40 Million “Health” Criminals

Posted November 9, 2009 by michaelcollinsefn
Categories: Health care reform

At least two provisions in the House  health reform bill are very troubling, the de facto repeal of Roe v. Wade and this.  In a powerful post on the Welcome Back to Pottersville, poster Jurasicpork laid it out.  This is as clear and logical a statement as I’ve seen on the utter contempt that Congress has for the people.  We’re creating a new criminal class, people who can’t afford health insurance.  The solution – fines and prison.  All thanks to the Money Party which has reached depths previously unimaginable.  Well worth a read.  Michael Collins

Congress Pulls the Trigger

From:  Welcome Back to Pottersville blog.  Posted by jurasicport

In the dead of Saturday night, the House passed their version of a health reform bill that, frankly, makes Max Baucus’ first health care proposal look like a bleeding heart liberal/socialist piece of legislation by conspicuous relief. One of the most alarming aspects of HR 3962, that passed 220-215 (219 Democrats and one Republican voted for it) are the purely evil sections 7203 and 7201. The less evil of these sections, 7203, calls for $25,000 in fines and up to a year imprisonment for “defying” the federal mandate for getting insurance. That’s the misdemeanor. The felony? A quarter of a million dollars in fines and up to five years in prison.

And those of you who are actually found guilty of the crime of not buying over $100 of health insurance every week will lose their jobs and earning potential. For up to five years, we will not be contributing to anything other than a prison economy. We will not be paying taxes. We will not be paying child support if we already are. And when we get thrown into the prison system, who gets to foot the bill for the health care that we’d defiantly refused to get?
Entire post

Obama on Penalties – in general

“Under the House bill those who can afford to buy insurance and don’t’ pay a fine. If the refuse to pay that fine there’s a threat – as with a lot of tax fines – of jail time. The Senate removed that provision in the Senate Finance Committee.

“Mr. Obama said penalties have to be high enough for people to not game the system, but it’s also important to not be “so punitive” that people who are having a hard time find themselves suddenly worse off, thus why hardship exemptions have been built in the legislation.

“The President said that he didn’t think the question over the appropriateness of possible jail time is the “biggest question” the House and Senate are facing right now.”

ABC News Nov. 9

Letter documenting tie in with IRS Code for penalties for those who don’t pay tax.

Letter from Joint Committee on Taxation describing IRS code Sec. 7201 & 7203

H.R. 3962. Title V – Amendments to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

One of the connections of the HR. 3962 to the IRS, which means IRS enforcement.

Specifics form letter in IRS code for those who refuse to pay the tax.

IRS Code 7201 Attempt to evade or defeat a tax

IRS Code 7203 Wilful failure to file return, supply informaiton, or pay tax

These are just some of the penalties regarding non compliance.  There are more in the JCT document.
It’s all there.


Goldman left foreign investors holding the subprime bag

Posted November 3, 2009 by michaelcollinsefn
Categories: Uncategorized

Greg Norton interviewed on the Real News Network (Video)

NEW YORK — Inside the thick Goldman Sachs investment circular were the details of a secret, $2 billion deal channeled through a Caribbean tax haven.

Snip

One bond analyst who reviewed the 2006 Cayman deal dismissed it in a report to clients as “a not so cleverly disguised way for Goldman Sachs & Co. to unload its unwanted exposures to the subprime real estate market onto foreign investors.”

Goldman spokesman Michael DuVally said that the firm “sold mortgage securities only to sophisticated investors” and disclosed “all the appropriate information available.”

McClatchy also found at least two instances in which Goldman appeared to mislead investors. In one, the firm said that $65.3 million in securities were backed by safe “prime” mortgages when the same loans had been labeled a cut below prime in a U.S. offering. In the other, Goldman listed $10 million as “midprime” loans when the underlying mortgages had been made to subprime borrowers with shaky finances.

Snip

The 2006 Cayman deal was part of a flurry of Goldman activity in the hidden, unregulated parts of the securities industry. Goldman’s traders also made huge bets that those securities would lose value by buying insurance-like contracts, called credit-default swaps, with private parties. Beginning early in 2007, they bought swaps on a London-based exchange.

Link to full article at McClatchy Newspapers, Washington Bureau

More on this story from McClatchy Newspapers

Failure by Design – the “Public” Option

Posted November 2, 2009 by michaelcollinsefn
Categories: Dirty politics

Tags:


Triumph of the Money Party

Michael Collins

Do you know what the “public option” does or who it covers?  If you’ve had trouble finding out, it’s not your fault.  Reading corporate media coverage provides little or no clue.  It’s hardly ever defined.  There’s a very good reason for the lack of clarity and definition.  But first, a brief summary of the public debate that characterizes just about every public debate we have on critical issues.

If you think that the current version of the public option will provide a choice for a government administered health program, you’re right.  If you think that this option was designed for the general public, then you’re wrong.  It will apply to only the some  uninsured, possibly as few as six million citizens.  It’s a kind of public option.

But, if you support true choice by the public, then you probably expect this as an option:  a single payer system for health care — one source of payment for doctors and others funded and administered by the government for the public.  Medicare is such a program.  But we don’t get to hear about single payer proposals except from proponents like Representatives John Conyers (D-MI), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), and Anthony Weiner (D-NY), who define single payer universal health care very clearly.

President Obama’s outline of the public option in his September 9 speech to Congress is essentially unchanged in the current legislation.  The Democratic plan offers “a new insurance exchange” for “Americans who don’t currently have health insurance.”  This sounds good so far, but wait.  This exchange will be “a new insurance exchange –a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop.”  The option will be “available in the insurance exchange” and “it would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance.” (See What Obama Actually Said About Health Reform)

It’s not really public, it’s for a small segment of the population, and it is any where from four to ten years out in full availability.  This reflects the Oct. 29 House proposal, H.R. 3962, and some aspects of the latest Senate claims for a public option..  The entire effort, limited as it is, will be compromised from the very start since Congress linked public option provider reimbursement rates to those of the health insurance companies.

When citizens see “Open to the public,” they don’t take that to mean only some of the public.  When land is set aside for “public use,” does that mean only 5% or 6 % of the public?   All of this makes no sense unless you accept the deliberately confusing definitions and assumptions of The Money Party.

Why would any member of the public think that they were excluded from a public option?

Why would those controlling the debate want us to think that?

Here’s why.  The findings in this poll strikes terror into the heart of The Money Party.

Link

The poll shows a clear majority in favor of a single payer, universal health care program as an option for all citizens.  This poll is consistent with other polls despite the confusion from Washington.  In a fair debate, the health insurance companies would get their clock cleaned and be out of business within a year or two.  But we’re not allowed an open and fair debate because the risk of vanishing corporations is never in The Money Party’s game plan.  Their political bouncers just tossed us under the bus.

The “Long Con” – How Things Work

“A ’short con’ is an opportunistic scam designed to instantly fleece the victim of all the money they have with them at that time.  On the other hand, a long con takes much longer to execute and requires meticulous planning in order to scam the victim out of much larger amounts of money.”  Scam Types dot Com

The Money Party runs both short and long cons.  When they weren’t able to sell the Iraq invasion, the short con was:  Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.  He’s ready to use them … on you!  Get on board now or else! That short con operated within the long con of perpetual threats and endless war.

The current health reform debate is a classic long con.  The debate is limited to only those positions that will work for the status quo.  If reform fails, there’s no change from the extortion perpetrated against citizens in need of affordable health care.  If reform is adopted, the insurance companies are enshrined at the center of the program.  The fight is then over the size of the rake off.  That’s called bending the curve of health care costs.  Bend, don’t break.   It’s a win-win proposition for The Money Party.

What do legislators do when their patrons demand that an irrational and deadly system remains in place?  Confuse the dialog with weasel words and highly deceptive terms.  Keep the public thinking that they’re really going to benefit from a program and, better yet, that the opposition is trying to prevent that benefit.  Get party loyalists whipped up to fight for your program even though it’s a sham.

The current kind of public option is essential to The Money Party’s long con on health reform.  It allows people to think that there’s a real debate going on.  Someone is fighting for our option to choose decent and affordable health care.

It’s all part of the long con that limits critical debate to unacceptable options advanced by allegedly differing parties. These debates always end the same way — the perpetuation of the major corporate interests, the retention of those in power, and oligarchy; the triumph of The Money Party:

“The Money Party is a small group of enterprises and individuals who have most of the money in this country. They use that money to make more money. Controlling who gets elected to public office is the key to more money for them and less for us.

“In every campaign for major office, the party passes out money and buys candidates from both parties. Thanks to the candidates who get elected, this pay to play system remains perfectly legal … even though it looks like bribery.

‘In return for contributions, the election winners come through by fixing the laws so that The Money Party cleans up. … Cost is no object, because in the end it’s all paid for with our tax dollars.”  Michael Collins:  The Money Party, Sept. 30, 2007.

END

See:  Special Health Reform Series:  The Money Party and the sickness unto death

This article may be reproduced in whole or in part with attribution of authorship and a link to this web site.

McClatchy Busts Goldman on Double Dealing

Posted November 1, 2009 by michaelcollinsefn
Categories: fraud

Today, McClatchy Newspapers added the how to the what Goldman did in its investment banking business.   Right after the 2008 election, Pro Publica broke a story about Goldman urging key clients to dump California bonds after Goldman had a big pay day from the state to sell the bonds in the first place:

“Goldman, Sachs & Co. urged some of its big clients to place investment bets against California bonds this year despite having collected millions of dollars in fees to help the state sell some of those same bonds.”  Pro Publica, Nov. 11, 2008

The McClatchy Newspapers story shows the same pattern of self serving, double dealing.  Goldman sold packages of high risk loans as though they were premium securities.  This coincided with Goldman’s assessment that the subprime securities marked was a loser.   That’s the type of double dealing that gets you in serious trouble.  The article quoted below has it all — the story of the deceptive sales, a chart of the revolving door for Goldman and the federal government, and some very good writing.

Greg Gordon was the senior reporter for McClatchy’s excellent investigative series on the Bush Department of Justice scandals.  He is an outstanding investigator, thorough, and persistent.  McClatchy is well worth watching on this story.  Michael Collins

How Goldman Secretly Bet on the U.S. Housing Crash

By Greg Gordon|McClatchy Newspapers
Nov. 1, 2009

WASHINGTON — In 2006 and 2007, Goldman Sachs Group peddled more than $40 billion in securities backed by at least 200,000 risky home mortgages, but never told the buyers it was secretly betting that a sharp drop in U.S. housing prices would send the value of those securities plummeting.

Goldman’s sales and its clandestine wagers, completed at the brink of the housing market meltdown, enabled the nation’s premier investment bank to pass most of its potential losses to others before a flood of mortgage defaults staggered the U.S. and global economies.

Only later did investors discover that what Goldman had promoted as triple-A rated investments were closer to junk.

Now, pension funds, insurance companies, labor unions and foreign financial institutions that bought those dicey mortgage securities are facing large losses, and a five-month McClatchy investigation has found that Goldman’s failure to disclose that it made secret, exotic bets on an imminent housing crash may have violated securities laws.

“The Securities and Exchange Commission should be very interested in any financial company that secretly decides a financial product is a loser and then goes out and actively markets that product or very similar products to unsuspecting customers without disclosing its true opinion,” said Laurence Kotlikoff, a Boston University economics professor who’s proposed a massive overhaul of the nation’s banks. “This is fraud and should be prosecuted.”

More on this story from McClatchy Newspapers Washington Bureau:

Story | Mortgage crisis shows why financial regulation is needed

Story | Mystery: Why did Goldman stop scrutinizing loans it bought?

Story | How Moody’s sold its ratings – and sold out investors

Graphic | Goldman’s revolving door with government

Video | One couple stands up to Goldman Sachs

Video | Goldman Sachs’ secret bets

On the Web | See our complete Goldman report

Full Goldman article at McClatchy Newspapers

A Censored Headline and why it Matters

Posted October 20, 2009 by michaelcollinsefn
Categories: 22927841, Censorship

Tags: ,

A Censored Headline and why it Matters:

German High Court Outlaws Electronic Voting

Justices of the German Federal Constitutional Court.  Image

Michael Collins

(DailyCensored.Com)  The justices above are clearly the most rational group of high level functionaries in the industrialized world.  They did what no other court would do in Europe or the United States.  They effectively outlawed electronic voting.  On March 3, 2009, the German Federal Constitutional Court declared that the electronic voting machines used in the 2005 Bundestag elections for the German national parliament were outside of the bounds of the German Constitution.

They reasoned that electronic voting is not verifiable because citizen votes are counted in secret.  It  obscured a technology inaccessible to all but a very few initiates.  Most importantly, the German high court noted, electronic voting machines don’t allow citizens to “reliably examine, when the vote is cast, whether the vote has been recorded in an unadulterated manner” Mar. 3, 2009.

The written opinion effectively bars electronic voting in future elections based on the complexity of voting machines and the inability of voters to watch their vote being counted.  This raises the bar of acceptability well above the meaningless solutions offered by “paper trails” for touch screen voting or the so-called “paper ballots” for computerized optical scan voting machines, the most popular form of voting in the United States.

Germany’s 2009 Bundestag elections were conducted with hand counted paper ballots.

Have you heard that one of the world’s leading economic powers, the fourth largest economy in the world, banned electronic voting;  said it was undemocratic?  Given the multitude of problems encountered in the U.S. and the number of questionable election results, wouldn’t it make sense that when Germany banned electronic voting and replaced it with paper ballots, there would be at least a days worth of national coverage in the United States?

Nothing like that occurred.  The Associated Press (Times of India) story on the verdict danced around the periphery of the world media market with coverage in Turkey, India, Australia, and Ireland.  But there were no major media takers for the AP story in the United States.

There was every reason to carry the story.  In a 2006 Zogby poll, 92% of the 1028 registered voters surveyed said they agreed with this statement:

Citizens have the right to view and obtain information about how election officials count votes – 92% agreeNew Zogby Poll On Electronic Voting Attitudes  Aug. 21, 2006

That’s exactly the proposition that the German court upheld.  Surely there was an audience for the German decision but there was hardly a word from corporate media.

Why did this happen?

There are certain vital stories that the U.S. corporate media won’t touch.  The most prominent censored headline is “Over One Million Iraqi Civilians Dead in Conflict.”  This figure has been known since 2007 while a previous survey showing 650,000 dead was spiked in 2006.  The Iraqi civilians died as a result of internal conflict unleashed by the U.S. invasion in 2003.  Had Bush-Cheney not invaded with the approval of a sleep walking Congress, these people would not have died as they did.

Another vital story that isn’t covered is election fraud, fixing an entire election.  The corporate media simply can’t raise the possibility that election fraud exists.  The preliminary steps enabling election fraud through computerized voting are outsourcing elections to private vendors; the lack of any verifiable connection between your vote and the voting machines processes; and, security risks.

However, corporate media are more than happy to cover the nearly nonexistent “voter fraud” stories about masses of illegal voters showing up at the polls.  The Bush administration was only able to produced 24 convictions of citizens and non citizens combined over a three year period.

The media will discuss electronic voting malfunctions but they simply won’t connect the dots.  Computers function as programmed, by definition.  “Malfunctions” during vote counting  are part of any given program.  When the errors benefit one side of the political equation, it is highly relevant to raise questions about intentional “errors.”   However, the treatment of these stories  is always within the context of computer problems instead of a broad inquiry into why elections are outsourced to private vendors and the resulting risks and problems and.  U.S. elections will be virtually dominated by one private firm out of Omaha, Nebraska, ES&S.

German Citizens Prevail

A recent article by elections activist Kathleen Wynne, former Associate Director of BlackBoxVoting.org, told the story of the story of the landmark German case with a link to an extensive radio interview with litigant Dr. Ulrich Wiesner (Electronic Voting Declared Unconstitutional in Germany).

Physicist Ulrich Wiesner, PhD and Prof. Joachim Wiesner, PhD, an eminent German political scientist, brought suit against the use of electronic voting machines in the 2005 Bundestag elections.  The evidence gathered supported the findings of the court described above.  While both Wiesner’s on the suit have PhD’s and distinguished careers, they brought the landmark case on their own as citizens.  Undeterred by the odds and the dismissal of German politicians, they stood by their cause and won.

It’s a great story, father and son team prevail against huge odds to ensure that all Germans get their vote counted.  But none of the majors here bit.

These articles constitute most of the serious coverage of this story in the United States.  Paul Lehto wrote two articles for OpEdNews.com on March 3 and 19, 2009:    Germany Bans Computerized Voting, Will Hand Count in 2009 and German high court honors US democratic principles.  Activist Bev Harris wrote a commentary on 3-19-09: Let’s get off the hamster wh…, BlackBoxVoting.org.  Newsweek ran an insightful column in its education section on June, 2009, We do not trust machines. While AP ran the story, it wasn’t picked up and featured by any major media outlet in the United States.  The International Herald Tribune also covered the decision but its sister paper, The New York Times, dropped the ball.

The Wynne article told the story of the citizens who made the decision happen, the Wiesner father and son team.  Deadline Live with Jack Blood, the radio show, carried a comprehensive interview of German litigant, Dr. Ulrich Wiesner and follow up discussions with Kathleen Wynne and Bev Harris

But that’s it.  The highest court in the nation with the world’s fourth largest economy makes law that bans electronic voting after determining that computerized elections are fundamentally opposed to democratic principles.  The decision applies directly to the electronic voting systems used  in the United States.  What do we hear from the U.S. corporate media?  Just about nothing.

In this case, when a tree falls in the forest and just a few people hear it, it’s no big deal.  But it should be.

END

For more information on hand counted paper ballots and evidence for this case, see:
Center for Hand-Counted Paper Ballots

VoteRescue.org
Hacking the Electoral Law, Ulrich Wiesner, PhD, 23rd Chaos Communications Conference (PDF)

 

 

 

This article may be reproduced in whole or in part with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

“Deficit Neutral” Health Care Reform

Posted October 11, 2009 by michaelcollinsefn
Categories: Health care reform

“Deficit Neutral” Health Care Reform

Absurdity upon Absurdity

Michael Collins

The health care debate and general political climate compound absurdity upon absurdity.

First we’re told that our health care is only worth the time and effort if the remedy has no negative impact on the budget.  No deficits allowed.  The deficit risk defines your chances for health and longevity.

At the same time, we see that Wall Street failures and the overseas war effort are not held to the same standard on deficits spending.

The federal government has committed $23 trillion dollars to prop up Wall Street’s failed financial institutions.  That’s a fantasy figure and clearly deficit-friendly since it’s twice the 2008 Gross Domestic Product of the United States.

On Tuesday of this week a smaller amount was offered up for the 2010 expenditures on the Iraq war and the expanded efforts in Afghanistan.  The $128 billion was approved without a Congressional Budget Office analysis (note the absence of a link for “CBO Cost Estimates“).  Since we’re already over budget for 2010, this is also in the deficit column.

It’s all right to run huge deficits to bailout Wall Street crooks and to wage deadly wars but it’s not all right to even think about a deficit when it comes to preserving the health and lives of citizens.

The second absurdity concerns priorities.  A rational approach to national policy would place citizen health care well above both Wall Street welfare and endless wars on any list of priorities.  But that wouldn’t do much good with the current legislative approach.

A political victory amounts to a loss for the public.  Why?

The current legislation delays help for the uninsured for years.  It limits the “public option” to those without health insurance.  It does little or nothing to contain rising health care costs for in the near term.  And it ignores prescription medication — a major factor in out-of-control costs.

If you are insured now, you will get the pre-existing conditions exclusion lifted from future policies and some other benefits like moving your plan from one employer to another, etc.  If you’re self employed or a small business owner paying insurance directly to the tune of $1,200 to $1,400 a month per employee, there are no built-in cost control measures.  If you’re among the 54% of U.S. employees working for an employer that pays your health costs (self funded health insurance), using the Blue Crosses of the world to simply administer the plan, the savings you have now are, for the most part, what you will have after the “reforms” on the table.

Why?  Because there are no cost controls for the underlying service, health care, and profit-driven insurance fees.

The cost saving elements of the bill from electronic records etc. are not going to appear in the next two years, if ever.

Current polling shows that 65% of citizens support “the government offering everyone a government health insurance plan like Medicare.”  The 10% to 40% that private insurers take out of the system for overhead and profits compares to less than 5% administrative costs for Medicare.  By shifting health care costs away from employers to the government as single payer (in line with the rest of the industrialized world), U.S. businesses and workers could compete more effectively at home and abroad.   After ten years, we might actually get some new jobs and higher incomes.

Unfortunately, the wisdom and logic of the people are not heeded by Congress and the administration.  Government funded single payer health care is an approach forbidden in the current debate.  A watered down version is the “public option” which President Obama said would be available to only the uninsured and, even then, on a limited basis.  Congress is even talking about the states having public options at their discretion.  It’s all about getting a bill passed.

Meaningful reform and immediate relief are not on the agenda.

Those in charge think that we’re so stupid we won’t notice that our health care is either the same or worse should the proposed legislation be made law.  Clearly, they think that there’s no urgency to address the availability and affordability of health care.  A political victory trumps a clear and present set of requirements for the good health of citizens.

It’s time that the administration and Congress start behaving like adults and tell the truth.

As of now, the truth is that endless war and endless bailouts are the national priorities.  The other key truth, soon to become painfully evident, is that the current health care reform legislation will do little in the near term to relieve the immediate problems of cost availability and affordability.  It is faith-based reform that inspires little faith other than among the latest bailout beneficiaries, insurance companies that stand to acquire tens of millions of new customers.

Why isn’t the health of citizen the number one priority?

Why aren’t we getting the truth?

END

See:  House and Senate single payer bills

What Obama Actually Said About Health Reform 11/09/2009
Screwing the Self Employed Out of Health Insurance
22/08/2009
Can We Trust these Companies with Our Health?
06/08/2009
The Forgotten Question in the Health Care Debate
28/07/2009

This article may be reproduced in whole or in part with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

For G-20, Pittsburgh became a police state

Posted September 30, 2009 by michaelcollinsefn
Categories: Uncategorized

Philadelphia Enquirer, Sept. 30, 2009

Massive Force Routed Cherished Constitutional Values

By Steve Hallock

The world economy may or may not have emerged stronger from last week’s G-20 summit in Pittsburgh. And the first non-capital city to host the summit enjoyed the public-relations boon of showcasing its Phoenix-like rise from the ashes of the steel industry. But the Constitution took a hit.

Government officials decided a massive, preemptive police presence was necessary to avoid the raucous demonstrations that marred past economic summits. They established a virtual police state that quickly extinguished any spark of dissent, and a federal court ruling gave them free rein to do so.

To begin with, there was an oxymoronic requirement that groups get permits to march and demonstrate during the summit. Requiring citizens to obtain permission to gather, let alone speak, violates the spirit of the First Amendment.

But even demonstrators who had permission faced zealous intimidation. It started during the first demonstrations of the week, before the summit commenced. Police delayed one properly credentialed march and denied another group access to a public bypass.

More at The Philadelphia Enquirer

————————–

Steve Hallock is an assistant professor of journalism at Point Park University in Pittsburgh. He can be contacted at shallock@pointpark.edu.

What Obama Actually Said About Health Reform

Posted September 10, 2009 by michaelcollinsefn
Categories: Health care reform, Uncategorized

What Obama Actually Said About Health Reform

1965 – President Lyndon Johnson signs Medicare bill while President Harry Truman looks on. Truman signed up for Medicare right away. Image

Address to Congress

Michael Collins
Also found here

President Obama closed his address to the joint session of Congress by scolding those who have raised the absurd charges regarding his health care initiative. It was well timed and diverted attention from fundamental flaws in his proposal.

This article examines the Obama plan as outlined in his speech. His goals were clear and the speech was well structured. The heart of the address provides the type of information necessary to judge the merits of the plan as presented.

Obama got serious when he said, “The plan I’m announcing tonight would meet three basic goals:

“It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance.

“It will provide insurance to those who don’t.

“And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government.” Pres. Barack Obama, Sept. 9

Cost and availability are the core issues in health care today. They subsume all others. What’s missing here? Instead of universal coverage, the uninsured get “insurance,” most likely private insurance, if they can afford it. Instead of beating back prices or bold initiatives to reduce them, we’re hearing “slow the growth.” Health care costs are unaffordable to many already. The promise here seems to be that they’ll still be unaffordable, just less so.

“Bending the curve” may happen but it fails to address the key problem — people can’t afford insurance rates and medical bills. As a result they get sick more, suffer more, and die before their time.

“Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan”

Obama detailed the impact of his plan on two distinct groups, those currently with insurance and those without. This is a key distinction since the public option, for example, is available to only those without insurance.

Those with Insurance

Those with insurance were promised that “nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.” That’s assuring to some. But to others who lave plans that are too expensive, plans purchased directly from insurance carriers, there may be a desire or need to change to a more affordable plan. You’re out of luck. Let’s say that you own a small business and pay $1200 an employee a month for health insurance. The plan offers no apparent benefit other than slowing “the growth of health care costs.”

The plan will offer four ways “to make the insurance you have work better for you.” It will: get rid of preexisting conditions as a reason to deny coverage; bar insurance companies from dropping coverage due to a major illness; limit “out of pocket” expenses; and require coverage for preventative care. These are all positive steps.

That’s it for “security and stability.” You can stay in your current plan. You can go elsewhere with certain long overdue guarantees of coverage but for those insured, there’s no freedom to choose a Medicare-like public option or use the insurance “exchange” There’s no security that you will ever see affordable health care.

Health insurance and pharmaceutical companies who have jacked up prices at record setting rates will be unimpeded.

The health care “exchange” that was part of Obama’s campaign proposal is not available to those with insurance:

“But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Let me be clear – it would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance.” Sept. 9

We’re left to assume that “keeping the “insurance companies honest” is only a benefit saved for those citizens who are uninsured.

Those without Insurance

Those without insurance will be offered membership in “one big group” that will leverage their numbers to drive competition from insurance companies on a public “insurance exchange.” The exchange aims to fulfill a huge promise:

“If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage. We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange – a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices.” Sept. 9

What if you don’t have a job? What if you have a job but can’t afford the prices on the “exchange?” This was not addressed.

The president elaborated his argument for the “exchange:”

“Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers.” Sept. 9

Who are the members of this group that the insurance companies will so desire? They’re the uninsured, the people who get sicker more frequently and have great medical needs because they’re uninsured. Is that an appealing market for companies who are in the business of excluding sick people? Is there some major group of very healthy uninsured ready to balance out the generally poor, low income uninsured?

To further bolster the insurance “exchange,” Obama offered this argument:

“As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance.” Sept. 9

No it isn’t. The largest companies have “self funded” health insurance plans. They don’t buy insurance coverage from the Blue Crosses of the world. They set up a fund for benefits that pays for employee health care. They hire out the administration of benefits to private insurance companies who issue checks and reimbursements but that money is from large companies. The entire “exchange” argument is based on a factual error. Since the assumption of competition underlies the “exchange,” the plan crumbles for those without insurance.

Percent of workers in self-insured companies

From Exhibit 10.1 Kaiser Family Foundation 2008 (p. 162)

Why would companies do this? Because self funded plans save money by cutting out insurance company profits as an operating cost. Self funded plans also provide more control of expenditures. There are no $800,000 a day salaries for plan employees as we’ve seen at insurance companies.

The underlying premise for the insurance exchange for the uninsured is flawed operationally and factually. So how will people pay for this coverage?

Tax credits! We’re told that, “For those individuals and small businesses who still cannot afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we will provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need.”

Who will be in the exchange and what can they afford with or without tax credits?

The Distribution of the Uninsured and Total U.S. Population by Income

72% of the uninsured are below the income level required to afford employer health insurance. Based on U.S. Census Bureau data, 2005 Link

This augmented chart shows an estimate of the income level required for the uninsured to afford a “company insurance plan.” Self funded plans covered 54% of those insured (p. 162) at the time this data was collected. According to the study, an individual needs income of 300% of the federal poverty level, $27,000 to afford “employer insurance.” A family of four needs an income of 300% of the federal poverty level for families or $57,000 for “employer” insurance. This study didn’t presume an insurance “exchange” but the analysis is applicable as a model for answers we need to determine the ability of people to purchase insurance under the president’s proposal.

Even if everything worked perfectly for the uninsured, the president said, “This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right.” If that’s the criterion, do it right, it will take a lot longer than four more years before the uninsured benefit.

With a flawed basis for the exchange, no mandatory participation by insurance companies, no price controls, and a poorer, less healthy “big group,” what chance is there that the very limited public option proposed will be “be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects” as Obama requires? What chance is there that private insurance companies will be more inclined than they are today to insure those that they don’t want to insure?

What about Medicare?

Medicare is a well liked plan with lower administrative costs, and no requirements for shareholder returns. It’s also much less intrusive in care decisions than private insurance plans. But that’s not in the cards. The president said:

“Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn’t, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch.” Sept. 9

Medicare is a national program in operation since 1965. It provides universal health care for those 65 and older. It faces challenges from the bulge in beneficiaries that don’t negate its lower unit costs, lower administrative fees, and high satisfaction rate. Medicare would be even more effective in delivering improved health if seniors were it able to negotiate discounted drug rates with the major drug companies. But Congress outlawed that in 2004. That wasn’t mentioned as part of the plan. Why?

In his apparent attempt to preserve the private health insurance industry and to appease the major pharmaceutical companies, the president missed a key lesson from the market place.

When large companies want to save money on employee health costs, they get rid of the private insurance companies. As a result, they save money and often offer more coverage. They save even more money bypassing the built in cost of insurance company profits and excessive CEO compensation.

Medicare is the big company self funded plans writ large. In fact, you could argue that the Medicare approach of direct funding for “the big group” of seniors was the model for self funded big company health plans.

Isn’t it time to stand back and reevaluate the entire process?

Isn’t it time to say no to more corporate welfare?

How many more bailouts can we take?

END

This article may be reproduced in whole or in part with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

WANTED The Gang of Six

Posted September 8, 2009 by michaelcollinsefn
Categories: Health care reform

Tags: ,

The Money Party

The Money Party is a small group of enterprises and individuals who have most of the money in this country. They use that money to make more money. Controlling who gets elected to public office is the key to more money for them and less for us. As 2008 approaches, The Money Party is working hard to maintain its perfect record.

It is not about Republicans versus Democrats. Right now, the Republicans do a better job taking money than the Democrats. But The Money Party is an equal opportunity employer. They have no permanent friends or enemies, just permanent interests. Democrats are as welcome as Republicans to this party. It’s all good when you’re on the take and the take is legal.  Michael Collins, Sept. 30, 2007

Corporate Tantrums – Can We Trust these Companies with Our Health?heal

Posted August 5, 2009 by michaelcollinsefn
Categories: Uncategorized

Tags: , , ,

Corporate Tantrums -

Can We Trust these Companies with Our Health?

Michael Collins

Also published at e Pluribus Media

Some major health insurers and other health interests are behind some of the highly emotional and disruptive scenes at town hall meetings around the country.

What does this say about their level of desperation concerning the health care debate?

Anyone who has raised a high spirited teen knows that when the facts are obvious about some misbehavior, there’s always the chance that the facts will recede into a background of a highly emotional argument.  Raise you voice after you see easy $3,000 damage to the car and you might hear, “Why are you yelling at me!” and so forth.  Once the discussion heads in that direction, you’ve lost, at least for the moment.

The health care industry and their Republican allies are very much like a guilty teen — screaming and yelling at town hall meetings to divert attention from the real issues surrounding health care for 300 million citizens.  The only difference is that the corporate entities involved are using proxies like Freedomworks; a well funded public relations firm that offers just-in-time delivery of worked up “activist” groups.  Its leadership and “hundreds of thousands of grassroots volunteers nationwide” think that screaming and yelling at town hall meetings to save the current health care system is persuasive public discourse.

This strategy surprised many as it unfolded during the first few congressional town halls.  The debate over the need for health care reform has been momentarily diverted to a sideshow of indignant attendees shouting down their representative or senator.  Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius felt the heat in Philadelphia.  Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) was another recipient of health insurance industry enabled histrionics at his town hall meeting in liberal Austin, Texas.  Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD) was hung in effigy in front of his Salisbury office in broad daylight just days ago, a distasteful reminder for locals of a very real lynching in 1913 when authorities did nothing.

Unfortunately for the corporate health care alliance, the play book was revealed just as the disruption plan got underway.  A leaked memo from Freedomworks outlined the plan to systematically disrupt town hall meetings.  The well funded organization is headed up by former Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), a Newt Gingrich protégé.

Freedomworks is not alone in the battle to save the health insurance corporations. The powerful public relations firm representing AETNA and CIGNA, Shirley & Bannister Public Affairs, is closely tied to ResistNet.com and other “grassroots” disruptors.  The Coalition to Protect Patients Rights is managed by a major lobbying group headed up by a former aid to Sen. Charles Grassley, (R-IA).  Richard L. Scott, the former CEO of Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) started Conservatives for Patient Rights.  Scott “sought opportunities elsewhere” after HCA was slapped with a $1.7 billion settlement for insurance fraud during his tenure.

Before the leaked memo on disruption tactics, Republicans crowed about the public displays showing “grassroots” opposition to health care reform.  After the leak, it was apparent that the Republican office holders and Fox News had been mouthing the talking points outlined by the corporate grassroots organizers.

But as the facts emerged and the pattern was clear.  The game plan is now on display.  It’s not magic if you know how the trick is done.

There may well be some people who are so attached to the health care status quo that they’re irate (particularly if they’re health insurance company retirees).  However, the other concerns that would produce equal or greater outrage are not generating this type of protest.  For example, anger at the failure to cap credit card interest rates, desperation about the high level of foreclosures, and lost pensions might be expected to generate some shout outs.  That has not occurred.  But we’re expected to believe that making the world safe for AETNA is so important to Jane and John Q Citizen, they’ll trash town hall meetings to serve the cause.

A New Level of Desperation for Corporate Health Insurers

Rep. Allen Boyd (D-FL) tarred and feathered; Rep. Lloyd Doggett, (D-TX) with horns; and Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD) hung in effigy.

The pictures above are all violent, hostile representations of moderate Democrats about to meet with the public.  The tar and feathering had to do with Rep. Boyd’s support for cap-and-trade energy legislation (another pet project of Freedomworks).  Are the horned and hung representations of  Doggett and Kratovil before public meetings in their districts somehow supposed to contribute to the health care debate?

The debased and trivial dialog on health care is a direct product of some major health insurers and other health interests employing those who specialize in debased and trivial dialog – the lobbying firms mentioned.

Do the leaders of these corporations actually think that they can sway public opinion with behavior that most find offensive?  Have they completely given up on negotiating a piece of the health care market from the Obama administration?  Have they reached a level of incompetence where their corporate governance starts to look like depraved indifference?

The tactics of disrupting town hall meetings is very strange and extremely risky.  This is about all the companies have left, other than the normal legalized bribery through campaign donations.  It’s all the more surprising that they’re calling on lobbying groups that came up with the failed Tea Bagging events.  Why would this effort be any more effective or end any differently?

What industry leaders know but won’t admit is this — they’ve already lost the battle.  A credible argument for single payer health is being made.  Within the coalition supporting expanded health care, the clearest message comes from the single payer, nationalized health care faction.  While it has been a struggle to put single payer and universal health care on the table, the idea has broad public support.  Private health insurance may not go away this year but it’s on the way out.  The “industry” will be finished in the near to mid term.

What is the response from the insurance industry?  Denigrate the dialog.  Disrupt meetings with consistently rude behavior.  Massively misrepresent the facts and analysis on the overall program of universal health care.  Most stunning, the out of control disruptors present violent images aimed at the representatives they’re trying to persuade.  It’s a pathetic display of the very worst leadership imaginable.  As a result, it justifies the very worst interpretations of the motives and actions of these companies.

Who would trust these health insurance companies with their medical care and that of their families?

END

This article may be reproduced in whole or part with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.