ThinkProgress Logo

Yglesias

Getting to Work

By Matthew Yglesias on Feb 24, 2010 at 4:44 pm

(cc photo by KarlOnSea)

(cc photo by KarlOnSea)

Doree Shafrir explains:

Each day, the average American spends nearly an hour getting to and from work—and less than 20 minutes at the gym. (Actually, the average American spends no time at the gym, and the fitness freaks drag up the curve for the rest of us.) All that commuting adds up to more than a week on the road every year. If you spent that time exercising instead, you’d have Matthew McConaughey’s PECS, David Beckham’s abs, and Michelle Obama’s arms.

That sets up a column of tips on exercises you can perform while commuting. But I think it should really serve as a reminder that measures that encouraged fewer people to drive to work and more people to walk or bike would have significant public health benefits.

Politics

Weiner Offends The GOP On House Floor: You’re All ‘Owned’ By The ‘Insurance Industry’!

By Zaid Jilani on Feb 24, 2010 at 4:40 pm

Today, the House of Representatives debated the Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act, legislation that would repeal the 65 year exemption health insurance companies have from anti-trust regulations.

Speaking on the House floor this afternoon, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) lambasted Republicans for being “a wholly owned subsidiary of an insurance industry,” prompting an offended Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) to lodge a complaint:

WEINER: You guys have chutzpah. The Republican Party is the wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry. They say this isn’t going to do enough, but when we propose an alternative to provide competition, they’re against it. They say we want to strengthen state insurance commissioners and they’ll do the job. But when we did that in our national health care bill, they said we’re against it. They said we want to have competition but when we proposed requiring competition they’re against it. They’re a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry. That’s the fact!

LUNGREN: Mr. Speaker I ask that the gentleman’s words be taken down.

WEINER: You really don’t want to go there, Mr. Lungren.

A minute later, Weiner returned to the floor and withdrew his words, and then substituted them by clarifying, “Make no mistake about it, every single Republican I have ever met in my entire life is a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry!”

Lungren once again immediately demanded that Weiner’s words be taken down. Weiner once more finally returned to the floor to withdraw his words, and ended his statement by saying that he has had “enough of the phoniness. We are gonna solve this problem because for years our Republican friends have been unable to and unwilling to. Deal with it!” His colleagues applauded his remarks. Watch it:

At the end of the debate, the House voted 406-19 to repeal the insurers’ long-held exemption from anti-trust laws.

Transcript: Read more

Health

Internal WellPoint Emails Reveal How Company Increased Health Insurance Premiums To Maintain Higher Profits

By Igor Volsky on Feb 24, 2010 at 4:30 pm

Today, during a hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, Reps. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Henry Waxman (D-CA) questioned WellPoint CEO Angela Braly about the company’s proposed rate increases in California’s individual health insurance market. The congressmen read from a series of inter-company emails which revealed that WellPoint was rising premiums to increase its profits and padding proposed increases to allow room for negotiations with regulators:

- “The average increase is 23 percent and is intended to return California to a target profits of 7 percent, versus 5 percent this year.” [WellPoint email, October 7, 2009]

- “We’re asking for premiums that would put us $40 million favorable…if we get the increases on time, we will see an opt gain upside of $30 million downgrades and rate cap.” [WellPoint email, November 2, 2009]

- “[W]e needed to reach agreement on filing strategy quickly — specifically in the area of do we file wth a cushion allowed for negotiations.” [WellPoint email, 10/24/2009]

Watch a compilation:

Waxman also unveiled a slide shown at a meeting of the companies’ shareholders which showed that the company had asked for a rate increase of 25 to 26% in 2010 “but the assumed rate increase is just 20%.” This seems to say that you’re asking for a 25% percent increase but expected to see that lowered to 20% through negotiations.” “You are raising your rates far above what’s necessary. You’re trying to squeeze every dollar of profit you can out of policy holders in California and across the nation at a time when families are struggling to pay their bills, you’re trying to charge them inflated rates that pad your profits and support the salaries and the trips and the retreats and everything else,” Waxman said.

WellPoint admitted that it set its increases to keep up with medical costs and maintain a 2% profit. The company justified the increases in California by arguing that it was making up for lost profits in the individual market– a point somewhat belied by the fact that WellPoint has also increased premiums in at least 11 other states. “We are talking about profit increases in absolute dollars but again, when you look at the profit margin that is build into the rates for 2010 it’s less than a 22% profit margin,” chief Corporate Actuary Cindy Miller explained. “A 25% rate increase became necessary…to achieve a profit margin of less than 2% on an after tax basis.”

“$2.8 billion that was your profit in 2009, which is a year that everyone would consider was a horrible year economically in this country…what I’m concerned about is that our hard working Americans are asking to increase their premiums to the wealth of WellPoint’s investors,” Stupak observed. “I don’t mind you making a profit but at the end of the year, 2009 a horrible year, you still made 2 point something billion dollars, and that’s not enough,” Stupak asked, noting that WellPoint’s high profit margin is the reason “many of us believe in a public option.”

Politics

Internal WellPoint e-mails reveal company increased premiums to maintain higher profits.

By Igor Volsky on Feb 24, 2010 at 4:08 pm

Today, during a hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, Reps. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Henry Waxman (D-CA) questioned WellPoint CEO Angela Braly about the company’s proposed rate increases in California’s individual health insurance market. The congressmen read from a series of internal company emails which revealed that WellPoint was rising premiums simply to increase its profits:

– “The average increase is 23 percent and is intended to return California to a target profits of 7 percent, versus 5 percent this year.” [WellPoint email, October 7, 2009]

– “We’re asking for premiums that would put us $40 million favorable…if we get the increases on time, we will see an opt gain upside of $30 million downgrades and rate cap.” [WellPoint email, November 2, 2009]

– “[W]e needed to reach agreement on filing strategy quickly — specifically in the area of do we file wth a cushion allowed for negotiations.” [WellPoint email, 10/24/2009]

Watch a compilation:

WellPoint acknowledged setting its increases to keep up with medical costs and maintain a 2% profit, but justified the increases by arguing that the company lost money in the individual market in California. “I don’t mind you making a profit but at the end of the year, 2009 a horrible year, you still made 2 point something billion dollars, and that’s not enough,” Stupak remarked, noting that WellPoint’s high profit margin is the reason “many of us believe in a public option.” The Wonk Room has more.

Yglesias

Kyl Holding Unemployment Benefits Hostage to Rich Kids Tax Cut

By Matthew Yglesias on Feb 24, 2010 at 3:58 pm

Fun with priorities:

Senate Democrats have found Republican support elusive for a forthcoming bill that would include year-long extensions of expired tax provisions, long-term unemployment coverage and health insurance subsidies for jobless workers. On Wednesday, a top Republican leader said a deal on the bill would depend on working out the fate of the expired estate tax. The GOP also might raise “pay-as-you-go” issues.

Minority Whip Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said that Republicans will block consideration of the new bill unless they get “a path forward fairly soon” on the estate tax. The tax lapsed at the end of 2009, and if Congress does not act, it will return in 2011 with much higher rates and lower exemptions than most lawmakers want.

Unemployment insurance extensions are not my favorite countercyclical measure, but this kind of thing is just appalling. If the GOP is concerned about “pay-as-you-go” issues related to UI extension, maybe they should consider letting the estate tax repeal expire as scheduled.

Economy

FLASHBACK: GOP Blocked Last Unemployment Benefits Extension For Weeks Before Bill Passed 98-0

By Pat Garofalo on Feb 24, 2010 at 3:49 pm

Today, the Senate passed a $15 billion jobs bill (with the help of a group of Republicans who voted for the measure after voting to filibuster it two nights ago), so the upper chamber is now set to move onto other economic measures, including a much-needed extension of unemployment benefits.

The stimulus package passed last year ensured unemployment benefits through the end of 2009, which Congress then extended through the end of this month. But 1.1 million workers are now scheduled to lose their benefits in March, and with the deadline looming some states are already sending letters informing the recipients that they are at the end of the line.

So all the signs point toward expedience in addressing this problem, and Reid is reportedly pursuing a one-year extension so that this same scenario doesn’t arise again in a few months. But it’s unclear whether or not the Republicans are going to lend the effort any support, with Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) saying that the GOP is “concerned about the high cost” of any extension.

With that in mind, it’s worth remembering how Senate Republicans responded the last time that an extension was needed. Not only did they repeatedly block the measure from even coming to the Senate floor for weeks on end, but they also attempted to attach all manner of unrelated items to the bill, including provisions related to ACORN and immigration. To top it all off, when the final vote on extending benefits finally came, the measure passed 98-0.

Earlier this month, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) blocked a simple stop-gap extension that would have moved the expiration of benefits back a week because he was upset at Reid for discarding a jobs bill that Sens. Max Baucus (D-MT) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) had negotiated.

“It doesn’t represent what this Senate ought to be about and for goodness’ sakes, it doesn’t represent the kind of bipartisanship that was always behind voting for unemployment benefits,” said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), regarding the GOP’s actions. “This Republican obstruction, when it comes to something this basic, is fundamentally unfair.”

“It is critical for Congress to extend these benefits through all of 2010,” said Christine Owens, Executive Director of the National Employment Law Project. “Clearly, workers need continued support while our economy meets the tall order of creating of nearly 11 million jobs to bring employment back to prerecession levels.” So will the GOP play politics with the extension again or let the non-controversial and necessary measure come to the floor?

Alyssa

Special Requests

By Alyssa Rosenberg on Feb 24, 2010 at 3:42 pm

I’m tied up on a crazy-intense day at work today, folks.  But I haven’t asked you guys in a while if there are things you’d like me to write about, or take a look at or listen to.  (I know I owe a couple of you emails from way back.)  Put requests in comments, and I’ll do a couple of special entries for y’all throughout the rest of the week.

And because we all deserve a little joy, here (Glee spoilers, if you’re not caught up, but if that’s the case, I can’t really help you):

Politics

Jeb Bush: Sarah Palin lacks a ‘depth of understanding.’

By Faiz Shakir on Feb 24, 2010 at 3:19 pm

In an interview with Newsmax, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush seemed dismissive of the viability of a Sarah Palin candidacy for President. While touting her ability to “appeal to large groups of people,” Bush added that he had concerns about her grasp of real world issues:

BUSH: My personal belief is that, for Governor Palin to be a successful candidate for higher office, she needs to take this charisma she has and add to it some depth of understanding of the complexity of life we’re living in today. [...]

I mean, I don’t know what her deal is, but my belief is in 2010 and 2012, public leaders need to have intellectual curiosity.

In 2008, Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) previously issued a similar criticism of Palin, saying she was not “experienced enough” to be President. And former First Lady Laura Bush acknowledged that, “of course,” Palin didn’t have the requisite foreign policy experience. And Dick Cheney reportedly thought Palin was a “reckless choice” for vice president. (HT: TPM)

Yglesias

Sarah Palin, Disability, and Fair-Weather Small-Government Advocates

By Matthew Yglesias on Feb 24, 2010 at 3:14 pm

sarah_palin_ap 1

Dana Goldstein has a good piece about Sarah Palin’s opportunistic posing as an advocate for the rights of the disabled:

“Since the end of the presidential election, we haven’t heard Sarah Palin articulate any specific policy proposals [on disability],” said Peter Berns, CEO of The Arc, a Beltway lobbying group representing people with intellectual disabilities. Like nine other national disability-rights leaders The Daily Beast spoke to, Berns pointed to Palin’s excusing of Rush Limbaugh’s use of the word “retarded”—even as she hammered Emanuel, President Obama’s chief of staff, for the same sin—as evidence of her lack of seriousness. “It has unfortunately politicized the issue in ways that are not productive, and it has converted what really are bipartisan issues into partisan ones,” Berns said.

To me, though, the larger issue is Palin’s credibility as an advocate of limited government on any other front. As Goldstein notes, on the campaign trail Palin was associated with a proposal to substantially boost federal IDEA funding for special needs education. A fine idea, but how about families who have problems that haven’t specifically touched Palin’s family? What about kids whose parents can’t afford to buy health insurance or nutritious food? Where’s Palin the SNAP advocate? What about kids living in high-crime neighborhoods? Where’s Palin the COPS advocate? Well, nowhere.

Small-government types don’t like to be accused of being uncaring or lacking empathy. But I think it’s striking how common it is to find a high-profile conservative politician who’s against federal activism for everything except some one cause that’s afflicted his or her own family. In most cases, this isn’t selfish—the Palins will be fine no matter what happens with IDEA. But she recognizes that some families with special needs kids aren’t as fortunate as she is and she empathizes and sympathizes with their plight. Other people with other problems she’s just indifferent to.

Related Posts

Alyssa

A Pirates of the Caribbean Development I Have Absolutely No Problem With:

By Alyssa Rosenberg on Feb 24, 2010 at 2:42 pm

image27 by TheGoogly.
Image used under a Creative Commons license courtesy of The Googly.

Ian McShane as Blackbeard? Helllll, yeah.  Pirates should be genuinely–but performatively–terrifying in the way that Blackbeard was in real life, without relying on “But he’s Chinese / inscrutable” stereotypes, which cropped up a bit in the third movie.  McShane totally fits the bill.  And much more so than Keith Richards, or Bill Nighy (whom I adore, but was totally in camp mode), he could stare down Johnny Depp.

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up