eNewsletter

Wisconsin Clean Elections Coalition

Promoting fair elections for all parties and candidates

eNewsletter #35

February 27, 2007

Politicians are like diapers. They should both be changed frequently and for the same reason.

This is a periodic newsletter on election and health care reform. If you wish not to receive it please unsubscribe at the bottom and accept my apologies for the intrusion.
.

In this issue:

1) Health Care

2) Campaign Reform

3) WDC on the line item veto

4) More on Health Care from www.TooMuchOnline.org

5) Tidbits

6) Give me a Break!

7) Book recommendations

8) Contact Information

9) Removal instructions
.

Health Care

The Miller/Benedict Universal Health Care bill has been introduced as SB51 and AB94. (Thanks to Rich Bogovich I'll remember these by Hwy 51 and Interstate 94... Just gotta remember which is which.)

Please again contact you state senator and assembly person for support. Sponsors are Senators MILLER, RISSER and CARPENTER, cosponsored by Representatives BENEDICT, BERCEAU, BLACK, BOYLE, A. WILLIAMS, HEBL, PARISI, POCAN, POPE−ROBERTS, ZEPNICK, SINICKI, HILGENBERG, FIELDS, KESSLER and GRIGSBY. Referred to Committee on Health and Human Services.

Once again, if your senator or representative is not listed above, a quick email may yield reasons. I sent this to Darling and Jeskewitz:

I am obviously disappointed that your name was not on the list of sponsors. For the record, what health care proposal are you supporting.

An interesting paper presented at Pacific Northwest Regional Economic Conference (though it was done in 2001): http://www.pnrec.org/2001papers/DaigneaultLajoie.pdf

Why is France's health care considered #1 by the World Health Organization? Read an excellent paper HERE.

* Medicare-for-all-PLUS (covers more procedures than does Medicare)
* Universal coverage without a single payer system
* Basic health care is a government run monopoly, private companies cannot offer competing services (why would anyone buy them anyway?)
* Their National Health Plan covers most costs and most services
* But co-pays are covered by private supplemental insurance (thus the public-private relationship)
* Provides 100% coverage of population
* No opt-out, but you can buy a heavier-than-normal supplementary plan. Spend to your heart's content.
* Funded partly by employers and partly by taxes
* Extra coverage is offset by substantially lower physician salaries (by 66%, US are 5.9 times average workers versus 1.9 in France)
* Patients pay physicians directly then recover costs from the health fund (thus they know the costs)
* Heavily controlled by government
* National fee schedule for reimbursements
* Both public and private hospitals, the latter with negotiated per-diem charges
* Hospitals provide all drugs for inpatients
* Escalating coverage as patients become sicker
* Co-payments, but they disappear after 30 days in hospital
* 2/3 of population is "fairly satisfied" with system
* Some geographic areas not as well covered as others
* Lower level of micromanagement of doctors than in US
* Strong price controls and capital controls
* Occasional physician strikes

Sources:
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/93/1/31.pdf
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2006/04/on_doctors_sala.html

CORPORATE CRIME REPORTER

Why Obama, Edwards, Hillary, Romney, Schwarzenegger Don’t Support Single Payer? It Would Mean the Death of the Health Insurance Industry, and Reduced Profits for Big Pharma (21 Corporate Crime Reporter 9, February 21, 2007)

The majority of the American people want a single-payer health care system – Medicare for all.

The majority of doctors want it.

A good chunk of hospital CEOs want it.

But what they want doesn’t appear to matter.

Why?

Because a single-payer health care plan would mean the death of the private health insurance industry and reduced profits for the pharmaceutical industry.

Click HERE for the complete article.

Healthcare -- Reform Starts Here (from Grassroots Northshore)

Let's Do Something about It

Sunday, March 18th, 2007
Northshore Presbyterian Church – 4048 N. Bartlett/Shorewood
Doors Open at 6:00pm -- Program at 6:30pm

It’s time.

We are fed up with the rising cost of healthcare and people all across the state – and the country knows about it. Most importantly the seats in the state legislature are tipping in our direction.

So let’s talk about it.
I'm not sure if I can make it yet, but I highly recommend your attendance if possible. This is a good group.

Can doctors learn to love Electronic Medical Records? Yes, if:

http://trusted.md/blog/hippocrates/2005/12/15/can_doctors_learn_to_love_emrs_yes_if

Campaign Reform

Are Good Elections as valuable as Good Roads? (Author unknown)

rkolker on February 22, 2007 - 10:09am

"Two roads diverged in the woods, and I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference." -- Robert Frost

We pay taxes, federal, state and local, to build good roads. We like good roads, smooth, without potholes, with sidewalks where appropriate. They take us to school and business, to shopping and to our neighbors. We know all the side effects of too many roads, and too few roads, but nobody wants bad roads.

Aren't good, fair elections as important to us as good roads? If so, isn't it past time we considered paying for them the same way we pay for roads?

Under the current system, with the exception of parts of a Presidential campaign, a candidate and campaign has to raise every dollar of campaign funds him or herself. Months will be spent not meeting a single voter, knocking on a single door, discussing a single issue, giving a single speech. Instead, they are meeting with friends, business associates, local businesses, unions, PACs and special interest groups begging for money.

We have created a system where candidates for election are more beholden to the contributors than to the voters. The results are neither good elections nor good government.

Not good elections, because candidates are forced to spend time they should be spending communicating with voters about their issues and concerns instead fundraising.

Not good government, because once elected, the cycle starts all over again, and instead of concentrating on how best to govern, how to provide education, transportation, encourage job creation and make this the kind of place in which we all want to live, the successful legislator is right back on the phone raising money for the next campaign.

Surveys have shown most elected officials don't like the current system, the businesses, unions and individuals asked to donate don't like the current system. Yet it persists.

We can do better.

It's time to diverge and take the road less traveled by. It's time to institute public campaign financing, stop the begging, and make the voters once again the most important people for someone running for public office.

A candidate for office, upon meeting a qualification standard by gathering signatures on petitions or gaining the nomination of his or her party, would receive campaign funds based on the population of his district, state or in the case of the Presidency the nation. This amount should initially be set at a percentage of the average cost of campaigns for that office (since the cost of fundraising is eliminated) and indexed for inflation.

There are other changes that could be made to the system that would be very helpful by eliminating some of the costs of campaigning. A limited "franking" privilege for candidates for office, providing low or no cost mailing for a fixed number of pieces of campaign literature, could tremendously lower the cost of most local campaigns, which depend on direct mail. Mandated air time on television, radio and cable as appropriate could be made a requirement for license renewal by the FCC, or contract renewal for local cable companies.

There is a natural suspicion among Americans toward any proposal that might increase the taxes we pay. We demand value for the money we provide for governance. This is right and proper and a requirement for the maintenance of good government.

So some may say, "Why pay new taxes for something that people seem willing to pay for themselves?" The answer is simple, "Because if we want the people's representatives to truly represent all the people, then all the people should provide the means for their selection."

It is past time that we once again make the voters the most important people in the lives of our representatives. Government "of the people, by the people and for the people" demands nothing less.

Source: http://www.unity08.com/node/44#comment-14578

WDC on the line item veto

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Deconstructing Frankenstein

Source: http://www.wisdc.org/blog/2007/02/deconstructing-frankenstein_22.html

Senate Democrats are rightly taking it on the chin for blocking efforts to put an end to the so-called "Frankenstein veto." Why on earth legislators wouldn't want to rein in the power of the governor and restore the balance of power between the two lawmaking branches of government is beyond me.

Trouble is, the solution that's been offered doesn't solve the problem. A proposed constitutional amendment by Republican Senator Sheila Harsdorf of River Falls does not kill Frankenstein.

Harsdorf's constitutional amendment would continue to allow governors to stitch together bits and pieces of an appropriation bill to create laws that the Legislature did not approve or authorize. It would expressly prohibit one way governors do that, but still leave plenty of room for mischief.

The proposed amendment says governors "may not create a new sentence by combining parts of two or more sentences of the enrolled bill." That means a governor could still delete one or more parts of a single sentence, such as the word "not," and stitch together the remnants to create a law with the opposite meaning of the one approved by the Legislature. A governor also would continue to be permitted to delete whole sentences or paragraphs or sections or subsections of bills and piece together what remains to fashion new laws that the Legislature did not approve, as long as care is taken not to create a new sentence by combining parts of two or more sentences.

The proposed amendment to our state constitution would not have prevented Governor Doyle from stitching together the remnants of a single sentence to increase the state's bonding authority for major highway projects from $140 million to $1 billion without the approval of the Legislature. That Frankenstein veto can be found in Section 683d of 2003 Wisconsin Act 33.

If the proposed amendment had been in effect during Tommy Thompson's tenure in office, it would not have prevented Governor Thompson from vetoing parts of a single sentence to spend $319 million per year that the Legislature did not authorize. This veto appears in Section 2135t of 1991 Wisconsin Act 39 and resulted in $1.2 billion in spending over four years for a school tax credit that the Legislature had decided to eliminate and replace with a different form of property tax relief.

The proposed amendment also would not have prevented Governor Thompson from vetoing parts of a single sentence to repeal the Property Tax Rent Credit. This little beauty in Section 2m of 1999 Wisconsin Act 10 cost taxpayers $234 million in higher income taxes before the tax credit was eventually restored.

Another time, Governor Thompson unilaterally increased the amount of sales tax collections that retailers were required to pay by using Frankenstein vetoes to reduce the amounts that could be deducted as "administration expenses" in Section 510 of 1991 Wisconsin Act 269. That veto increased revenues by something on the order of $25 million to $35 million. Harsdorf's amendment wouldn't have stopped that one either.

Governor Doyle used the same stitching technique that Thompson employed to unilaterally increase an agricultural chemical cleanup surcharge from 38 cents per ton to 83 cents per ton, while the Legislature had approved an increase to only 63 cents per ton. That veto can be found in Section 1745 of 2003 Wisconsin Act 33. Again, the proposed constitutional amendment would allow this Frankenstein to live.

Neither side – not those who oppose fixing the problem just because they belong to the same political party as the current governor who now wields this monstrous veto authority and not even those who support the proposed constitutional amendment that is advertised as a remedy – gets it. Neither group of legislators is doing what's best for the Legislature and the people its members represent or what's right for democracy.

posted by Mike McCabe at 2:22 PM

So now it's the Democrats that are pulling the shenanigans!

Mike McCabe is 100% correct on this; the line item veto moves the power from the state legislators to the governor's office, and potentially to one major campaign contributor (think "Indian Tribes"). He can totally reverse the intent of legislation and force a supermajority to override him.

While I agreed with the end result of Doyle's veto last year that transferred money from the road builders to the schools, I abhor the sneaky and undemocratic method he used to do it. The line item veto (and the "item" veto) must be totally eliminated, and it is up to the Dems to do the right thing. Otherwise they are no better than the R's and turnover must again result in 2008.

For more on the line item veto see: http://www.cbpp.org/6-19-06bud2.htm and http://www.throwtherascalsout.org/OtherReforms.htm

More on Health Care from www.TooMuchOnline.org

The United States spends almost as much on health care as the rest of world combined. On this incredibly huge investment, unfortunately, Americans don’t get much of a return. The United States now ranks 30th in the United Nations global life expectancy rankings.

In 1960, Americans ranked 13th.

This core statistical reality raises a fascinating question: Will “more” health care make the United States healthier?

Top politicos seldom stop to pose this question. They simply assume that health care makes societies healthier. In the process, they never get around to asking what makes societies sick in the first place.

Fortunately, the world’s epidemiologists — the scientists who study the health of populations — have been exploring what makes some societies much healthier than others. And their findings suggest that inequality is quite literally killing us.

In modern societies, as British epidemiologists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett note in a review of global research, “health is less good in societies where income differences are bigger.”

Ironically, the emerging “health care debate” in the United States isn’t just ignoring this core reality. Most “reform” plans now on the table would actually widen income differences in the United States.

These plans, Corporate Research Project analyst Philip Mattera explained last week, almost all give financially strapped Americans public tax dollars to pay the bloated premiums that powerhouse health care companies charge for health insurance.

“Public officials across the political spectrum,” observes Mattera, “are, in effect, seeking to expand the customer base for a highly profitable industry.”

This highly profitable industry barely existed a generation ago.

Before the 1970s, nonprofits ran the health care show in the United States. In the 1980s and 1990s, the power-suit crowd at corporate outfits like U.S. Healthcare and Columbia-HCA systematically “gobbled up” these nonprofit insurers and health providers. Between 1995 and 2005 alone, the American Medical Association reported last April, over 400 mergers swept across the U.S. health care landscape.

The health care empires this wheeling and dealing created have made themselves profitable — and kept investors happy — by squeezing health care workers, short-changing patients, and sometimes even flagrantly cheating Uncle Sam.

All this squeezing and short-changing has paid handsomely — for investors. In 2005, for instance, the four biggest private insurers in the United States — UnitedHealth, Aetna, WellPoint, and Humana — gave shareholders a 46 percent return on their money, nearly ten times the average return that year for companies in the S & P 500.

No one benefited more from that gold-plated performance than the top execs of those four companies. One of them, UnitedHealth’s William McGuire, won headlines last year after backdating stock options helped him amass a personal options stash worth over a billion dollars.

But McGuire hardly stands alone in excess. The 2004 merger of WellPoint and Anthem generated $265 million in executive bonuses — and health insurance rate increases that ran up to 30 to 40 percent.

The excess shows no sign of abating. Aetna just hired a new chief financial officer. Joseph Zubretsky, Financial Week reported last week, will rake in as much as $23.9 million over the next four years.

“Public officials,” corporate analyst Philip Mattera notes, “should abandon the mission of saving commercial insurance and devote themselves instead to creating a healthcare system that substitutes the public interest for private profit.”

In the process, those public officials would likely leave the United States considerably more equal — and healthy.

Tidbits

For those who missed the film The Corporation, there is now a two-part online version at http://www.ichblog.eu/index.php?option=com_seyret&task=videodirectlink&id=184. See how Fox News was "fair and balanced" on the BGH issue and how Bechtel almost owned all of the water in one country.

Okay, test yourself. Where do you fit in the political spectrum?

Lohman = Social Conservative

Based on your answers to the questionnaire, you most closely resemble survey respondents within the Social Conservative typology group. This does not mean that you necessarily fit every group characteristic or agree with the group on all issues.

Social Conservatives represent 11 percent of the American public, and 13 percent of registered voters.

I've called myself a disgruntled Republican. Now I really know. Or do I?

Thanks to Grassroots Northshore for this link: Go HERE

MT Senate Tells Baucus to Reject "Fast Track"

Montana Senate Overwhelmingly Passes Good Jobs & Democracy Act Sending Signal to Congressional Delegation to Reverse Course on Trade

The Montana State Senate fired a shot across the bow of current U.S. trade policy today, overwhelmingly passing (45 to 5) a resolution calling on Congress to reject the President’s “Fast Track” trade promotion authority that has been used to negotiate bad trade deals that limit opportunity for workers and state legislatures’ ability to govern.

Fast Track authority, which is set to expire June 30 of this year, delegates to the president Congress’ trade policymaking authority. Fast Track has enabled passage of controversial trade deals including NAFTA, CAFTA and the World Trade Organization, which have all accelerated a trade and jobs crisis, marked by a near $800 billion trade deficit and stagnated wages.

A permanent link to both the state senate and assembly are nor located in section 8

MAPLight.org Goes Federal With the success of our California website, we are now expanding to cover money and votes in U.S. Congress. Our Congress site, which will launch this spring, will track every vote and campaign contribution for all U.S. Senators and Representatives. We are excited about this high-profile project and are working busily at the programming, research, and design. We thank the Sunlight Foundation of Washington, DC for their financial support for this groundbreaking project, and our data partners, the Center for Responsive Politics and Govtrack.us.

Give me a Break!

A man goes to see the Rabbi. "Rabbi, something terrible is happening and I have to talk to you about it."

The Rabbi asked, "What's wrong? "

The man replied, "My wife is poisoning me."

The Rabbi, very surprised by this, asks, "How can that be?"

The man then pleads, "I'm telling you, I'm certain she's poisoning me. What should I do?"

The Rabbi then offers, "Tell you what. Let me talk to her. I'll see what I can find out and I'll let you know."

A week later the Rabbi calls the man and says. "I spoke to your wife...spoke to her on the phone for three hours. You want my advice?"

The man said yes, and the Rabbi replied, "Take the poison.

Because they had no reservations at a busy restaurant, my elderly neighbor and his wife were told there would be a 45 minute wait for a table.

"Young man, we're both 90 years old," the husband said. "We may not have 45 minutes."

They were seated immediately.

All eyes were on the radiant bride as her father escorted her down the aisle..
They reached the altar and the waiting groom; the bride kissed her father and placed something in his hand. The guests in the front pews responded with ripples of laughter. Even the priest smiled broadly.

As her father gave her away in marriage, the bride gave him back his credit card.

Book Recommendations

See other reviews on Amazon.com

I'm running this a second time because I have increased the discount to 50% for online orders (and I am without another recommendation anyway). Those who bought before will be sent a second copy for free.

Order from http://www.moneyedpoliticians.com/

Politicians - Owned and Operated by Corporate America (Hardcover)

By Jack E. Lohman (ISBN 0976890631)

Amazon Review #1: Politicians - Owned and Operated by Corporate America is aptly titled. An honest book. The most refreshing thing that sets this book apart is the common sense solutions Jack Lohman offers. Obviously written from the viewpoint of a true patriot with insider knowledge. Covering a vast array of topics this is a handy reference on how to restore our government to the people. If you are reading this review you too must be concerned for the future of our country. I highly recommend this book. If it were a speaking engagement, the fee for one chapter would be a bundle and worth every penny.

Amazon Review #2: A concise and fact filled book with references that details the way Corporate America has co-opted our democratic system through campaign financing, lobbyists and money. The author not only shows who and how but offers ways to fix the system and return America to its democratic roots.

Dr. Peter Rost, Author The Whistleblower: Confessions of a Healthcare Hitman: "If you want to know how the corporations have taken over our system, read this book! There is more information to scare any red-blooded American into a rebellion than anything I've seen. You may actually start to cry after reading it."

8
Contact information

Lohman is a retired business owner that volunteers’ time on the issues of Election reform and Universal health care -

Contact: Jack E. Lohman
jelohman@gmail.com or jelohman@charter.net
Phone 414-477-8686 (cell)
www.ThrowTheRascalsOut.org
www.WiCleanElections.org

www.MoneyedPoliticians.com (my book: Politicians - Owned and Operated by Corporate America)

www.SmokeFreeDining.net (A searchable restaurant database)

Wisconsin State Assembly pages: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/leginfo/contact/legislatorslist.aspx?house=assembly

Wisconsin State Senator pages: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/leginfo/contact/legislatorslist.aspx?house=senate

9
Removal Instructions

To leave the list, send a blank email to jelohman@gmail.com with “Remove eNewsletter” in the subject line

To subscribe, send a blank email to jelohman@gmail.com with “Subscribe eNewsletter” in the subject line

The system is automatic and you must send from the email address you want added or removed.

If either fails please notify me directly at jelohman@gmail.com. Thanks.

Disclosure: I am a center-right Republican that voted for Bush twice (though at this point I wish I could have a do-over). But the Republicans look worse here because they (are/were) in power and the party blocking reform. Next year it may be the Democrats taking center stage. Were I to have a political choice it would be for a strong third-party reform candidate in all seats. I do not like our very costly and ineffective duopoly. Jack Lohman

See Lohman's complete disclosure HERE.