For an HTML version of this please go to www.ThrowTheRascalsOut.org/eNewsletter39.htm
The links will not show up in the text version. If your html is off, you are missing a lot (colors, bolding, links, highlights, etc.).

 

Wisconsin Clean Elections Coalition

Promoting fair elections for all parties and candidates

eNewsletter #39

April 12, 2007

 www.ThrowTheRascalsOut.org

Newsletter Archives

 

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) Action Item: From WDC on AB250

4) CEO Window Undressing

5) Tidbits 

6) Give me a Break!

7) Book recommendations

8)  Contact Information

9)  Removal instructions
.

 

1

Health Care

 

Study finds lack of health insurance may be associated with increased rates of stroke

Date: 4/2/2007
Contact: Jerry Berger
Phone: 617-667-7308
Email: jberger@bidmc.harvard.edu

BOSTON – The lack of health insurance prompts people to forego routine physical exams and have a reduced awareness of cardiovascular risk factors and is associated with increased rates of stroke and death, researchers have concluded.

A study in the April issue of the Journal of the Society of General Internal Medicine found people without health insurance are more likely to forego routine physical exams and had a higher risk of being unaware of a personal diagnosis of high blood pressure, diabetes or high cholesterol levels – all risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

See complete article HERE

Thanks to Dr. Don McCanne at http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day for this link
 

Insurers to Get Higher Medicare Payments

Shares of some of the largest health insurers rose Tuesday after the government announced higher-than-expected payment increases for companies that operate private Medicare plans.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said late Monday that preliminary payments to companies that run Medicare Advantage programs will rise 3.5 percent for 2008. The payment boost, made to insurers for each Medicare participant they cover, is less than last year's 3.9 percent update, but above Wall Street estimates of a 2 percent to 3 percent increase.

See complete article HERE

What's this about private industry being more efficient than government? Medicare Advantage is an option Medicare patients have. They can sign up to a qualified HMO and receive additional services or less co-pays, but they give up physician and hospital choice.

New Urgency in Debating Health Care

Since Hillary Rodham Clinton’s effort to overhaul the nation’s medical system was rejected in 1994, most big employers have stayed out of the debate on health care reform.

But with their medical costs ballooning, top executives of large companies are starting to speak up again — and many are calling for a national approach to fixing health care. Few advocate a wholesale shift to government-directed medicine, but most are seeking broad changes in the employer-subsidized health system, which they regard as unsustainable in its current form.

See complete article HERE

 

Why should businesses embrace single-payer?

By Jack E. Lohman

The global marketplace requires a totally fresh look at how we provide health care in the U.S., but are business leaders really ready for it?

You would think so, at least the non-healthcare sector of business. But they must demand a comprehensive fix that is less complicated than what we have. Simplicity is beautiful and simplicity doesn't break. That's why single-payer health care makes absolute financial sense, as a look at the benefits and some common misconceptions will demonstrate:

·         It reduces labor costs by 10-12% (a 3% additional tax on wages versus today's 15% of wages for medical insurance).

·         It reduces liability and auto insurance costs, and reduces workers compensation costs.

·         It eliminates health benefits management costs and yearly insurance company and labor contract negotiations for health care.

·         It creates healthier personnel, reduces absenteeism, and eliminates employer health system complaints.

·         It reduces the need for part-timers, and provides easier recruiting (no pre-existing disease issues).

·         It eliminates employee health-related debt and personal bankruptcies.

·         It will expand the U.S. economy and business climate by freeing up family income to purchase needed products and services.

·         It is not socialized medicine, as are the VA, Bethesda Naval Hospital and other armed forces health care systems; it is a single payer system like Medicare.

·         All hospitals and physicians remain private and are paid under today’s guaranteed, fee-for-service and DRG programs (thus eliminating bad debt and cost shifting).

·         Medicare has no wait times or rationing of care -- and won't with proper funding.

·         100% of the population will be covered for the same costs we are spending today (no more Medicaid or BadgerCare costs, no more needless ER visits).

·         Any of the current non-profit insurance companies can competitively bid on the management of the system (WPS now administers Wisconsin's Medicare).

·         The current private insurance systems consume up to 31% of health care dollars to cover non-healthcare administration costs (marketing, broker commissions, high executive salaries, gatekeepers that deny care, actuarial costs, and high shareholder profits).

·         The equivalent single-payer administrative costs will be about 9-10% and will save money by eliminating the gigantic waste and duplications of the current system. The savings will offset the coverage of the currently uninsured.

·         Canadians have wait times on elective procedures because their system is underfunded. That's because they spend 10% of GDP compared to our 16%. Nonetheless, over 80% of Canadians prefer their system to ours. In a survey of 18,000 Canadians, only 20 came to the US for care.

What's not to like about that? The United States is the only country in the industrialized world that does not have universal health care, and we pay a hefty price for it. The World Health Organization has ranked us at 37th in efficiency and quality: we have 2 years lower life expectancy and 35% higher infant mortality because (in large part) we cover only 85% of our population.

We can do better, and it is time for business leaders to sideline their associations (who are conflicted with members who are health care providers), and do what's right for their company, the public, and the economy as a whole.

We cannot go another year with our antiquated health care delivery system. We must sideline the special interests and get this done today. There are two bills that should be supported: the Health Security Act proposed by state Sen. Mark Miller and Rep. Chuck Benedict (SB51/AB94), and the Improved Medicare For All bill by US Rep John Conyers (HR676).

Jack Lohman is a retired business owner from Colgate and volunteers for www.WisconsinHealth.org.  He can be reached at jelohman@gmail.com

 

 

2

Campaign Reform

4/2/2007

The high taxpayer cost of privately funded elections

By Jack Lohman

It was heartening to hear that government reform is now a major priority of Republicans in the state legislature. I'd have preferred this show of responsibility when they were in control, but if they are now sincere and not just playing political games, it's a welcome sign. Let's see if they really mean it.

This is an extremely serious matter.

It's not just that money in politics results in the transfer of taxpayer assets to the special interests that fund the elections. Nor is it that political money is creating the greatest spread of wealth ownership and inequality in America since the days of the robber barons. These are bad enough.

Far worse is that it is destroying our democracy by transferring power from the voters to a select few wealthy interests. That's a plutocracy, and when it reaches maturity it will destroy our society and create anarchy. Perhaps not in my lifetime or yours, but soon enough. Our grandchildren will pay a heavy price for today's political corruption, and it won't be just paying off the enormous debt we are creating.

So for the politicians willing to take on this vitally important political change, good for you. For some it is not going to be easy switching gears, from being the problem to becoming part of the solution, but no one knows the system better than the current crop of Republicans and Democrats, both of whom have had their fingers in the money trough.

Those who are really serious should start by supporting the Clean Money Election bill by Sen. Fred Risser and Rep. Mark Pocan. This bill provides full public funding of statewide campaigns, all at a cost of less than $5 per taxpayer per year. It's an opt-in, to pass constitutional muster, so those candidates who don't want to participate don't have to. Those who do, can. And you can still give money to any politician willing to take it.

The argument that the state should not use taxpayer money for political campaigns is hogwash, and the politicians know it. We already have public funding of campaigns, it's just through the back door and at hundreds of times more than if we funded them honestly and up front. Nor can we argue that money shouldn't be used for candidates we don't agree with, because that too is happening every day through the same back door.

We're talking about funding a political system, just like funding the roads I don't use or the fire department I don't call. We're funding something even more important; our democracy.

Looking at the tradeoffs, today's system is costing about $1300 per taxpayer in political giveaways to the special interests that currently fund the elections. Even if it were one-tenth that, a $5 taxpayer investment is a major bargain. And it doesn't even have to be funded by taxes. Arizona adds a surcharge to criminal fines, so if you don't want to contribute, don't speed.

This excellent system won voter approval in Arizona and Maine, and it has been working beautifully for years. So beautifully, in fact, that the special interests want the laws reversed and the doors re-opened.

Wisconsin voters saw in 2006 that we have the power to throw out of office those politicians who are unwilling to represent the people. In the 2008 elections, as more voters recognize that even their own politician is blocking critical government reform, even more heads will roll.

But politicians should not be worrying about their jobs, for those are replaceable. They should instead be worrying about our democracy, for it is that which they are selling to the highest bidder.

-- Jack E. Lohman is a retired business owner from Colgate, author of "Politicians -- Owned and Operated by Corporate America" and founder of www.ThrowTheRascalsOut.org. He can be reached at jelohman@gmail.com.  

Source: http://www.wisopinion.com/index.iml?mdl=article.mdl&article=7385

 

See this video clip of Barack Obama's recent endorsement of Senator Richard Durbin's Fair Elections Now Act, and call for public pressure on the issue HERE. 
 

From www.ctj.org: The Myth of the "Biggest Tax Increase In History"

Earlier this week, Citizens for Tax Justice issued its response to conservative claims that the budget resolutions passed by the House and Senate include the "biggest tax increase in history." In short, the budget resolutions do not raise a single penny in taxes. What's really infuriating right-wingers is that the resolutions include "pay-as-you-go" rules that prevent Congress from using increased national debt to fund new tax breaks. Since the President and the Republican-controlled Congress designed all of their tax cuts to expire at the end of 2010, any extensions of the Bush tax cuts will be new tax cuts that are covered under this rule.

By 2010 the majority of the Bush tax cuts will go to the richest 5 percent of Americans. If Congress enacts new legislation to extend those tax cuts, it will cost a total of $5 trillion over a decade (including the added interest on the national debt that will result). By including the pay-as-you-go (or PAYGO) rule in the budget resolutions, Congress is saying that we will not increase the national debt to enact more gargantuan tax breaks that mostly go to the wealthy. This is a common sense policy that is long overdue.

 

 

3

Action Item: From WDC on AB250

ACTION ITEM:  Ask state legislators to support Voter-Owned Elections! 

Please encourage your organizational members* to tell their representatives in the state Legislature to co-sponsor the Pocan-Risser Clean Elections proposal.

Deadline is Monday, April 23.

Rep. Mark Pocan and Senator Fred Risser are reintroducing this session their WI Clean Elections Bill. The Pocan-Risser comprehensive campaign finance reform levels the playing field for all qualifying candidates for most state elections and limits special interest influence.   By encouraging your representatives to co-sponsor a bill to create "voter-owned" or clean publicly financed state elections we can provide for broad, bipartisan support for the proposal.  You can make the difference!

There are no bill numbers yet assigned for the Clean Elections bill in either house since the drafts -- Assembly LRB 0901/2  and Senate LRB 2400/1 -- are just now being distributed for legislative co-sponsorship.  Ask your State Representative and State Senator to contact Representative Pocan and Senator Risser respectively to sign on as a co-sponsor today.  Ask that they co-sponsor as soon as possible or by end of the day Monday, April 23.

We need to increase the momentum for reform. We need your help NOW. 

Contact your state legislators: (please note @legis.wisconsin.gov change)

Toll-free legislative hotline:1-800-362-9472 (266-9960 in Madison).

E-mail your State Senator at Sen.[lastname]@legis.wisconsin.gov

and your State Representative at Rep.[lastname]@legis.wisconsin.gov (insert real last name in brackets).

State senator mailing address:P.O.Box7882, Madison WI 53707-7882.

State representative mailing address:

For Assembly members whose last name begins with the letters A through L, use P.O. Box 8952, Madison, WI 53708.

For names that begin with M through Z, use P.O. Box 8953, Madison WI 53708.

If you don’t know your legislators, go to http://waml.legis.state.wi.us/ or

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

* List of organizational endorsements as of 4/9/07:  AARP Wisconsin, Alliance for Animals, Citizen Action of Wisconsin, Citizens Utility Board of Wisconsin, Clean Wisconsin, Democracy Matters, League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, Midwest States Center, River Alliance of Wisconsin, Sierra Club John Muir Chapter, The People's Legislature, Water Action Council of Northeastern Wisconsin, Watertown Peace and Democracy Coalition, Wisconsin Clean Elections Coalition, Wisconsin Council on Children and Families, Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters, Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice, Wisconsin Retired Educators' Association, Wisconsin Women's Network, WISPIRG

***************************************************
Beverly J. Speer, Advocacy Director
Wisconsin Democracy Campaign
210 N Bassett St Ste 215, Madison WI  53703
PH:  608/255-4260;  FX:-4359; speer@wisdc.org
http://www.wisdc.org/

 

Common Cause is apparently supporting the Mike Ellis bill again this year, which in the past has been partial public funding (about 35%) and partial private funding. To his credit, Ellis is certainly one of the most reform-minded legislators, having pushed through the ethics bill in January. But in my opinion we should not settle for partial Clean Money, and leave the special interests still in control with their private funding. Let's do it right the first time and not get stuck in another McCain-Feingold endless loop.

Senator Alberta Darling has stated that reform is the new Republican agenda. Ask her if she really means it, and if she is going to sign on to Risser-Pocan.
 

Read Mike McCabe's excellent Testimony on Campaign Finance Reform Senate Committee on Campaign Finance Reform HERE

And the article by Channel 3000 HERE

 

 

4

From www.TomPaine.com

Source http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/04/10/ceo_window_undressing.php

CEO Window Undressing

Chuck Collins

April 10, 2007

Chuck Collins is a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies. He co-author of Selfish Interest: How Much Business Roundtable CEOs Stand to Lose from Real Reform of Runaway Executive Pay, available at: http://www.ips-dc.org. This article first appeared on the McClatchy-KRT wire.

When it comes to the exorbitant pay of America’s corporate chief executive officers, everyone likes to quote Louis Brandeis, who said “sunshine is the best disinfectant.” But if you still have an infection after sitting in the sun for 15 years, maybe it’s time for some stronger medicine.
 
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was concerned enough to issue new regulations last July requiring broader disclosure of top management pay and perks. SEC Chairman Christopher Cox quipped that if these CEOs “are forced to undress in public they’ll pay more attention to their figures.”
 
In the coming weeks, the full picture of 2006 executive compensation will come into focus. But preliminary reports indicate that total compensation packages will continue to gush to top managers.
 
Proxy statements filed this week show that Stanley O’Neal, CEO of Merrill Lynch, took home a whopping $48.9 million. Edward Whitacre Jr., CEO of AT&T, had total compensation of $31 million. Oil baron James Mulva, CEO of ConocoPhillips, rode rising pump prices to a sweet $14 million. I don’t know about you, but I don’t need to see any more. Disclosure alone is simply not doing the job. CEOs in the United States seem beyond shame and embarrassment. Would you discipline an exhibitionist by making them disrobe in the town square?
 
The problem is not lack of a good view: Anyone can see the system is off-kilter. Nor is the problem apathy. Investors, workers and the public are clamoring for reform. When the SEC asked for comments on their draft CEO pay guidelines last year, they got over 20,000 responses, more than any other issue in SEC history.
 
The real problem is a power imbalance. There is no one with the power to rein in pay. Chairman Cox and the “sunshine” crowd seem to think that armed with a candid camera, shareholders will take action.
 
The shareholders? Excuse me, but have you been to a shareholder meeting lately? Most of them resemble the old Supreme Soviet. A self-selected board sits imperially on a stage. If a lowly shareholder wants to say something, they get their 60 seconds at the mike. Shareholder resolutions are treated like pestilence. And when was the last time you saw an independent candidate run for a corporation’s board of directors?
 
If the SEC thinks shareholders hold the key, then give us some real power. Give us the vote! Require that shareholders approve compensation plans and retirement packages, as they do in England. Trust us, shareholders know good performance when we see it. Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, is putting forth just this proposal.
 
But runaway CEO pay is more than a shareholder issue. As taxpayers, we subsidize excessive compensation because these pay packages are 100 percent tax deductible corporate expenses. It’s another nifty way that corporate America shifts their tax responsibility back onto everyone else.
 
Here’s a simple proposition: Any pay package over $1 million should not be deductible. Companies can pay whatever they want, but taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize excessive greed.
 
If Congress could pass these two reforms, it would help bring sky-high CEO pay back to earth. But without more power for other shareholders and taxpayers, additional disclosure is just more undressing in public.

 

 

 

 

5

Tidbits

Old Format -- I am going back to imbedding the links in the appropriate words. If you cannot click on "NYT piece" below and see the referenced article, you likely have your html turned off. If you want to see the links, click on the html version at the top of this page. I use imbedded links, colors, bolding, and highlights that require html display.

An excellent NYT piece on how the US Patent system blocks the development of critical drug development.

Most drugs are born in the labs of independent medical center research centers. The doctors or scientists propose their ideas to drug manufacturers who (if accepted) fund part of the development and get another part of the funding from the taxpayers (through National Institute of Health grants). Then a patent is applied for and the drug company owns the rights for the next 20 years.

A better approach is to have the researcher apply directly to the NIH for 100% of the funding, then have the NIH (taxpayers) own the patent and license the manufacturing to perhaps three qualified manufacturers for competitive marketing. Admittedly, this would leave no room for patient rip-offs and the drug industry profits would diminish to what all other industries enjoy, but they still have the option to develop their own drugs with their own money in other countries and compete with the taxpayer-owned drugs. In both cases they'd have to pass the rigorous FDA approval process (but that too should be changed to remove conflicted scientists from the approval boards). Think Vioxx, who had a number of their paid consultants on the FDA board.

The other problem is that, as long as we leave development to private industry, only devices that can show a profit will even be considered, and that leaves out critical areas in the neonatal and other low-volume arenas. Got to think of those shareholders, don'cha know?

The recent state Supreme Court race topped $5.25 million, according the the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, the most costly in history. Since the Republicans now have reform at the top of their list they can start by passing full public funding of campaigns, including those for Supreme Court justices. Wisconsin Citizen Action attempted to pass the Impartial Justice bill several years back, noting that 75% of the cases reaching the state's highest court had a campaign contributor on one side of the other. Of course judges can recuse themselves, but that means not showing up for work 75% of the time. What a great job to have.

 

Single-Payer Resources:

Federal HR676 Medicare-for-all bill by John Conyers:

http://tinyurl.com/ythj4u (pdf) and http://tinyurl.com/29k8fe (pdf) and www.pnhp.org

State SB51/AB94 Medicare-for-all bill by Mark Miller and Rep Chuck Benedict:

http://www.wisconsinhealth.org/  and http://tinyurl.com/29j6oo

On Health Savings Accounts: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=584662

http://www.wisopinion.com/index.iml?mdl=article.mdl&article=6663

General health care http://www.throwtherascalsout.org/health_care.htm

Resources on the Risser-Pocan Clean Money Bill

http://www.wisdc.org/wdctestimony041007.php and http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2007/data/AB-250.pdf

http://www.wicleanelections.org/

 

6

Give me a Break!

A Florida senior citizen drove his brand new Lexus convertible out of the dealership. Taking off down the road, he floored it to 80mph, enjoying the wind blowing through what little hair he had left.

"Amazing," he thought, as he flew down I-75, pushing the pedal even more.

Looking in his rear view mirror, he saw the highway patrol behind him, blue lights flashing and siren blaring. He floored it to 100 mph, then 110, then 120. Suddenly he thought, "What am I doing? I'm too old for this," and pulled over to await the Trooper's arrival.

Pulling in behind him, the Trooper walked up to the Lexus, looked at his watch and said, "Sir, my shift ends in 30 minutes. Today is Friday. If you can give me a reason for speeding that I've never heard before, I'll let you go."

The old gentleman paused........ Then said, "Years ago, my wife ran off with a Florida State Trooper. I thought you were bringing her back."

"Have a good day, Sir," replied the Trooper.
 

Eleven people were hanging on a rope under a helicopter, ten men and one woman.

The rope was not strong enough to carry them all, so they decided that one had to leave, because otherwise they were all going to fall.

They weren't able to designate a person, until the woman gave a very Touching speech. She said that she would voluntarily let go of the rope, Because as a woman, she was used to giving up everything for her husband and kids, or for men in general, and she was used to always making sacrifices, with little in return. As soon as she finished her speech, all the men started clapping.

 

 

7

Book Recommendations

See other reviews on Amazon.com

The New American Story (Hardcover)
by Bill Bradley (ISBN-10: 1400065070 )

The New American Story

From Publishers Weekly
He doesn't have an exploratory committee, but the former Democratic senator and one-time presidential hopeful certainly has a platform in this thoughtful policy agenda. Bradley (Time Present, Time Past) scathingly critiques Republican ideology and presents a liberal-centrist program for change that advances a multilateralist foreign policy, spending cuts (including Pentagon sacred cows) and tax hikes to reduce the deficit. There are also detailed, often far-reaching proposals to shore up (not privatize) Social Security and reform private pensions, health care, education and energy policy. His insightful account of the politics of Republican ascendancy and Democratic eclipse in recent decades is coupled with a cogent call for Democrats to "abandon the star system" of celebrity candidates (take that, Hillary and Barack!), develop a coherent governing philosophy and rebuild the party from the grass roots. Bradley's proposals range from the bold—free college tuition for the top third of every high-school class—to the niggling—"Ban trans fats." He loses his nerve on health care, as he won't unequivocally endorse the "Medicare for all" insurance system he obviously prefers. Still, Bradley puts forward a tough, plainspoken indictment of the Republicans and a vigorous and substantive Democratic reform program that deserves to be read and debated. (Apr. 3) Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

I'm not so sure about this one yet. Yes, I believe he's eyeing another run at the presidency. Why else would his position on health care be either (a) single payer, or, if the politics dictate, (b) extending the health insurance bureaurocracy to the under/uninsured through government funded vouchers. That's called waffling. We simply don't need insurance companies in the loop any longer. He does support full funding of campaigns, however.
 

 

 

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.