Cancer Knows No Party, and Neither Does Blue Cross of CA: They Screw Everybody

Elizabeth Edwards’ acknowledgement of the recurrence of her breast cancer (which I hope is not more serious than the Edwardses made it out to be, but which I fear is) was but one story of cancer attacking prominent political figures.  Tony Snow will have surgery for a small growth under his abdomen; he had colon cancer two years ago, so we hope that it’s nothing more serious.  And most tragically, conservative commentator and blogger Catherine Siepp succumbed to lung cancer.  Cancer is not a disease that picks between political affiliations for who it afflicts, that much is clear.  And so a problem affecting everyone must be solved with a universal solution.

Before she died, Catherine Siepp wrote about her experiences with Blue Cross of California.  It was a bit shocking to hear a committed conservative talking about the failures of our health care system in such a frank and direct manner, but when a health insurance conglomerate acts so dishonestly, anyone in that position would be offended regardless of their politics.

over…

By law, insurance companies aren’t allowed to adjust your monthly premiums just because you get sick. But they can raise the out-of-pocket cap for all of their members anytime they like, which amounts to the same thing because it affects only the unvalued sick members. (And, of course, getting sick means that even while one’s medical costs go up, the ability to pay goes down — earnings potential is curbed when life becomes a series of treatment appointments.)

Lucky you, if you don’t know what your out-of-pocket cap is. And if you’re like every single healthy person I’ve queried, you probably don’t. But you should know, because the out-of-pocket cap is the most important part of your policy, meant to stave off financial disaster in case of catastrophic medical expenses […]

Another thing working in insurance companies’ favor is that cancer patients rarely have the energy to argue about such nickel-and-diming. I recently managed to spend a morning forcing my way through multiple disconnects and transfers on the Blue Cross 800 number, but I was eventually told that the company would probably reimburse me for the extra $90 a month I was paying for that weekly anti-nausea drug if I filled out the right forms. My far bigger worry is that out-of-pocket cap, which is essentially what insurance is for. To drastically raise it seems the definition of bad faith.

Or so I thought — until I began getting letters from Blue Cross in February announcing that it was retroactively disallowing the anti-cancer drug Avastin treatments it had been paying for since October, at $5,000 a pop every other week. It seems Blue Cross decided this new and expensive targeted therapy is experimental. (It looks as if Blue Cross is not asking to be repaid for my relatively unexperimental chemo, which had been costing about $2,500 every single week, but who knows?)

To decide after a therapy has proved beneficial that it’s merely “investigational” and therefore should not be covered — that, actually, seems the definition of bad faith.

Today, the LA Times reported that Blue Cross of CA is being fined a million dollars for illegally dropping the policies of sick clients for trumped-up reasons.  Recission is harsher, but generally of a piece with what Siepp had to put up with near the end of her life.  That fine is embarrassingly low (they made three billion last year) and won’t make a dent in Blue Cross’ policies.  But at least the state of California has publicly stated that this health insurer is motivated solely by greed and will gladly let their customers suffer rather than carry out their responsibilities.  As an individual policyholder with Blue Cross, exactly the profile that they dishonestly drop as a matter of routine, this scares the heck out of me.

I am truly sorry for Catherine Siepp and her family, along with any other family out there who has had to deal with the scourge of cancer.  We need to ensure that these families get the best medical attention and all the support they need; it ought to be an inalienable right of this country not to have to suffer due to some corporate balance sheet.  The current insurance system will never get us to such a goal.

Reminder: Democrats Work on Saturdays!

( – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Just a quick reminder to those of you in the Bay Area who want to get your hands dirty with fellow Democrats on Saturday.  Democrats Work is teaming up with the San Francisco Young Democrats and the Peninsula Young Democrats for two great events.  Details are here (Santa Clara) and here (San Francisco).  You can also check all of it out on democratswork.org.

Hope to see you out there!

The Favors go Out THEN the Money Goes in

Remember Arnold’s Famous Quote “The money goes in, the favor goes out”? Well, apparently he didn’te really have a problem with the process, but just the order.  Case in point? AT&T.  AT&T was the largest beneficiary of the telecom bill that Arnold signed into law last year.  The bill took away franchise rights of localities and instead let the companies take the reins.  Nice, how very corporatist of our legislature. 

And lest anybody think that I’m just bitter about the telecom bill because it didn’t include net neutrality provisions, which I am, here’s a more consumer point-of-view:

“This deregulation legislation is the biggest gift to any special interest in Sacramento this year,” said FTCR president Jamie Court. “The legislature and the governor took power from cities and from consumers to give to the AT&Ts, the Verizons and the TimeWarners without adding necessary consumer protections. Shame on the Governor and the Speaker for pandering to telecom and cable companies that have pumped up their parties’ campaign war chests with millions of dollars. 500 local franchise agreements have basically been replaced with an application form that has few requirements.”(FTCR 9/29/06) 

And oh yeah, who was a very big supporter of this bill? Well, I won’t go into the whole Speaker Fabian Nunez/$4 millon thing here. This time I’m talking about Governor Schwarzenegger.  You see, he talks a good game about detesting special interests and all that jazz, but then he accepts massive contributions for her personal and political interests:

The executives’ donations — which total $40,000 — will help Schwarzenegger retire the $2.4 million campaign debt left from his re-election last year, and come on the heels of a $500,000 gift by AT&T to an after-school nonprofit founded by the governor.

“Basically they are saying thank you very much for the bill last year,” said Robert Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies.

On Tuesday, Schwarzenegger flew to San Antonio for a ceremony announcing AT&T’s half-million-dollar contribution to the after-school program.(SacBee 3/23/07)

So, he signs a bill, a few months pass, and then literally hundreds of thousands of dollars come raining down from the biggest beneficiary of that legislation.  You see Arnold Schwarzenegger just prefers that you don’t get paid until you complete an action.  It’s only fair, he doesn’t get paid until he raids the pockets of consumers for you.  That’s Arnold, always thinking of others.

State Supreme Court Upholds California Voting Rights Act

Hmmm… I didn’t notice this in yesterday’s OC Register:

A state law allowing voters to challenge at-large elections systems on the basis that they dilute the strength of minority voters will stand, after the California Supreme Court declined to review the case Wednesday.

The high court’s refusal to hear the case leaves intact an appeals court ruling that upheld the 2001 California Voting Rights Act.

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights sued the city of Modesto in 2004 on behalf of Hispanic voters there, charging that electing city council members to at-large seats instead of from districts diminished the strength of their votes. Though the city is one-quarter Hispanic, just one Hispanic has been elected to Modesto’s five-member city council since 1911.

So what does this mean for municipal elections in California? Follow me after the flip for more…

So what does this mean for local elections? Chris Prevatt weighs in with an Orange County perspective at The Liberal OC:

This could have impact in OC. In Garden Grove for example there is no Latino representation on the City Council, but an over representation of Vietnamese elected officials. Part of the problem is the amount of money required to successfully run for Council in a city wide election. District level elections would enhance direct representation for all areas of a city, not just those where the most affluent people live.

The similar dynamic occurs in cities where candidates are chosen to represent wards but elected city-wide. This appears to be the case in Santa Ana where we have an entirely Latino City Council in a very demographically diverse city. This is partly due to the reality that in a city with a clear majority of one ethnicity, money isn’t the only thing that has an impact.

Well, Garden Grove may very well have a problem if this law remains upheld. Although the population is nearly evenly split among Latinos, whites, and Asian-Americans, there are no Latinos on the city council. So if the 2001 California Voting Rights Act remains upheld, what does this mean for Garden Grove? Let’s look at what the law says:

[I]f it is shown that racially polarized voting occurs in elections for members of the governing body of the political subdivision or in elections incorporating other electoral choices by the voters of the political subdivision…
[T]he court shall implement appropriate remedies, including the imposition of district-based elections, that are tailored to remedy the violation.

So perhaps, we will see more lawsuits like this one against Modesto. But will this be a true remedy for “diluting of strength of minority voters” and “racially polarized voting”? What do you think about this?

How You Know Arnold Schwarzenegger’s a Republican

He subscribes to the real 11th Commandment of the GOP: Do as I say, not as I do.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger demanded Thursday that the 2008 presidential candidates stake out clear positions on domestic issues Californians care about — such as immigration, climate change and health care — instead of focusing solely on the Iraq war […]

It was Schwarzenegger who ran in the 2003 recall race on a campaign of largely broad-stroke ideas, saying he would repair the state budget, ensure that “everyone in California has a fantastic job” and sweep out special interests from the Capitol.

And last year, as he ran for re-election, he pledged to tackle health care reform but offered few specific ideas on what he would propose.

over…

It’s very refreshing to see Mark Martin at the Chronicle notice this.  Schwarzenegger pretty much INVENTED content-free campaigning.  For him to make this kind of speech, petulantly asking Presidential candidates for specifics, is nothing short of deranged.  Arnold doesn’t even have the courage to get his own health care proposal introduced in the Legislature.  Most of the “big ideas” that he’s actually managed to pass weren’t his, he merely acquiesced to them.

This is as stupid as Newt Gingrich decrying negative campaigning and attack-dog politics.  Arnold Schwarzenegger’s entire short political career has been devoted to sloganeering and hiding the hidden truth.  Now he wants everyone else to be detailed… everyone but himself.

Minuteman With No Head!

Oh, my! As soon as I picked up my OC Register, I suddenly found this:

A Superior Court judge on Thursday rejected Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist’s request to be immediately returned sole control of the anti-illegal immigration group – a ruling that leaves the organization immobilized.

Judge Randell Wilkinson also placed restrictions on the three directors tussling with Gilchrist, noting in his order that there were “serious issues concerning the credibility of the claims of both Jim Gilchrist and the defendants…”

Oh, my! What can I say about this? Well, perhaps I’ll say more after the flip…

OK, so what again caused this? (From OC Register)

Gilchrist was ousted from the group in January by the vote of the three directors, who said they were concerned with sloppy accounting and possible fundraising improprieties. The three then took control of the organization’s primary bank account and, at least temporarily, the group’s main Web site.

However, Jim Gilchrist is saying that these three “hijacked” the group. Oh yeah, and Gilchrist is “under attack by internal terrorists“(??!!). Remember, according to Gilchrist, these three “directors” were only serving “advisory roles”, and that only HE had real power over the group.

So what will now happen to the organization? Nothing, since no one is really in control.

Wilkinson did grant two Gilchrist requests: The mutinying directors – Barbara Coe, Melvin Stewart and Deborah Ann Courtney – cannot spend donations to the group and they cannot use stationery with Gilchrist’s printed signature.

But the lawyer for the defendants said he was pleased with the ruling.

“It’s 85 percent of what we wanted,” attorney Jim Lacy said. “The best interim remedy, if my clients aren’t going to have total control, is that the organization will remain neutral.”

And the best permanent remedy, in my humble opinion, is that THIS VIGILANTE RACIST GROUP DIES OF IMMOBILITY! Jim Gilchrist, Barbara Coe, and the rest of the Minuteman group all need to go away and stop harassing all brown people. And you know what? If all this infighting among the Minutemen prevents them from harassing any more Latinos, then the infighting is serving a great purpose.

So what will happen next to the Minutemen?

Wilkinson also called for an April 25 hearing, at which Gilchrist will have to convince the judge that the Minuteman Project should not be handed over to a third-party receivership until a trial is completed. Lacy said his clients would support a receivership.

Well, I’m still hoping that the legal action doesn’t end. So long as the Minuteman Follies continue, they can’t do any more destructive deeds. Let them fight themselves… That way, these undocumented workers have one fewer thing to worry about.

Why The California Majority Report Should be Sold For Scrap

If you read Calitics you would know that, after much introspection, liberal House members from California – Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, Diane Watson and Maxine Waters – have relented and voiced their support for the Iraq appropriation which would set an end date for the conflict. 

Steve Maviglio reads Calitics but didn’t before he clicked send about twenty minutes ago and slathered the egg upon his face, especially considering that the California progressives’ shift to support of the bill was only the single biggest political story going on since this afternoon.  And the article is a doozy.  It shows a knee-jerk hatred of liberalism (and principles, for that matter), a defend-the-leadership-at-all-costs mentality, a thuddingly poor understanding of the fact that you might want to check Google News before you blog, and… wait for it… a hat tip to Ellen Tauscher for her work on helping whip the bill.

We all write things we’d rather take back, but I get the sense that this is the norm and not the exception over there.

I would say that the progressives’ move on this bill mirrored mine.  I think that too much enforcement has been stripped from this and too much of an argument given to the President to defy the resolution for my comfort.  I also can’t stand the fact that the House leadership larded it up with pork to buy votes, a disgraceful tactic that threatens to turn Democrats into an inverted fun-house mirror version of Republicans.  And yet, this is the first bill which actually attaches an end date to our disastrous occupation in Iraq.  The votes aren’t there for much more, and yet progressives were decisive in this debate, ensuring that the end date reached the final bill.  No war in American history has ended with one vote.  This is a way to continue to build public support while really trying to end the war.  And while progressives came around to understanding that and unifying the caucus, they showed their muscle to get the best bill that could possibly be done right now.

For some reason, Maviglio decides that any opinion other than that which has been given the imprimatur of the leadership is necessarily invalid.  That’s a positively Republican argument.

U.S. Reps. Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey, Diane Watson and Barbara Lee have announced they will vote against the carefully crafted compromise of the Iraq spending bill being pushed by Pelosi. More embarrassing: Waters and Woolsey are both part of Pelosi’s leadership team.

Why are these four Californians throwing Pelosi and the overwhelming majority of their fellow Democrats under the bus?

They’re not, but if they were, according to you, they would be doing so to stop 18 year-olds from dying.  I know, it’s really awful to rhetorically throw someone under a bus than do the equivalent of actually throwing hundreds of kids under a series of buses, causing them to die.

I don’t know if this entire post was an attempt to name-check Tauscher and call her a “smart Democrat” or what, but even if it wasn’t 100% wrong, it’d be embarrassing.

Progressive Californians Decisive on Iraq Supplimental Debate

I got this via email from the Progressive Caucus.  I happen to be among those who believe that passing this supplemental is the best way we can start ending this war.

It is our Californian Progressives who are dropping their opposition and are letting this pass.  Congresswomen Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, Maxine Waters and Diane Watson will vote in favor of the leadership, despite their reservations on the substance. 

The Democrats are united against this war.

(Washington, DC) – After two grueling weeks of meetings, Progressive members of Congress brought forth an agreement that provided the momentum to pass a supplemental spending bill that, for the first time, establishes a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Congresswomen Barbara Lee (D-CA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Diane Watson (D-CA) have led Congressional opposition to the war in Iraq since before it started and have consistently voted against funding for the war as a matter of conscience.  Still, they decided that they could not stand in the way of the passage of a bill that would establish a clear timeline for ending the war, especially if the failure of that bill would mean the passage of a supplemental without any restrictions.

After a painstaking series of meetings with members of the Progressive Caucus and Out of Iraq Caucus and other members of Congress, the group agreed that, while they could not vote for the bill themselves, they would not block its passage.

“As someone who opposed this war from the beginning, I have voted against every single penny for this war as a matter of conscience, but now I find myself in the excruciating position of being asked to choose between voting for funding for the war or establishing timelines to end it,” said Lee.  “I have struggled with this decision, but I finally decided that, while I cannot betray my conscience, I cannot stand in the way of passing a measure that puts a concrete end date on this unnecessary war.”

“Although the debate on this supplemental appropriation has been heart wrenching, I have always been clear on my position. While we respect the decision of our colleagues who will support this legislation, those of us who believe that this is a vote of conscience will remain steadfast in our opposition,” said Waters.

“The American public knows a simple truth: you can’t be against this war, and vote for $100 billion dollars to continue it.  Let me make myself very clear – I will not stop, I will not rest, and I will not back down in my fight until every last American soldier is home safely to their families,” said Woolsey.

Efficacy and Adequacy

(cross-posted from Working Californians)

People seem to be forgetting the central conclusion of the education studies.  California’s schools need a serious infusion of cash AND reforms to how they operate, in order to provide a quality education for our students.  You cannot have one without the other.  Indeed, there is no way for it to legislatively work without having both.

Weintraub’s column seems to forget that basic fact and focuses on the teacher’s objection to reform without increased funding.

With new research suggesting California schools need a dose of reform to go along with any new money, the state’s biggest teachers union — the California Teachers Association — will play a major role in deciding how far those changes will go, if they go anywhere at all.

And based on a conversation with the union’s leaders this week, it sounds as if the CTA is going to be very skeptical, to put it mildly, about major changes in the way the schools do business.

He does quote Barbara Kerr, who spells out what exactly the union opposes and that is massive changes that do not come hand-in-hand with increased money.

CTA President Barbara Kerr said her 335,000-member union will fight any attempt to overhaul the schools that does not also provide more money at the same time. Kerr said she is “concerned” that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger suggested last week that the reforms should come first, then the money.

“Efficacy and adequacy have to go together,” Kerr said, using the education community’s terms for better performance and more money. “What we have now is not adequate.”

Kerr said the union is open to the idea of change, but she added: “Agreeing to what that change should be … may be more difficult.”

Money alone will not solve our schools problems, neither will operational changes.  Heck, even cherry-picking a few ideas with some increased funding will not get the job done.  The study said that our schools need a huge increase in funding AND some really serious reforms.

Politically, groups from the left and the right will shoot legislation down, if it only focuses on one side of the equation.  As well they should, given the conclusions of the study.  The reason why the existence of this study and its reports makes people so hopeful is that everyone has invested in the process.  That buy-in should help transcend some of the typical problems that crop up when discussing education policy.  The political and educational path to fixing our schools is to pass comprehensive changes.  Anything less is doomed.

Given the high profile nature of the health care fight, it seems unlikely that a push for significant educational changes will occur this year.  National politics will be at the forefront, with ESEA (aka No Child Left Behind) up for renewal.  What comes out of that legislative debate will have a big impact on our policy discussions here in California.

OC Democrats Talk About the Iraq War

(This event is TOMORROW, and I hope to see many of you there! : ) – promoted by atdleft)

What do you have to say to YOUR Democratic Party about ending the Iraq War?

The Laguna Woods Democratic Club wants to give Orange County Democrats a chance to tell their representatives to the state party how they feel about ending the Iraq War. On March 31, the club will be hosting Defining the New Direction: Orange County Democrats Voice Their Views on the War in Iraq. This will give Democrats from throughout Orange County a chance to talk to the delegates who will be representing them at the CDP Convention next month about how, when, and why they want to see the Iraq War end. As the delegates prepare to vote on resolutions regarding the war, this is a chance for local Democrats to tell the delegates what they think.

Follow me after the flip for all the details on this important forum…

From OC Democrat Weekly, Orange County’s e-Newsletter for Democrats and source for progressive action:

Saturday, March 31, 2pm, Laguna Woods: Orange County Democrats are invited to attend a forum on the Iraq War presented by the Laguna Woods Democratic Club, Richard Lara (State Delegate representing the 67th Assembly District), and other California delegates. The event is Saturday, March 31, 2:00 to 5:00 p.m., in Clubhouse One, main dining room. Theme of the forum is “Defining the New Direction: Orange County Democrats Voice Their Views on the War in Iraq.” A keynote speaker, to be announced, and delegates to the April 2007 Democratic State Convention will be attending in order to listen to audience participants and respond in a town hall meeting. All Club members and residents of Laguna Woods Village are invited to attend, as are Orange County Democrats and other interested people. For more information, contact Richard Lara, 714-369-5647/[email protected], or Linda Nearing, 949-460-0640/[email protected] .

If you’re in OC, then please come to Laguna Woods, and join us as we talk about how we want to end the war…
And what we want our California Democratic Party to do about ending the war.

Where:
24232 Calle Aragon
Laguna Woods, CA
92637
When: 02:00 PM
Saturday, March 31