The Wall St. Journal reports on the new marketing plans for the health insurance companies: push health care reform, reap $100 billion in annual public subsidies!

We’ll take a look at that, as well as the GOP candidates who don’t care about cancer, the Sacramento insiders letting kids’ health fail run out, and new problems with the “Massachusetts mandate” law.

…cross-posted at the National Nurses Organizing Committee/California Nurses Association’s Breakroom Blog, as we organize for GUARANTEED healthcare on the single-payer model.

It’s like the insurance companies wrote the law themselves.  Across the country, “healthcare reform” proposals are moving forward that would leave the current broken healthcare system intact, protect the role of the insurers, AND give them tens of billions of dollars in new revenues from government funds?

Democratic presidential candidates like to beat up on insurance companies, but there is a lot for the industry to like in their health-care plans — starting with plenty of new business.

“Here’s the potential for a whole new pool of lives for them to cover, with payment behind it,” said Benjamin Isgur, assistant director of PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Health Research Institute, which examined the presidential health plans’ impact on industry. The study, a comprehensive look at health-care plans offered by candidates in both parties, also concludes that doctors, hospitals and other health-care providers would likely benefit since more patients with insurance suggest more would seek care and be able to pay their bills.

The leading Democratic candidates all propose boosting spending — by around $100 billion a year — mostly to help people buy private insurance plans.

Of course the insurance corporations are not dumb:

The early signals from the insurance industry, which played a major roll in killing health-care reform in 1994, are positive. The industry’s chief lobbyist, Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, says she is encouraged by the debate so far and says her group is focused on trying to get universal insurance enacted rather than stopping it. “At 20,000 or 30,000 feet, we have heard encouraging statements from Democrats and Republicans,” she says.

Meanwhile, the same “individual mandate” law in Massachusetts is good for insurers, but blowing a hole in the state budget.  And that hole is not fixable, since there is simply not enough public money to give protect the massive profits of the health insurance corporations.

GOP candidates who have survived cancer seem to show no compassion for other cancer survivors, at least if you trust their healthcare plans, and Sacramento insiders are showing precious little compassion for kids in that state who are about to get tossed off the healthcare rolls.

Mary Bozo…er…Bono, Sometimes Congresswoman in the CA-45, has apparently missed some more votes on the floor of the House of Representatives.  Guess that she was too busy getting support from Connie Mack, R-FL, to vote on these important bills.\

I just received this summary from Jim Reynolds, political activist involved in the Desert Stonewall Democrats.  The information that Jim provided is originally from The Nation.

 
• Conference Report on Transportation/HUD Appropriations, FY2008 – Vote Passed (270-147, 15 Not Voting)

On Wednesday the House passed this $51.2 billion bill to fund the Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development for the 2008 fiscal year.

Rep. Mary Bono voted Not Voting……

——————————————————————————–

• Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act, FY2008 – Vote Passed (218-203, 1 Present, 11 Not Voting)

The House approved legislation to grant the Department of Defense four months’ worth of emergency funding for the War in Iraq, under the condition that troop redeployment begins 30 days following the bill’s enactment.

Rep. Mary Bono voted Not Voting……

——————————————————————————–

• Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act – Vote Passed (291-127, 14 Not Voting)

The House passed this bill that would reform consumer mortgage practices.

Rep. Mary Bono voted Not Voting……

——————————————————————————–

• Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective (RESTORE) Act – Vote Passed (227-189, 16 Not Voting)

This House bill would update the intelligence surveillance bill passed earlier this year.

Rep. Mary Bono voted Not Voting……

——————————————————————————–

• Overriding the Veto of the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations Act, FY2008 – Vote Failed (277-141, 15 Not Voting)

The House failed to override the veto of this $150.7 billion bill that would fund the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education.

Rep. Mary Bono voted Not Voting……

( – promoted by David Dayen)

Our Progressive Coalition: A Reason to Believe

By Brad Parker
11/19/07

When we were formulating our strategy timeline for the “Progressive Plan” – published by the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party in August 2006 – we called for a coalition meeting of all outside the Democratic Party Progressive groups with all Progressive Caucuses inside the state Democratic Parties in the fall of 2007. Up until two weeks ago it looked as though this strategic prognostication might not be realized as the rest of the timeline has been. As we prepare to celebrate Thanksgiving we can be thankful that in two significant ways this call to coalition has not only been realized but in mysterious and stimulating ways.

First – a move to censure Senator Dianne Feinstein for her votes to confirm Leslie Southwick and Michael Mukasey, that began in the Executive Board of the Progressive Caucus of the CDP, caught fire across California, resulting in a spirited effort to do just that at the CDP Executive Board meeting in Anaheim this past weekend. Mal Burnstein – Co-Chair of the Progressive Caucus of the CDP – first brought the resolution of censure to the caucus board. It was unanimously passed.

Then, it began to be moved and passed at Democratic Clubs and County Central Committees. That was concurrent with an all-out and energetic promotion by the Courage Campaign. Before long the censure movement was joined by MoveOn, PDA, local DFA and Wellstone chapters and more than 30,000 Californians. Even though the Resolutions committee of the CDP voted to stifle debate and not hear the resolution – the Progressive, Women’s and Irish-American caucuses passed it. California was on fire again.

Less heralded – but just as important – was the announcement of an Immigration Town Hall to be held at the 2008 CDP Convention in San Jose this March. This initiative also originated in the Progressive Caucus Executive Board. Over the last six months, the Labor caucus embraced it, as did the Women’s and African-American caucuses, finally receiving the impramatur of CDP Chairman Art Torres at this weekend’s CDP meetings. It is a bold idea to bring together representatives of all of the caucuses in the Party who choose to participate and discuss an issue central to the upcoming 2008 campaigns in a setting that encourages listening, dialogue and mutual respect. A coalition of seemingly disparate groups within the Party to form a consensus is also a feature of the “Progressive Plan” strategic timeline and was slated for the 2008 CDP Convention, where it will now come to fruition. Where the members lead, the leaders must follow.

Bound up in the drama surrounding these policy and action determinations has been the question – “Who is a Democrat?” and “What does the Democratic Party stand for?” While there are as many answers as there are registered Democrats, both questions taken together point toward a larger phenomena that we are all participating in – futuring the Democratic Party.

Broadly speaking there are two forces that might be categorized as: the progressive membership (inside and outside of the Party – the activists) and the current leadership (both Party leaders and elected officials) who are debating these questions and pointing to their divergent philosophies for answers. Current leadership seems to be embattled and demanding unity behind incumbents and campaigns as well as established Party funding, endorsement, rules, resolutions and platform procedures. Progressive membership is rallying for more openness, access to decision-making apparatus, accountability of electeds (and their voting records), transparency in financial decisions, disbursement of campaign funds to all candidates and open debate of all issues. It may appear that these two camps are antithetical but that is not necessarily so.

Current leadership claims that critique of Democrats by Democrats leads to Republican victories. Progressive membership counters that lack of critique by Democrats of both Democrats and Republicans leads to inertia, capitulation and complicity in Republican malfeasance. So, what can bring the apparently opposed views into consilience? How can the Democratic Party develop improved strategies for advancing the Liberal Ideal? What is the best way to bring about and end to Neo-Con social policy and Neo-Liberal economic policy? When do Democrats do best at winning elections? The answer is simple and profound; give the citizens of America a “reason to believe”.

In a nation mired in scandal – political, business and religious – people have lost hope. When Party leaders are incommunicado from the citizenry. When elected officials are enjoying fine wine, luxury travel, substantial healthcare and pension plans yet the citizens have none. When politicians tell you to trust them and yet they betray their own families – in public. When the first consideration on any vote is how will it help an elected to get reelected. When too many people are dying for no reason in an illegal war of intervention in a foreign land. When there’s too much cash from Crony contributions spilling out of the campaign accounts of electeds and the working stiffs have nothing then the people become mired in despair and the Constitution gathers dust in a forgotten corner. Our job as Progressives is now, has always been and will remain to give people a reason to believe again.

While we are dispatching the Republican Anarchy Collective – and we are getting there – we must take on the Crony corruption in the Democratic Party. The source of the corruption – besides primal greed and narrow self-interest – is the theoretical premise foisted upon our Party by the DLC. Their premise was and is; money and business are the primary concerns of the Party along with aggressive national security. Of course this thesis was always false but with a salesman like Bill Clinton the Party couldn’t resist. Now twenty years of devastating electoral losses later the membership has woken up and begun to swarm around the Progressive movement. In the end money was not the way to win but the way to lose. Even the current leadership and electeds are beginning to tire of carrying the Clinton/DLC machine around on their backs.

So, our job as a Progressive coalition remains the same. We are here to give the people, the sullen citizens, a reason to believe; a reason to believe that their vote will be counted as cast, a reason to believe that the Liberal Ideal is not dead, a reason to believe that principles win elections not big donors, a reason to believe that they should be active civically, a reason to believe that the Democratic Party is different from the Republican Party, a reason to register as Democrats and vote for Democrats. In short – the Progressive membership’s emphasis on principles is the cure for what ails the body politic. Our forming swarming coalition is the reason to believe.

This past weekend showed that everyone, members, leaders, activists and electeds alike could and should find a way to work together for the enlightened self-interests of all. It put a fine note on the reality that only the freedom of “dissent” can lead to the “consent” of the governed. It also proved that accountability and standing for something is not only possible but also essential to being a Democrat and the future of the Democratic Party. Most importantly – the Progressives inside the Party acted with decorum and civility – allowing the strength of our ideas and our tough-mindedness to carry our message while many in the opposition lost their cool and relied on bellicose belligerence to defend their derisory obfuscation. Our principled ideas and actions are our strength and speak louder for us than emotional outbursts ever will.

If Democrats want to win again then they only need to stand up, show up and speak up for the principles we all hold dear rather than the large donor’s pet projects. Our Progressive Coalition not only stands for all Americans but is the positive force forging a reason to believe while creating  – E Pluribus Unum. To paraphrase Hubert Horatio Humphrey – I’m as pleased as punch to be part of this historic citizens movement of the Twenty First Century. I can’t wait for another wild weekend!

Let’s turn Calitics into Court TV for a little while, shall we?  In addition to Debra Bowen suing ES&S, Jerry Brown has made the strongest move to date against companies who profited from toxic toys made in China, suing Mattel, Toys “R” Us and about 20 other companies for “knowingly” selling the products with illegal amounts of lead.

The suit, filed in Alameda County Superior Court, alleges the companies knowingly exposed children to lead and failed to provide warning of the risk, which is required under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, known as Proposition 65.

If the suit is successful, the companies could pay a $2,500 fine for each violation, according to the complaint […]

The suit, which was joined by the Los Angeles city attorney’s office, also named as defendants Wal-Mart, Target, Sears, KB Toys, Costco Wholesale and others.

That could add up in a hurry, when you consider the millions of lead-filled toys in California that have been sold.

Meanwhile, the state isn’t the only with prosecuting attorneys, as the auto industry is challenging the state’s global warming law in a Fresno District Court.

Lawyers for car manufacturers, dealers and trade associations said California’s 2002 law, the model for statutes in 11 other states, amounted to a requirement for higher gas mileage, a subject that only the federal government can regulate.

Although federal law allows California to take a lead role in reducing air pollution, Congress never “intended a single state to have such sweeping authority to unilaterally set national fuel economy policy … and profoundly affect a vital national industry,” said Raymond Ludwiszewski, lawyer for a trade group of international automakers.

But U.S. District Judge Anthony Ishii suggested that the industry’s argument had been undercut by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in April upholding the federal government’s authority to limit emissions of greenhouse gases.

The district judge will follow precedent here; this lawsuit is frivolous.  But the point is to buy time.  Meanwhile, the EPA is still foot-dragging on granting a waiver that would put the 2002 tailpipe emissions law into effect, and the state has sued the federal government over that.

As I mentioned in a quick hit yesterday, the Secretary if State’s office has filed a lawsuit against voting machine company ES&S. The suit is seeking $15 million from the Omaha, NB for selling almost 1,000 uncertified voting machines to 5 counties in California.

The lawsuit alleges that the company sold 972 uncertified machines to Colusa, Marin, Merced and Solano counties, as well as the city and county of San Francisco.
The suit also calls for a $10,000 penalty per machine. Which would result in almost $2.9 million for San Francisco alone.

The SFGate is reporting that this this is the first time that the Secretary of State’s office has has to use this rule of the voting code.
The company is, of course, denying that any violations occurred. And charges that the suit would be detrimental to the voting rights of the disabled.

But Bowen responds with:

But Bowen said there is no ambiguity in the law.

“Changes … must be submitted to the secretary of state before a voting machine can be sold or used in California,” she said. “California law doesn’t ask the manufacturer to decide whether the changes are small or large or medium-size.”

California only learned about the changes when an ES&S representative inadvertently mentioned the new version of the AutoMARK in a telephone conference call with state election officials. The company never even mentioned to the state or the five counties that changes had been made to the machines that were shipped, Bowen said.

The city of San Francisco has previously filed suit against ES&S claiming that their machines had delayed certifying the vote in the November 6 elections.