ThinkProgress Logo

Health

In Debate, Sharron Angle Says Insurers Shouldn’t Be Mandated To Cover Anything

By Igor Volsky on Oct 14, 2010 at 10:42 pm

Asked if there was anything at all insurance companies should be mandated to cover during tonight’s Nevada Senate debate, Sharron Angle doubled down on her now infamous opposition to coverage mandates and suggested that they shouldn’t. “What we have here is a choice between the free markets and Americanism,” she said. “America is about choices. The free market will weed out those companies that do not offer as many choices and do not have a cost-effective system”:

ANGLE: What we want is a basic policy where we can have the coverages that we need. I taught autistic children. I know this is a biomedical disorder, and it needs to have its own insurance code so that families can get the right treatment and also be covered…we need to stop making band-aid applications and look at real solutions when we talk about health care, and really, forcing someone to buy something they do not need is not the way to solve a problem.

Watch it:

During an earlier Republican primary debate, Angle went a step further, saying that she had “introduced three bills” in the state legislator to eliminate coverage mandates — a claim she did not make tonight, because it’s not true. According to an exhaustive search of Angle’s record in the State legislator by the Las Vegas Sun, rather than trying to eliminate mandates, Angle co-sponsored legislation expanding them. “Angle proposed no fewer than five laws that would have expanded state insurance mandates,” the paper reported. “She co-sponsored a bill to require insurance companies to cover mammograms and another bill, which she later voted against, to cover osteoporosis treatment. She co-sponsored legislation that would have required an insurance company to continue covering the treatment of a patient if the company’s contract with the provider was canceled before the treatment was completed.”

Thus, despite her comments tonight, Angle’s record suggests that even she once believed that the government should set basic standards for insurance coverage to ensure that individuals receive adequate coverage when they need it most.

LGBT

Sharron Angle Tries To Conflate Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell With Same-Sex Marriage In Debate

By Igor Volsky on Oct 14, 2010 at 9:59 pm

Asked about her position on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell during tonight’s Nevada Senate debate, Sharron Angle began by saying that lawmakers should defer the decision over wether or not to repeal the policy to the military, but then tried to conflate open service with same-sex marriage:

ANGLE: The policies within the military, especially this one are under review right now. And we should be waiting for the review of our military to make those decisions, not jumping ahead and making those decisions as Senator Reid tried to do when he put a provision of that provision in the defense bill. We and here in Nevada have been very careful to define marriage as between a man and a woman through two general elections. Over 70% of the population has voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. I support what Mevada has done and I will represent our constituents on that basis.

Watch it:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) responded by suggesting that Angle “does not understand what went on in Washington” and reiterated that under the amendment included in the National Defense Authorization Act, DADT is not repealed until, President Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen “certified it would not hurt our defense.”

Angle, still unclear on how the amendment works, responded with: “We should be looking at that review before we make bills based on that review. So the review needs to come first and then the bill. I submit to you that I do know the proces. The process is, read the bill first, then pass it.“

Health

Wellpoint Continued To Cancel Policies Of Breast Cancer Patients, Despite Company Denials

By Igor Volsky on Oct 14, 2010 at 8:30 pm

Wellpoint CEO Angela Braly

Wellpoint CEO Angela Braly

The Los Angeles Times is reporting that “prosecutors Wednesday accused the parent company of insurance giant Anthem Blue Cross of California of falsely stating that it had changed its procedures for canceling the policies of patients after they become sick.” Wellpoint’s denials, issued earlier this year, were in response to charges that the company used a computer algorithm to rescind the insurance policies of women who were diagnosed with breast cancer:

In an amended civil complaint filed Wednesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, prosecutors said WellPoint issued three “false and misleading” press releases in April and May to burnish its corporate image as it fended off assertions about its cancellation practices in a news story and criticism from the Obama administration that followed.

The prosecutor’s office contended that WellPoint continued to target women with breast cancer. It said the company also falsely stated that it had changed its procedures this year before the new federal healthcare law took effect. The law bars rescissions nationwide except in cases in which policyholders lie on applications.

Prosecutors acknowledged that WellPoint’s rescissions in California had slowed to a “trickle” but said the Indianapolis company continued to misrepresent itself.

“This is a company that seems willing to say anything — true or not — in order to maintain their profit level,” said Chief Asst. City Atty. Jeffrey Isaacs.

The allegations first came to light in April after a report by Reuters’ Murray Waas revealed that “tens of thousands of Americans lost their health insurance shortly after being diagnosed with life-threatening, expensive medical conditions.” WellPoint “specifically targeted women with breast cancer for aggressive investigation with the intent to cancel their policies.”

Interestingly, today’s prosecutor’s findings come just days after a Congressional report found that health insurers regularly rescinded policies of sicker patients to bolster profits.

Related Posts

Politics

Yes On Prop 23 Campaigners ‘Very Thankful’ For Out-Of-State Oil Companies’ Funding

By Alex Seitz-Wald on Oct 14, 2010 at 8:15 pm

ThinkProgress filed this report from Sacramento, CA.

On Election Day, California voters will be asked to consider a ballot measure that would essentially scrap the state’s landmark clean energy legislation, passed with broad bipartisan support in 2006, which has helped the state create thousands of green jobs and become a global leader in green technology. The campaign behind the measure, known as Prop. 23, has been funded almost entirely by Texas-based oil companies Valero and Tesoro, Ohio-based Marathon energy, and Kansas-based Koch Industries, owned by right-wing megafunders Charles and David Koch.

Last month, the state’s Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger blasted these out-of-state companies for meddling in California’s election, saying their involvement is motivated purely by “self-serving greed.” “Does anyone really believe that these companies, out of the goodness of their black oil hearts, are spending millions and millions of dollars to protect our jobs?” Schwarzenegger said, noting that proponents of the proposition say it will help create jobs.

Today, ThinkProgress attended a tea party rally in support of Prop. 23 outside the California Environmental Protection Agency in downtown Sacramento. The event was organized by the conservative anti-tax Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, a key player in the Yes on 23 campaign, along with the Northern California Tea Party Patriots, and the California Dump Truck Owners Association. When asked by ThinkProgress about the out-of-state oil funding, representatives from each organizations didn’t deny it — in fact they were very grateful for the help:

– President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association Jon Coupal, who spoke at the press conference: “Yes, do some people in the petroleum industry support us? You bet! … And we’re very thankful for their support”

–California Dump Truck Owners Association’s Betty Plowman, who also spoke at the event: “We’re broke” and need financial support, she said, so “thank God they came in.”

–NorCal Tea Party Patriots Campaign Coordinator Steve Cavolt: “Sure” he’s grateful, he said. “What difference does it make whether its coming from wherever if they do business in this state? Of course.” He also said that it’s “already been proven that that global warming is a hoax. It’s a scam.”

Watch a compilation of the protestors marching, Coupal, and Cavolt (Plowman asked not to be filmed):

Everyone ThinkProgress spoke with at the event noted that the Yes on 23 campaign is backed by a “broad coalition” of businesses, manufacturers, and taxpayer groups beyond the oil companies. While several dozen California organizations and individuals have indeed signed onto the campaign, their financial contributions are dwarfed by that of the out-of-state oil companies.

As the Los Angeles Times noted yesterday, “Valero is by far the largest contributor — giving more than three times as much as the next biggest funder, San Antonio-based Tesoro Inc. The third biggest contributor is Flint Hills Resources, a subsidiary of the Kansas-based Koch Industries.” As of last month, 97 percent of the Yes campaign’s funding came from oil, while 89 percent came from out of state. Valero, Tesoro and Koch alone accounted for 80 percent of total contributions.

LGBT

Federal Employees Can Purchase Health Insurance For Their Pets, But Not Their Same-Sex Partners

By Igor Volsky on Oct 14, 2010 at 8:00 pm

This morning, federal employees who are insured through the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program received an email from Aetna advertising their new pet insurance plans. “In these challenging economic times, it’s good to know you can get some financial protection for unexpected illness and injury to your pets,” the e-mail reads before listing the many benefits:

The insurance is a handsome perk for those who can afford it, but what’s illuminating about the ad is that while federal employees can buy pet insurance “in these challenging economic times,” LGBT workers are still prohibited from purchasing policies for their partners or spouses by the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — a federal law which denies federal benefits to legally married same sex couples.

President Obama supports repealing DOMA (although the administration is currently defending the policy in court), but hasn’t pressured Congress to repeal the Act. Last year, he issued a memorandum instructing federal agencies to “conduct a thorough review of the benefits they provide and to identify any that could be extended to LGBT employees and their partners and families” within the scope of current law and has since ordered federal agencies to “extend a host of benefits to their employees’ same-sex domestic partners.” These benefits include: long-term health insurance, credit union membership; access to fitness facilities, planning and counseling services (including briefings on employee pay and allowances, career counseling and retirement counseling.

There are currently two separate bills in the House and Senate to provide full federal benefits to same sex domestic partners of federal employee. Last year, the legislation was voted out of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on a bipartisan basis (Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) co-sponsored the measure), but Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) — the bill’s chief sponsor — has promised not to move this on the floor of the Senate “until we get the explicit offsets” from OPM. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the legislation would cost approximately $310 million through 2020 and benefit some 30,000 employees with same-sex partners.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee approved a similar domestic partner benefits bill in November of 2009.

Update

OPM sends in this clarification statement:

While Aetna is a participating carrier in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the pet insurance product offered by Aetna is not a federal benefit, nor has it been listed as a benefit in any OPM prepared or reviewed materials. Aetna, on its own initiative, offers a variety of discount products to its members, including gym memberships, weight loss programs, eyewear, vitamins, etc. Pet insurance is one of these products.

Aetna has apologized for using the reference to FEHBP in its communication on this discount program.

Climate Progress

Recovery programs cash grants create American jobs and American energy

By Climate Guest Blogger on Oct 14, 2010 at 7:54 pm

U.S. wind turbine domestic manufacturing has grown twelve-fold in recent years — boosted by government policies

The U.S. renewable energy industry has directly created more than 40,000 jobs because of the Section 1603 cash grants, and can create 100,000 more if the program is extended. CAP’s Richard W. Caperton and Kate Gordon have the story.

Read more

Health

Florida Judge Dismisses Part Of Health Care Lawsuit, Relies On Discredited Doctrines To Allow Others To Proceed

By Ian Millhiser on Oct 14, 2010 at 7:14 pm

Earlier today, Judge Roger Vinson, a federal trial judge in Florida, issued a mostly procedural opinion ruling on the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss a group of right-wing state officials’ lawsuit challenging the Affordable Care Act.  His opinion dismisses three of the state officials claims outright, while allowing their challenge to the law’s minimum coverage provision and its amendments to the Medicaid program to move forward.

Among the three dismissed claims is a challenge to the law’s “employer mandate,” which requires most employers to provide their employees with health insurance.  Judge Vinson notes, correctly, that a law requiring employers to provide employee benefits is no different from a law requiring them to provide a minimum wage — and since the minimum wage is unquestionably permitted, the employer mandate also survives muster.  Vinson also dismissed two completely implausible claims that the law imposes on state sovereignty and that it violates a radical doctrine that was once used to declare virtually all state labor protections unconstitutional.

Although Vinson allowed the plaintiffs’ Medicaid claim to move forward, he also hinted that this claim is unlikely to prevail in the end.  As the Wonk Room previously explained, this claim rests on the absurd theory that Medicaid is unconstitutional because it is too generous to the states.  Vinson notes that every single court to consider a similar claim has rejected it.

Sadly, however, Judge Vinson also engages in some highly implausible reasoning to escape dismissing the entire lawsuit outright.  For starters, he  cites favorably to a completely discredited decision holding a child labor law unconstitutional on the third page of his opinion.

The most troubling aspect of his opinion, however, is his conclusion that the law’s minimum coverage provision, which requires almost all Americans to either carry health insurance or pay slightly higher income taxes, was not properly enacted under Congress’ power to levy taxes.  Judge Vinson does not claim that there is anything substantively wrong with the law.  Rather, he relies on a Supreme Court decision from more than 100 years ago to claim that Congress’ taxing power does not apply largely because Congress called the minimum coverage provision something other than a “tax.”

There are all kinds of things wrong with this analysis.  For one thing, the anachronistic Supreme Court decision that Vinson relies on comes from a wholly discredited era in constitutional law when the minimum wage and child labor laws were considered unconstitutional and the justices would routinely jump through hoops to prevent Congress from levying taxes that would encourage employers to treat their workers like human beings.  This discredited theory of Congress’ taxing power has been firmly rejected by modern era justices, and should not be relied on by any judge living in the present century.

Just as importantly, Vinson’s theory makes no sense.  If Vinson is right, than the constitutionality of federal laws depends not on what those laws actually do, but on whether Congress used the right magic words when they enacted the law.

Nevertheless, Vinson may still uphold the law as falling within Congress’ sweeping power to regulate the national economy.  If he fails to do so, there is little doubt that he will be reversed on appeal.

Politics

Chamber’s Latest Lie: Our Foreign Fundraising Program Isn’t Part Of The Chamber

By Lee Fang on Oct 14, 2010 at 6:50 pm

Last week, ThinkProgress published an exclusive story about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s foreign fundraising operation. We noted the Chamber raises money from foreign-owned businesses for its 501(c)(6) entity, the same account that finances its unprecedented $75 million dollar partisan attack ad campaign. While the Chamber is notoriously secretive, the thrust of our story involved the disclosure of fundraising documents U.S. Chamber staffers had been distributing to solicit foreign (even state-owned) companies to donate directly to the Chamber’s 501(c)(6). We updated our investigation with a chart showing over 80 foreign companies giving at least $885,000 to the Chamber.

We documented three different ways the Chamber fundraises from foreign corporations: (1) An internal fundraising program called “Business Councils” used to solicit direct, largely foreign contributions to the Chamber, (2) Direct contributions from foreign multinationals like BP, Siemens, and Shell Oil, and (3) From the Chamber’s network of AmCham affiliates, which are foreign chambers of the Chamber composed of American and foreign companies. The Chamber quickly acknowledged that it receives direct, foreign money, but simply replied, “We are not obligated to discuss our internal procedures.” Instead of providing any documentation or proof to demonstrate foreign money is not being used for electioneering purposes, the Chamber launched an aggressive media strategy to first, attack ThinkProgress with petty name-calling and second, to confuse the media by highlighting the Chamber’s relatively minor AmCham fundraising, which the Chamber says (also without documentation) totals “approximately $100,000” from all 115 international AmCham chapters. The media largely ignored ThinkProgress’ revelation about the Chamber’s large, direct foreign fundraising to its 501(c)(6) used for attack ads, and helped the Chamber bury our scoop with misinformation.

Now, the Chamber is peddling a new spin. Yesterday, the Chamber’s Tom Collamore alleged that the Chamber’s foreign Business Councils are run as “independent organizations.” Repeating that myth today on hate-talker Glenn Beck’s program, Chamber lobbyist Bruce Josten claimed that the Chamber’s foreign Business Council fundraising programs are “completely unaffiliated with us.” However, the Chamber’s own website refutes Josten’s claim:

– The Chamber’s U.S.-Bahrain Business Council states that it is “under the administrative aegis of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and is intended to operate as a tax exempt business pursuant to Section 501(c)(6).” Similar language applies to the other Business Councils.

– The Business Councils are hosted on the U.S. Chamber’s website domain, and the Chamber Business Councils highlighted by ThinkProgress are all staffed by U.S. Chamber of Commerce employees.

– All of the Chamber Business Council fundraising applications highlighted by ThinkProgress direct applicants, including foreign corporations, to make their checks out to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, with related documents specifying its general 501(c)(6).

– Promotions to join the Chamber have included promises that foreign firms obtain “access to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and everything that it does” as well as pledges to help the foreign firms promote free trade policies in America. Chamber staffers from the Chamber’s Business Councils have claimed they help their foreign (and domestic) members wage a “two-front battle to knock down trade barriers abroad and keep our markets open at home.” Currently, the Chamber has attacked Democratic lawmakers for resisting a free trade deal with Korea.

The Chamber could have asked its foreign members and other foreign businesses to deposit their contributions in the Chamber’s Center for International Private Enterprise, an international Chamber-run 501(c)(3) nonprofit that does not run ads or any other type of political expenditure. Instead, ThinkProgress revealed that the Chamber had asked foreign businesses to donate to the Chamber’s 501(c)(6), a tax identity allowed to run unlimited political attack ads.

On top of the Chamber’s latest deception about its foreign fundraising program, the Chamber has little credibility. The Chamber illegally moved money from AIG’s tax exempt foundation to fund its attack ads in 2004. The Chamber also claims its current attack ad campaign is about “issues.” But the Chamber begged President Obama to pass the stimulus (as long as he stripped out tough “buy-American” provisions), and is now running attack ads against Democrats for voting for the stimulus. Many of the ads the Chamber is currently running are filled with misinformation and flat out lies. In fact, some responsible local television stations have even refused to run some of the Chamber’s partisan attack ads. On Tuesday, appearing on Fox News, Josten claimed that only 60 multinational companies are members of the Chamber, and it receives only $100,000 from its foreign affiliations. However, ThinkProgress blew this claim out of the water with proof that the Chamber is accepting at least $885,000 in direct donations from over 80 other foreign firms (in addition to the multinational members of the Chamber like BP, Siemens, and Shell Oil).

Economy

Whitman’s Job Creation Plan Revolves Around A Tax Cut Economists Say Won’t Create Jobs

By Pat Garofalo on Oct 14, 2010 at 6:15 pm

A key plank in California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman’s (R) job creation plan is completely eliminating her state’s capital gains tax. Such a move would blow a $4 to $4.5 billion annual hole in the budget over the next five years (and the losses would get bigger after that), but Whitman is convinced that such a move would spur job creation and investment in the Golden State.

“If we eliminate this capital gains tax, what you’ll see is more jobs, more businesses, more tax revenues so we can invest in the things we really want to invest in,” Whitman said during a debate this week. “To the Recovery effort that I have planned, tax cuts are a big part of it.” Whitman doubled down yesterday on Fox News, telling Neil Cavuto, “we’ve got a decision to make. Either, as Californians, we’re going to put our head in the sand and say ‘the weather’s great here, but jobs are going to continue to leave the state’ or we’re going to change our whole perspective.” Watch a compilation:

Whitman portrays this idea as a definite job creator, but the truth is much cloudier. What is certain, however, is that this tax cut will primarily benefit the wealthy. 82 percent of the California’s capital gains tax is paid by people who make $500,000 per year. Those people make up just one percent of the state’s population. 93 percent of the tax is paid by people making more than $200,000 per year.

Just 1.5 percent of the capital gains tax is payed by those making between $30,000 and $100,000. Also, California taxes capital at the same rate that it taxes income, making this change even more egregious, as it remakes a system that equally values work and investment, almost exclusively to the benefit of the wealthy.

As for spurring investment, Kirk Stark, a UCLA tax law professor, said, “it’s unlikely that a capital gains tax cut would lead to significantly greater investment in California.” “What we’re talking about here are people buying and selling stocks,” he said. “A lot of capital gains is not related to entrepreneurial activity,” added Jean Ross, executive director of the California Budget Project. “It’s ‘Did I pick the right mutual fund last year or pick Apple stock before the iPad was released?’”

UC Berkely professor Michael Reich noted that the research on capital gains cuts reveals that the “net effect of lower rates on revenues is negative and the effects on economic growth are extremely small at best.” “Eliminating the state capital gains tax would do very little to spur investment in the state,” Reich wrote. “Most California investors’ portfolios are diversified nationally and internationally. Consequently, the vast majority of private income retained by investors would be spent on stock purchases of companies outside the state.”

This is the crux of Whitman’s job creation plan. So if the research is to be believed, that plan leaves a lot to be desired.

Related Posts

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up