By June 30 of this year, Congress will need to decide how to adequately reimburse physicians in the Medicare program for their services. While Congress addresses this issue, AARP believes that the solution should not be funded by raising the premiums of Medicare recipients. Premiums have already doubled since the year 2000. Older Americans – especially those with limited incomes – should not be unfairly saddled with the added cost of physician reimbursements.
Is this really too much to ask of our members of Congress? We don't think so, and we know most of you agree – you've told us through your actions and your letters.
To look at the recent history of Congressional action on these issues, the record is clear, no matter what you call it. Call it procrastination, "kicking the can", ducking the issue or punting.
Whichever term you prefer, Congress chose this path last year by temporarily delaying cuts to physicians' Medicare payments – until June of this year. They didn't solve the problem, they simply put a band-aid on it – pushed it down the road and went home.
This was, and continues to be, the wrong approach. AARP believes that Medicare beneficiaries should not endure year-to-year uncertainty about the stability of their relationship with their physician. At the same time, we also firmly believe that it is time to stop endlessly raising the premiums of seniors in Medicare.
Enough is enough.
For years, Congress has decided to put off until tomorrow what they don't want to do today. In the end, all they've done is make physicians uncertain about the Medicare program and shift program costs to Medicare enrollees.
They're in a hole and we have some advice… stop digging.
So stay tuned – you'll be hearing more about this issue in the coming months as we work to find out where Congress stands when it comes to strengthening the Medicare program.
blog.aarp.org/shaarpsession/divided_we_fail/
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Outsourcing of America Continues
Boeing loses out in $40bn US deal
The owner of Airbus, EADS, and US firm Northrop Grumman have won a contract to build refuelling aircraft for the US Air Force, worth up to $40bn (£20bn).
The companies put in a joint bid to compete against Boeing for the lucrative deal to build 179 new aircraft over the next 10 to 15 years.
The winning plane will be assembled in Alabama. Parts including the wings will be built in the UK by Airbus.
The deal is a huge blow to Boeing, which had been widely expected to win. America has around two-thirds of all such aircraft in use anywhere, and a senior figure in the company said recently if it lost this contract it could be out of the refuelling market totally for years.
'Outsourcing' of America continues
The Pentagon contract is one of its largest in recent years.
The BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington says awarding such a massive deal to a consortium that includes overseas manufacturers will be contentious in the United States and it is likely that Boeing will appeal against the decision.
It is the first step in our critical commitment to recapitalise our ageing fleet to move, supply and position assets anywhere
Air Force Gen Duncan McNab
Boeing spokesman Jim Condelles said the company was disappointed. It will decide whether to appeal after hearing from the Air Force why it picked EADS, he said.
"We had two very competitive offers in this competition," Sue Payton, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition said.
"Northrop Grumman clearly provided the best value to the government," she said.
Home-grown
Boeing had been emphasising its home-grown credentials while lobbying for the contract.
"The best for America's war fighters and America's workers," Boeing claimed in advertising running in the days leading up to the announcement.
But EADS and Northrop Grumman emphasised that the assembly work would be carried out in the United States, where the project would create or support 25,000 jobs.
"They don't come along at this scale very often," Northrop Grumman Chairman and CEO Ronald Sugar said.
The winners said their KC-30 plane had a "longer range", with the ability to carry 45,000 more pounds of fuel than it competitors.
"It is the first step in our critical commitment to recapitalise our ageing fleet to move, supply and position assets anywhere," said Air Force Gen Duncan McNab.
"In this global air force business, the critical element for air bridge, global intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and global strike is the tanker," he said.
The initial contract for the tanker, to be called the KC-45A, is to develop four test aircraft for $1.5bn, the US Air Force said.
"The KC-45A will provide significantly greater air refuelling capabilities than the current fleet of Eisenhower-era KC-135s it will begin replacing," the Air Force said in a statement.
The KC-45A will be able to refuel both Air Force and Navy aircraft on the same flight, which is not possible with the existing KC-135 Stratotankers.
It will also be able to refuel two aircraft simultaneously mid-flight and have defensive systems that will enable it to operate in the more dangerous environments that existing refuelling tankers have to avoid.
McCain helps Boeing lose out in $40bn US deal
For Airbus's parent company, the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), it is a long-desired and potentially crucial breakthrough into the US market, our correspondent says.
Replacing America's ageing KC-135 refuelling planes - which date back to the 1950s - has proved controversial, he notes.
In 2002, the Air Force negotiated a $23bn deal with Boeing for 100 tankers to be based on the Boeing 767.
But that deal was declared invalid after allegations of fraud.
Two Boeing executives went to jail and eventually Boeing's chief executive resigned.
Political pressure on the Air Force over the deal was led by Sen John McCain, the front-runner to win the Republican nomination for the presidential elections this year.
Our correspondent adds that two further contracts are expected later as the US Air Force replaces the rest of its ageing fleet of refuelling craft.
The Air Force expects the new aircraft to begin testing in 2010, before going into operation in 2013.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/7272129.stm
The owner of Airbus, EADS, and US firm Northrop Grumman have won a contract to build refuelling aircraft for the US Air Force, worth up to $40bn (£20bn).
The companies put in a joint bid to compete against Boeing for the lucrative deal to build 179 new aircraft over the next 10 to 15 years.
The winning plane will be assembled in Alabama. Parts including the wings will be built in the UK by Airbus.
The deal is a huge blow to Boeing, which had been widely expected to win. America has around two-thirds of all such aircraft in use anywhere, and a senior figure in the company said recently if it lost this contract it could be out of the refuelling market totally for years.
'Outsourcing' of America continues
The Pentagon contract is one of its largest in recent years.
The BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington says awarding such a massive deal to a consortium that includes overseas manufacturers will be contentious in the United States and it is likely that Boeing will appeal against the decision.
It is the first step in our critical commitment to recapitalise our ageing fleet to move, supply and position assets anywhere
Air Force Gen Duncan McNab
Boeing spokesman Jim Condelles said the company was disappointed. It will decide whether to appeal after hearing from the Air Force why it picked EADS, he said.
"We had two very competitive offers in this competition," Sue Payton, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition said.
"Northrop Grumman clearly provided the best value to the government," she said.
Home-grown
Boeing had been emphasising its home-grown credentials while lobbying for the contract.
"The best for America's war fighters and America's workers," Boeing claimed in advertising running in the days leading up to the announcement.
But EADS and Northrop Grumman emphasised that the assembly work would be carried out in the United States, where the project would create or support 25,000 jobs.
"They don't come along at this scale very often," Northrop Grumman Chairman and CEO Ronald Sugar said.
The winners said their KC-30 plane had a "longer range", with the ability to carry 45,000 more pounds of fuel than it competitors.
"It is the first step in our critical commitment to recapitalise our ageing fleet to move, supply and position assets anywhere," said Air Force Gen Duncan McNab.
"In this global air force business, the critical element for air bridge, global intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and global strike is the tanker," he said.
The initial contract for the tanker, to be called the KC-45A, is to develop four test aircraft for $1.5bn, the US Air Force said.
"The KC-45A will provide significantly greater air refuelling capabilities than the current fleet of Eisenhower-era KC-135s it will begin replacing," the Air Force said in a statement.
The KC-45A will be able to refuel both Air Force and Navy aircraft on the same flight, which is not possible with the existing KC-135 Stratotankers.
It will also be able to refuel two aircraft simultaneously mid-flight and have defensive systems that will enable it to operate in the more dangerous environments that existing refuelling tankers have to avoid.
McCain helps Boeing lose out in $40bn US deal
For Airbus's parent company, the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), it is a long-desired and potentially crucial breakthrough into the US market, our correspondent says.
Replacing America's ageing KC-135 refuelling planes - which date back to the 1950s - has proved controversial, he notes.
In 2002, the Air Force negotiated a $23bn deal with Boeing for 100 tankers to be based on the Boeing 767.
But that deal was declared invalid after allegations of fraud.
Two Boeing executives went to jail and eventually Boeing's chief executive resigned.
Political pressure on the Air Force over the deal was led by Sen John McCain, the front-runner to win the Republican nomination for the presidential elections this year.
Our correspondent adds that two further contracts are expected later as the US Air Force replaces the rest of its ageing fleet of refuelling craft.
The Air Force expects the new aircraft to begin testing in 2010, before going into operation in 2013.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/7272129.stm
Troubled planemaker Airbus recently cut jobs
BBC NEWS
Troubled planemaker Airbus has revealed plans to cut 10,000 jobs at its factories across Europe over the next four years.
The company is facing a raft of problems, including delays to its flagship project to build the A380 superjumbo and squabbles between its various shareholders.
Q: What changes is Airbus proposing?
Airbus wants to cut 10,000 of its 57,000 jobs over the next four years.
Its plans would see 4,300 jobs go in France and 3,700 in Germany. Up to 1,600 jobs are expected to be lost in the UK and 400 in Spain.
The changes will result in more work being transferred to the firm's headquarters and main production facility in Toulouse, France.
However, the production of wings for Airbus planes will be concentrated in the UK, while Germany will handle the bulk of cabin and fuselage manufacturing.
Airbus is reviewing the future of three of its 16 European plants - in Laupheim, Saint-Nazaire and Varel.
It is also looking for new investors to share the costs of production at three sites, including Filton in the UK, as well as outsourcing more work to other firms.
It has said there will be no compulsory redundancies and that about half of the job losses will come from either temporary workers or sub-contractors.
Q: Why are such large job cuts necessary?
Airbus says that it needs to save 5bn euros between now and 2010 and a further 2bn euros a year after that, making substantial job cuts inevitable.
It says the status quo - with its costs rising and profits falling - is "unsustainable" and that the changes will speed up production and improve quality and reliability.
The firm's financial difficulties stem from a variety of sources.
Its flagship project to build the A380 superjumbo has been plagued by a series of problems and is now two years behind schedule.
Delays to the plane, resulting from wiring problems which first came to light in 2005, are set to cost the firm at least 4.8bn euros.
Airbus must pay compensation to airlines for late delivery of the A380, the first of which will be handed over later this year, while some carriers have threatened to cancel orders.
The company needs to recoup some of this lost money.
Airbus is also planning to spend 11.6bn euros on building a new mid-sized aircraft, the A350, to compete with Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner.
The project, finally approved in December, represents a huge investment for Airbus at a time when it admits that its own costs are "too high".
Problems with the A380 and uncertainty over the A350 have hurt the business.
Although Airbus says its future prospects are good as demand for air travel increases, it received fewer orders last year for new planes than Boeing for the first time since 2000.
The firm's balance sheet has also been hit by the decline in the value of the US dollar, the currency in which its planes are sold.
Q: How have unions and politicians reacted?
Unions have expressed disappointment and anger at the scale of the cuts and sought urgent discussions with the firm.
In the UK, the Amicus union said it had received assurances from Airbus that it would work to ensure there were no compulsory redundancies.
Asked about the job cuts, Prime Minister Tony Blair said he believed British workers would continue to play a "major part" in the development of Airbus planes.
Q: Why has Airbus taken so long to announce the changes?
Airbus was forced to delay the announcement of the job cuts earlier this month, following disagreements between its various national partners.
France, Germany, the UK and Spain all have a huge stake in the company's future and politicians from all countries have been lobbying furiously to try to protect jobs.
Critics of Airbus say its fragmented structure is highly inefficient and stops it from competing effectively with a revitalised Boeing.
Its relationship with its parent company, Franco-German defence firm EADS, has been strained in recent years because of political infighting and frequent changes of management.
The French government, which continues to own a 15% stake in EADS, has frequently been at odds with other shareholders, including German carmaker DaimlerChrysler.
Until recently, Airbus had two chief executives, representing German and French shareholders respectively. Critics said this arrangement hindered effective decision-making.
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/6405109.stmLast Updated: Wednesday, 28 February 2007, 16:20 GMT
Troubled planemaker Airbus has revealed plans to cut 10,000 jobs at its factories across Europe over the next four years.
The company is facing a raft of problems, including delays to its flagship project to build the A380 superjumbo and squabbles between its various shareholders.
Q: What changes is Airbus proposing?
Airbus wants to cut 10,000 of its 57,000 jobs over the next four years.
Its plans would see 4,300 jobs go in France and 3,700 in Germany. Up to 1,600 jobs are expected to be lost in the UK and 400 in Spain.
The changes will result in more work being transferred to the firm's headquarters and main production facility in Toulouse, France.
However, the production of wings for Airbus planes will be concentrated in the UK, while Germany will handle the bulk of cabin and fuselage manufacturing.
Airbus is reviewing the future of three of its 16 European plants - in Laupheim, Saint-Nazaire and Varel.
It is also looking for new investors to share the costs of production at three sites, including Filton in the UK, as well as outsourcing more work to other firms.
It has said there will be no compulsory redundancies and that about half of the job losses will come from either temporary workers or sub-contractors.
Q: Why are such large job cuts necessary?
Airbus says that it needs to save 5bn euros between now and 2010 and a further 2bn euros a year after that, making substantial job cuts inevitable.
It says the status quo - with its costs rising and profits falling - is "unsustainable" and that the changes will speed up production and improve quality and reliability.
The firm's financial difficulties stem from a variety of sources.
Its flagship project to build the A380 superjumbo has been plagued by a series of problems and is now two years behind schedule.
Delays to the plane, resulting from wiring problems which first came to light in 2005, are set to cost the firm at least 4.8bn euros.
Airbus must pay compensation to airlines for late delivery of the A380, the first of which will be handed over later this year, while some carriers have threatened to cancel orders.
The company needs to recoup some of this lost money.
Airbus is also planning to spend 11.6bn euros on building a new mid-sized aircraft, the A350, to compete with Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner.
The project, finally approved in December, represents a huge investment for Airbus at a time when it admits that its own costs are "too high".
Problems with the A380 and uncertainty over the A350 have hurt the business.
Although Airbus says its future prospects are good as demand for air travel increases, it received fewer orders last year for new planes than Boeing for the first time since 2000.
The firm's balance sheet has also been hit by the decline in the value of the US dollar, the currency in which its planes are sold.
Q: How have unions and politicians reacted?
Unions have expressed disappointment and anger at the scale of the cuts and sought urgent discussions with the firm.
In the UK, the Amicus union said it had received assurances from Airbus that it would work to ensure there were no compulsory redundancies.
Asked about the job cuts, Prime Minister Tony Blair said he believed British workers would continue to play a "major part" in the development of Airbus planes.
Q: Why has Airbus taken so long to announce the changes?
Airbus was forced to delay the announcement of the job cuts earlier this month, following disagreements between its various national partners.
France, Germany, the UK and Spain all have a huge stake in the company's future and politicians from all countries have been lobbying furiously to try to protect jobs.
Critics of Airbus say its fragmented structure is highly inefficient and stops it from competing effectively with a revitalised Boeing.
Its relationship with its parent company, Franco-German defence firm EADS, has been strained in recent years because of political infighting and frequent changes of management.
The French government, which continues to own a 15% stake in EADS, has frequently been at odds with other shareholders, including German carmaker DaimlerChrysler.
Until recently, Airbus had two chief executives, representing German and French shareholders respectively. Critics said this arrangement hindered effective decision-making.
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/6405109.stmLast Updated: Wednesday, 28 February 2007, 16:20 GMT
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Speech Given by Marilyn Love to Mid-Cities Democrats 2/28/08
Hi There!! My name is Marilyn Love. It is so good to be with Democrats tonight. I always feel like I am at a reunion when I am with you all. I am here tonight to represent my husband, Tom Love. Tom is running for the U.S. Congress District 24 against the incumbent Kenny Marchant. Mr. Marchant is a good man. He also is loyal to the Republican Party and the Republican Agenda. As a congressman his loyalty was to be to his constituents above his loyalty to his party. He has failed his constituents.
Tom feels he will put his constituents first and foremost. He promotes keeping jobs here in America rather than outsourcing to what can be considered "slave camps".
He is for Universal Health Care because all people should have the right to decent health care and should not go bankrupt due to medical bills.
Our country need to provide for more nursing schools. Our shortage of nurses is atrocious. There are nurses who come from various companies who are part-time and do not get benefits that a full-time nurse would. Patients are suffering the consequences for our shortages. Some hospitals cannot admit patients at certain times because they do not have the personnel. Because of "for profit" insurance companies, even insured people are not getting the care they need.
Tom believes our education system must be overhauled. Our children should not be studying to take tests. The ability to read should be fundamental. Teachers should be recompensed for their abilities and skills. Teachers should not have to dig into their own pockets for classroom materials. To attract the best teachers, we must raise our teachers' pay. Colleges should be affordable to all students who can make the grade.
We definitely should support our unions in every way possible.
Tom supports alternative energy resources in place of fossil-fuel use.
This is an exciting and historical year. A woman and a black man are vying for the presidency. Democrats are voting in record numbers. They have woke up from their apathetic sleep.
Americans are sick and tired of worrying about housing, food, gas, and their children's education.
They are tired of the "Class Wars" where the very rich have tax breaks and the middle-class bear the brunt of the taxes appropriated. Poverty in America is at an all-time high.
What happened to the American Dream that has become our American Nightmare??? We assumed our children would be better off than we were. We assumed wrong. Twenty-five percent or more of children over 25 are going back home. They cannot sustain their existence on the wages they are earning.
Tom and I have been married 32 years. He has always held jobs where the public was his primary concern. He will put his whole heart and soul into the position. He will not disappoint or fail his constituents. We will appreciate any support and help in this campaign. Your contributions will be most appreciated. Volunteers will be most welcome. Thank you.
www.tomlovefortexas.com
Tom feels he will put his constituents first and foremost. He promotes keeping jobs here in America rather than outsourcing to what can be considered "slave camps".
He is for Universal Health Care because all people should have the right to decent health care and should not go bankrupt due to medical bills.
Our country need to provide for more nursing schools. Our shortage of nurses is atrocious. There are nurses who come from various companies who are part-time and do not get benefits that a full-time nurse would. Patients are suffering the consequences for our shortages. Some hospitals cannot admit patients at certain times because they do not have the personnel. Because of "for profit" insurance companies, even insured people are not getting the care they need.
Tom believes our education system must be overhauled. Our children should not be studying to take tests. The ability to read should be fundamental. Teachers should be recompensed for their abilities and skills. Teachers should not have to dig into their own pockets for classroom materials. To attract the best teachers, we must raise our teachers' pay. Colleges should be affordable to all students who can make the grade.
We definitely should support our unions in every way possible.
Tom supports alternative energy resources in place of fossil-fuel use.
This is an exciting and historical year. A woman and a black man are vying for the presidency. Democrats are voting in record numbers. They have woke up from their apathetic sleep.
Americans are sick and tired of worrying about housing, food, gas, and their children's education.
They are tired of the "Class Wars" where the very rich have tax breaks and the middle-class bear the brunt of the taxes appropriated. Poverty in America is at an all-time high.
What happened to the American Dream that has become our American Nightmare??? We assumed our children would be better off than we were. We assumed wrong. Twenty-five percent or more of children over 25 are going back home. They cannot sustain their existence on the wages they are earning.
Tom and I have been married 32 years. He has always held jobs where the public was his primary concern. He will put his whole heart and soul into the position. He will not disappoint or fail his constituents. We will appreciate any support and help in this campaign. Your contributions will be most appreciated. Volunteers will be most welcome. Thank you.
www.tomlovefortexas.com
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Thank You Mr. President
I got the call just before 5pm on a Saturday afternoon; Bill Clinton would be coming to Arlington the next day at 9:30am. Bill would be arriving at Vandergrift Park and we would need to register at Hillary.com to be included. Anxiously, I arrived early the next morning and was thankful it was a clear day, although a bit of a chill was in the air. I immediately saw several people I knew and; as I am running for Congress in the 24th District, I began to shake hands and pass out my name cards. I saw Kyle and his family, Shirley and John, Jeff, George and Ann, the Medranos from Dallas, Danny and many familiar faces from events and days long past.
I was shaking hands and talking to as many voters as I could when I heard, ”Mr. Love, come with me there is a special section for candidates and office holders”. There in front of the barricade was a white pickup truck with a podium and Sergio Deleon talking on a cell phone. I was introduced to Chelsea Clinton’s Stanford University roommate and candidates and office holders from all over the area. We were facing the parking lot and waited with anticipation that only expectation of a President could bring.
About 10am, a motorcade arrived and Bill Clinton looking healthy and, with a measured stride, took his place next to Sergio at the podium. After the introduction, Bill began to speak with the vision and clarity that had convinced so many of us in the 1990’s to vote for our shared vision of the future. I heard my name mentioned as one of the candidates and I was honored to be the representative for my party in the 24th Congressional District.
As I shared Bill’s vision for a bright new tomorrow with Universal Healthcare, better education, and stability at home and in the world; I thought of long ago, the day I first met Bill in Austin on the McGovern campaign in 1972. I had volunteered to block walk and drive people to the polls and met him briefly. Bill had looked so different then from now. Now I saw the wisdom and experience from battles fought and won over 36 years of public service. This I contrasted with the last seven years of on-the-job training and disaster after disaster to the presidency of George W. Bush. We would have that same choice and repeat that same mistake with John McCain. The American Dream was fully illuminated in the crystal clear eyes of the former President.
As I shook his hands after the speech, which both invigorated and filled me with hope and nostalgia, I made my decision that it should be Hillary and Bill once again to lead America to prosperity and the fulfillment of a “Bridge to Tomorrow” and not a “Bridge to Nowhere” that we have had for the last seven long years under George W. Bush.
So I say, thank you Mr. President, thank you from the bottom of my heart.
Tom Love for Texas 24
http://www.tomlovefortexas.com/
I was shaking hands and talking to as many voters as I could when I heard, ”Mr. Love, come with me there is a special section for candidates and office holders”. There in front of the barricade was a white pickup truck with a podium and Sergio Deleon talking on a cell phone. I was introduced to Chelsea Clinton’s Stanford University roommate and candidates and office holders from all over the area. We were facing the parking lot and waited with anticipation that only expectation of a President could bring.
About 10am, a motorcade arrived and Bill Clinton looking healthy and, with a measured stride, took his place next to Sergio at the podium. After the introduction, Bill began to speak with the vision and clarity that had convinced so many of us in the 1990’s to vote for our shared vision of the future. I heard my name mentioned as one of the candidates and I was honored to be the representative for my party in the 24th Congressional District.
As I shared Bill’s vision for a bright new tomorrow with Universal Healthcare, better education, and stability at home and in the world; I thought of long ago, the day I first met Bill in Austin on the McGovern campaign in 1972. I had volunteered to block walk and drive people to the polls and met him briefly. Bill had looked so different then from now. Now I saw the wisdom and experience from battles fought and won over 36 years of public service. This I contrasted with the last seven years of on-the-job training and disaster after disaster to the presidency of George W. Bush. We would have that same choice and repeat that same mistake with John McCain. The American Dream was fully illuminated in the crystal clear eyes of the former President.
As I shook his hands after the speech, which both invigorated and filled me with hope and nostalgia, I made my decision that it should be Hillary and Bill once again to lead America to prosperity and the fulfillment of a “Bridge to Tomorrow” and not a “Bridge to Nowhere” that we have had for the last seven long years under George W. Bush.
So I say, thank you Mr. President, thank you from the bottom of my heart.
Tom Love for Texas 24
http://www.tomlovefortexas.com/
FISA Fight
FISA Fight Focuses on Trial Lawyers
Recess week has generally been quiet so far on Capitol Hill, except for the sound of press releases still whizzing back and forth on this past weekend's expiration of the terrorist surveillance law.
Democrats say the GOP is simply trying to change the subject away from what they say is their real aim in blocking immunity -- protecting civil liberties -- and away from the Bush administration possibly having to disclose in court that it encouraged phone companies to break the law.
While the releases have been hitting familiar notes -- Republicans say Democrats are putting our security in jeapardy, Democrats say Republicans are lying and trafficking in fear -- the GOP has stepped up its attacks on a familiar class of bogeyman: trial lawyers.
The primary stumbling block to an agreement between the two parties on an update of the law in question, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, has been the issue of whether to grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications firms for assisting the government in surveillance operations. Republicans are in favor of immunity, saying it is needed to ensure the telecoms will cooperate with the government in the future. Democrats have been opposed, arguing that companies that may have broken the law by providing information without a warrant should not be protected.
In recent days. Republicans have focused more on what they allege is the real reason Democrats oppose immunity -- the opposition of trial lawyers, who the GOP says want to push massive class action suits against the telecom companies.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino made this case last week on Fox News Channel, saying, "The House Democrats are basically doing the bidding of the trial lawyers, who are licking their chops, hoping that they could get a piece of a big class-action lawsuit against these telecommunications companies, which did their patriotic duty to help America in the immediacy following 9/11 when we weren't sure if there would be another attack."
Texas Sen. John Cornyn (R) made the same allegation on the Senate floor last Thursday. So does this press release from House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and this one from the National Republican Congressional Committee.
The conservative press has also weighed in. The New York Post published an editorial titled, "LAWYERS FIDDLE, AMERICA BURNS." And columnist Robert Novak wrote this week that "The nation's torts bar, vigorously pursuing such suits [against telecom companies], has spent months lobbying hard against immunity."
Conservatives and lobbyists for the business community have worked to demonize trial lawyers for years. The best-known D.C. lobbying group for the trial bar actually changed its name in 2006 from the Association of Trial Lawyers of America to the American Association for Justice (though its Web address is still atla.org).
And the AAJ is pushing against the recent spate of charges on the surveillance law. The group put out a release this week specifically responding to Novak's column, saying, "the trial bar did not lobby on the wiretapping bill or request support of either side. Mr. Novak's lack of fact checking cheapens the debate over our national security. The debate over surveillance law should be centered on finding the balance between civil liberties and our nation's national security."
Trial Lawyers and FISA
Sunday, February 24, 2008; B06
Contrary to Robert D. Novak's Feb. 18 column, the trial bar did not lobby members of Congress on any provision of the wiretapping bill. Mr. Novak's lack of fact-checking cheapens the debate over our national security.
The debate over surveillance law should be centered on finding the balance between civil liberties and national security. Just as we are sure that the supporters of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act legislation are motivated by wanting to protect the security of this country, those opposed must be credited for a good-faith effort to keep Americans safe.
JON HABER
Chief Executive
American Association for Justice
Washington
Either way, the surveillance bill's expiration isn't getting much media play this week, as the presidential campaign continues to push other Washington stories off of news budgets. Negotiations -- and fighting -- over a permanent surveillance bill fix will resume next week in earnest when Congress returns, and Republicans can shift back to focusing their attacks on Democratic leaders instead of trial lawyers.
http://us.f816.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?MsgId=8287_23426658_176513_1654_4577_0_203880_20620_2402487348&Idx=0&YY=66262&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&inc=25&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b&box=Inbox
UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE COVERAGE
Simple Question Defines Complex Health Debate
By Christopher LeeWashington Post Staff WriterSunday, February 24, 2008; A10
The defining difference between the Democratic presidential candidates on the top domestic issue in their recent debate and throughout the campaign has been their contrasting views on a seemingly simple question: Should the government require all Americans to have health insurance?
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) says yes, that such a requirement is essential for creating a system in which everyone has health coverage. Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) disagrees, arguing that the law should not force anyone to buy insurance he or she cannot afford.
The concept of an "individual mandate" became a lightning rod between the two yesterday. Obama said at an Ohio hospital that Clinton would "have the government force you to buy health insurance, and she said that she'd consider 'going after your wages' if you don't," while Clinton criticized her rival for "perpetuating falsehoods" and labeled an Obama mailing on the issue as "right out of Karl Rove's playbook."
The individual mandate also is emerging as a dominant issue in the larger national debate about how best to overhaul the country's ailing health-care system. It is a key component of both Massachusetts's landmark 2006 health insurance law and Clinton's health-care plan, and was one of the most debated features of a failed plan by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) to revamp health care in that state.
Clinton and Obama sparred repeatedly over the subject in their debate Thursday, with Clinton saying that Obama's plan, which would require only that children have coverage, would leave millions of Americans without insurance. She noted that former candidate John Edwards had called for a mandate, too.
Clinton said she and Edwards "took a big risk, because we know it's politically controversial to say we're going to cover everyone. And you chose not to do that. You chose to put forth a health-care plan that will leave out at least 15 million people. . . . I see the results of leaving people out. I am tired of health insurance companies deciding who will live or die in America."
Obama disputed that millions would be left out, saying his plan emphasizes reducing costs so more people can afford insurance. He noted that the requirement in Massachusetts has not meant coverage for all; in fact, state officials had to exempt tens of thousands of people on the grounds that it would be unfair to require them to buy a policy if they could not afford one.
"In some cases, there are people who are paying fines and still can't afford it, so now they're worse off than they were," Obama said. "They don't have health insurance, and they're paying a fine. . . . But understand that both of us seek to get universal health care. I have a substantive difference with Senator Clinton on how to get there."
On its face, the argument is straightforward. If government makes drivers purchase auto insurance, then why not require everyone to get health insurance, something they will surely need at some point? This view is bolstered by the fact that taxpayers foot the bill for much of the care that those without insurance get in emergency rooms.
But the issue is more complex.
There is a growing political consensus among Democrats that universal health care can be achieved by subsidizing coverage for low-income people, establishing new purchasing pools to help others buy affordable insurance, and requiring most businesses to offer health plans to their workers or pay a fee. Both the Obama and Clinton proposals contain these elements, as well as the option to buy into a public plan. Their most striking difference is on whether to require everyone to get a policy.
"If you want to get to universal coverage, then you have to do the individual mandate," said John Holahan, a health economist at the Urban Institute who is not an adviser to any presidential campaign. "You can do it with a single-payer system," under which one entity, the government, would finance all health care, he said. "But assuming that's [politically] off the charts, then I think that's the only way to do it."
Backers say the lack of a mandate would doom any universal coverage system.
Of the 47 million people in the United States who lack coverage, they argue, some are uninsured by choice and would remain so unless required to join. Many of those most likely to stay uninsured are young, healthy people who probably would not need to go to the doctor -- and whose premiums would help cover the cost of care for those who do.
If only the sick and those most likely to need care buy in, insurers would need to charge higher premiums. That, in turn, would make policies harder to afford and increase pressure on the government to further subsidize the plans, driving up the overall cost.
Also, if large numbers choose to remain uninsured, more than a few would still seek emergency-room care, which some would not be able to pay for. Hospitals that now get billions of dollars from the government to partially offset those costs would fight to hang on to the money, rather than see it redirected toward subsidizing coverage.
Finally, if the government were to prohibit insurance companies from refusing to sell policies to all comers, and if coverage were truly affordable, then many people -- not just the young and healthy -- would have an incentive to hold off buying insurance until they needed it.
"You can't . . . make it voluntary and let people wait until they're really sick, and then come in and insurers can't turn them down," Holahan said.
Critics of the individual mandate say forcing people to obtain insurance is unfair and ineffective. Some Americans will not sign up no matter what, they say. In California, for instance, 25 percent of drivers lack auto insurance even though the state requires it, according to the Insurance Research Council, an industry group. That is higher than the share of Californians without health insurance, about 20 percent.
The government would have to enforce a mandate, perhaps through garnishing wages, opponents say.
In Massachusetts, scofflaws who do not buy health insurance this year face a penalty of as much as $912, imposed on their 2008 state tax return.
Critics also say that a mandate would not necessarily make insurance more affordable and that forcing some Americans to purchase coverage beyond their budgets would be unreasonable, especially if it is seen as a boon for insurance companies.
"They're price-gouging," said Rose Ann DeMoro of the California Nurses Association, which favors a government-financed, single-payer system. "The insurance company is still in control."
Critics also argue that by requiring people to get insurance, the government would have an obligation to ensure that policies meet minimum standards, such as offering dental or prescription drug benefits. Special interests then would lobby Congress every year to require new benefits.
"It's not plausible to believe this package can be defined in an apolitical way," Glen Whitman, an associate professor of economics at California State University at Northridge, argued in an analysis published by the Cato Institute. "Each medical specialty, from oncology to acupuncture, will pressure the legislature to include their services in the package. And as the benefits package grows, so will the premiums."
The individual mandate is a political point of contention across parties.
Shortly before Republican Mitt Romney suspended his run for president, rival Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) unveiled an Internet ad blasting the former Massachusetts governor for signing the state's health law. "Mitt Romney's state health-care plan is a big-government mandate," the ad's announcer says. "It's not very good."
Robert Blendon, a public opinion expert at the Harvard School of Public Health, said Democratic primary voters chiefly have been interested in whether candidates are committed to universal coverage, not in haggling over details. The big fight is likely to be in the general election, he said, noting that a 2006 survey by Harvard and the Kaiser Family Foundation showed that while a large majority of Democrats would accept a mandate, most Republicans oppose the idea.
"If you're a Democratic voter, you want a candidate to do something big," Blendon said. "Republican voters are just saying, 'The last thing we need is a new requirement or a new big spending program.' . . . The Republicans will raise this issue very, very clearly, because all of the Republican candidates who ran support no mandates, either on employers or on individuals."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/23/AR2008022302026_pf.html
By Christopher LeeWashington Post Staff WriterSunday, February 24, 2008; A10
The defining difference between the Democratic presidential candidates on the top domestic issue in their recent debate and throughout the campaign has been their contrasting views on a seemingly simple question: Should the government require all Americans to have health insurance?
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) says yes, that such a requirement is essential for creating a system in which everyone has health coverage. Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) disagrees, arguing that the law should not force anyone to buy insurance he or she cannot afford.
The concept of an "individual mandate" became a lightning rod between the two yesterday. Obama said at an Ohio hospital that Clinton would "have the government force you to buy health insurance, and she said that she'd consider 'going after your wages' if you don't," while Clinton criticized her rival for "perpetuating falsehoods" and labeled an Obama mailing on the issue as "right out of Karl Rove's playbook."
The individual mandate also is emerging as a dominant issue in the larger national debate about how best to overhaul the country's ailing health-care system. It is a key component of both Massachusetts's landmark 2006 health insurance law and Clinton's health-care plan, and was one of the most debated features of a failed plan by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) to revamp health care in that state.
Clinton and Obama sparred repeatedly over the subject in their debate Thursday, with Clinton saying that Obama's plan, which would require only that children have coverage, would leave millions of Americans without insurance. She noted that former candidate John Edwards had called for a mandate, too.
Clinton said she and Edwards "took a big risk, because we know it's politically controversial to say we're going to cover everyone. And you chose not to do that. You chose to put forth a health-care plan that will leave out at least 15 million people. . . . I see the results of leaving people out. I am tired of health insurance companies deciding who will live or die in America."
Obama disputed that millions would be left out, saying his plan emphasizes reducing costs so more people can afford insurance. He noted that the requirement in Massachusetts has not meant coverage for all; in fact, state officials had to exempt tens of thousands of people on the grounds that it would be unfair to require them to buy a policy if they could not afford one.
"In some cases, there are people who are paying fines and still can't afford it, so now they're worse off than they were," Obama said. "They don't have health insurance, and they're paying a fine. . . . But understand that both of us seek to get universal health care. I have a substantive difference with Senator Clinton on how to get there."
On its face, the argument is straightforward. If government makes drivers purchase auto insurance, then why not require everyone to get health insurance, something they will surely need at some point? This view is bolstered by the fact that taxpayers foot the bill for much of the care that those without insurance get in emergency rooms.
But the issue is more complex.
There is a growing political consensus among Democrats that universal health care can be achieved by subsidizing coverage for low-income people, establishing new purchasing pools to help others buy affordable insurance, and requiring most businesses to offer health plans to their workers or pay a fee. Both the Obama and Clinton proposals contain these elements, as well as the option to buy into a public plan. Their most striking difference is on whether to require everyone to get a policy.
"If you want to get to universal coverage, then you have to do the individual mandate," said John Holahan, a health economist at the Urban Institute who is not an adviser to any presidential campaign. "You can do it with a single-payer system," under which one entity, the government, would finance all health care, he said. "But assuming that's [politically] off the charts, then I think that's the only way to do it."
Backers say the lack of a mandate would doom any universal coverage system.
Of the 47 million people in the United States who lack coverage, they argue, some are uninsured by choice and would remain so unless required to join. Many of those most likely to stay uninsured are young, healthy people who probably would not need to go to the doctor -- and whose premiums would help cover the cost of care for those who do.
If only the sick and those most likely to need care buy in, insurers would need to charge higher premiums. That, in turn, would make policies harder to afford and increase pressure on the government to further subsidize the plans, driving up the overall cost.
Also, if large numbers choose to remain uninsured, more than a few would still seek emergency-room care, which some would not be able to pay for. Hospitals that now get billions of dollars from the government to partially offset those costs would fight to hang on to the money, rather than see it redirected toward subsidizing coverage.
Finally, if the government were to prohibit insurance companies from refusing to sell policies to all comers, and if coverage were truly affordable, then many people -- not just the young and healthy -- would have an incentive to hold off buying insurance until they needed it.
"You can't . . . make it voluntary and let people wait until they're really sick, and then come in and insurers can't turn them down," Holahan said.
Critics of the individual mandate say forcing people to obtain insurance is unfair and ineffective. Some Americans will not sign up no matter what, they say. In California, for instance, 25 percent of drivers lack auto insurance even though the state requires it, according to the Insurance Research Council, an industry group. That is higher than the share of Californians without health insurance, about 20 percent.
The government would have to enforce a mandate, perhaps through garnishing wages, opponents say.
In Massachusetts, scofflaws who do not buy health insurance this year face a penalty of as much as $912, imposed on their 2008 state tax return.
Critics also say that a mandate would not necessarily make insurance more affordable and that forcing some Americans to purchase coverage beyond their budgets would be unreasonable, especially if it is seen as a boon for insurance companies.
"They're price-gouging," said Rose Ann DeMoro of the California Nurses Association, which favors a government-financed, single-payer system. "The insurance company is still in control."
Critics also argue that by requiring people to get insurance, the government would have an obligation to ensure that policies meet minimum standards, such as offering dental or prescription drug benefits. Special interests then would lobby Congress every year to require new benefits.
"It's not plausible to believe this package can be defined in an apolitical way," Glen Whitman, an associate professor of economics at California State University at Northridge, argued in an analysis published by the Cato Institute. "Each medical specialty, from oncology to acupuncture, will pressure the legislature to include their services in the package. And as the benefits package grows, so will the premiums."
The individual mandate is a political point of contention across parties.
Shortly before Republican Mitt Romney suspended his run for president, rival Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) unveiled an Internet ad blasting the former Massachusetts governor for signing the state's health law. "Mitt Romney's state health-care plan is a big-government mandate," the ad's announcer says. "It's not very good."
Robert Blendon, a public opinion expert at the Harvard School of Public Health, said Democratic primary voters chiefly have been interested in whether candidates are committed to universal coverage, not in haggling over details. The big fight is likely to be in the general election, he said, noting that a 2006 survey by Harvard and the Kaiser Family Foundation showed that while a large majority of Democrats would accept a mandate, most Republicans oppose the idea.
"If you're a Democratic voter, you want a candidate to do something big," Blendon said. "Republican voters are just saying, 'The last thing we need is a new requirement or a new big spending program.' . . . The Republicans will raise this issue very, very clearly, because all of the Republican candidates who ran support no mandates, either on employers or on individuals."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/23/AR2008022302026_pf.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)