The Retiree Advocate

Big Insurance: Will it be held in check?

2009-10-13T21:55:00.001-07:00

By Will Parry

Two liberal senators have called for “full debate” on whether the government should create a health plan to compete with private insurance companies.

Senators Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Chuck Schumer of New York are openly challenging the bill being produced by the Senate Finance Committee under the chairmanship of Senator Max Baucus of Montana.

Baucus is proposing an ill-defined system of non-profit cooperatives as an alternative to a public Medicare-like plan run by the government.

Schumer pointed out that in 40 states more than half the market share is held by just two insurance companies. Anything less than a strong public option would lack the economic muscle to challenge such powerful, entrenched insurance oligopolies, he said.

“The lack of accountability and the unfair practices of insurance companies are clear indications that health care reform needs a public insurance option – to break insurance company control of the market, create real competition and give millions of people real choices,” Schumer said.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is working to mesh two reform bills produced by separate Senate committees. The Senate Finance Committee bill opts for the cooperatives as a solution; the bill produced by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension (HELP) Committee would establish a strong public plan.

To create a single bill will almost certainly require a compromise between the two positions. The compromise that’s getting the most attention would be the enactment of a “trigger” provision that would allow insurance companies a window of opportunity to meet standards of accountability and fairness. If the industry failed to measure up, a public option would be triggered.

Meanwhile in the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has taken a strong stand on the issue.

“No bill can pass the House of Representatives without a public option in it,” she said. “The status quo cannot continue. The system is unsustainable in terms of the escalating costs…not only of health care, but also health insurance.”

Pelosi is working to develop a single consensus House bill that would meld versions produced this summer by three House committees. All three bills include the public option.

Meanwhile the Republicans in both houses have condemned all the pending reform bills while offering no constructive alternatives. Baucus’ efforts at winning Republican support for the Finance Committee bill were fruitless despite weeks of meetings seeking common ground.

Invisible but omnipresent throughout the debates are the powerful lobbies for the health insurance and drug companies. The Committee for a Responsible Congress reports that these companies spent $126 million on lobbying in the first quarter of 2009 alone.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) deployed 136 lobbyists and led the pack in spending. Dozens of former government insiders have been employed as lobbyists by PhRMA, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, the American Medical Association and the American Hospital Association, The Washington Post reports.

“The aim of the lobbying blitz is simple,” said the Post, “to minimize the damage to insurers, hospitals and other major sectors while maximizing the potential of up to 46 million Americans as new customers.”

Major players such as PhRMA and America’s Health Insurance Plans, playing the public relations game, have made vague commitments to curb the rise in costs. But they all oppose the one instrument that could truly keep costs in check: The establishment of a public option to challenge the untrammeled power of the medical-industrial complex.

AFL-CIO Convention: Bold new initiatives

2009-10-13T21:54:00.000-07:00

By Rap Lewis

Riding the energy of its spirited 2009 convention, the AFL-CIO’s newly-elected leadership team quickly launched a cross-country tour to listen to the rank and file and to deliver the fighting message of the convention itself.

President Richard Trumka, Executive Vice President Arlene Holt Baker and Secretary-Treasurer Liz Shuler started in recession-ridden Ohio with rallies in Cleveland, Akron, Columbus and Dayton.

Later, Trumka nailed Wall Street greed at a press conference outside the New York Stock Exchange.

“Banks and other financial institutions must be held accountable for making this mess that required trillions of dollars of our money to clean up,” Trumka said. “They must be held accountable for the pain they’ve inflicted on the families who face financial ruin – unemployment, wiped out pensions, foreclosures and bankruptcy.”

Hold Baker, the first African American to hold a top AFL-CIO office, led a march from Philadelphia city hall to the world headquarters of CIGNA, the health insurance giant. The CIGNA rally was one of many across the U.S. with the theme: “Big Insurance: Sick of it!”

During the convention in Pittsburgh, the entire delegate body left the hall to conduct a mass march and rally for universal health care.

The convention was notable for its emphasis on achieving diversity at all levels of union leadership. Women, minorities and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people constituted 43% of the delegates. All 55 affiliated unions were required to send delegations that reflected the composition of their membership.

The AFL-CIO conventions of yesteryear, dominated by delegations of older white men, are history. In a nation whose people are a living rainbow of diversity, the retooled labor movement is determined to welcome the participation of every working man and woman without exception.

Indeed, it’s a new day.

Twelve gifts in one!

2009-10-13T21:53:00.000-07:00

What better present for a friend than membership in our vibrant Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans?

Not only will your friend(s) receive this stimulating newsletter each month, they will have the opportunity to participate in actions like our enthusiastic picket at KVI; to give effective support to legislation and funding that assists seniors, our children and grandchildren; and to strengthen our organization’s voice in today’s great national debates and those that lie ahead.

Your gift of membership also helps us build the PSARA—and the greater our numbers, the more effective we become.

Help us achieve our goal of 150 new members in 2009. Give your friends and loved ones the gift that keeps on giving -- twelve times a year!

A one-stop gateway to help you may need

2009-10-13T21:51:00.001-07:00

If you’re a King County resident 60 or older, write down this toll-free number where you can find it: 1-888-435-3377.

By dialing it, you’ll reach a courteous, professional, highly-trained advocate who can link you to any of thousands—yes, thousands!—of resources, services and programs available to King County residents 60 or older.

Family members and caregivers can also use this helpful free service.

The program is Senior Information and Assistance. Its operators can refer you to such services as chores, legal help, Medicaid issues, nutrition programs, transportation, wellness and fitness, counseling, employment and health care.

Think of it as a free, one-stop gateway to help with your needs.

Advocates are at your service from 8 a. m. to 6 p. m. Monday through Friday. Or you can e-mail info@seniorservices.org. You’ll receive a prompt response.

Write that phone number down! You’re just a phone call away from being connected to the help you may need!

Ed Coyle to speak at State ARA meeting

2009-10-13T21:50:00.000-07:00

Ed Coyle, executive director of the national Alliance for Retired Americans will be the featured speaker at the annual meeting and convention of the Washington State Alliance for Retired American.

The convention will be held from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Thursday, October 22, at the Affifi Shrine Temple, 815 South Vassault Street in Tacoma, where the parking is free and the catering is excellent. For driving directions or other convention information, call (206) 448-0859.

A workshop on legislative issues will be led by Kathy Wallentine, past president of the Washington Education Association – Retired.

Delegates will elect a president, secretary and treasurer. Art Boulton, State ARA president since the founding convention in 2003, has decided to step down. Mike Warren, a long-time activist both in the Alliance and in the Retired Public Employees, has announced he will be a candidate for president.

The sheriff ducked

2009-10-13T21:48:00.000-07:00

Editor, Retiree Advocate:

Now that most of our congressional representatives have held public meetings to discuss the health care proposal in ball parks, public halls, union halls and stadiums, standing and facing interested, sometimes loud and questioning, members of the public, we point out that ONE member of our congressional delegation did not have the guts to face his constituents – so-called tough guy sheriff Dave Reichert. It may be that, having sold his vote some time ago, he really doesn’t give a damn what his constituents think. Or he may just not have the guts to stand up to people

Carl Schwartz,
Sammamish, WA

Join us October 21!

2009-10-13T21:47:00.000-07:00

The Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans as “a home for continuing activism” for working people as they enter retirement will be the theme of a gathering at 5:30 p.m. Wednesday, October 21 at the Seattle Labor Temple, 2800 First Avenue.

Marilyn Watkins of the Economic Opportunity Institute will speak on “Preserving and Improving Social Security.” Other speakers are Robby Stern, Bette Reed and Will Parry. Light finger food will be served, and an open discussion of retirement issues is planned.

Housing hope for those who need it most

2009-10-13T21:45:00.000-07:00

By Bette Reed
Some folks in our community believe that in a tight economy the last thing we should do is vote for a housing levy, when in fact there are over 6,000 reasons we should. That’s the number of homeless persons identified in last winter’s one-night count.

There may be even more if we include those families facing imminent eviction as housing costs devour over half of their incomes. A close look at the housing figures in this city makes it pretty clear that, more than ever, we need the housing levy to pass.

For starters, we are losing our battle in the fight to end homelessness. Each year the body count in the annual midwinter night watch climbs, not because of an increase in ne’er-do-wells and drunks but because the number of units affordable to those with limited income shrinks. As a footnote to this number, a noticeable increase has been observed in the number of seniors now seeking space in our shelters and sleeping out of doors.

Historically we have come through with funding for housing in our most desperate economic times. It was during the dark days of the Great Depression that the squalid slums of First Hill gave way to the Yesler Terrace community. Again in 1981 the City provided levy funding to create the one-of-a-kind Senior Housing Program that provides shelter to thousands of low income seniors in 23 buildings throughout the city.

This year’s levy proposed by the Mayor and approved by the City Council is modest in comparison with the construction the city has witnessed recently in commercial ventures and modest in what it can return to the community. The $145 million would, in its seven year life span, generate $3 for every dollar spent from sources as diverse as HUD, private investor tax credits and the state’s Housing Trust Fund. It would create an estimated 3,140 jobs and stimulate $189 million in construction and related activity. The estimated 16 cents per $1,000 assessed home value is small potatoes stacked against such returns.

But the purpose of the levy after all is housing and specifically housing for those who need it most. Those who have lost housing when an affordable apartment morphed into a costly condominium. Those who saw housing costs eat away more and more of their limited income as the housing frenzy exploded.

This levy is designed to produce or preserve 1,670 apartments specifically for those priced out of the current rental market. It will provide emergency rental assistance for those facing eviction and assist first-time home buyers in purchasing housing. In the past our housing levy has helped stabilize our neighborhoods and stimulate the economy at the same time providing housing for our neediest neighbors. If we have any conscience at all we vote YES on the housing levy this year.

Approve Ref. 71 to protect all families

2009-10-13T21:44:00.000-07:00

(Editor’s note: The following material was prepared by Washington Families Standing Together, the broad coalition formed to preserve our state’s domestic partnership law. The Puget Sound Alliance is part of that coalition. The law will come before voters this fall as Referendum 71.)

More than 12,000 people, living in every county in Washington State, are registered in domestic partnerships. The domestic partnership law ensures that these families have the same protections and responsibilities as their neighbors. A majority vote to “approve” Referendum 71 at the polls in November will preserve that vital law.

Gay and lesbian families need our domestic partnership law to provide essential protection for their families. Committed couples who want to take care of one another should be allowed to visit each other in hospital, take family and medical leave when a loved one is seriously ill, and have insurance coverage. A vote to approve Referendum 71 is a vote to ensure that all families are provided these protections under the law.

Families with children need the protections provided by the domestic partnership law, especially when a parent dies. A vote to approve Referendum 71 is a vote to ensure that all children are provided the same protections under the law.

Seniors need protections provided by the domestic partnership law. For seniors, domestic partnerships mean that their hard-earned Social Security, military or pension benefits are not put at risk. A vote to approve Referendum 71 is a vote to protect these benefits for seniors.

Police officers and firefighters who risk their lives to protect our communities need our domestic partnership law if they are hurt or killed in line of duty, so that their families are taken care of by their pension or by workers’ compensation. A vote to approve Referendum 71 is a vote to ensure that the families of our first responders are provided the same protections under the law.

In summary, a vote to approve Referendum 71 is a vote to ensure that all families will be treated fairly, especially in times of crisis.

I-1033: It locks in the suffering

2009-10-13T21:42:00.001-07:00

By Rap Lewis

People are already suffering under the deep cuts in this year’s depressed state, county and city budgets.

If Tim Eyman’s Initiative 1-1033 is approved at the polls this November, this year’s budgets will be locked in as the baseline for future government spending. And the suffering will be locked in as well.

Eyman’s initiative would limit revenue growth to an arbitrary formula based on the inflation rate and population growth. The NO on 1033 Committee estimates that by the year 2015, that formula would reduce the state’s general fund by $9.5 billion; county budgets, by $694 million; and city budgets, by $2.1 billion

Under Eyman’s formula, it would be impossible to restore this year’s cuts in education. health care, infrastructure and social services.

If revenue grows more than Eyman’s iron ceiling, the excess would be used, not to restore public services, but to reduce property taxes. However, there’s nothing in Eyman’s sloppily drafted initiative to ensure that property tax relief would be targeted to those who need it most.

One state – Colorado – has imposed an Eyman-style limit on revenue. The rigid formula set for Colorado dropped the state to 49th in per pupil expenditures. The percentage of children who lacked health insurance doubled. They couldn’t even immunize Colorado school kids. There wasn’t enough money.

In 2005, Colorado voters – led by a bipartisan coalition of business leaders, teachers, seniors, health care providers and firefighters – voted to suspend the law for five years to stop the deterioration of their state.

Tim Eyman’s I-1033 would turn Washington into another Colorado.

I-1033 sets a new standard for civic irresponsibility – even for Tim Eyman.

The biggest banks get bigger

2009-10-13T21:41:00.001-07:00

By Rap Lewis

Trouble – deep trouble – ahead for the economy.

In the wake of the trillion-dollar taxpayer bank bailout, the nation’s four largest bank holding companies now control nearly half of the bank assets in the country. That’s almost double the amount they controlled in 2002.

The behemoth banks are Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo. Market control by this few players is called “oligopoly.”

These four banks now issue one of every two mortgages and about two of every three credit cards. The Washington Post reports:

“No consequences of the crisis alarms top regulators more than having banks that were already too big to fail grow even larger and more interconnected,” the Post said.

Sheila C. Bair, who chairs the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, says this unprecedented market domination “is at the top of the list of things that need to be fixed. It fed the crisis, and it has gotten worse because of the crisis.”

Damon Silvers, the AFL-CIO’s associated general counsel, is also deputy chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel (COP), charged with monitoring the post-bailout activities of the financial sector.

Silvers warns that the banks are not playing their traditional role of financing the real economy by lending to businesses that create jobs. Instead, he says, they are going full bore into high interest, high fee credit card lending and high risk financial products, relying on the government to bail them out again if they fail.

All four banks are carrying billions of dollars in bad debt. Their weak balance sheets make them reluctant to lend at a time them lending is essential to prime the economic pump.

They’re leaving behind homeowners facing foreclosure, small businesses that need capital to grow, and above all, millions of unemployed workers who won’t get jobs until the economy expands, Silvers said.

But they’re not leaving behind the serried ranks of banking executives. In a scathing editorial, The Nation assails “the spectacle of financial titans harvesting swollen personal fortunes from the great wreckage they themselves caused for the country.”

A few figures suggest the scale of this robbery. The five highest-ranking executives and the 20 financial firms receiving the most bailout dollars took home 3.2 billion from 2006 through 2008 – an average of $32 million per banker.

Meanwhile, some of these same bankers at these same 20 firms have turned out 160,000 of their employees into the unemployment lines.

A trek for health care

2009-10-13T21:40:00.000-07:00

Appalled at the domination of the nation’s health care by profit-greedy special interests, Dr. Ogan Gurel, 45, a Chicago surgeon, has trekked nearly 700 miles on foot from Chicago to Washington, DC, to call congressional attention to the health care stories of people he met on the way.

Walking about 25 miles a day, Dr. Gurel talked with people at hotels, coffee houses, truck stops and private homes where he stopped to ask for water.

“The many stories we have gathered, shared and documented provide a compelling narrative which absolutely cannot be ignored,” he said.

MDs for public plan

2009-10-13T21:39:00.000-07:00

A strong majority of doctors favor giving patients a choice between public and private insurance, a survey published in the New England Journal of Medicine revealed. Sixty-three percent of the doctors polled supported incorporating a public option into health care reform legislation. Another 10% went further: they supported a single-payer system. Strong support was evident among primary care providers, specialists, urban and rural doctors, and members of the American Medical Association, which is officially opposed to the public option.

Employers unhappy

2009-10-13T21:37:00.001-07:00

Antonio M. Percy, a leader of the Business Roundtable, says that employers’ costs for employee health care are unsustainable and that maintaining the status quo “would put millions of workers at risk” and “is simply not an option.”

An annual survey of employers by the Kaiser Family Foundation showed that many workers face a further erosion of benefits next year. Forty percent of employers surveyed said they are likely to increase workers’ co-pays for doctor visits; 8% said they plan to drop coverage entirely. And 41% said they are likely to increase what workers pay in premiums.

Mexico’s surprising health care

2009-10-13T21:30:00.000-07:00

By Alfredo Peppard

Oaxaca, Mexico

Last night, September 15, we celebrated Mexico’s independence from Spain in a hotel Room overlooking the Zocalo. Most of us at the party were retired expats so it wasn’t long before the conversation turned to health care. What we learned about Mexican health care was a revelation.

Let’s start with James, the host of our small group, who is an “out” gay man. James, who retired in his early sixties, has been HIV positive for six years. He had prepared his move down here for four years and is now a permanent resident. His medical bills in Seattle were enormous. The periodic testing and drug costs would have been unaffordable had he not had employer provided insurance. Here, in backward third-world Mexico, his care and drugs are free. He praised the quality of the clinic’s staff and their concerned care.

The Mexican State, which is not a liberal institution by any means, regards HIV/AIDS as a dangerous epidemic that is a threat to public health rather than as God’s vengeance for transgressions against Old Testament preachments. Therefore it has encompassed all public information, testing, and treatment within its national health care system. In the U.S. a large number of voters would have voted for a political party that is fundamentally opposed to their economic interests to prevent this sensible approach to HIV/AIDS. In Mexico this is not an issue, thanks to public education by the state around the realities of the threat. The Mexican right, which controls the state, is made up of some of the most unsavory individuals that you will find anywhere. But it’s far more intelligent than that gang of baboons that control the Republican Party in the U. S.

Jane, a health care worker from Austin, Texas, lost her husband’s Social Security benefits when he died. She was making too much money to get widow’s benefits but her income was too small to live on with comfort; so she retired as soon as she could to get her full benefits. Then she moved down here. Like all of us who are much past sixty, she has her share of health problems but has found that having them attended to in the private fee-for-service sector is so much cheaper than in the U. S. that there is no comparison. An informed health care worker, she finds the medical care in the private sector here is not only far more affordable but as good as any she could obtain in Austin.

Wanda, also a widow who has lived here for many ears, has recently been diagnosed with breast cancer. She too is getting her health care in the private sector where she will be getting a mastectomy. She says that the cost is the least of her worries. She is quite grateful that her doctors don’t insist on draining her bank account with chemotherapy that is of questionable value, before performing the necessary surgery. That’s far too common in the U. S.

John, another case study, had just had two root canals performed and is completely happy with the results. Again the cost was a fraction of what he would have incurred at home. My dentist in Seattle whose highly skilled work saved me from false teeth in my forties (work I never would have been able to afford if Pauline and I had not both had union benefits) warned us of the evils of Mexican dentistry when we told him of our plans to move down here. I suspect that his opinion in this matter is based upon that large body of widely known and altogether slanderous “facts” most Americans think they know about Mexico.

As resident aliens we could join the Mexican national health care plan for around $350 a year, but it is the consensus of better-off Mexicans and expats that although the public system is great, in many areas such as preventative medicine, it is too underfunded and therefore slow in treatment of non-contagious conditions. Nevertheless, unlike the U.S. private sector, medical costs are not ruinous even for those without insurance.

At ten-thirty we all went up on the roof of the hotel to watch the marching bands, the Miss Oaxaca floats, the drum and bugle corps, and the drill teams perform for the thousands of people who thronged the Zocalo. There a small detachment of police, armed with assault rifles, were peering down into the crowd as a fantastic fireworks display burst directly over our heads.

No COLA for 2 years?

2009-10-13T21:26:00.000-07:00

Sanders to the rescue!

No Social Security cost of living adjustment in 2010 or 2011? That’s what the program’s trustees have projected.

No annual COLA – for the first time since 1975 – would mean that rising prices would eat away for two full years at the buying power of beneficiaries’ monthly checks. For millions, the dollar figure in their checks would actually shrink, because Medicare prescription drug payments – deducted from Social Security – are scheduled to increase next year.

Senator Bernie Sanders, Independent of Vermont, is having none of it. “I will be introducing emergency legislation that will provide seniors with financial support during the coming years,” Sanders said. “It would simply be unacceptable for seniors of fixed incomes not to receive additional income in the coming year.”

PSARA President Maureen Bo called on supporters for action.

“Please contact Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, urging them to support Senator Sanders’ bill,” Bo said. “In addition to the economic justice issues, increasing the income of seniors would be an excellent stimulus to the economy.”

Straight talk on living wills

2009-10-13T21:24:00.000-07:00

By Steve Dzielak

Make everything clear to your family. YOU are in charge. Not some fantasy death panel.

The summer of 2009 will live in infamy for the fear-mongering aimed at seniors in an effort to protect rapacious insurance companies and destroy meaningful health care reform. The biggest lie – so-called “death panels” – distorts one of the most sensible and compassionate concepts ever created on behalf of patients and their families: the advanced directive, popularly known as the living will. It’s time for some basic education.

A living will is a legal document that a person uses to make known his or her wishes regarding life-prolonging medical treatments. It’s also called an advance directive, a health care directive, or a physician’s directive.

Generally, a living will describes certain life-prolonging treatments. You, the declarant, indicate which treatments you do or do not want applied to you in the event you either suffer from a terminal illness or are in a permanent vegetative state.

A living will does not become effective unless you are incapacitated. Until then, you’ll be able to say what treatments you do or do not want. Living wills usually require a certification by your doctor and a second doctor that you are either suffering from a terminal illness or permanently unconscious before they become effective as well. A living will is only used when your ultimate recovery is hopeless.

If and when you are incapacitated and not able to speak for yourself, but your condition is not so dire as to trigger your living will, you should have a health care power of attorney or health care proxy. A health care power of attorney is a legal document that gives someone else – a person you select – the authority to make health care decisions for you in the event you are incapacitated.

The requirements for a living will vary from state to state, so an attorney is indispensable. Many lawyers who specialize in trusts, wills and estate planning include a living will and a health care power of attorney in their package of estate planning documents.

None of these documents matter if no one else knows about them. Talk with your doctor and the person you designate as your health care proxy. Be thorough. Then make everything clear to your family. You are in charge. Not some fantasy “death panel.”

Will Supreme Court unleash corporate political spending?

2009-10-13T21:21:00.000-07:00

The anti-democratic bloc on the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to open the floodgates on corporate spending in political campaigns.

Chief Justice John Roberts has been joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, plus swing voter Anthony Kennedy, in signaling the likely 5-4 overturn of the century-old judicial ban on direct corporate spending in elections.

The case before the court is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Instead of ruling on the merits of the case, the Roberts bloc used it to re-open two previously-decided campaign financing cases. And they specifically directed the lawyers in the case to make new arguments, addressing whether existing limits on political spending by corporations should be rendered unconstitutional.

Jim Hightower, who devotes the September issue of his Hightower Lowdown newsletter to the issue, warns of what’s coming.

The cases that the Roberts bloc wants reopened declare that Congress and the states can ban executives from using corporate treasuries to support or oppose political candidates. To overturn these cases, Hightower warns, “would be tantamount to imposing corporate rule on America.”

“The Roberts clique would, in one abrupt blow, reverse more than 200 years of broad public agreement that corporate interests should be subjugated to the public interest,” Hightower says.

The Constitution guarantees the rights of “the people,” but makes no mention of corporations and creates no corporate rights. Corporations, Hightower emphasizes, “are inherently anti-democratic artifices of the wealthy elite.”

Thomas Jefferson expressed the prevailing view of the founders in 1816, when he declared the need to “crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

Corporations, writes Adam Cohen in The New York Times, “have enormous treasuries, and there are a lot of things they want from the government, many of which clash with the public interest.

“If the ban is struck down, corporations may soon be writing large checks to the same elected officials whom they are asking to give them bailouts, or to remove health-and-safety regulations from their factories, or to insert customized loopholes in the tax code.”

“The founders of this nation,” The New York Times declared editorially, “knew just what they were doing when they drew a line between legally created economic entities and living, breathing human beings. The court should stick to that line.”

-- Will Parry