now. It’s an age most people are retired. Now, you’re not doing your TV shows anymore, but you’re still writing and serving as managing editor of the website billmoyers.com. Why have you chosen to not fully retire?

MOYERS: Well, you know, I took on a weekly series when I was 70. And I kept it going until I was 82. And it was exhilarating, and it was satisfying. And it gave me – I didn’t think of it as a treatment for old age. I just thought of it as a challenge of every day. And I’m lucky with my DNA. My mother lived to be in her early 90s. My grandmother lived that long. My father lived into his late-80s. I just have the DNA in me. Some of us are blessed that way, and some of us aren’t.

And as long as you can – as long as there’s something useful to do every day and something that’s – is satisfying and challenging, I don’t see any reason to give it up. I did give up the show because there’s some other things I do want to do, including writing, as you say. But I just think being engaged in the life of the mind, and the life of your country and the life of your craft is the greatest blessing that a man or woman can have. And I am blessed that way. And I’m going to do what I can every day to contribute to my grandkids’ future.

GROSS: What did the 80s mean to you when you were considerably younger?

MOYERS: I didn’t know. When I was growing up, Terry, sick people in their 60s were very old to me.

GROSS: Yeah, me too, yeah, mmm hmm.

MOYERS: They seemed very old. I didn’t think my – of myself old when I turned 60 or 70 or 75 or 80. You know, I retired three times from my work as a television journalist and came back not for any sense of distress – out of any sense of distress but just because I had a more – another opportunity to do it.

You know, we’ve raised every penny of every production that we have created, my wife and I, over these years. She was my business partner as well as my marital partner of the last 62 years. And there were times when it was more difficult to raise money than other times, so we’d take a hiatus. And during that hiatus, we’d raise more funds and come back and do something interesting.

But I never thought of the 80s as a downward slope. I mean I’m quite aware. I mean I’ve done seven eulogies in the last couple of years for dear friends of mine who are my age. I’m quite aware that every step is a potential last step. I’m well aware that I may not see tomorrow’s dawn. On the other hand, I might see 10 more. I might be one of those Lyndon Johnson anticipated would live to be 100. I want to find something every day to do to keep me alive and with the world. And it’s just – it’s not something I gave a great deal of thought to – becoming 80. I might when I become 90.

But I’m very – one of my dearest friends is Norman Lear. At 94, he’s still producing situation comedies out in California and still actively engaged through his organization People For the American Way. He’s lucky. I’m lucky. I’m going to keep at it as long as I can.

GROSS: You’ve mentioned the eulogies that you’ve given lately. Do you find yourself thinking more about mortality?

MOYERS: No. I find myself wondering what it’s like not to be here.

GROSS: Mmm hmm.

MOYERS: I mean I’ve been around a long time. I have no idea where I came from. I have no idea where I’m going. But being here has been remarkable. And it’s difficult to imagine not being here. But I sometimes think about that. What will it be like (laughter) not to be here? And of course, like any officer in the military who’s had a long career in that, he doesn’t want to quit before the next war begins. And I don’t want to quit before the next big story or the next big evolution in American democracy happens. But of course I will be. And I’m accustomed to it. I can’t tell you what it’s going to be. I mean I’m just reading this wonderful memoir on dying.

And, you know, Judith and I did a – one of our most popular series, believe it or not, was about death and dying. It was called “On Our Own” and how most Americans want to choose the way they go. I occasionally think about what it will be like in the last hours or days or weeks of one’s life. But for the moment, I can’t see that far ahead. I can only see the challenge of the next day on the website, the next essay, the next special.

We just did a very important documentary called “Rikers: An American Jail” about the culture of cruelty in New York’s largest and meanest jail, Rikers Island, here between Queens and Manhattan. That kept me engaged fully for two years with young men and women who had been brutalized at Rikers. I mean I can’t think of not having done that documentary over the last two years between my 81st and 83rd birthday.

I can’t think of what documentary I don’t want to do between 83 and 85. And if I die in the – halfway through it, somebody will finish it. That I know. The work will go on. The world will go on. And there will be other people as concerned and more concerned about democracy than I am.

GROSS: You said you have no idea where you came from or where you’re going. You had been a Baptist minister. You’re very well-read in the Bible. You’re very well-schooled in other religions as well. You’ve done a lot of programs about faith and reason. Do you feel like all of your immersion in religion has not given you answers to where you came from or where you’re going? And do you mind that it hasn’t given you answers?

MOYERS: No, I think that – you know, seminary was where I got my questions answered. And life is where I got my answers questioned.

GROSS: (Laughter).

MOYERS: And I mean that. I mean that. The experience of life is remarkable. And you learn far less than you want to learn and far more than you expected to. And the big questions that religious – people ask me, why do you keep covering religion so much? And by the way, I do as much expose – investigative journalism of corruption and wrongdoing and Wall Street and all that as anybody else. But I do keep coming back to religion because I know that religion is a powerful, animating force in people’s lives, far more than I think many of us who live in a secular world of journalism understand.

But religion is a motivator of behavior. It’s a motivator of – you know, probably more wars have been fought over religion than for any other reason. But also more hospitals have been built for – from people convicted to a good thing, who are religious. Religion is a mixed blessing in our lives. But it’s a powerful presence in the lives of millions of millions of people. And for a journalist to ignore it would be irresponsible. Or it would – not irresponsible, but it would be unfortunate because that journalist would be overlooking the powerful intuitions that come from faith.

GROSS: Bill Moyers, it’s been great to talk with you again. Thank you so much for coming back to our show.

MOYERS: Thank you, Terry, for being who you are.

GROSS: Thank you. Bill Moyers’ latest article about how LBJ convinced Congress to pass Medicare is published on billmoyers.com. After we take a short break, David Edelstein will review the new film “Wind River,” starring Jeremy Renner and Elizabeth Olsen. This is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

Copyright © 2017 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

Today in Movie Culture: Iron Man Meets the Punisher, Disney's Baymax in Real Life and More

Here are a bunch of little bites to satisfy your hunger for movie culture:

Mashup of the Day:

What if The Punisher got his own armored suit from Tony Stark? BossLogic presents Iron Castle:

Some fun today with Iron Castle (punisher x war machine) @jonnybernthal@ThePunisherpic.twitter.com/atklTh6J0I

— BossLogic (@Bosslogic) August 2, 2017

Movies Characters in the Real World:

See what Baymax from Big Hero 6 would be like in real life in this fun candid camera video from Oh My Disney:

[embedded content]

Custom Build of the Day:

Want to cosplay as a character from Tron but are on a tight budget? The DIY Prop Shop show how to make a cheap and easy helmet, to start:

[embedded content]

Writer Recognition of the Day:

With The Dark Tower in theaters this week, here’s some trivia about author Stephen King from ScreenCrush:

[embedded content]

Vintage Image of the Day:

Edward Furlong, who turns 40 today, poses for a publicity photo on the set of the 1991 sequel Terminator 2: Judgment Day:

Actress in the Spotlight:

Speaking of former child actors, here’s a Fandor video focused on the career of Scarlett Johansson:

[embedded content]

Blooper Reel of the Day:

Looper shares a bunch of movie mistakes that were great enough to wind up in movies, including Blade Runner and The Hateful Eight (via Film School Rejects):

[embedded content]

Supercut of the Day:

Celebrate the nation to the north in this supercut featuring 150 references to Canada in the movies:

[embedded content]

Cosplay of the Day:

Who needs a Resident Evil reboot when cosplayers like this woman are keeping Alice alive?:

My Alice #cosplay is finally complete ?? #ResidentEvilpic.twitter.com/qZszZKnfE3

— Michelle Reed (@MichelleNReed) August 2, 2017

Classic Trailer of the Day:

Today is the 50th anniversary of the release of In the Heat of the Night. Watch the original trailer for the classic drama below.

[embedded content]

and

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

NTSB: Air Canada Jet Came Much Closer To Landing On Other Planes Than Thought

The top image is a map of the San Francisco airport created from Harris Symphony OpsVue radar track data analysis of an an Air Canada flight trying to land on July 7. The bottom image was taken from San Francisco International Airport video.

National Transportation Safety Board

hide caption

toggle caption

National Transportation Safety Board

Federal investigators say an Air Canada jet coming in for a landing in San Francisco last month came a lot closer than previously thought to hitting four other planes on a taxiway, in what aviation safety experts say could have been a horrible disaster.

The National Transportation Safety Board says Air Canada flight No. 759 was just 59 feet above the ground at its lowest point, flying over a United Airlines jetliner waiting to take off, before the Air Canada plane pulled up, circled around and then landed safely.

Investigators say both pilots on the Air Canada plane thought they were lined up to land on runway 28-Right at San Francisco International Airport on the night of July 7, and runway lights they saw to the left were from runway 28-Left. But 28L was closed and dark, its approach and runway lights turned off, except for a large, 20-foot wide, lighted flashing ‘X’ placed at the threshold; and the normal runway lights they said they saw to their left were actually from runway 28R.

So even though they were cleared to land on 28R, the plane wasn’t lined up to land on it at all.

“Where’s this guy going?” exclaims another pilot on the ground in a radio call to the air traffic control tower. “He’s on the taxiway!”

An air traffic controller tells the pilot of Air Canada 759 to go around and the pilot agrees to do so, when a United Airlines pilot chimes in, “United 1. Air Canada flew directly over us.”

The controller responds, “Yeah, I saw that, guys.”

The United Airlines plane, a Boeing 787 was the first plane waiting to take off after Air Canada’s landing, and the new NTSB report indicates the Air Canada plane, an Airbus A320, may have come within just a few dozen feet of colliding with the United jet.

According to Wednesday’s NTSB investigative update, “Both pilots said, in post-incident interviews, they believed the lighted runway on their left was 28L and that they were lined up for 28R. They also stated that they did not recall seeing aircraft on taxiway C but that something did not look right to them.”

Investigators have not yet determined why the pilots mistook the taxiway for the runway, but the report indicates the taxiway was lighted normally, with blue lights to distinguish it from white runway lights.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Ara Parseghian, Legendary Notre Dame Coach, Dies At 94

Ara Parseghian was a force at the University of Notre Dame. He brought the football program back to national prominence during the 1960s and 1970s, including two championships.

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST:

Legendary Notre Dame football coach Ara Parseghian died this morning. He was 94. He coached the Fighting Irish during the 1960s and ’70s. Parseghian returned Notre Dame to college football prominence and established himself as one of the greatest to lead the storied program in South Bend, Ind. NPR’s Tom Goldman has more.

TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: The numbers alone tell a story of success. In Ara Parseghian’s 11 years at Notre Dame, the team won 95 games, lost only 17, tied 4. And the winning started quickly. Parseghian took over a Notre Dame team that was foundering – 2 and 7 in 1963. The next year, his first, the Irish went 9 and 1, almost winning a national championship. Almost became a reality in 1966. Notre Dame won the title after an epic tie with Michigan State and then again in 1973 after a 24-23 win over Alabama in the Sugar Bowl.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

UNIDENTIFIED ANNOUNCER: As expected, a fantastic game – five lead changes thus far. We’re still in the third quarter with 2 and a half minutes to go.

FRANK POMARICO: That was like a heavyweight fight, toe-to-toe with two great champions throwing haymakers at each other.

GOLDMAN: Frank Pomarico was in the middle of that game-slash-fight. He was a senior captain and starting offensive lineman for Notre Dame. But Pomarico and his teammates had another title. They were “Ara’s Knights,” spelled with a K. It’s the title of the book Pomarico wrote about Ara Parseghian.

POMARICO: He was somebody that cared about each one of us individually as people and then how we were going to make a difference in the world after we got out of school.

GOLDMAN: Pomarico says Parseghian was tremendously disciplined but fair. He worked his players hard and looked for people who were hungry for success. Parseghian never promised a starting position. You had to earn it.

POMARICO: This is a man who could have been a governor, a senator. He could have been the president of the United States. That’s how well-organized and charismatic he was.

GOLDMAN: Parseghian is considered part of Notre Dame’s holy trinity of football coaches along with Frank Leahy and Knute Rockne, a great honor that comes with crushing pressure. Parseghian talked about it in a 1984 NPR interview.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED BROADCAST)

ARA PARSEGHIAN: It’s more self-inflicted pressure as a result of trying to live up to the enormous traditions that have been set at Notre Dame.

GOLDMAN: He did live up to the traditions, but it took a toll. Parseghian retired after the 1974 season when he was only 51. He worked in broadcasting and fundraised to combat illnesses that took the lives of his daughter and several grandchildren. And when talk turned to maybe returning to college football, Parseghian was quoted as saying, after Notre Dame, what is there? Tom Goldman, NPR News.

(SOUNDBITE OF FUTURE AND ZAYTOVEN SONG, “LAY UP”)

Copyright © 2017 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

Many Avoid End-Of-Life Care Planning, Study Finds

People with chronic illnesses were only slightly more likely than healthy individuals to put their wishes down on paper in a living will.

Jodi Jacobson/Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Jodi Jacobson/Getty Images

Before being deployed overseas for the Iraq war in 2003, Army reservist Don Morrison filled out military forms that gave instructions about where to send his body and possessions if he were killed.

“I thought, ‘Wow, this is mortality right in your face,'” Morrison, now 70, recalls.

After that, his attention was keenly focused on how things might end badly. Morrison asked his lawyer to draw up an advance directive to describe what medical care he wanted if he were unable to make his own decisions.

One document, typically called a living will, spells out Morrison’s preferences for life-sustaining medical treatment, such as ventilators and feeding tubes. The other, called a health care proxy or health care power of attorney, names a friend to make treatment decisions for him if he were to become incapacitated.

Not everyone is so motivated to tackle these issues. Even though advance directives have been promoted by health professionals for nearly 50 years, only about a third of U.S. adults have them, according to a recent study.

People with chronic illnesses were only slightly more likely than healthy individuals to put their wishes down on paper.

For the analysis, published in the July issue of Health Affairs, researchers reviewed 150 studies published between 2011 and 2016 that looked at the proportion of adults who completed advance directives. Of nearly 800,000 people, 37 percent completed some kind of advance directive. Of those, 29 percent completed living wills, 33 percent filed health care proxies and 32 percent remained “undefined,” meaning the type of advance directive wasn’t specified or was combined.

People older than age 65 were significantly more likely to complete any type of advance directive than younger ones — 46 percent of older people, versus 32 percent of those who were younger. But the difference between people who were healthy and those who were sick when they filled out the directive was much smaller — 33 percent compared with 38 percent.

To encourage more physicians to help people to plan for their care, the Medicare program began reimbursing them in January 2016 for counseling beneficiaries about advance-care planning.

This study doesn’t incorporate data from those changes. But it can serve as a benchmark to gauge improvement, says Dr. Katherine Courtright, an instructor of medicine in pulmonary and critical care at the University of Pennsylvania. She is the study’s senior author.

There are many reasons that people are reluctant to sign a living will. “Many people don’t sign advance directives because they worry they’re not going to get any care if they say they don’t want [cardiopulmonary resuscitation],” says Courtright. “It becomes this very scary document that says, ‘Let me die.’ “

Living wills also don’t account for the fact that people’s wishes may change over time, says Dr. Diane Meier, a geriatrician and the director of the New York-based Center to Advance Palliative Care.

“In some ways, the public’s lack of excitement about this is related to the reality that it’s very hard to make decisions about the kind of care you want in the future when you don’t know what that will be like,” she says.

Sometimes as patients age and develop medical problems, they’re more willing to undergo treatments they might have rejected when they were younger and healthier, Meier says.

“People generally want to live as well as they can for as long as they can,” she says. If that means going on a ventilator for a few days in order to get over a bout of pneumonia, for example, many may want to do that.

But if their living will says they don’t want to be put on a ventilator, medical staff may feel bound to honor their wishes. Or not. Although living wills are legal documents, medical staff and family members or loved ones can reinterpret them.

“At the moment, I’m very healthy,” Morrison says. If he were to become ill or have a serious accident, he’d want to weigh life-saving interventions against the quality of life he could expect afterwards. “If it were an end-of-life scenario, I don’t want to resuscitated,” he says.

If someone’s wishes change, the documents can be changed. There’s no need to involve a lawyer in creating or revising advance directives, but they generally must be witnessed and may have to be notarized.

While living wills can be tricky, experts strongly recommend that people at least appoint a health care proxy. Some even suggest that naming someone for that role should be a routine task that’s part of applying for a driver’s license.

“Treatment directives of any kind all assume we can anticipate the future with accuracy,” says Meier. “I think that’s an illusion. What needs to happen is a recognition that decisions need to be made in real time and in context.”

That’s where the health care proxy can come in.

But to be effective, though, people need to have conversations with their proxy and other loved ones about their values and what matters to them at the end of life.

They may tell their health care proxy that they want to die at home, for example, or that being mobile or able to communicate with their family is very important, says Jon Radulovic, a vice president at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.

Some may opt to forgo painful interventions to extend their lives in favor of care that keeps them comfortable and maintains the best quality of life for the time that remains.

“The most important thing is to have the conversation with the people that you love around the kitchen table and to have it early,” says Ellen Goodman, a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer who founded The Conversation Project, which provides tools to help people have conversations about end-of-life issues.

Morrison says he’s talked with his health care proxy about his wishes. The conversation wasn’t difficult. Rather than spell out precisely what he wants done under what circumstances, Morrison is leaving most of the decisions to his health care proxy if he can’t make his own choices.

Morrison says he’s glad he’s put his wishes down on paper. “I think that’s very important to have. It may not be a disease that I get, it may be a terrible accident. And that’s when [not knowing someone’s wishes] becomes a crisis.”

Kaiser Health News, a nonprofit health newsroom, is an editorially independent part of the Kaiser Family Foundation. Follow Michelle Andrews on Twitter @mandrews110.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Today in Movie Culture: Iron Man Meets Darth Vader, Mads Mikkelsen as Doctor Doom and More

Here are a bunch of little bites to satisfy your hunger for movie culture:

Mashup of the Day:

Moon Film made Iron Man even better by giving him Darth Vader’s voice in scenes from MCU movies:

[embedded content]

Dream Casting of the Day:

Mads Mikkelsen wants to play Doctor Doom, so BossLogic shows us what he could look like unmasked (below) and masked.

Mads Mikkelsen – DOCTOR DOOM – @noahhawley@20thcenturyfoxpic.twitter.com/8MZdROdqYk

— BossLogic (@Bosslogic) August 1, 2017

Back Story of the Day:

The Film Theorists look at the true story behind Goodfellas (and My Blue Heaven) and how the real characters were adapted for the screen:

[embedded content]

Movie Trivia of the Day:

Edgar Wright’s Baby Driver is doing very well at the box office this summer, so ScreenCrush shares some trivia about the movie:

[embedded content]

Movie Takedown of the Day:

With Kathryn Bigelow’s Detroit out in theaters this week, Honest Trailers reminds us why Point Break isn’t really a great movie:

[embedded content]

Vintage Image of the Day:

Jason Momoa, who turns 38 today, masters the sea long before becoming Aquaman in a production photo for Baywatch: Hawaii sometime between 1999 and 2001:

Filmmaker in Focus:

Paul and Jessica Proulx created a nice little tribute montage highlighting the movies of Stanley Kubrick:

[embedded content]

Film History of the Day:

One Hundred Years of Cinema showcases the special effects of the original 1933 King Kong and what came before it:

[embedded content]

Cosplay of the Day:

Warwick Davis meets a little Leprechaun cosplayer at the MCM Comic-Con:

‘He wants his gold!’ This is the best #Leprechaun#Cosplay I’ve ever seen! Like looking in a mirror… Fantastic effort. pic.twitter.com/VRQkF6159H

— Warwick Davis (@WarwickADavis) August 1, 2017

Classic Trailer of the Day:

Today is the 20th anniversary of the release of Spawn. Watch the original trailer for the superhero movie below.

[embedded content]

and

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Apple Has Good Sales News For Wall Street

A spectator at Wimbledon last month uses an iPad to take pictures of the action. Improved sales of the tablets were part of the good news out of Apple’s quarterly report.

Adrian Dennis/AFP/Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Adrian Dennis/AFP/Getty Images

Apple put investors at ease Tuesday with its quarterly report. Wall Street was expecting a slowdown in iPhone 7 sales. Instead, sales of the iPhone 7 were up 1.6 percent year over year.

Analysts thought that consumers would wait for the highly anticipated iPhone 8 before they upgraded. Apple is expected to make significant changes in its upcoming 10th anniversary edition — such as wireless charging and facial recognition software.

Apple also saw a rise in iPad and Mac sales, which were well ahead of overall industry sales of computers and tablets. In an earnings call CEO Tim Cook attributed it to upgrades in both lines. The iPad also has a lower-priced introductory model $329.00 and a higher end iPad Pro, for work. Cook also cited schools as a growing market for the product.

The company did well in services such as cloud storage, the app store and streaming music. Cook looked ahead and said that Apple will be releasing more original content through Apple music in the coming months. The company is trying to regain its dominance in music. While it’s iTunes store was once the leader, downloads are down and streaming service Spotify is dominant. Apple says its own streaming service is growing but it has not released numbers.

Cook addressed some political issues during the call. He was asked about Apple’s recent decision to comply with a Chinese government request to take VPN apps — basically software that hides communications from government and other sources — out of the app store in China. Cook said the company follows the law in countries where it sells products. Looking forward he suggested the Chinese would back away from the requirement because VPN’s are needed for innovation.

Cook was asked about President Trump’s push for Apple to build three new factories in the U.S. Cook did not respond directly, but he pointed to a $1 billion manufacturing fund. He said Apple has already put tens of millions of dollars into a Corning plant in Kentucky, which will make glass for Apple products.

Cook also talked excitedly about Apple’s investment in Augmented Reality. The most popular use so far was the game Pokémon Go, which had people running around looking for monsters projected onto the real world through the camera of their phone. Apple will add VR to its mobile operating system later this year and developers are working on new uses for consumers.

Lastly, Cook said the company is very interested in “autonomous systems” the kind behind self-driving cars and, Cook suggested, other areas as well.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Understanding CSRs In The Health Care Debate

Tennessee Insurance Commissioner Julie Mix McPeak talks with NPR’s Ari Shapiro about cost sharing reductions — federal reimbursements to insurance companies that are key to the Affordable Care Act.

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST:

In the debate over health care, three letters are making insurance companies very nervous – CSR. It stands for cost-sharing reductions. It’s a critical part of the individual insurance markets that were set up under the Affordable Care Act. And they’re now in jeopardy. To help us understand what CSRs are and why people are so anxious about them we’ve called Julie Mix McPeak. She’s the insurance commissioner from Tennessee and president-elect of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Last time we spoke to her she mentioned that the CSRs were causing her a lot of heartburn. Julie, welcome back.

JULIE MIX MCPEAK: Thank you so much. Glad to be here.

SHAPIRO: First, just explain what cost-sharing reductions are and why they’re so important.

MCPEAK: Cost-sharing reductions were included in the original Obamacare act to assist those low-income consumers with their out-of-pocket expenses for health insurance – copayments, deductibles, coinsurance amounts – particularly for individuals in the 100 to 150 percent of the federal poverty level range.

SHAPIRO: So that money has been coming from the federal government. But President Trump says he’s thinking about ending these payments. What would happen then?

MCPEAK: Well, certainly the discussion about ending these payments, which are flowing directly from the federal government to the insurers to offset those losses incurred for those individuals, is concerning to companies because number one, they have covered those losses and they had priced their premium rates expecting those reimbursements to come back through. So when there’s any uncertainty surrounding the continuation of those payments, the insurers are doing two things. They are raising premium rates for 2018 and they’re making decisions about whether or not to participate in the individual exchange markets across the nation.

SHAPIRO: So basically, if the federal government isn’t paying this, then insurance companies are going to have to pay it. And you’re saying they’re probably going to pass that cost along to consumers.

MCPEAK: Right. They’ll pass the costs on consumers or they will decide not to even participate in the exchange markets for 2018.

SHAPIRO: Well, that would obviously have dramatic consequences. Do you see consequences in the president even just hinting that he might end these payments?

MCPEAK: Well, I do. It’s very concerning that we’re watching all indicators from Washington, D.C., both from Congress and then the statements of the president himself about the bailouts being discontinued because, you know, we are really in a critical time for insurers to decide about participation decisions in markets. And then also, my colleagues and I are looking at rate increase requests that need to be approved by mid-August or so. And so when you don’t know whether those cost-sharing reduction payments are going to be made, you know, past July, that could cause a premium rate increase of about 15 to 20 percent.

SHAPIRO: You use the word bailouts. That’s how the president has described these payments. Do you think that’s a fair characterization?

MCPEAK: I certainly do not think bailouts is a fair characterization. These payments were originally contemplated in Obamacare and have been flowing from the government to insurers to cover the real and accurate losses of these low-income individuals. And so I feel like it’s much more of a contractual payment than a bailout for insurers.

SHAPIRO: So if insurance commissioners are having to make decisions about the future with this cloud of uncertainty hanging over them, what kinds of decisions are they making?

MCPEAK: Well, we’re trying to make the best decisions that we have on the information that we have before us at that time. I ask for rate increase requests to come in assuming CSRs were not going to be paid so that we could break that out if something were to change in that regard. Other commissioners have asked for duplicate filings, one with and without CSR payments. And we’re sort of waiting till the last minute to see which rate increase request we need to consider.

SHAPIRO: Wow. So in your state of Tennessee you’re saying, let’s just act as though the federal government is going to wash its hands of this, and other states are saying, well, let’s hope the federal government stays engaged, and then we’ll deal with it if they don’t.

MCPEAK: Right. And very problematic is that none of us know. We’re really watching the news and trying to determine on a month-to-month basis whether the payments will continue.

SHAPIRO: So ultimately, if President Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Price say they want to let Obamacare implode, this sounds like a pretty good way to do it.

MCPEAK: It does. And that’s what’s concerning to all of us as regulators. I think that, you know, choosing to end the CSR payments even midstream in 2017 would cause chaos in the markets for 2018. And what we would really prefer is to have CSR payments funded through 2018 at least. That would provide a level of certainty for our insurers.

SHAPIRO: That’s Julie Mix McPeak, Tennessee’s insurance commissioner and president-elect of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Appreciate your coming back on the program. Thanks a lot.

MCPEAK: Thank you so much.

SHAPIRO: And this afternoon, after we recorded that conversation, we learned that the Senate plans to hold hearings in September focused on stabilizing the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces. Republican Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, who chairs that committee planning those hearings, has called on President Trump to continue making CSR payments to insurers.

Copyright © 2017 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

When An NBA Star Used His Name To Make Shoes Less Expensive

Famous basketball players usually charge more when their names appear on them. But what happened when an NBA All-Star tried to use his name to charge much, much less? Stephon Marbury recalls the the great “Starbury” sneaker experiment.

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST:

Normally when a celebrity athlete endorses a product, it gets more expensive. Kenny Malone from our Planet Money podcast tells us about one big-name basketball star trying to use his name to make his sneakers cheaper – much, much cheaper.

KENNY MALONE, BYLINE: All right, Stephon is taking his shoe off. He is holding it up.

STEPHON MARBURY: (Laughter).

MALONE: Stephon Marbury is a two-time NBA All-Star who is not afraid of a bold sneaker choice.

I’m colorblind, so I think it’s like a salmon.

MARBURY: It’s like a salmon pink.

MALONE: But Marbury’s boldest sneaker choice came in 2006 when he launched the Starbury, a basketball sneaker that cost $15.

(SOUNDBITE OF MONTAGE)

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN #1: Another basketball star is lending his name to a new sneaker.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN #2: Stephon Marbury unveils his line of high tops at a low cost.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN #1: Making them affordable for low-income families.

MALONE: Marbury was everywhere explaining how, when he was a little kid, he couldn’t afford fancy shoes. And so he partnered with Steve & Barry’s, a discount retail chain, to make this affordable sneaker. But interview after interview, the same question would come up.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

UNIDENTIFIED MAN #2: One question I might ask is, are you cutting corners at the production end? ‘Cause that’s a sensitive issue.

MARBURY: Not at all. This shoe is…

MALONE: What the Starbury had was a price signaling problem because in retail, we use price as a signal of how good an item is. So the $15 price tag had unintentionally signaled that the Starbury was garbage. Stephon Marbury tried to fight this a couple of ways. For one, he challenged people to take an expensive shoe and his shoe…

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

MARBURY: And you cut both of the shoes down the middle with a chainsaw, it’ll do the same exact thing.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN #3: You’ll see the same thing.

MALONE: He did this over and over until finally…

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

MARBURY: Cut it down the half, and it’ll do the same exact thing.

JOHN STOSSEL: Really?

MALONE: John Stossel of “20/20” actually took him up on this, took two shoes to a sneaker expert…

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

STOSSEL: So he cut both shoes up. And he and others in the business concluded…

UNIDENTIFIED MAN #4: They are constructed the same way.

MALONE: Marbury decided there was really one way to fight this price signaling problem once and for all.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

UNIDENTIFIED ANNOUNCER #1: The opening tip controlled by…

MALONE: On November 1 in 2006, Stephon Marbury wore his $15 sneakers in a real NBA game. And it seemed to be going great until the third quarter.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

UNIDENTIFIED ANNOUNCER #2: Oh, Stephon has turned his ankle. He’s asking to come out of the game.

MALONE: He hobbled over to the bench.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

UNIDENTIFIED ANNOUNCER #3: Remember, he’s playing in those reduced priced shoes.

MALONE: It was not the shoe, though. Someone had kicked him in the shin or something.

MARBURY: You know, it’s part of basketball.

MALONE: Marbury wore $15 sneakers for the entire season, and sales did great. In total, he sold over 4 million pairs of affordable sneakers. But in 2008, the financial crisis hit. The Steve & Barry’s company went bankrupt, and around the same time, Marbury left the NBA. And for a lot of people who followed the Starbury story, this was where the great affordable shoe experiment ended. But it turned out it was not the end.

MARBURY: (Speaking Chinese).

MALONE: And what does that mean?

MARBURY: I love China.

MALONE: Stephon Marbury went to play in the Chinese Basketball Association, where he led the Beijing Ducks to three championships. He has become a legend in China.

MARBURY: It’s like a whole new life, baby. I can’t tell you no lie. (Laughter) it’s the truth – statues, museums.

MALONE: Am I mistaken? There was, like, a musical also?

MARBURY: Yeah, I did a musical.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSICAL, “I WAS MARBURY”)

MARBURY: (As himself) From that moment, our lives connect.

MALONE: Vice News went and recorded this play.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSICAL, “I WAS MARBURY”)

MARBURY: (As himself) I am Marbury.

UNIDENTIFIED ACTORS: (As characters, speaking Chinese).

MARBURY: (As himself) We all are Marbury.

MALONE: Stephon Marbury is now very well connected in the global hub of sneaker manufacturing. And so six years after it looked like his quest for cheap sneakers had died, Marbury is going to try and bring back the Starbury. There’s a limited run available online, and the company is starting to ramp up production for a relaunch.

Can you still make and sell basketball sneakers for $15 that you could play basketball in?

MARBURY: Yes, you can because I want all the little kids to be happy when they’re playing on the court with a fresh pair of kicks, you know what I’m saying? That’s what it’s really about.

MALONE: This time around, Stephon Marbury will also include a couple of higher-end shoes in his line. For him, that means 50, 60 bucks. Kenny Malone, NPR News.

(SOUNDBITE OF ANDREW BIRD SONG, “TRUTH LIES LOW”)

Copyright © 2017 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?)