AFL-CIO Discloses Healthcare Director Conflicts at Large
Companies
Tells SEC of Plans to File Resolutions at Companies in 2008
Proxies
October 5 –
In a report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the
AFL-CIO expressed concerns about widespread conflicts of
interest by directors from the healthcare industry on the boards
of the largest U.S. corporations. In an October 4 letter to SEC
Chairman Christopher Cox, the AFL-CIO said that the presence of
these directors on the boards of as many as 21 of the largest
U.S. companies raised serious concerns about conflicts of
interest. In many cases, the equity holdings of these directors
in pharmaceutical and health insurance companies far exceeds
their ownership of the companies where they serve as directors.
See complete
article
HERE
This is just one of the many conflicts of interest in
business that is blocking health care reform. Another is
when business trade associations sell healthcare insurance
to their members, when instead it would be in the best
interest of their members for them to fight the insurance
bureaucracy. The GM Board had members from the healthcare
industry, and they opted to build cars in Canada before
getting behind single-payer healthcare in the states. I've
bought my last GM car.
Follow the
money. We have more private contractors
in Iraq than US troops, and those contractors cost us
more than if we'd replace them with military staff. But this is
Bush's "privatization" mantra. Private contractors can give
campaign contributions, the Department of Defense cannot. What
else can you expect from a corrupt government?
Let's carry this "privatization" concept to it's extreme.
There are some among us that don't want the government
involved in anything. Can you imagine that someday our own military
is replaced by Blackwater or Halliburton or Bechtel's
private security
forces? That is, 100% of our nation's police force is being
run by a corporate CEO with shareholders demanding greater
profits. Or even just half way, where what federal troops we
do have left are protecting our nation against an attempted
takeover by some wacko CEO who, with the help of US
taxpayers, was able to build a private security force equal
to or larger in size than our own forces?
At 70, I won't
worry about being here if and when that happens. But is this the direction we want to
take our military? Can anybody say Burma?
Pulled from an
anonymous blog entry, In
response to this
great article by Robert Kuttner:
"We're
supposed to believe that weasels like Ken Lay and G. W. Bush
will play nice in the marketplace even if the government
isn't looking over their shoulders. Here's a hint: they
didn't rise to the top of the food chain by playing nice
with others.
Regulation hurts the cocaine industry, as well - but you
don't see the wingnuts pushing to deregulate it. Why not?
Don't the rules of supply and demand apply?
I'd find it a little easier to believe in the laws of
economics if we did have a free market, but we don't. We
have monopolies and collusions blocking new players from
entering the marketplace; and we have the corporate media
preventing the consumer from making informed choices.
The oil industry is a prime example. Their profits are
skyrocketing because of profiteering and collusion in the
form of price fixing. It can't be corrected by "supply and
demand" because the entry price is just too high for a new
player in the game.
Rather than reporting on the rampant price-fixing, the media
report it in a 'he said' / 'she said' manner, as if an
industry spokesman with an agenda is as unbiased a source as
a professor of economics."
House leaders seek to expand staff's
parental leave
A bill to
address paid parental leave for federal employees
has expanded to include a proposed eight weeks of parental leave
for congressional staff.
“The federal
government may refer to its leave policies as ‘family-friendly,’
but the reality is that it’s forcing many of its employees to
choose between their paycheck and their new child,” said Rep.
Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), the bill’s sponsor.
See
the complete story
HERE
This is absolutely stupid. Pay them competitive wages but
that's it! If you agree, please let your congress critter
know. (Thanks to
www.FoxPolitics.net
for this link.)
In Malpractice
Trials, Juries Rarely Have the Last Word
Large Awards Grab Attention
But Often Aren't Paid Out; Fodder for Debate on Caps
Earlier this
year, a New York state jury awarded Elizabeth and John Reden
$112 million in a medical-malpractice case filed on behalf of
their brain-damaged daughter.
But the
Redens didn't get $112 million. They got $6 million.
In the
debate over medical-malpractice lawsuits, multimillion-dollar
verdicts have become an important rallying cry for advocates of
legislation to curtail jury awards. From emergency rooms to
state houses to the White House, the advocates point to the
heavy cost of large malpractice awards.
Behind the
big dollar numbers, the reality is more complex. Many plaintiffs
settle for less than a jury's verdict, to eliminate delays and
the uncertainty of appeal. Sometimes, even before a jury rules,
a plaintiff has signed an agreement that limits how much money
actually changes hands.
See complete
story
HERE
Still, it's a
problem that should not be ignored. I support a three-judge
medical court rather than a 12-man jury that is unqualified.
Leave the 12-man jury for criminal cases.
If doctors are to be tried by their peers, those peers
should be qualified. Malpractice awards should be limited to
expenses and reasonable pain and suffering as determined by
the court. Punitive damages
should be paid into the healthcare fund rather than to
patients and their attorneys who have already been
compensated. It should also be "losing attorney pays" when
judged by the panel to be frivolous. This will make
attorneys think with their heads instead of their
pocketbooks. The three-judge panel should also have the
authority to pull the doctor's and attorney's licenses on
the third offense. Let the doctor apply at Wal-mart and the
attorney go to work for a CEO. Now, that's a fair
punishment.
That said, physicians
often use the "defensive medicine" excuse when ordering too
many tests. But such over-ordering is too often the
result of the physician having a financial interest in the
lab or technology, and it is done because of the profit
motive. These labs and technology are often used as cash
cows and their ownership should be restricted to
non-physicians.
From
www.toomuchonline.org
