Sunday, May 31, 2009

Max is in the money, healthcare industry blood money

------------------------------------

This deals with our friend, Max Baucus. Guy did a great job of kicking out supporters of single payer health care from the hearings:


According to OpenSecrets.org, over his career he has taken donations from:
The Insurance Industry: $1,170,313
Health Professionals: $1,016,276
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products Industry: $734,605
Hospitals/Nursing Homes: $541,891
Health Services/HMOs: $439,700
---------------
(almost $4 million alone from health care industry)

In 2008 alone:

Insurance: $592,185
Health Professionals: $537,141
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products: $524,813
Health Services/HMOs: $364,500
Hospitals/Nursing Homes: $332,826

--------------couple of other top donors--------------------------
Securities and investment: $831,350
Lobbist: $374,247

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00004643&type=I&mem=
-----------------------------------------------------
Now, we all know that folks can take money from total strangers and still be objective. I am certain Max is that. Max should certainly "excuse" himself as chair when they have more hearings on health care.

Yes, it seems America has the best leaders money can buy. By the way Max, you keeping track of the Americans who die each day for lack of healthcare? You keeping track of the Americans killed by the insurance companies for denial of just claims?

Friday, May 29, 2009

India moves to protect stee industry

Folks might find this of interest. What happened to free trade?
------------------------
NEW DELHI, May 29 (Reuters) - India will consider slapping an additional import tax on steel to protect domestic industries from cheap imports, the country's new steel minister said on Friday.

"There are demands to take fiscal measures to stop cheap imports. The issue has to be addressed immediately," Virbhadra Singh said after taking office, but gave no details of the quantum of tax.India currently imposes a tax of 5 percent on steel imports, which domestic industry would like to see hiked to upto 20 percent.

Singh also said the government would expand production capacity at state-owned firms Steel Authority of India Ltd and Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd.He said the output capacity of SAIL could go up to 26 million tonnes in the next three years from about 15 million now, while RINL capacity could reach 6 million tonnes in the next two years from 3 million now.

Singh added both companies would invest 700 billion rupees for the capacity expansion programmes."One of my key priorities would be to ensure that these projects are completed on time in a cost effective fashion," he said.India's steel consumption is only 46 kg per head against the global consumption figure of 150 kg, Singh added."It would thus be a key national priority to ensure greater consumption of steel as well as augmentation of production facilities to meet the country's growing steel demand," he said.He added that global steel output had declined by 23 percent in the first quarter of 2009, while domestic output grew at 1.01 percent in the same quarter from a year earlier

.SAIL shares were up 6.2 per cent at 174.50 rupees by 0714 GMT, outperforming a rise of 2.4 percent in the benchmark index .

-------------------------------------------------

Thursday, May 28, 2009

GM bondholders, made in China and more

GM is having woes. Another woe, made in China autos. Really believe management will keep its word? This is from today's Ed Show and does mention the Bus tour.

--------------------------------------

American taxpayer's money to save auto industry that will export jobs (perhaps) after American workers give up many a benefit. See anything wrong with that picture?

-----------

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

bus tour additional vid

This is a good vid on bus tour of Steelworkers and UAW. Highlights


Obama backs Bush era free trade deals

The following article is of interest to those wishing to keep track of "fair trade" vs "free trade". Obama is backing Bush projects:

Note: this is copyrighted article and I shall withdraw if objections made

Obama Likely to Push for Approval of Pending Bush Trade PactsThe new president is making the same case that Bush made, but this time Congress will listen.By Andrew C. Schneider May 26, 2009

Odds are improving that Congress will ratify three free trade agreements (FTAs) negotiated by the Bush administration. The White House is making an aggressive push to get the deals approved, partly to boost exports and create jobs, but more importantly for diplomatic reasons.
Leaving the trade pact with South Korea unratified risks damaging a key alliance, at a time when Seoul's help is essential in efforts to contain a nuclear-armed North Korea. Likewise, President Obama is determined to improve U.S. relations with Latin America. Colombia and Panama are two of the most reliable U.S. allies in the region, and their cooperation is critical to U.S. efforts to combat cocaine trafficking. Letting deals with them falter risks alienating both and would strengthen Venezuela, which would attempt to sell itself as a more trustworthy partner to its neighbors.

President Bush made the same points in defense of all three trade agreements. But while Democrats balked at handing Bush any diplomatic victories in the run-up to the 2008 election, they are more likely to accept same reasoning from Obama. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will make the national security argument as well, nailing down additional votes.

John Gilliland, a former Democratic trade counsel for the Senate Finance Committee now with the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, notes a definite change of mood on Capitol Hill. "There's clearly a sense that [Mont. Sen. Max] Baucus and [NY Rep. Charles] Rangel want to move this forward," says Gilliland, referring respectively to the chairmen of the Senate Finance and House Ways & Means Committees.

The Panama deal, the smallest and least controversial treaty, will pass by July. Congress still wants some answers about Panama's tax and bank secrecy laws. But in the end, it'll approve the pact, opening up trade and investment opportunities tied to the expansion of the Panama Canal.
The Colombia pact, which faces stiffer opposition, won't come up till late in the year. Unions are leaning hard on Democrats to block ratification of the agreement, alleging Colombia still isn't doing enough to rein in violence against organized labor. Obama will work with President Alvaro Uribe and congressional Democrats to develop benchmarks for progress in order to secure enough votes for passage.

The benefits of both of these pacts largely accrue to the U.S. Most goods from Colombia and Panama already enter the U.S. duty free under existing trade preferences. By contrast, both Panama and Colombia currently apply tariffs ranging from 8% to 15% to a wide variety of manufactured goods, with rates in the high-double and even triple digits for agricultural products. Further, both countries currently ban the import of remanufactured goods. That’s a potentially lucrative market for U.S. industrial and consumer exports, including cell phones, computers and earthmoving equipment.

U.S. sectors that stand to gain the most from eliminating such tariffs include construction services and equipment, infrastructure and machinery, power generation and transmission, transportation, information technology, chemicals, building materials, medical equipment, financial services, cotton, beef, poultry, wheat, soybeans, fruits, vegetables and processed foods. The pacts would also provide additional security for U.S. direct investment and intellectual property rights.

Korea, the biggest prize, will probably remain out of reach till 2010. Rust Belt members, notably House Trade Subcommittee Chairman Sander Levin (D-MI), still worry the pact gives too much of a competitive advantage to Korean carmakers at the expense of the besieged Detroit Three.
Working out a compromise will be tough. Korean legislators are just as sensitive on the issue as their U.S. counterparts, and with good reason. Last year, President Lee Myung-bak relaxed an import ban on American beef, in place since the 2003 discovery of a case of mad cow disease in Washington state. Farm state legislators in the U.S. -- including Baucus and Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Finance Committee's ranking Republican -- refused to support the Korea agreement as long as the beef ban was in place. While Lee's action won additional support for the pact in Congress, it also triggered riots in Seoul.

Obama will use Lee's U.S. visit in June to start negotiations about how to resolve the auto impasse. He'll aim to wrap up talks and send the Korea-U.S. FTA to Congress for ratification by early next year. Waiting any longer would risk letting the deal become entangled in election year politics.

The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates that eliminating tariffs and tariff-rate quotas on U.S. goods shipments to South Korea would boost U.S. exports by $10 billion a year. As a point of comparison, exports of U.S. goods and services to Korea for the whole of 2008 totaled just under $35 billion.

http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/Approval_of_Pending_Trade_Pacts_090526.html
All contents © 2009 The Kiplinger Washington Editors

Excellent Krugman comment on healthcare mess

Krugman is an excellent writer and brilliant thinker. These comments should be the talk of the town, but alas they are not.

----------------------------------------------------
May 11, 2009

Op-Ed Columnist

Harry, Louise and Barack
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Is this the end for Harry and Louise?
Harry and Louise were the fictional couple who appeared in advertisements run by the insurance industry in 1993, fretting about what would happen if “government bureaucrats” started making health care decisions. The ads helped kill the Clinton health care plan, and have stood, ever since, as a symbol of the ability of powerful special interests to block health care reform.

But on Saturday, excited administration officials called me to say that this time the medical-industrial complex (their term, not mine) is offering to be helpful.

Six major industry players — including America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), a descendant of the lobbying group that spawned Harry and Louise — have sent a letter to President Obama sketching out a plan to control health care costs. What’s more, the letter implicitly endorses much of what administration officials have been saying about health economics.

Are there reasons to be suspicious about this gift? You bet — and I’ll get to that in a bit. But first things first: on the face of it, this is tremendously good news.

The signatories of the letter say that they’re developing proposals to help the administration achieve its goal of shaving 1.5 percentage points off the growth rate of health care spending. That may not sound like much, but it’s actually huge: achieving that goal would save $2 trillion over the next decade.

How are costs to be contained? There are few details, but the industry has clearly been reading Peter Orszag, the budget director.

In his previous job, as the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Mr. Orszag argued that America spends far too much on some types of health care with little or no medical benefit, even as it spends too little on other types of care, like prevention and treatment of chronic conditions. Putting these together, he concluded that “substantial opportunities exist to reduce costs without harming health over all.”

Sure enough, the health industry letter talks of “reducing over-use and under-use of health care by aligning quality and efficiency incentives.” It also picks up a related favorite Orszag theme, calling for “adherence to evidence-based best practices and therapies.” All in all, it’s just what the doctor, er, budget director ordered.

Before we start celebrating, however, we have to ask the obvious question. Is this gift a Trojan horse? After all, several of the organizations that sent that letter have in the past been major villains when it comes to health care policy.

I’ve already mentioned AHIP. There’s also the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the lobbying group that helped push through the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 — a bill that both prevented Medicare from bargaining over drug prices and locked in huge overpayments to private insurers. Indeed, one of the new letter’s signatories is former Representative Billy Tauzin, who shepherded that bill through Congress then immediately left public office to become PhRMA’s lavishly paid president.

The point is that there’s every reason to be cynical about these players’ motives. Remember that what the rest of us call health care costs, they call income.

What’s presumably going on here is that key interest groups have realized that health care reform is going to happen no matter what they do, and that aligning themselves with the Party of No will just deny them a seat at the table. (Republicans, after all, still denounce research into which medical procedures are effective and which are not as a dastardly plot to deprive Americans of their freedom to choose.)

I would strongly urge the Obama administration to hang tough in the bargaining ahead. In particular, AHIP will surely try to use the good will created by its stance on cost control to kill an important part of health reform: giving Americans the choice of buying into a public insurance plan as an alternative to private insurers. The administration should not give in on this point.
But let me not be too negative. The fact that the medical-industrial complex is trying to shape health care reform rather than block it is a tremendously good omen. It looks as if America may finally get what every other advanced country already has: a system that guarantees essential health care to all its citizens.

And serious cost control would change everything, not just for health care, but for America’s fiscal future. As Mr. Orszag has emphasized, rising health care costs are the main reason long-run budget projections look so grim. Slow the rate at which those costs rise, and the future will look far brighter.

I still won’t count my health care chickens until they’re hatched. But this is some of the best policy news I’ve heard in a long time.

The Influence Game healthcare

This is from Boston Globe and simular article in the Post Dispatch:



THE INFLUENCE GAME: Health lobbyist has great sway
Associated Press

If anyone could make or break President Barack Obama's health care agenda, it might be Karen Ignagni.

Erica Werner
May 24, 2009
THE INFLUENCE GAME: Health lobbyist has great sway
By Erica Werner, Associated Press Writer May 24, 2009

WASHINGTON --If anyone could make or break President Barack Obama's health care agenda, it might be Karen Ignagni.

The Democratic former union official and firefighter's daughter is also the unlikely face of the powerful health insurance industry as its top Washington lobbyist.

Ignagni is such a formidable advocate that when she went head to head with industry-bashing filmmaker Michael Moore on the Oprah Winfrey show, she emerged not only unscathed, but with Moore seconding some of her points.

Now, with the prospect of a congressional health care overhaul looming, Ignagni's role is more important than ever. It's a moment she's long prepared for.

Ignagni and her board at America's Health Insurance Plans foresaw three years ago that 2009 could be a year that health care would top the agenda, and they decided to craft a plan.
For months, Ignagni has been fleshing out their proposal bit by bit at congressional hearings, ensuring maximum attention.

The plan would achieve Obama's goal of universal health coverage through a regulated insurance market. Insurers would agree to significant concessions such as not charging more to people with pre-existing conditions. In return, they want to quash a government-run insurance plan that Obama supports, but that Ignagni fears would put private insurers out of business.

Although Congress may not embrace all her proposals, Ignagni can claim notable success in positioning her industry as an ally of health care change, not its enemy. That's a 180-degree turnaround from where the industry was during the health care wars of the Clinton years.
Not only are health insurers at the table, they're sometimes driving the debate, as with the White House announcement this month that the health industry would cut its own costs by $2 trillion to further Obama's cause. Ignagni was a key architect.

"She's gifted at anticipating what issues are likely to be," said George Halvorson, chairman of the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and AHIP's immediate past board chairman. He credited Ignagni with orchestrating the board's preparation for the health care debate.

"The fact that we sat down and wrestled with all of the issues on underwriting and so forth was genius on her part," Halvorson said.

But as publicly constructive as the insurance industry's role has been so far, a giant question mark remains: What will Ignagni do if Congress does produce a bill she doesn't like? Will her group try to kill it, resurrecting "Harry and Louise"-style attack ads that proved so devastating during the Clinton years? That could doom Obama's health care goals.

Liberals fear AHIP is already preparing the wrecking ball. Ignagni refuses to say how they'll respond to an unfavorable bill.

"We're how many weeks away from seeing whatever is proposed? So no responsible person could answer a question like that," Ignagni, 55, said in an interview.

"The people who are working on this issue, even in areas where we have differences, are very thoughtful, have the right objectives, and we have a long history of working with them," she added. "So we're going to give them the courtesy of thoughtfully responding to what they propose."

Ignagni didn't work for the insurance group that produced the "Harry and Louise" commercials. Indeed the man most responsible for them, Chip Kahn, who's now at the Federation of American Hospitals, went up against Ignagni when their two insurance lobbies merged in 2003, and she beat him out for her current job. Kahn declined to comment for this story.

"Whatever AHIP pays her, it's not enough. She's unbelievably effective," said Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt. "It's just amazing what she's achieved for them against all odds."
Ignagni's total compensation, according to AHIP's most recent filing from 2007, was $1.58 million, which includes $700,000 in base salary, $370,000 in deferred compensation and a bonus. Ignagni won't say how many hours a week she works. The number's so high it's embarrassing, she said.

Among successes cited by Reinhardt and others is helping persuade the Bush administration to develop private insurance plans within Medicare that are producing unexpectedly high payments for private insurers.

When Congress was considering expanding a children's health insurance program in 2007 by taking money from the private Medicare Advantage plans, Ignagni worked successfully to stop it.

Those private plans are being targeted again by Obama, who wants to squeeze them to pay for his health care agenda. Ignagni's industry group is organizing older people to defend the plans.
A front group called the Coalition for Medicare Choices has a Web site inviting older people to share their stories about Medicare Advantage. The fine print gives AHIP the right to use that information however it wants.

Ignagni's job isn't easy. AHIP's board consists of chief executives of top insurers and Ignagni has to bring them to consensus in order to make her moves. People who work with her say she does it by listening hard and being well-informed, respectful and prepared.

"She's always on her game and knows her substance," said Tom Scully, a former Medicare administrator. "Health insurance CEOs come and go, but Karen has been a constant."
------
On the Net:
America's Health Insurance Plans: http://www.ahip.org/
© Copyright

GM gets concessions from Canadian Auto Workers

Some of the folks might find interest in the following article. The article is copyrighted and I shall withdraw if objections made:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=anpKKbR8jamE&refer=news




GM Gets Concessions From Canadian Union Before Probable Filing

By Katie Merx

May 26 (Bloomberg) -- The Canadian Auto Workers union, almost one month after amending its contract with Chrysler LLC, ratified a cost-saving labor agreement with General Motors Corp. yesterday to protect jobs in a probable June 1 bankruptcy.

The CAW, representing about 9,000 GM hourly workers, approved with 86 percent of the vote yesterday a deal that freezes pension payments until 2015 and pays new hires less. The United Auto Workers, GM’s U.S. union, will present a tentative labor package to plant-level leaders tomorrow in Detroit. Some locals have already scheduled votes this week.

GM Chief Executive Officer Fritz Henderson, who said a bankruptcy is “probable,” needs to get labor contracts amended so that a court-managed restructuring can proceed quickly. Many bondholders have said they will reject a proposal tomorrow to exchange $27 billion in debt for equity. GM will seek protection if fewer than 90 percent agree, Henderson has said.
“The conventional wisdom is that bankruptcy is imminent,” said Harley Shaiken, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley. He predicted the UAW would ratify its agreement, too. “The union wants to secure what it can before the bankruptcy, put pressure on the bondholders, and engage the larger political momentum out there.”

Lower Starting Pay
The CAW agreement would pay newly hired employees 70 percent of the full wage, increasing to 100 percent over six years, cut one week of paid time off and set the groundwork for negotiating a health-care trust to cover retiree medical costs, the union said in the highlights it shared with GM workers.

“This has been a grueling restructuring process, and no one has felt that more than our members and retirees,” CAW President Ken Lewenza said Sunday in a statement.

Approval of the deal positions the automaker to receive unspecified Canadian government aid the CAW said was necessary to keep GM Canada from being liquidated.

The UAW, representing about 54,000 GM hourly workers, hasn’t released the details of its tentative agreement.

People briefed at UAW meetings in Cleveland earlier this month said union retirees would give up dental and vision coverage as well as some prescription-drug coverage.
Those changes would match reductions that start as soon as July 1 for Chrysler retirees. Cuts in unemployment benefits and work-rule changes at GM also would be similar, the people said.
Ratification Predicted

Another round of buyout and retirement incentives are expected, the people said. About 67,500 union jobs have been eliminated through similar programs since 2005. The initial 2009 buyout consisted of a $25,000 voucher toward a new auto and $20,000 in cash.

GM has proposed that the UAW swap $20 billion of the automaker’s obligations to a retiree health-care trust for $10 billion in cash paid out over an unspecified period, and as much as 39 percent of the equity in a restructured company.

“I would be surprised if the UAW deal passed with less than 75 percent approval,” said Art Wheaton, an industrial- relations specialist at Cornell University. “If it doesn’t get ratified, they get whatever the bankruptcy judge thinks they should get. In terms of who has the most to lose in this, it’s the workers.”

GM has about 522,000 union retirees and dependents. Only current workers vote on new contracts.

GM is also trimming salaried positions, eliminating 14 percent already this year. The automaker plans for a new set of cuts this month that may be similar in scope, and focused on North America, people familiar with the matter said this month.

The largest U.S. automaker is rushing to complete as many pieces of its restructuring plan as possible in advance of the Obama administration’s June 1 bankruptcy deadline.

Bondholders’ Opposition
Bondholders have so far been unwilling to accept the company’s offer that they take 225 shares in a newly created entity for each $1,000 in principal before the automaker executes a 1-for-100 reverse split of the stock.

GM’s offer to exchange about $27 billion of bonds for a 10 percent equity stake expires at 11:59 p.m. in New York today. The ad hoc committee of GM bondholders called the offer “neither reasonable nor adequate” and proposed they get a 58 percent stake. Their offer hasn’t been adopted.

Individual GM bondholders have also opposed the automaker’s offer. A group that calls itself Main Street Bondholders has held rallies across the U.S. asking for inclusion in restructuring talks and better exchange terms.

A second group, GM Bondholders Unite, is trying to gather investors and hire legal representation to get “fair and equitable treatment” if GM files for bankruptcy, according to the group’s Web site.

Can’t Blame Unions
GM, propped up with $19.4 billion in emergency U.S. loans, said it expects to need $7.6 billion from the U.S. after June 1, President Barack Obama’s deadline to restructure outside of court.
The U.S. and Canadian union agreements are intended to help GM reduce hourly labor costs so it can return to profit after a restructuring with or without court protection.

Government officials in Canada had said the CAW needed to make its local labor costs comparable to those for Toyota Motor Corp. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said May 22 the government was “committed” to helping GM restructure.

The Canadian and Ontario governments haven’t said how much money might be available for GM and Chrysler LLC, which is already in bankruptcy in the U.S.

With new labor agreements, the unions can’t be made a scapegoat, said Gary Chaison, professor of industrial relations at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts.

“They can say, now, that they did all that they could,” Chaison said. “If GM goes into bankruptcy, they’ll be able to say it wasn’t their fault.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Katie Merx in Southfield, Michigan, at kmerx@bloomberg.net Last Updated: May 26, 2009 00:01 EDT
--------------------------------------------------
facts from Reuter's article: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2236757120090526

UAW is meeting in Detroit for a vote today on benefit cuts. UAW hopes to have all votes counted by this Thursday. My note: retirees cannot vote and they are likely to take some big hits.

Canadian cuts are estimated around 30% in pay and benefits with 86% of workers voting in favor of cuts. Lord knows what is expected of American workers to cede on top of the outragous benefit cuts already in progress (my note again).

Monday, May 25, 2009

Is Employee Free Choice Dead

Yet another voice is proclaiming labor being betrayed by the dems. Where is the leadership Mr. Obama?

http://www.counterpunch.com/macaray05222009.html

Weekend Edition May 22-24, 2009
Democrats Betray Labor

Card Check is Pronouced Dead
By DAVID MACARAY

Earlier this week it was acknowledged by labor officials and Democratic insiders that the EFCA (Employee Free Choice Act), as presently written, wasn’t going to pass. While the bill may be reintroduced in a different form, the crucial “card check” component has been pronounced dead. Although labor wonks across the country were disappointed by the news, most weren’t surprised by it.

Despite all the hoopla and anticipation, skeptics had predicted long ago that this ambitious bill, which would have provided working people with far greater access to labor unions, had virtually no chance of passing. Why? Because it was too explicitly “pro-labor.”
Big Business and the Democratic Party (despite its lip service) simply couldn’t allow legislation this progressive to become law. Not for nothing has Taft-Hartley remained on the books for 62 years.

Let’s clarify what the EFCA was and wasn’t. First, it wasn’t the draconian, anti-democratic measure it was portrayed to be by its Republican opponents and back-pedaling Democrats (e.g., Senator Diane Feinstein of California) who, while schmoozing with organized labor, were looking to bail.

There was nothing “anti-democratic” about it. Clearly, it was “public,” rather than “secret,” but how is that anti-democratic? Legislators use nay and yea votes on the floor of Congress hundreds of times a year, and a show of hands is used everywhere—from city councils to school boards to company boards of directors. How is card check “anti-democratic”?

If you want an example of “anti-democratic,” just consider the system that exists today—a system that allows a group of workers who actually want to join a union to be nonetheless prevented from doing so by a combination of stalling tactics and company propaganda.

You say you want to join a labor union? Fine, you have that legal right. What that means, precisely, is that you have the legal right to “want” to join. But the company can make you wait months and months before you vote, and has the authority to force you to attend hours of mandatory “fright seminars.”

Management has the right to barrage you with anti-union propaganda. They have the de facto right to threaten you, intimidate you, offer you bribes and promises, and spread false or slanderous information. And while those tactics are more or less legal (if you think they’re not, try fighting them in court), what isn’t legal is allowing you to simply sign a card saying you want to join. Now how topsy-turvy is that?

Second, instead of depicting the EFCA as some sort of wildly “radical” measure, let’s put it in perspective. What the EFCA would have given American workers is what they already have in Europe and Canada. Yes, they have this arrangement in Canada—our calm, stolid, unimaginative, boring neighbor to the north. We’re speaking here of Canada, people, not Albania.

Accordingly, as anti-labor as some members of Canada’s conservative party are, they would, frankly, be taken aback, if not staggered, by the suggestion that Canadian workers not be allowed to freely choose whether or not to belong to a union. While Canadian conservatives may regard unions as detrimental (and harbor the conceit that they themselves wouldn’t join one if given the opportunity), they don’t interfere with workers who choose to join. If only our country were as egalitarian.

How ironic is it—given our fetish for personal liberty—that it’s harder for an American to become a union member than for a foreigner to become a U.S. citizen?

And third, let’s not pretend that this debate had anything to do with the freedom of choice, or adherence to the Bill of Rights, or any other noble-sounding issue. Opposition to the EFCA was no more about a worker’s constitutional “right to choose” than it was about George Washington’s powdered wig.

Let’s be clear: This whole anti-EFCA drive was designed to keep the unions out. Everything else is smoke. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce didn’t spend tens of millions of dollars to promote some abstract principle involving a citizen’s right to choose; they did it to pierce the heart of organized labor.

So who do we blame for the defeat? Obviously, when something as big and expensive and widely publicized as the EFCA falls on its face, somebody has to be held accountable. In truth, organized labor seems the likeliest candidate.
Not only was labor unable to speak with one voice (e.g., UNITE HERE’s battle, SEIU’s leadership scandals, Change to Win’s breakaway from the AFL-CIO, et al), but they once again allowed themselves to be sweet-talked and misled by the Democrats. Yes, labor had on board its Russ Feingolds (D-WI) and Carl Levins (D-MI), but there were too many other DINOs (Democrats In Name Only) eager to jump ship.

In hindsight, organized labor should have relied more heavily on the support of America’s four “most popular” unions—police, firefighters, nurses and airline pilots. This would have helped clear the public relations hurdle raised by teachers, autoworkers and longshoremen, unions that have been receiving bad press.

As much as we like to think we’re an “issue-driven” electorate, it’s often a handsome face, a nice smile, or a famous family name that wins elections. After all, isn’t it the cute weather girl who gets hired for TV, and not the nerdy meteorologist?

Unbelievable as this sounds, it was reported that one of Governor Rod Blagojevich’s staffers once told him “he had the hair” to become U.S. president. And polls showed that 25% of Republican males approved of Sarah Palin because they found her “hot.” (That whirring sound in the background is James Madison spinning in his grave.)

Still, organized labor may not have invented the game, but they’re compelled to play it.
Therefore, “pretty” unions (police, firemen, pilots) are going to be more popular than the conspicuously “ugly” ones—like teachers, who are being blamed for the nation’s low test scores, and the UAW, which, as urban myth has it, was responsible for killing the American auto industry and Detroit along with it.

At the EFCA’s coming-out party, the American Labor Movement should have dolled itself up before entering the room. It should have made the grand, sweeping entrance worthy of a prized debutante. Instead, it chose to conduct business in its usual, plodding fashion. Granted, it’s easy to second-guess, but organized labor clearly needs a makeover.

Of course, we’re already hearing people say, “Wait til 2010,” suggesting the Democrats will pick up enough senate seats to have those 60 votes necessary for cloture. The problem with that logic is it assumes the Democrats want card check to pass. Alas, there’s little evidence to support that assumption.

David Macaray, a Los Angeles playwright (“Americana,” “Larva Boy”) and writer, was a former labor union rep. He can be reached at dmacaray@earthlink.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------
One might add, that the dems have also betrayed us on healthcare reform by disallowing single payer folks at healthcare summits. Of course, some in labor think this is fine. Ask Mr Andy Stern, whom has publically said some very nice things of Senator Baucus and his committee. Andy took a seat among the thieves and murders of our healthcare industry in Baucus's senate committee. Good going Andy. Maybe some of the SEIU will realize that the senate committee's guests wish to tax insurnace benefits of the workers.

Some in labor are also so wrapped up in the "Obama" kumbaya" that they are not seeing what is occuring. Labor must rethink its political strategy for the dems are not seemingly our buddies nor have they been since FDR, except a few leaders.

Perhaps it is time for labor to seek a third party. Wonder how many dems can raise enough money and support without the unions to get elected? reelected?

Friday, May 22, 2009

Kennedy healthcare proposal

This might interest folks:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/kennedy-affirms-support-for-public-healthcare-plan-2009-05-21.html



Kennedy affirms support for public healthcare plan
By Jeffrey Young

Posted: 05/21/09 02:46 PM [ET]
Liberals pushing for the creation of a federally run health insurance plan won a major victory Thursday when Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) strongly indicated his commitment to the policy, one of the most controversial elements of healthcare reform.Kennedy has co-sponsored a resolution introduced by Sen. Sherrod Brown (Ohio) and 26 other Democratic senators that declares the healthcare reform legislation the Senate will consider this summer must include a public plan option people can choose instead of private insurance. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) also co-sponsored the resolution.

Though purely symbolic, this show of strength by 28 Democratic senators sends a clear signal to liberals that a public plan, one of the left’s top priorities and a component of President Obama’s healthcare platform, will be part of reform.Kennedy’s unequivocal support for the public plan marks a return of sorts to the front lines of the battle for healthcare reform. Kennedy has been absent for much of the year as he undergoes treatments for a brain tumor. Democrats are hopeful he will return next month to oversee his Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee’s markup of healthcare reform legislation.Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) also indicated Thursday that his panel’s version of the healthcare reform bill also will include some type of public plan. “I do suspect that a version will be there,” Baucus said. “Now, by saying that, I don’t want to frighten people, particularly on the industry side. … All I’m saying is, there are ways to skin a cat. There are ways to find a solution.”The same group of Democratic senators, not including Kennedy, penned a letter to Kennedy and Baucus earlier this month stating their support for the public plan. The resolution does not specify what form the public plan must take. “Resolved, That the Senate recognizes that any efforts to reform our Nation’s health care system should include as an option the establishment of a federally-backed insurance pool to create options for American consumers,” the “Sense of the Senate” resolution reads, in part.



“This is about consumer choice and introducing competition in the health insurance market,” Brown said in a statement. “Private health insurers always manage to stay one step ahead of the sheriff’— finding new ways to limit care and pass costs along to the consumer. Giving Americans the choice of a quality, federally backed, health insurance option will keep private insurers honest and make healthcare affordable.”The options range from establishing a Medicare-like program to Sen. Charles Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) bid to set up a plan that must abide by the same regulations as private insurers' to Sen. Olympia Snowe’s (R-Maine) proposal to establish a “fallback” public plan that would kick in if private insurers fail to meet certain benchmarks.Both committees plan to mark up legislation next month; the Senate is slated to vote on a combined bill in July. HELP Committee members Kennedy, Brown and Democratic Sens. Chris Dodd (Conn.), Jeff Bingaman (N.M.), Barbara Mikulksi (Md.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Jack Reed (R.I.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Bob Casey Jr. (Pa.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Jeff Merkley (Ore.) are sponsors of the resolution.Among Finance Committee members, Democratic Sens. Schumer, Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) and Robert Menendez (N.J.) are co-sponsors. Bingaman is also a Finance Committee member.Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Patrick Leahy (Vt.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Tom Udall (N.M.), Daniel Inouye (Hawaii), Ted Kaufman (Del.), Roland Burris (Ill.), Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.) and Benjamin Cardin (Md.) also co-sponsored the resolution.
------------------
Claire?

GOP healtcare plan

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/slsoarpac/message/255 has the text of the plan talked about in this short vid.

Note two things on the vid and the plan: they are not as detailed on healthcare reform as HR676. Also note: plan uses a lot of the Luntz healthcare wording.===========================






Thursday, May 21, 2009

Healthcare terms

------------------------------------------
Hard to keep up with verbage in the healthcare debate. Some folks do not understand some of the terms and this is a brief and good list from: http://www.insurancecompanyrules.org/pages/glossary/

Note: in our contract and benefit books, some of these "terms" are loose and subject to the "companies" interpretation; something not to our benefit. With the recient retiree loss in courts, companies and insurance folks have the upper hand in dealing with our folks (Rexam vs USW). This is not good for the average worker or retiree for the law protects companies and insurance companies against lawsuits.

Note: details of some of these lawsuits are in the files of our blog at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/slsoarpac/files/

-----------------------------------------
-A-
Affiliation Period. The amount of time a new plan member must wait before being eligible for health care coverage, imposed by the health plan and not an employer. This waiting period cannot last longer than three months.

-B-
Balance Billing. When doctors and hospitals charge patients the difference between their fee and the amount their insurer pays.
Bethesda Naval Hospital. The National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, United States, is a hospital considered the flagship of the U.S. Navy's system of medical centers. A government-run federal hospital, with government paid doctors and other providers, it conducts medical and dental research, and provides health care to members of the military, members of Congress, as well as the president and his family, at their pleasure.

-C-
Capitated Payment. A set payment to a health care provider for a certain amount of time or type of treatment regardless of how much care the individual gets or needs. The provider's financial incentive is to deliver as few services as possible. The opposite of fee-for-service.
Carrier. The insurance company offering a health insurance policy.
Catastrophic Coverage. Insurance designed to protect an individual from having to pay very high out-of-pocket costs. Catastrophic coverage usually begins after the person has spent a high pre-determined amount.
Catastrophic Limit. The most amount of money an individual will have to pay out of pocket during a given period of time for certain services. After the person has reached the catastrophic limit, a higher level of coverage begins, though he or she may still have to pay some portion of health care costs. Not all out-of-pocket costs may count towards the catastrophic limit. Varies by plan.
Certificate of Insurance. The printed description of the benefits and coverage provisions forming the contract between a person and his or her carrier, which details what the plan covers, what it does not, and dollar limits.
Claim. A bill to an insurance company asking for payment for services or benefits a plan member received.
COBRA. The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) is a federal law that guarantees employees and their families who lose their employer-sponsored health coverage-due to termination of employment, death, divorce, or other circumstances-the right to purchase continued coverage under the employer's group health plan for limited periods of time. Qualified individuals are required to pay the entire premium for coverage plus an administrative fee, up to 102 percent of the cost of the plan. COBRA generally applies to people who worked for employers with 20 or more employees in the prior year.
Coinsurance. The portion of the cost of care you are required to pay after your health plan pays. Usually, it is a percentage (like 20 percent) of the amount approved by the insurer.
Conversion Policy. An employer-sponsored group health policy that can be converted to an individual policy with the same insurance company. These policies are usually very expensive.
Community Rating. A way to set insurance premiums that is based on the claims experience of people in the community. With community rating, each policyholder's premium is based on the average cost of the entire pool-healthy and sick mixed together-not on each individual's age or health status. The opposite of risk-based rating.
Copayment. A set amount (like $25) you are required to pay for each medical service you receive, such as a visit to your doctor.
Cost Sharing. Out-of-pocket costs for medical care or the portion of medical care that you pay yourself, such as a copayment, coinsurance or deductible. Premiums are not considered cost sharing.
Cost Tiers. A system that insurance plans use to set drug coverage cost sharing. Generic drugs are generally on the first, least expensive tier of the plan's formulary, followed by brand-name drugs, and then specialty drugs, with each subsequent tier requiring higher cost sharing.

-D-
Deductible. The amount of health care expenses you must pay before your health insurer begins to pay. Deductibles are generally for a calendar year.
Denial of Coverage. A refusal by your insurer to pay for medical services, usually because services are not covered by your policy, because you did not follow the plan's rules (such as getting pre-authorization for a service from the plan), or because the insurer does not consider the treatment medically necessary for you.

-E-
Effective Date. The date your insurance is set to actually begin. You are not covered until the policy's effective date.
Employer Waiting Period. Found in an employer group health plan, this is the amount of time a new employee must wait, often within three months of the first day of the full month the employee joins, before being eligible for health care coverage. This waiting period is imposed by the employer and is usually done to avoid "hit and run" behavior by a new employee, in which the employee files a large claim right after joining and then quickly leaves the company. [is this different from affiliation period because employer decides how much less than three months?]
Exclusion. Medical services that are not covered by your insurance policy.
Exclusion Period. The amount of time a new health plan member must wait to get coverage for care related to a pre-existing condition. The length of this type of waiting period can vary from one to 18 months.
Explanation of Benefits (EOB). The insurance company's written explanation of a claim, showing what it paid and what you must pay. If a claim is denied, the EOB will include a reason for the denial.

-F-
Fee-for-Service. Payment to doctors, hospitals and other health care providers for each service they give a patient. The provider's financial incentive is to give as many services as possible. The opposite of a capitated payment.
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB). Health insurance benefits offered to employees of the federal government, including members of Congress. Like private employers, the government contracts with private insurance plans across the country to provide benefits to federal employees. The government subsidizes a portion of the premium of the plan the employee selects.
Formulary. The list of drugs a health insurance plan will cover at some level under particular circumstances.

-G-
Guaranteed Issue. A consumer protection offered by some states and the federal government for government insurance that gives people the right to buy health insurance coverage regardless of their age or health status.
Guaranteed Renewability. A consumer protection that gives people the right to keep their health insurance coverage regardless of their age or health status but at a price the insurer determines.
Group Insurance. A health insurance policy that is sold to cover a large number of people. Everyone in the group gets the same coverage for the same price. The insurance company spreads the risk equally among the healthy and the sick in the group.

-H-
HIPAA. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) amended the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), to provide new rights and protections for members of group health plans. HIPAA contains protections both for health coverage offered in connection with employment (group health plans) and for the availability of individual insurance policies sold by insurance companies to people who previously had group coverage.
HMO (Health Maintenance Organization). A type of managed care plan that generally covers only the care you get from doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers that are in the plan's network. HMO members generally must choose a primary care doctor who acts as the 'gatekeeper,' deciding when they can go to a specialist.

-I-
In-Network. Doctors, hospitals and other health care providers that contract with a health plan to treat plan members. You usually pay less when using in-network providers, because they provide services at lower cost to the insurance companies with which they have contracts.
Indemnity Health Plan. These are the fee-for-service types of plans that primarily existed before the rise of managed care plans like HMOs. In an indemnity plan, you pay a pre-determined percentage of the cost of health care services, and the insurance company pays the other percentage. For example, you might pay 20 percent for services and the insurance company pays 80 percent. Indemnity health plans, also called “fee for service” plans give you the freedom to choose any health care provider.
Individual Insurance. A health insurance policy sold to an individual and not as part of a group. Individual insurance policies are generally regulated by the states, so rules vary widely across the country. Individual insurance policies are generally more expensive and less comprehensive than group policies.

-L-
Length of Stay (LOS). A term used by insurance companies, case managers and/or employers to describe the amount of time an individual stays in a hospital or in-patient facility.
Lifetime Maximum Benefit (or Maximum Lifetime Benefit). The maximum amount a health plan will pay in benefits to an insured individual during that individual's lifetime.
Limitations. A limit on the amount of benefits paid out for a particular covered expense, as disclosed on the Certificate of Insurance.

-M-
Managed Care. A medical delivery system, like an HMO or PPO that attempts to manage the quality and cost of medical services an individual receives.
Medicaid. A joint state and federal program that provides health care coverage to people with very low incomes who meet other eligibility criteria, such as being a child, being pregnant, being a single parent, having a disability, or being 65 years of age or older.
Medical Loss Ratio
. The amount of premium revenues actually spent on paying for medical services. For example, if an insurance company spends 75 cents of every dollar it makes in premiums on paying for medical care for their policy holders, its medical loss ratio is 75 percent.
Medicare. The federal government program that provides health care coverage to people 65 years of age or older and people under 65 who have a disability, no matter their income or state of residence. The vast majority of people with Medicare (about 75 percent) get their medical benefits directly from the government-administered public program. The rest have joined a private insurance company that contracts with the government to provide benefits to people with Medicare.
Medical Underwriting. An insurance company practice that bases the premium and, sometimes the benefits, on an individual's own medical history. So the premium for people who are sick or who are likely to become sick (for example, people with diabetes) is higher than for people who are healthy.
Medically Necessary. Procedures, services, or equipment that meet good medical standards and are necessary for the diagnosis and treatment of a medical condition.

-N-
Network. A group of doctors, hospitals and other health care providers contracted to provide services to an insurance company's customers for less than their usual fees. Provider networks can cover a large geographic market or a wide range of health care services. Insured individuals typically pay less for using a network provider.

-O-
Out-of-Network. Doctors, hospitals and other health care providers that are not part of your insurance plan's network. If you get services from an out-of-network provider, it usually means that you will have to pay more out of your own pocket for the services you received.
Out-of-Pocket Costs. Health care costs that you must pay because your insurer does not cover them. Similar to cost sharing.
Out-Of-Pocket Maximum. A predetermined limit on the amount of money you must pay of your own money each year on medical costs before your insurance company will pay 100 percent of your health care expenses.

-P-
PCP (Primary Care Physician). The doctor that manages your care and refers you to specialty care if you need it. A managed care plan, like an HMO, generally requires you to have a PCP. If you don't consult your PCP before seeing a specialist, your managed care plan, will likely not cover your care. PCPs can be general or family practitioners, internists, pediatricians (for children) or gynecologists (for women).
POS Option (Point-of-Service Option). A type of HMO that provides plan members partial coverage for certain services they get outside the managed care plan network of providers.
PPO (Preferred Provider Organization). A type of managed care plan that should partially cover the care from out-of-network providers. To get full coverage, you must use network providers.
Pre-Admission Certification. Also called pre-certification review, or pre-admission review. Approval by an insurance company representative (usually a nurse) for you to be admitted to a hospital or in-patient facility, granted prior to the admittance. Pre-admission certification often must be obtained by the individual. Sometimes, however, physicians will contact the appropriate individual. The goal of pre-admission certification is to ensure that individuals are not exposed to inappropriate health care services (services that are medically unnecessary). In most plans, if you do not get pre-admission certification, the plan will not pay for the services provided.
Pre-Authorization: Also called "pre-approval." An approval that a managed care plan member must ask for from the plan or primary care doctor before getting certain medical services, such as an inpatient hospital stay. In some plans, if you do not get pre-authorization the plan will not pay for the care received.
Pre-Existing Condition. A medical condition or disease you have or had prior to joining the health plan. The exact definition of a pre-existing condition and how long a plan can look back in your medical history to find a pre-existing condition varies by the type of plan. For employer group plans, regulated by federal law, the health plan can only look back six months prior to your joining the plan and can only exclude coverage for your condition for up to 18 months. The amount of time the plan can exclude coverage depends on how long you were without coverage for that condition prior to joining the plan. For individual and small group plans, regulated by state law, the rules vary widely by state. Some states allow the plan to look back years into your medical history and exclude coverage for that condition forever; other states limit the health plans to looking back six months and exclude coverage for no more than six months.
Premium. The amount that you and/or your employer pays to an insurer for health care coverage, usually on a monthly basis.
Private Insurance. Insurance coverage provided by a non-governmental entity, where the private company takes on the risk of insuring its members. Can be for-profit or not-for-profit.
Public Plan. Insurance coverage provided directly by the government, where the government takes on the risk of insuring its members. It is always not-for-profit.

-R-
Reasonable and Customary Fees. The average fee charged by a particular type of health care provider within a geographic area. The term is often used by medical plans as the amount of money they will approve for a specific test or procedure. If the fees are higher than the approved amount, you may be responsible for paying the difference.
Referral. Authorization that HMOs and other managed care plans usually require for services not provided by your primary care doctor. For instance, HMOs generally require you to get a referral from your primary care doctor in order to see a specialist or get certain exams.
Rider. A modification made to a Certificate of Insurance regarding the clauses and provisions of a policy (usually adding or excluding coverage).
Risk. The chance of loss, the degree of probability of loss, or the amount of possible loss to the insuring company.
Risk-Based Rating. Setting premiums based on an individual's likely health care needs. For example, somebody who already has diabetes or has a family history of diabetes would be charged more than somebody with no health problems. The difference in premiums would reflect the difference in expected health care costs for each policyholder. The opposite of community rating.
Risk Pooling. If health insurance works the way it should, it pools many people together to share (or spread) the costs (or risk) generated by a small number of people. The number of people covered makes up the 'pool' of people in the plan. Over the long run, risk pooling makes sense because almost everybody, eventually, needs expensive health care. It is more manageable to pay an average amount (or premium) every month than to get hit all at once by medical bills that reach tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.

-S-
SCHIP. The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is a joint state and federal government program that provides health care coverage to families with children. The program was designed to cover uninsured children in families with incomes that are low, but too high to qualify for Medicaid. SCHIP benefits are provided through private insurance companies that contract with the state.
Service Area. The geographical area within which a health plan provides medical services to its members. In an HMO, it is the area where your network of doctors and hospitals is located.
Specialist. A physician who specializes in treating only a certain part of the body or a certain condition. For instance, a cardiologist only treats people with heart problems.
State Continuation Coverage. A law enacted in most states that extends COBRA-like rights to people who work for companies that have fewer than 20 employees. In some states, these laws apply to fully insured group coverage purchased by larger employers, as well. However, there is little uniformity between each of the states in regards to qualifying events, duration, covered benefits and the cost of state continuation coverage. Each state defines different qualifying events that trigger the right to continue group coverage. Depending on the state, these qualifying events are not necessarily the same as those under COBRA. Also, most states require people to have been covered under their group plan for a minimum period (such as three months) in order to be eligible for state continuation coverage. By contrast, COBRA only requires a person to have been covered under the group health plan on the day before the qualifying event.

-U-
Underwriter. The company or entity that assumes responsibility (is liable) for the risk of certain losses specified in the insurance policy, issues insurance policies and receives premiums.
Usual, Customary and Reasonable (UCR) Rates or Covered Expenses. An amount customarily charged for or covered for similar services and supplies which are medically necessary, recommended by a doctor, or required for treatment.
Underwriter. The company or entity that assumes responsibility (is liable) for the risk of certain losses specified in the insurance policy, issues insurance policies and receives premiums.

-V-
Veterans Health Administration (VHA). The federal agency that provides health care to U.S. veterans. A closed, integrated health care system, the VHA owns and operates health care facilities around the country. The health care providers, doctors, nurses, etc., who provide health care in those facilities are employees of the VHA. Veterans can only get VHA covered care at VHA facilities. This type of health care system is known as socialized medicine. The VHA has used its integrated framework to create a model evidence-based quality-improvement program that delivers the highest quality care in the nation, as measured by adherence to established treatment protocols.

-W-
Waiting Period. The period of time specified in a health insurance policy that must pass before some or all of your health care coverage can begin.

------------------------
note: these are "generic" terms and terms can vary by state law from location to location. State insurance folks generally defer explinations to ERISA folks, meaning they lack the ablity or will to help folks in their varied insurance woes. That is why the insurance and health industry has had banner profits (estimates from 500 percent to 1000 percent in the last 7 years)

USW benefit department also has multiple woes in this area as does every other labor organization. Deck has been stacked against us and time for a "new deal" if you would

------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Artist for Worker's Choice

Saw this on http://www.charlieaverill.blogspot.com/ and is currently making its way across the net including USW and AFL-CIO websites. Rather good I might say. Thank you again Charlie


----------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

more vids on Made in America bus tour

The AAM bus tour (UAW/USW) is over. I believe they did bring their message to the public, but as always; media did not cover as well as some would have liked. The first day in St. Louis seems to had the best media coverage.

All union organizations and locals need a group of folks to follow the media. If necessary, they must stand ready to ask the media why they did or did not cover labor events. Fortunately, Soar 11-3 has an "unofficial" media committee that follows the press and media for labor stories.
------
http://www.youtube.com/user/AmericanMfg has many more vids. This is from their stuff and other sources below. There are more than 40 short interviews of the American MFG site where folks talk about the economy in their local communities.

My opinion is they did a good job.

------------------

---------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------

Darin Gilley is a labor activist for UAW (local 1760). This is another vid from election time and prior to the bus tour. Darin was a speaker in rally (s) on the eastside earlier this year.:

================================================

Friday, May 15, 2009

More reactions from single payer refjection in the senate

The unhappiness of single payer options being excluded from discussion is spreading and spreading fast. Some feel the dems have once again "flipped-flopped" on election positions.

Going to be very difficult the next election to recommend dems for elction and reelection.

This is from the Seattle Times and is copyrighted. I will withdraw if objections made and the intent of it being published here is to spark discussion. I am not a thief nor a US senator and do not believe in stealing:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2009221164_opinc15amygoodman.html

Health-care status quo pushing out single-payer advocates in nation's capital
By Amy Goodman

Syndicated columnist

Barack Obama appeared this week with health-industry bigwigs, proclaiming light at the end of the health-care tunnel. Among those gathered were executives from HMO giants Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and Health Net Inc., and the health-insurance lobbying group America's Health Insurance Plans; from the American Hospital Association and the American Medical Association; from medical-device companies; and from the pharmaceutical industry, including the president and CEO of Merck and former Rep. Billy Tauzin, now president and CEO of PhRMA, the massive industry lobbying group. They have pledged to voluntarily shave some $2 trillion off U.S. health-care costs over 10 years. But these groups, which are heavily invested in the U.S. health-care status quo, have little incentive to actually make good on their promises.
This is beginning to look like a replay of the failed 1993 health-care reform efforts led by then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. Back then, the business interests took a hard line and waged a PR campaign, headlined by a fictitious middle-class couple, Harry and Louise, who feared a government-run health-care bureaucracy.

Still absent from the debate are advocates for single-payer, often referred to as "Canadian-style" health care. Single-payer health care is not "socialized medicine." According to Physicians for a National Health Program, single-payer means "the government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector."

A February CBS News poll found that 59 percent in the U.S. say the government should provide national health insurance.

Single-payer advocates have been protesting in Senate Finance Committee hearings, chaired by Democratic Montana Sen. Max Baucus. Last week, at a committee hearing with 15 industry speakers, not one represented the single-payer perspective. A group of single-payer advocates, including doctors and lawyers, filled the hearing room and, one by one, interrupted the proceedings.

Protester Adam Schneider yelled: "We need to have single-payer at the table. I have friends who have died, who don't have health care, whose health care did not withstand their personal health emergencies. ... Single-payer now!"

Baucus gaveled for order, guffawing, "We need more police." The single-payer movement has taken his words as a rallying cry. At a hearing Tuesday, five more were arrested. They call themselves the "Baucus 13."

One of the Baucus 13, Kevin Zeese, recently summarized Baucus' career campaign contributions:
"... from the insurance industry, $1,170,313; from health professionals, $1,016,276; pharmaceuticals/health-products industry, $734,605; hospitals/nursing homes, $541,891; health services/HMOs, $439,700."

That's almost $4 million from the very industries that have the most to gain or lose from health-care reform.

Another of the Baucus 13, Russell Mokhiber, co-founder of SinglePayerAction.org, has been charged with "disruption of Congress."

He was quick to respond: "I charge Baucus with disrupting Congress. It once was a democratic institution; now it's corrupt, because of people like him. He takes money from the industry and does their bidding. He won't even diffuse the situation by seating a single-payer advocate at the table."

As I traveled through Montana recently, from Missoula to Helena to Bozeman, health-care activists kept referring to Baucus as the "money man." Montana state Sen. Christine Kaufmann sponsored an amendment to the Montana Constitution, granting everyone in Montana "the right to quality health care regardless of ability to pay," or health care as a human right. It died in committee.

Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, a single-payer advocate, said his position will not likely prevail in Washington: "I don't think there's any possibility that that will come out of this Congress." That's if things remain business as usual.

Mario Savio led the Free Speech Movement on the UC Berkeley campus. In 1964, he said: "There comes a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part, you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all."

"Unless you're free," the Baucus 13 might add, "to speak." The current official debate has locked single-payer options out of the discussion, but also escalated the movement — from Healthcare-NOW! to Single Payer Action — to shut down the orderly functioning of the debate, until single-payer gets a seat at the table.

Amy Goodman is the host of "Democracy Now!," a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 750 stations in North America. Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
2009, Amy Goodman
---------------------------------------

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Release small details of Senate Healthcare proposal

Although I have not studied the full details, this new, revised plan from the bannana republicans of the Senate Finance committee is not nearly half the plan of HR676. Also looks as if it keeps our insurance, HMO and drug buddies bottom line healthy while a continuation of letting these folks feast on tax dollars unabated.

I suggest everyone read this article and document linked below.
http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg/LEG%202009/042809%20Health%20Care%20Description%20of%20Policy%20Option.pdf released April 29, 2009
--------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/galston/archive/2009/05/13/a-peek-into-what-health-care-reform-will-look-like.aspx

A Peek Into What Health Care Reform Will Look Like

In advance of a meeting scheduled for Thursday, the Senate Finance Committee has released a 62-page description of policy options for expanding health insurance coverage. It is a revealing document, because we can glean from it the outlines of where the process now stands in the Senate--the body that will determine whether President Obama's top domestic priority lives or dies. Here is some of what we learn:

1. There is a substantial amount of bipartisan common ground, at least between committee chair Max Baucus and ranking member Charles Grassley.

2. The basic approach of the emerging bill tracks the system that Massachusetts enacted in 2006 with bipartisan support, including that of then-Governor Mitt Romney and Senator Ted Kennedy. The most important similarity is that individuals without coverage would buy plans through a "health insurance exchange" similar to the Massachusetts Connector. (One version of the plan contemplates a single national exchange; another proposes state-based exchanges with some connective tissue at the federal level.) Plans would be subject to uniform rules and would be required to offer at least four benefit options paying from a low of 76 percent to a high of 93 percent of anticipated health care expenses.

3. The approach is also broadly consistent with Barack Obama's campaign pledge that Americans satisfied with their current coverage (including public programs such as Medicare and Medicaid) can keep it.

4. To make plans affordable, individuals and families with adjusted gross incomes between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level would receive sliding-scale subsidies in the form of refundable tax credits, paid in advance.

5. Everyone would be required to purchase a plan at least equal to the lowest-cost benefit option (the so-called "personal responsibility coverage requirement"). Non-compliers would be assessed an excise tax starting at 25 percent of the lowest-cost premium in the first year and rising to 75 percent by year three.

6. There is no agreement on the role of employers. In one option ("pay or play"), employers with more than $500,000 in annual payrolls who do not offer coverage at least equal to the lowest-cost option to their workers would be required to pay a sliding-scale excise tax based on total annual payroll. (Smaller businesses would pay $1,200 per year per employee; the largest firms would pay $6,000 per year per employee.) Another option exempts businesses altogether. Clearly this will be a flash-point in the forthcoming debate.

7. Nor is there agreement on the inclusion of public plans among the insurance choices. The document lays out three public options, ranging from a federal plan modeled on Medicare to plans run by the states, perhaps on an optional basis. The alternative to the public plan approach reads, in its entirety, "Option B does not include a public insurance option and instead relies on private options in a reformed and well-regulated private market." As has been widely reported, this issue will be hotly debated and may determine whether any final plan will receive support across party lines.

8. Medicaid eligibility and funding would expand significantly. For example, states would be required to make parents, pregnant women, and all children eligible if they are within 150 percent of the federal poverty level. And states would be required to maintain eligibility for all groups currently included in Medicaid. For the first five years, the federal government would bear the added costs. The state share would be phased in over the next five years: In each of those years, states would become responsible for an additional 20 percent of costs.
9. The state children's health insurance program S-CHIP would survive in modified form. While income eligibility would expand to 275 percent of the federal poverty level, the program would serve as a secondary payer, because enrollees would obtain primary coverage through the health insurance exchange.

While there is no discussion of costs in the document, most estimates of additional expenditures over the first ten years of the plan are in the neighborhood of $1.5 trillion. This may prove an insuperable stumbling-block to comprehensive reform, especially if bipartisan cooperation breaks down and the Democratic leadership resorts to reconciliation as the vehicle for getting a bill done. (The reason is that the reconciliation process requires legislation to be deficit-neutral.) Congress has thus far given the cold shoulder to most of the administration's proposals for raising revenues dedicated to health reform--and the options that the administration has yet to embrace but still might (such as capping the tax exclusion for employer-provided benefits) also appear to be unpopular among many members of Congress. The Congressional Budget Office, moreover, is unlikely to certify that the new plan will yield significant offsetting savings. And, finally, sticker shock over constantly rising estimates of budget deficits precludes enacting an unfunded health insurance plan that would pile $150 billion per year on top of an annual deficit already projected to average more than $900 billion a year during the next decade. (The release of a worrisome report about the deteriorating fiscal condition of Social Security and Medicare has only intensified these concerns.)

It is entirely possible, then, that we could end up with substantial agreement on the architecture of reform and little agreement on how to pay for it. If so, Congress and the administration will have to decide whether to accept an affordable package of incremental gains that falls short of universal coverage. This would be a bitter pill for many health reform veterans to swallow, but eventually they may have no choice.

Posted: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 2:05 PM

-----------------------------------------------
note: this is not a good deal from what I have read and urge folks to read some of the document. A bandaid on the problem this appears to be. Also, that "ran by the states": If the program is run by folks in the Missouri leglislature, then many folks in this area will be dead for those in my statehouse; many cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Additional vids of Rally downtown St. Louis May--bus tour

Here is a couple more vids from the steelworkers on the Rally dowtown St. Louis earlier this week. I am certain the folks will recognize Jesse J and Leo G.

There was excellent first day press coverage of the bus tour. Do not expect the press in all the stops to be as good, in fact look for black-out of coverage.

vids taken from usw site.

-----------------------------------

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

healthcare push

-------------------

today is a day of healthcare action across the land and many groups in action today. Some of this and the flap at the senate yesterday is gone over on the Ed Show yesterday. Well worth watching. Litholad has snip of C-span senate flap by the way.

Ed show is copyrighted and I shall withdraw if MSNBC makes objections. This information is for comments. Ed is worth watching at 5PM central time on MSNBC.


---------------------------------------------

Hr676 ers are not amused with the antics of Obama and the senate. If anything, some have awoke and ready to rally, push and fight.

-----------

more details of today's arrest of single payer folks

The senate committee had single payer folks arrested. Then they went on to discuss how to tax your health care benefits. Good day for the senate, our buddies and I thought John McCain lost the election.

This, my friends, should be a great topic of conversation.

-------------------------------------------------------


Senate Considers Tax Increases For Healthcare Reform

Members of the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday weighed options to implement a federal tax increase to pay for a national healthcare plan.

The Committee is faced with the task of finding feasible options to pay for a healthcare plan that will cover 46 million uninsured people at an estimated cost of about $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

According to the Associated Press, the package is expected to include both spending cuts as well as tax hikes. Senators are weighing options that range from raising taxes on alcohol and sodas as well as restrictions on health care related tax breaks.

On the campaign trail last year, President Barack Obama criticized John McCain’s plan to tax benefits for employer-provided healthcare. Now, Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., is considering a similar plan, and Mr. Obama’s aides have reported that the president will consider the option as well.

Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, told the committee that the plan would encourage people to spend more on medical services.

"It gives the greatest benefit to those with the highest incomes, although they are the group that least needs help paying for health insurance," Greenstein said.

According to the AP, employer-provided health insurance is not taxed, resulting in lost federal revenue of about $250 billion each year.

Additionally, Medicare is expected to be out of funding needed to pay hospitals by 2019, although some suggest that the recession could exacerbate the problem, according to Reuters.
"Finding money that we can all agree on will not be easy," Baucus admitted.

At the start of the hearing, a group of nurses in attendance were outspoken in protesting their exclusion from the witness table as supporters of government-run health care programs.
Several others in the audience then spoke out in favor of a single-payer system before being removed from the hearing room, according to C-SPAN.

Five protestors have been arrested and charged with “Disruption of Congress,” according to a Capitol Police spokeswoman.
---
On the Net:
Senate Finance Committee
Story from REDORBIT NEWS:http://www.redorbit.com/news/display/?id=1687565Published: 2009/05/12 15:06:01 CDT© RedOrbit 2005

singlepayer folks again ejected from senate KTRS

AP is reporting that about 45 minutes ago, singlepayer healthcare reform folks again arrested in Washington. More later as details become public.

Jaco Report might be the first to mention this in St. Louis area. Jaco did an excellent piece on Fox St. Louis last evening about the rally downtown.

Jaco allowed me to make a few comments and I am greatful.

Jaco on the radio had an excellent single-payer program today. KTRS has some good programs and this is Jaco Report e-mail. Listen 550AM at 10 AM weekdays for good stuff.


response e-mail
http://www.ktrs.com/index.php?option=com_contact&task=view&contact_id=39&Itemid=99

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional vids of Rally downtown St. Louis May 11, 09

These are vids from varied sources on the Rally yesterday. Rally had good press coverage with all St. Louis television stations covering, some radio, St. Louis Post and some independant news sources.

Note: some of the materials are copyrighted. I will withdraw if objections made, but the purpose of reproduction is for discussion within and without the labor community.

These will form some discussion on the breaksfasts in southcounty breakfast and Farmington group breakfasts and will be discussed more in detail next meeting in June.
---------------------------------------------------
ksdk original on truevideo--USA today. This is also repeated other sites. KSDK listing:
http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=175044&catid=3&provider=email
-------------------
http://usat.gannett.a.mms.mavenapps.net/mms/rt/1/site/gannett-usatoday-206-pub01-live/current/launch.html?maven_playerId=immersiveproduction&maven_referralObject=1120379687

vid long 26 minutes or so
------------------------------


steelworker site vid with comment from Leo Gerard (whom was at the rally yesterday)


---------------------

Ktvi vid with Jaco making observations and comments. Jaco has a good eye for events and although I might not agree with him on some issues, the man hits home more often than not.

-----------------------------------------

Monday, May 11, 2009

Ed show some thinking behind the bus tour

Some of the folks at the rally missed this one, but on the Ed show today was an interview that shows some of the thinking behind the tour. Things are grim, but if the auto companies go bankrupt; possible disaster for many.

------------------------------------------------

Save Our Jobs Rally in St. Louis May 11th, 09

---------------------
Both Ralph and I attended today's rally downtown. Good (but small) group at the rally. Steelworkers and UAW were out in limited numbers (a couple busses lost and some snafu on getting out word to some of the folks).

Some very good folks attended.

This is from http://www.stlbeacon.org/ posted on you tube and I think you might recognize a person or two.


---------------------------------------

Saturday, May 9, 2009

Additional info on speakers at Keep It Made in America - St. Louis/demonstration

This is some additional information on the speakers at the event Monday:
--------
Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2009 9:38:00 AMSubject:The list of speakers at the “Keep It Made In America” Rally to kick off the bus tour to save the jobs in the auto and related industries now includes Jesse Jackson.

The list of speakers now includes, in addition to Jesse Jackson,Leo Gerard,Claire McCaskill,Jerry Costello,Francis Slay, andDave Sinclair.

Other elected officials are expected. Please spread the word about the speakers and this rally via your email contact list. “Keep It Made In America ” Rally to Save the Auto and Related Industry Jobs. Monday, May 11, 2009 6:00 p.m. KienerPlaza7th and Market Street in downtown St. Louis Closest Metrolink stop – 8th and Chestnut (3 blocks from Rally).

----------------
We need some of the folks whom stay home to keep track of the media coverage on this event. That is important for feedback purposes. Also, folks get a copy of St. Louis Post or local paper. That is additional info we need. Thanks

Made in America auto tour start in St. Louis--post dispatch article

--------------------------
The post below has a map for those needing it and some explination of events.

This is from Post Dispatch. Several of the members of Soar 11-3 will show up. Many "big shots" of politics, unions and some corperate folks are expected. All are invited, expect a good time and they will have snacks; something important to your vice president. Event starts at 6pm til 8PM downtown. Map is on previous article :

-----------------

05.07.2009 3:13 pm
“Made in America” auto tour will start in St. Louis
By: David Nicklaus

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

St. Louis will be one of the starting points next Monday for a 34-city “Keep it Made in America” bus tour that’s meant to drum up support for the U.S. auto industry. The organizers, led by the United Steelworkers and the Alliance for American Manufacturing, say they’ll fill buses with auto-parts workers, car dealers, elected leaders and others, and hit the road in hopes of getting some positive press. Some of the same folks will reconvene on May 19 for an automotive “teach-in” in Washington.

One bus will leave St. Louis — which just found out it’s losing a Chrysler plant — and head for Arlington, Texas. One of its stops is in Shreveport, where a General Motors plant reportedly is on the endangered list. Perhaps the most interesting of the four bus routes is one that starts in Indianapolis and ends in Fairfield, Ala. It passes through a couple of GM assembly sites — Bowling Green, Ky., and Spring Hill, Tenn. — but winds up in a state that’s home to three foreign-owned auto plants (Mercedes, Hyundai and Honda). It passes through the home turf of Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., both of whom have been outspoken opponents of bailouts for GM and Chrysler.

Article printed from Mound City Money: http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/mound-city-money

URL to article: http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/mound-city-money/us-economy/2009/05/made-in-america-auto-tour-will-start-in-st-louis/

------------------

Friday, May 8, 2009

AAM/USW Auto Supply Chain Bus Tour Campaign




Remember, Monday May 11, at the Kiener Plaza, located at 601 Market Street in downtown St. Louis, Missouri. The rally will start at 6:oopm and should end around 8:oopm. This and the later this month single payer heath care actions are on our agenda

----------------------------
From Charlie Averill's blog:


The campaign will deploy four coach buses during the week of May 11, 2009 (see routes on succeeding pages). Each bus will operate for three days and make at least nine stops for a total of at least thirty six locations. The objective is to draw community and media attention to the importance of auto supply facilities to communities where they operate. Stops will be generally organized into three styles. One would be a stop at an operating auto supply facility where management and labor would explain and discuss the impact of that facility on its community. Second would be a stop at a city center location where elected officials would join us for the signing of a Buy American resolution and have a short program that details the supply chain importance to that region. There would be a town hall type meeting where we would recruit the general community, elected officials and our AAM/USW constituency to a program that has an educational component along with testimonials from impacted individuals and officials. All of these events would be seeking maximum earned media. We will take Polaroid pictures of participants, to which they will add a handwritten message to the Obama Administration supporting the auto supply chain. We would deliver those thousands of pictures and messages to Washington once the tours were completed. In conjunction with the bus tours, AAM and the USW would assure that each town we visited has enacted our Buy American resolution.


The buses would carry officials from AAM and the USW along with our partner elected officials and supply chain stakeholders. We will recruit individuals who can testify to the importance of the auto supply chain on a region's economy and have them participate in legs of the tours. We also will provide video, public relations and recruitment support prior to and during the tours, including arranging radio and television interviews along the way. We will also launch a frequently updated website to follow the progress of the tours. AAM staff will be deployed to each site to coordinate advance recruiting and logistics for each stop as well as program needs.


After the bus tours, AAM and the USW will hold an Auto Supply Chain Teach-In in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2009. We are recruiting highly regarded experts, opinion makers, and a selected number of participants from the bus tours to attend this event. Its purpose would be to detail the economic impact of the American auto supply chain and call for an Auto Restructuring Plan that maximizes domestic production, automobile industry jobs, and retains sufficient American Automobile production capacity to take advantage of the eventual resurgence of automobile demand in America.



---------------------------------------------------------------------