Skip to content

Month: June 2009

The Club

by digby

A couple of years ago Matt Damon made a movie called The Good Shepherd about the creation of the CIA. As you all undoubtedly know, for years the CIA recruited only the best and the brightest waspy ivy leaguers, which was always part of the reason for the Nixonian resentment among the wingnuts toward it. Damon’s waqspy, ivy league character Edward Wilson had a line that I thought rather cleverly explained how the CIA thinks of itself:

Joseph Palmi: Let me ask you something… we Italians, we got our families, and we got the church; the Irish, they have the homeland, Jews their tradition; even the ni**ers, they got their music. What about you people, Mr. Wilson, what do you have?

Edward Wilson: The United States of America. The rest of you are just visiting.

Well guess what?

Capitalizing on the financial crisis, the CIA has launched a recruiting campaign targeting Wall Streeters with an appeal to patriotism. It’s been running radio and print ads in New York and financial media, and has made a pitch on its Web site.

“Economics, finance, and business professionals: If the quest for the bottom line is just not enough for you, the Central Intelligence Agency has a mission like no other,” beckons one recent radio advertisement. “Make a difference in your career and for your nation.”

The owners of America. The rest of us are just visitors here.

Update: Jonathan at ATR has the goods. The economic and national security elites literally are the same people — they always have been.

.

Code Blue

by digby

The patient is in cardiac arrest:

A Senate source just passed me the latest outline of the Senate Finance Committee’s health reform proposal. This is the post-CBO revision. Apparently, after the committee staff received the scores, they dug deep and quickly developed this proposal to circulate among members and then send back to CBO. It was presented to earlier today at a closed-door meeting. Sources say that it’s a major scale-back of the outline they had before. Specifically, subsidies have dropped from 400 percent of the poverty line to 300 percent. Medicaid eligibility has been tightened to 133 percent of poverty for children and pregnant women and 100 percent of poverty for parents and childless adults. The plans being offered in the exchange have seen their actuarial values sharply lowered. Beyond the changes, this is also the clearest look we’ve had at the specific policies being considered. There’s a fairly strong individual mandate, albeit with exemptions for those beneath the poverty line, those who would have to spend more than 15 percent of income for a plan, and undocumented workers. There are a variety of options for an employer mandate, or the absence of one. Sen. Kent Conrad’s co-op idea is up for discussion. There’s no public plan mentioned anywhere in the document.

It’s a good day to be an insurance company CEO. An mandate from the government forcing people to buy your product and no serious competition from anybody but your monopolistic buddies in the industry, all of whom look after each other very, very well.

Start looking at new yachts and vacation homes in Gstaad, CEOs. The party’s back on!

* United Health Group
CEO: William W McGuire
2005: 124.8 mil
5-year: 342 mil

* Forest Labs
CEO: Howard Solomon
2005: 92.1 mil
5-year: 295 mil

* Caremark Rx
CEO: Edwin M Crawford
2005: 77.9 mil
5-year: 93.6 mil

* Abbott Lab
CEO: Miles White
2005: 26.2 mil
5-year: 25.8 mil

* Aetna
CEO: John Rowe
2005: 22.1 mil
5-year:57.8 mil

* Amgen
CEO: Kevin Sharer
2005:5.7 mil
5-year:59.5 mil

* Bectin-Dickinson
CEO: Edwin Ludwig
2005: 10 mil
5-year:18 mil

* Boston Scientific
CEO:
2005:38.1 mil
5-year:45 mil

* Cardinal Health
CEO: James Tobin
2005:1.1 mil
5-year:33.5 mil

* Cigna
CEO: H. Edward Hanway
2005:13.3 mil
5-year:62.8 mil

* Genzyme
CEO: Henri Termeer
2005: 19 mil
5-year:60.7 mil

* Humana
CEO: Michael McAllister
2005:2.3 mil
5-year:12.9 mil

* Johnson & Johnson
CEO: William Weldon
2005:6.1 mil
5-year:19.7 mil

* Laboratory Corp America
CEO: Thomas MacMahon
2005:7.9 mil
5-year:41.8 mil

* Eli Lilly
CEO: Sidney Taurel
2005:7.2 mil
5-year:37.9 mil

* McKesson
CEO: John Hammergen
2005: 13.4 mil
5-year:31.2 mil

* Medtronic
CEO: Arthur Collins
2005: 4.7 mil
5-year:39 mil

* Merck Raymond Gilmartin
CEO:
2005: 37.8 mil
5-year:49.6 mil

* PacifiCare Health
CEO: Howard Phanstiel
2005: 3.4 mil
5-year: 8.5 mil

* Pfizer
CEO: Henry McKinnell
2005: 14 mil
5-year: 74 mil

* Well Choice
CEO: Michael Stocker
2005: 3.2 mil
5-year: 10.7 mil

* WellPoint
CEO: Larry Glasscock
2005: 23 mil
5-year: 46.8 mil

* Wyeth
CEO: Robert Essner
2005:6.5 mil
5-year: 28.9 mil


TOTAL 2005: 559.8 mil

TOTAL 5-Year: 14.9 billion

You can donate to Blue America’s Campaign For Health Care Choice, here. It’s getting harder every day, but it’s not over. Blanche Lincoln is on the health sub-committee of the Senate Finance Committee and she’s running for re-election in 2010. Let’s see if her constituents think she should be handing out government goodies to these health industry fat cats and getting nothing in return while they struggle with health care premiums and growing unemployment.

.

Froomkin Torched

by dday

It may sound odd to you, but I actually don’t read a ton of punditry. I prefer primary sources, and I find the High Broderism so prevalent in the chattering class to be completely unworthy of the slog. If a pundit says something particularly egregious I’ll probably find it elsewhere. But to me, Dan Froomkin was quite a good pundit, always intellectually honest and worth reading. And so the Washington Post fired him today. Several things are notable about this. Glennzilla notes that Froomkin’s columns are widely read and popular online, so his firing is curious for a medium that is losing market share and needs to attract eyeballs. Second, far from being a house organ for any President as long as he had a D next to his name or some unthinking cheerleader, of late Froomkin has shown himself completely willing to criticize the President from the left:

The Politico says the move is “sure to ignite the left-wing blogosphere,” but Froomkin’s departure, if true, should disappoint anyone concerned with insightful political analysis. Indeed, far-right complaints notwithstanding, Froomkin has spent months scrutinizing the Obama White House, cutting the Democratic president no slack at all. Just over the past couple of days, Froomkin offered critical takes on the president’s proposed regulations of the financial industry, follow-through on gay rights, and foot-dragging on Bush-era torture revelations.

Froomkin was one of the media’s most important critics of the Bush White House, and conservative bashing notwithstanding, was poised to be just as valuable holding the Obama White House accountable for its decisions.

The Post, a sea of arch-conservatives (Will, Krauthammer) and status-quo Broderists (Hiatt, Cohen, Broder) had an oasis with Froomkin, who did the work media should do – questioning power vigorously regardless of ideology. Now they fired him. Sad.

…Froomkin’s statement:

I’m terribly disappointed. I was told that it had been determined that my White House Watch blog wasn’t “working” anymore. But from what I could tell, it was still working very well. I also thought White House Watch was a great fit with The Washington Post brand, and what its readers reasonably expect from the Post online.

As I’ve written elsewhere, I think that the future success of our business depends on journalists enthusiastically pursuing accountability and calling it like they see it. That’s what I tried to do every day. Now I guess I’ll have to try to do it someplace else.

.

The Marie Antoinette Rotary Club And Quilting Society

by digby

I continue to be astonished that anyone would continue to argue with my belief that there is something fundamentally, systemically wrong with village assumptions and beltway conventional wisdom. Jamison Foser catches Mark Halperin showing why people have lost all respect for political journalism:

Time‘s Mark Halperin frequently repeats right-wing myths about the “liberal media.” But today he undermined his already-weak case by arguing that one reason “to bet AGAINST major health care reform passing this year” is that “Most journalists still have health insurance.” The clear implication is that because most journalists have health insurance, they don’t see the need for reform — and that colors their reporting.

It sounds right to me. But I think what is more astonishing is the casualness with which Halperin admits it. He’s saying that unless something affects them personally, beltway journalists simply don’t give a damn.
Meanwhile we have to listen ad nauseum to them telling us what salt-o-the-earth reglar Real Muriikans they are, with Dave Gregory’s mom worried about her job and Chris Matthews concern for his pals down to the Knight of Columbus and Brian Williams shoppin’ at Walmart jess like the folks. This is the essense of the Village. A bunch of powdered, pampered elites are basically saying that the peasants should stop boring them with their tawdry complaints about their health insurance. Let them all get productive, important careers in television and journalism! But what makes these people so awesomely obtuse is that they actually believe that they are just downhome folk with bedrock American vayalyoos who live in a nice little Norman Rockwell town called DeeCee, USA.
The fact that they are players in the most powerful government in the world and many of them are very, very well off means that everyone in America, if they have the right values and work ethic, should be doing just as well. It’s our own fault if we don’t have health care. All average, everyday multimillionaire celebrities do. What’s the problem?
.

Put Them On The Ice Flow

by digby

Perfect. Just as the biggest cohort of soon to be seniors in American history lost half of their retirement portfolios in the housing and stock market crash and will have to look at working a lot longer than they planned, here come the wingnuts to make it more difficult for them:

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas today leads the conservative wing of the Supreme Court in an unusual decision that rules that plaintiffs in age discrimination suits don’t get the same benefit of the doubt that every other discrimination plaintiff gets.

In concluding that a plaintiff claiming age discrimination must show not only that age was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision, but the determinative motivating factor, the court is essentially requiring the employee to produce direct evidence that the employer’s action was based only on age. In the past, because employers are careful to hide direct evidence of discriminatory motives, after a plaintiff had provided evidence of age discrimination the burden shifted to the employer to prove its legitimate reason for firing or demoting the older employee.

In this ruling, the high court appears to have just upended the prevailing understanding of employment discrimination law dating back to the case of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, a key Supreme Court ruling in 1989, and effectively pronounced that age discrimination is simply less important to remedy than race, gender, ethnic or disability discrimination.

Given how widespread layoffs of older employees are in this economy, the court just substantially undercut the only federal protection those employees have.

It’s a good thing we don’t have an activist Supreme Court. Imagine what might happen if they went around disturbing precedents willy nilly and legislating from the bench.

This is especially ironic — and galling — since these right wing justices all have lifetime appointments.

.

Mutually Assured Destruction

by digby

I’ve been reading some rather amusing emails this morning about this new polling suggesting that the public is really upset about deficits. People seem to suddenly be getting the idea that Democrats talking like a bunch of fiscal conservatives all the time might just be counterproductive. I’ve been a Cassandra on this issue for many years and it gives me little pleasure to say “I told you so,” but,well, I did.

There was never any doubt that the fiscal scolds would come out of the woodwork once the Republicans were out of office and there was never any doubt that the public would buy into the notion that deficits were a huge danger to their financial security. This is because nobody has ever even tried to tell them otherwise for more than 30 years and they have nothing else to explain why everything has gone to hell in a handbasket. (Lord knows it would be wrong to blame the drunken gambling elite who nearly destroyed the world economy. That would be “class warfare” and there’s nothing more unseemly than that.)

Low taxes, eliminating welfare (“as we know it”) demagogueing entitlements and expanding military spending has pretty much been Reagan’s program which both parties continue to run on and govern with. You’ll recall that Bill Clinton declared “the era of big government is over.” And Obama famously evoked Reagan during the campaign and more recently talked about striking a “Grand Bargain” on cutting “entitlements.” (Or Peter Orzsag saying that social security reform is “a test of manhood.”)

Of course, this comes back to the basic problem of the Democratic party which lost its moorings some time back and even with a huge majority can’t seem to figure out how to govern outside the center right paradigm. (That assumes they would even want to do that, which is, at this point, highly questionable.)

On health care, arguably the most important Democratic initiative of our lifetimes, they are bargaining away any hope of real success because basically it cannot fit into the Reagan governance program. They took single payer off the table years ago and the presidential candidates kicked it completely out the door. Today, as dday lays out in all its ugly detail below, they are bargaining away the public option, the only hope of keping the insurance companies from irrevocably corrupting the reform efforts. Evidently, they refuse to fight the insurance companies which, after the banks (who have also asserted their ownership of the US government) are their most valued benefactors. (I should point out that I did hear a White House spokesperson say that the insurance companies were being “partners” in reform simply because they are good Americans, so perhaps I’m being too harsh.)

The bipartisan elite consensus that governs this country is quite simple. First, deficits and high taxes are always the basic cause of economic stress or the biggest threat facing a recovery, no matter the circumstances. (The corollary is that cutting taxes and spending are the ultimate answer to every economic challenge.) Taxes on the wealthy (excuse me “the most productive”) must be kept as low as possible, the military cannot be subject to any budgetary constraint and the national security state cannot be held accountable, business and industry must always be given top priority and all other government expenditures are legislative bargaining chips regardless of their impact on the lives of average Americans. Nobody questions that consensus or even suggests that some other set of priorities might be useful from time to time.

I see nothing that makes me think any of that is changing, regardless of my hopes that it might. There was always a chance that given enough power and a crisis situation, the Democrats would see a chance to break the consensus and create a new one on their own terms. But it was always a long shot.

If you look at California today, where Reagan had a big head start, you can see where the country is headed if we don’t change direction.

Update: Perlstein, currently wallowing in the excesses of the 70s, writes in to point out that it didn’t start with Clinton. It started with an earlier southern center-right Democratic president:

“We need patience and good will, but we really need to realize that there is a limit to the role and the function of government. Government cannot solve our problems, it can’t set our goals, it cannot define our vision. Government cannot eliminate poverty or provide a bountiful economy or reduce inflation or save our cities or cure illiteracy or provide energy.”

.

But I Thought Tom Daschle Was So Crucial To Real Health Care Reform

by dday

The very serious people who run our discourse think we have to drop the public option because Republicans and insurance companies don’t like it.

Daschle, Dole Say Public Option Must Be Scrapped ABC World News reported, “Former Senate leaders launched a bipartisan push for healthcare reform, but they took issue with a central feature of the President’s plan, a public, government-run health insurance program.” Bob Dole was shown saying, “If you want to stop this thing dead in its tracks, or dead on arrival, in my view, you put the public plan in it.” ABC noted that even Tom Daschle, “once Obama’s top healthcare adviser, said the public option probably needs to be scrapped.” Daschle: “We’ve come too far and gained too much momentum for our efforts to fail over disagreement on one single issue.”

This just perfectly captures the fact that there’s an America inside the Village and one outside. Outside the Beltway, more than 3/4 of all Americans believe “it’s important for Americans to have a choice between a public/government insurance plan and a private one.” Inside the Beltway, Republicans and insurance companies don’t like it, so we should just scrap it. Daschle is essentially saying that the prospect of reform is too important to actually include reform.

Interestingly enough, Daschle did include a public insurance option in his bipartisan poohbah plan yesterday – but only administered through the states:

Daschle, Dole and Republican Howard Baker released a bipartisan plan today that would tax some employer-provided health-insurance premiums, require individuals and large employers to buy health insurance, and create public insurance pools run by states instead of the federal government […]

In a bid to blunt Republican opposition to setting up a government-run insurance plan for those without coverage, Dole, Baker and Daschle suggest giving states, instead of the federal government, the option of establishing insurance-purchasing pools. These pools would extend coverage to everyone regardless of their health status or ability to pay, Daschle said.

Not only does it appear optional, but obviously you’d get more leverage and bargaining power to cut costs in a national plan rather than one in, say, Wyoming, and one in South Dakota, and so on. Also, do you trust Sarah Palin or Mark Sanford or Rick Perry to set up a robust state public insurance plan?

Tom Daschle has been folding like a cheap suit since before I was born. And he’s no longer in Congress or the White House. But this is the kind of bipartisan Village elder circle jerk that gets all the ink in Washington. It’s the scurrying around from Max Baucus, trying to gut his own bill to lower the cost from the CBO budget score, that really threatens reform. And unquestionably, he’s taking his cues from Daschle, or at least has the same mindset. Actually, it’s worse:

And yet Sen. Baucus is bending over backwards to jettison a public health insurance option to appeal to Congressional Republicans. Despite a bipartisan collection of former Senate Majority Leaders endorsing a $1.2 trillion plan, Baucus is looking to trim $600 billion out of his plan – even if it means that its ability to cover more Americans will be substantially reduced. You can’t cut out a third of your bill without taking the axe to primary care, prevention, subsidies for the middle class to afford premiums, and everything that we know our health care system actually needs, and needs desperately. And what, aside from a couple fewer insults from John McCain, will you have gained?

Simply put: Congress is focusing on the wrong thing. Leaders who are able to get us over the finish line by creating a bill that can substantially improve health care access, cost-control and quality in this country aren’t focused on the best bill – they’re focused on a dog and pony show of interpersonal drama, and looking to placate a constituency with no credibility rather than solve the problem. It’s time to turn off Project Runway and start making the change we elected them to create.

Baucus has vowed to keep the cost to $1 trillion over ten years, as if that number has acquired a certain magic. Keep in mind that over the same 10-year spread, we spend $6-$7 trillion on the military. And Baucus’ idea for cutting the cost? Cutting the subsidies to the very people forced into buying insurance.

You can cut a $1.6 trillion reform bill down to $1.3 or even $1.2 and still come up with a pretty good program. In fact, some reforms designed to reduce the program’s cost would actually make it better. You could, for example, introduce more aggressive payment reforms to reward efficiency and outcomes. You could create a real public plan that controls costs better than private insurers could. You could even do both.

But my suspicion–based on what I’ve heard and seen over the last few months–is that knocking the price tag all the way down to $1 trillion will mean a lot less money to subsidize insurance for people who can’t afford it and far fewer guarantees that insurance would be adequate. In other words, you could end up with many more people still uninsured or underinsured.

Obviously we need a public plan, but this whittling down of the costs shows the real rocky part of this whole thing, the fact that nobody can agree on how to pay for it. The vaunted MedPAC option, which would streamline spending and identify waste, couldn’t come up with anything specific in its annual report. And Kevin Drum is right to find this scary:

The New York Times reports that House Democrats are considering a value added tax as a way of financing healthcare reform. A VAT is one of those things that economists and think tankers all love, but it’s also one of those things that’s never had any real chance of being adopted in the United States. So it surprised me that Dems were even seriously talking about it.

But Tyler Cowen has a take on this that I hadn’t thought of:

“From my distant perch out here in Fairfax (and Arlington), I believe this means health care reform is falling apart. It means the unions won’t let them tax health insurance benefits and the CBO won’t let them punt on the issue of finance.”

Financing was always going to be a problem. Cowen’s probably rooting for failure, so take his cheerleading with a grain of salt. But watching Baucus run for cover, watching Daschle do the old el foldo, I’m seriously pessimistic that anything out of Washington will meet the expectations of anyone in the country.

Ezra Klein: “Health reform is, I think it fair to say, in danger right now.”

.

The View Above Tehran From 10,000 Feet

by dday

A sampling of cable media last night – and yes, it was cable, but these were generally pretty knowledgeable scholars, like Reza Aslan and Joseph Cirincione and Abbas Milani – suggested pretty much en masse that Iran had reached a tipping point from which they cannot return, and that the regime has been dealt a fatal blow by a week’s worth of protesting. I think we have to step back for a minute and process this. As Jim Sleeper, a journalist informed by one of his former students living in Iran right now, notes, this revolution is in no way understandable in an American liberal/conservative sense. Aslan touched on this tonight as well. It’s a group largely made up of precisely the people who kicked off the 1979 Iranian Revolution – Mousavi, Rafsanjani, Medhi Karoubi, the top cleric Montasevi who reportedly broke with his colleagues – using similar tactics to take down specific actors in the regime in the name of “redeeming” the revolution. Mousavi himself is a former Prime Minister and classic insider, a protege of the Ayatollah Khomeini who could be motivated simply by animus toward the Supreme Leader Khamenei. Seeing someone so close to Khomeini lauded by conservatives is quite a laugh. That does not mean figures like Mousavi are irreconcilable:

Although he has long had an adversarial relationship with Iran’s current supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, his insider status makes him loath to mount a real challenge to the core institutions of the Islamic republic. He was an early supporter of Iran’s nuclear program, and as prime minister in the 1980s he approved Iran’s purchase of centrifuges on the nuclear black market, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Yet like many founding figures of the revolution, he has come to believe that the incendiary radicalism of the revolution’s early days must be tempered in an era of peace and state-building, those who know him say. Some have seen a symbolic meaning in his decision to make Monday’s vast demonstration in Tehran a march from Enghelab (revolution) Square to Azadi (freedom) Square.

“He is a hybrid child of the revolution,” said Shahram Kholdi, a lecturer at the University of Manchester who has written about Mr. Moussavi’s political evolution. “He is committed to Islamic principles but has liberal aspirations.”

It’s also worth understanding how this has completely bypassed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, almost ceasing to be about him at all, and instead has to be viewed through the lens of the desires of the Supreme Leader. The election itself has become almost besides the point, as thirty years of frustration with the shift of the Islamic Revolution, or possibly even just frustration with the personality of Khamenei himself, bubbles to the surface. This is a really good analysis:

However, his support for Ahmadinejad before and after the elections, together with what many believe to be overwhelming election fraud that he has sanctioned, is almost out of character for Khamenei. Such moves are very sudden and extreme, unlike the punctilious way in which he has maneuvered around important issues and decisions in the past. They are also very provocative, not just for supporters of reformists, but because they are clearly efforts to isolate other powerful figures. These leaders include Rafsanjani and Karroubi, both of whom have vast business connections and are politically well-connected.

One possible reason for Khamenei’s recent decision is that he realized that unless he intervened, the reformists would win the elections. What concerned the Supreme Leader even more is the fact that the clergy, both right and left, were turning against the president, and ultimately, against him. Recently, for instance, the Society For Combatant Clergies, a powerful conservative group belonging to the clergy in Qom, decided “not to support any candidate in the presidential elections.” This was a politically correct way of saying that they would not support Ahmadinejad. As someone who has supported Ahmadinejad throughout his career, Khamenei took their decision as a rebuff against his own political ambitions.

A victory by the reformists, in cooperation with the clergy and Rafsanjani, would have created a powerful front against Khamenei. Instead of being loyalist soldiers like Ahmadinejad, they would have challenged his views in important areas, such as dealing with the United States. With Khamenei already viewing Obama’s positive overtures as a threat, any more internal dissent would have boosted Washington’s position against Iran in the negotiations.

It’s worth noting that Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani heads the Assembly of Experts, the religious body which chooses – and can depose – a Supreme Leader. The clerics have said almost nothing throughout this week of protests, but Rafsanjani has been alleged to be masterminding this whole spectacle. The fact that some protestors are targeting Khamenei personally lends credence to that. Rafsanjani and “moderates” like him have backed down before, but the presumed stolen election is a more powerful lever with which to play out the palace intrigue. Viewed this way, we can see these protests as a high-stakes jockeying for power among different sects from the original Islamic revolution, a far cry from some democratic uprising for freedom. I don’t think that’s the motivation of everyone in the streets, but what they don’t know won’t hurt them.

A huge protest is scheduled for tomorrow in mourning of the reportedly 32 protestors who have died in the struggle so far – something pulled right from the playbook of 1979, when the mourning rallies were used to demean the brutal regime of the Shah. But the government has fairly successfully cracked down on communications to the outside world, and the Revolutionary Guard and its militias, for the most part, appear to remain firmly in the camp of the current rulers, although there are some cracks in that armor. When the people with the guns start to don green shirts and fold into the crowds, then things may change. Until then, we’re as likely to see a repeat of Tiananmen Square as a revolution of any kind. As Steve Coll says:

All of the opening source evidence since the last round of counter-revolutionary street protests suggests that there has seen no particular strengthening of the urban and merchant forces who constitute the backbone of “reform” in Iran. If anything, the Defenders of the Revolution seem stronger now, since their militias, conservative foundations, and overseas networks have been strengthened by the money flowing from expensive oil. Yes, the economy is in trouble, and yes, the urban reform forces can make a lot of noise in the streets, since they live and thrive in the cities. This, however, a counter-revolution does not make. The Obama Administration has banked on engagement with the “real” Iran. Surely the Administration is right to lay its long-shot bet on the protests—morally, and otherwise. But let’s not kid ourselves about how the roulette wheel is most likely to spin.

(I don’t know that Obama has banked on much of anything – they were perfectly willing to engage whoever ran the country before the elections.)

I have been following Nico Pitney’s minute-by-minute reports with interest, and I think that this is an interesting moment in the history of Iran. Those using nonviolent resistance techniques should be commended for their bravery. But perspective is highly sought. This isn’t so clear-cut.

More from Juan Cole, translating primary sources, here.

.

Shameless

by digby

The Shrill One:

I know it’s a tough competition, but this just might be the most hypocritical thing I’ve seen in the past year:

On Monday, Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Pat Roberts (R-KS) introduced the “Preserving Access to Targeted, Individualized, and Effective New Treatments and Services (PATIENTS) Act of 2009,” a new bill prohibiting Medicare or Medicaid from using “comparative effectiveness research to deny coverage.”

How bad is it? Let me count the ways.

1. Politicians who rail against wasteful government spending are taking action to prevent the government from reining in … wasteful spending.

2. Politicians who warn that the burden of entitlements is killing the federal budget are stepping in to block … the single most painless route to reducing the growth of entitlements.

3. They’re doing it in the name of avoiding “rationing of health care” … but they’re specifically addressing taxpayer-funded care. If you want to go out and buy a medically useless treatment, Medicare won’t stop you.

4. These same politicians are, of course, opposed to efforts to expand coverage. In other words, it’s evil for government to “ration care” by only paying for things that work; it is, however, perfectly OK, indeed virtuous, to ration care by refusing to pay for any care at all.

More here

How do they live with the screaming, dissonant voices inside their heads?

.

“This Is Precisely Why We Need A Public Option”

by digby

This tells you everything you need to know about our insurance company “partners” in health care reform:

An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period.

It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses.

“No one can defend, and I certainly cannot defend, the practice of canceling coverage after the fact,” said Rep. Michael C. Burgess (R-Tex.), a member of the committee. “There is no acceptable minimum to denying coverage after the fact.”

The executives — Richard A. Collins, chief executive of UnitedHealth’s Golden Rule Insurance Co.; Don Hamm, chief executive of Assurant Health and Brian Sassi, president of consumer business for WellPoint Inc., parent of Blue Cross of California — were courteous and matter-of-fact in their testimony.

But they would not commit to limiting rescissions to only policyholders who intentionally lie or commit fraud to obtain coverage, a refusal that met with dismay from legislators on both sides of the political aisle.

Experts said it could undermine the industry’s efforts to influence healthcare-overhaul plans working their way toward the White House.

“Talk about tone deaf,” said Robert Laszewski, a former health insurance executive who now counsels companies as a consultant.

[…]

Sassi said rescissions are necessary to prevent people who lie about preexisting conditions from obtaining coverage and driving up costs for others.

“I want to emphasize that rescission is about stopping fraud and material misrepresentations that contribute to spiraling healthcare costs,” Sassi told the committee.

But rescission victims testified that their policies were canceled for inadvertent omissions or honest mistakes about medical history on their applications. Rescission, they said, was about improving corporate profits rather than rooting out fraud.

[…]

A Texas nurse said she lost her coverage, after she was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer, for failing to disclose a visit to a dermatologist for acne.

The sister of an Illinois man who died of lymphoma said his policy was rescinded for the failure to report a possible aneurysm and gallstones that his physician noted in his chart but did not discuss with him.

The committee’s investigation found that WellPoint’s Blue Cross targeted individuals with more than 1,400 conditions, including breast cancer, lymphoma, pregnancy and high blood pressure. And the committee obtained documents that showed Blue Cross supervisors praised employees in performance reviews for rescinding policies.

One employee, for instance, received a perfect 5 for “exceptional performance” on an evaluation that noted the employee’s role in dropping thousands of policyholders and avoiding nearly $10 million worth of medical care.

[…]

Late in the hearing, Stupak, the committee chairman, put the executives on the spot. Stupak asked each of them whether he would at least commit his company to immediately stop rescissions except where they could show “intentional fraud.”

The answer from all three executives:

“No.”

Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) said that a public insurance plan should be a part of any overhaul because it would force private companies to treat consumers fairly or risk losing them.

“This is precisely why we need a public option,” Dingell said.

Update:This is staggering:

Those of you who are struggling to pay for your generic medicines or wondering why the doctor is charging you a $5.00 co-pay, give some thought to these facts about how our health care dollars are allocated. At the end of this post, there is a list of 23 health companies I found on Forbes.com, what the CEO was paid in 2005, and the average paid to the CEO in the past five years.

Imagine adding vice presidents, Board of Directors, stock holders and the other 200-300 other companies all cashing in on your health to that total at the bottom…

* United Health Group
CEO: William W McGuire
2005: 124.8 mil
5-year: 342 mil

* Forest Labs
CEO: Howard Solomon
2005: 92.1 mil
5-year: 295 mil

* Caremark Rx
CEO: Edwin M Crawford
2005: 77.9 mil
5-year: 93.6 mil

* Abbott Lab
CEO: Miles White
2005: 26.2 mil
5-year: 25.8 mil

* Aetna
CEO: John Rowe
2005: 22.1 mil
5-year:57.8 mil

* Amgen
CEO: Kevin Sharer
2005:5.7 mil
5-year:59.5 mil

* Bectin-Dickinson
CEO: Edwin Ludwig
2005: 10 mil
5-year:18 mil

* Boston Scientific
CEO:
2005:38.1 mil
5-year:45 mil

* Cardinal Health
CEO: James Tobin
2005:1.1 mil
5-year:33.5 mil

* Cigna
CEO: H. Edward Hanway
2005:13.3 mil
5-year:62.8 mil

* Genzyme
CEO: Henri Termeer
2005: 19 mil
5-year:60.7 mil

* Humana
CEO: Michael McAllister
2005:2.3 mil
5-year:12.9 mil

* Johnson & Johnson
CEO: William Weldon
2005:6.1 mil
5-year:19.7 mil

* Laboratory Corp America
CEO: Thomas MacMahon
2005:7.9 mil
5-year:41.8 mil

* Eli Lilly
CEO: Sidney Taurel
2005:7.2 mil
5-year:37.9 mil

* McKesson
CEO: John Hammergen
2005: 13.4 mil
5-year:31.2 mil

* Medtronic
CEO: Arthur Collins
2005: 4.7 mil
5-year:39 mil

* Merck Raymond Gilmartin
CEO:
2005: 37.8 mil
5-year:49.6 mil

* PacifiCare Health
CEO: Howard Phanstiel
2005: 3.4 mil
5-year: 8.5 mil

* Pfizer
CEO: Henry McKinnell
2005: 14 mil
5-year: 74 mil

* Well Choice
CEO: Michael Stocker
2005: 3.2 mil
5-year: 10.7 mil

* WellPoint
CEO: Larry Glasscock
2005: 23 mil
5-year: 46.8 mil

* Wyeth
CEO: Robert Essner
2005:6.5 mil
5-year: 28.9 mil

TOTAL 2005: 559.8 mil

TOTAL 5-Year: 14.9 billion

h/t to Kewalo

.