All four members of Maine's Congressional Delegation are asking President Barack Obama to conduct and in-debth examination of China's alleged subsidization of its domestic paper industry.
Senator Olympia Snowe, who led the letter with Ron Wyden (D-OR) in the Senate, and Congressman Michaud, who led the letter with Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) in the House, were joined by over 100 lawmakers from 30 states.
The letter sent to President Obama strongly urges the administration to examine the practices of the Chinese government and to take action to remedy the situation.
A press release from the Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM) contends that "both labor and management agree that domestic paper jobs will remain in jeopardy because of illegal subsidies given to Chinese paper producers. From 2002 through the end of 2009, overall employment in the U.S. paper and paper products sector dropped 29 percent, from roughly 557,000 workers to 398,000." Should the subsidies continue, the AAM predicts that more jobs in the US will be lost.
The actual letter can be found below:
Dear Mr. President:
We write to bring to your attention the damage caused to American manufacturing by the subsidies that China's paper industry receive, which are significant and market-distorting.
A recently released study by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) documents the known subsidies that China's government provides its paper industry and the ensuing exponential growth of production and export sales of Chinese paper. These events correspond to an increasing U.S. trade deficit with China in paper. The EPI study shows that paper production in China tripled over the last ten years, despite global overcapacity, saturated markets, and no inherent advantage in the marketplace. It is clear to us that the rise of China's paper industry is less related to market forces than to a decision by China's government to implement an industrial policy that promotes domestic paper production.
America's paper industry is the most efficient in the world and is part of a supply chain that promotes sustainable forestry practices and good-paying jobs. This industry should not be asked to continue to compete on the unlevel playing field that China has constructed through heavy subsidization of domestic production. This is a critical period of time for the U.S. paper industry. Production in the U.S. has declined while China's surged. From 2002 through the end of 2009, U.S. employment in the paper and paper products sector dropped 29 percent, from roughly 557,000 workers to 398,000. In each of our states and districts, hardworking Americans still rely on the paper industry - both directly and indirectly - for their livelihoods and the chance for a decent, middle-class wage.
To that end, we urge you to carefully examine the practices employed by the Chinese government to provide its paper industry an artificial and unfair advantage in the U.S. market, and determine the extent to which these practices cause or threaten to cause harm to American producers. Such an analysis should be conducted to identify China's unfair trade practices in the paper industry and apply all appropriate and necessary remedies to combat those identified.
Thank you for your attention to this important issue.
Sincerely,
Sen. Olympia Snowe
Sen. Susan Collins
Rep. Mike Michaud
Rep. Chellie Pingree
and 104 other Members of Congress
Rep. Chellie Pingree announced today that she will vote against the $37 billion supplemental funding bill for the war in Afghanistan.
In a prepared statement Pingree said:
We spend $7 billion a month on the war in Afghanistan and every day it becomes more and more clear that we are pursuing a failed strategy that doesn't make America any safer. It's time to bring our troops and that money home.
After the events of 9/11, the United States went into Afghanistan to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and dismantle Al Qaeda, not to occupy the country or build the Afghan government, a government that has proven time and time again to be one of the most corrupt in the world.
Here she is on Hardball last night:
Last month Pingree voted against a similar version of supplemental spending that originated in the House. The Senate passed its own, separate version, and the House will be voting on that today.
Rep. Chellie Pingree has introduced a bill that would enable schools that receive Federal food assistance to use part of it to buy products from local farms. The Eat Local Foods Act (H.R. 5806) not only allows for whole, healthy foods to be served in school cafeterias, but also helps support small, local farms.
Here is Pingree introducing her bill on the House floor:
In June, Pingree held a Children's Nutrition Forum at Bonny Eagle Middle School in Buxton to hear from local school nutrition directors on how the federal government could better support their efforts to produce healthier meals for students. You can find the complete text of H.R. 5806 below the fold.
Rep. Chellie Pingree will be holding a telephone town hall meeting this evening, and you can participate by calling the number below. She will be taking questions and listening to comments from her constituents, so this is a great chance for your voice to be heard.
In a statement, Pingree said:
We are facing some big challenges right now-from the economy, to cracking down on Wall Street, to reforming our healthcare system. There is still much more work to do, which is why it's important for me to take every opportunity possible to hear from people here in Maine. This event is a great opportunity for people to ask questions on the issues and tell me what's on their mind. Their input is really important to what I do in Washington and here in Maine.
What: Telephone Town Hall Meeting
When: Thursday, 22 July at 7:00 p.m. EST
Number: 888.356.3090 ext. 15158
You can find out more by visiting Pingree's website here.
Am examination of filings to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) by candidates for both of Maine's congressional districts shows that fundraising efforts by incumbents Chellie Pingree (ME-1) and Mike Michaud (ME-2) far outpace that of their rivals. Findings were based on data filed on 30 June 2010 (link).
In the 1st District, Democrat Pingree has raised $669,657 compared to the $152,320 raised by her Republican challenger, Dean Scontras.
Eighty-one percent of the money Pingree has raised has come from individual contributors ($543,330), and 17.1% from PAC's ($114,755). Scontras has raised 94.0% of his campaign funds from individuals, with another 3.3% from PAC's.
Unlike his bid for the 2008 GOP nomination, Scontras has not contributed any of his own money to his campaign. That year he had spent $91,552 on his own campaign, or 23.5% of the total he raised.
Pingree has $361,122 on hand, compared to the $67,385 Scontras has left to spend.
::
In the 2nd District, Democrat Mike Michaud has raised $760,624, compared to the $259,169 raised by his challenger, Republican Jason Levesque. (It is of itnerest that Levesque has raised more in a district with a lower per capita income than that in southern Maine.)
Of the funds raised by Michaud, a whopping 72.6% comes from PAC's ($551,900 link), with only $198,140 (26.1%). In fact, Levesque has garnered more in personal contributions than the incumbent, at $202,862 (78.3%), with an additional $12,436 from PAC's (4.8%).
But things will not be easy for Levesque, who has only $58,962 on hand, compared to Michaud's $668,266.
Seeing the picture spreading on the Internet of a sign at a BP gas station with the company policy “you are responsible for all spills” made me think of something.
Let’s say you are filling your car at a BP gas station, the numbers on the pump steadily ticking. But when you pull out the pump you give it an extra squeeze, spilling oil on the ground. The meter on the pump just keeps rolling. In other words, you spill it, you buy it.
The House late Thursday approved additional funding for the war in Afghanistan, beating back a series of Democratic amendments aimed at forcing the Obama administration to withdraw troops.
The supplemental appropriations bill, containing billions of dollars in additional domestic spending sought by Democrats in the House, passed 239-182, with 15 Democrats and 167 of 177 Republicans voting against the measure.
But President Barack Obama will not be able to sign the war funding bill -- which the Pentagon had wanted to see signed into law by July 4 -- until later this month because the House amended the Senate's already approved version of the legislation.
And further changes seem likely. Just as the House was preparing to vote on the rule for the supplemental, the Obama administration released a statement strongly supporting the underlying war funding but threatening a presidential veto of any bill that includes "provisions that would undermine [the president's] ability as commander in chief to conduct military operations in Afghanistan."
Maine Reps. Mike Michaud and Chellie Pingree were amongst the 15 Democrats that voted against the bill. The each issued a statement regarding their votes - Michaud's:
I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan and visited with our troops there. They do an amazing job given their tremendously difficult mission.
I support the President's goals of defeating al Qaeda and reducing the threat of global terrorism. However, as we enter our ninth year of this war, our brave troops and their families are being strained by multiple redeployments. The cost of the war has now exceeded $1 trillion dollars, with billions of dollars more that will be needed to continue our current strategy in the region. With an investment of people and resources of this magnitude, I feel obligated to continue to call on the President to provide Congress and the American people with a firm plan and timeline for troop withdrawal, including a set date when U.S. forces will be completely out of Afghanistan.
Just like the Iraq War, I believe that it is of the utmost importance that we finalize a responsible plan to end our time in Afghanistan. Corruption is rampant in Afghanistan and I will continue to oppose these types of funding measures in the absence of a plan to bring our troops home.
I also remain deeply concerned about the ongoing use of supplemental appropriation bills since they allow Congress to circumvent all budget rules. That means every dollar in this bill is added directly to our ballooning debt at a time our economy is struggling. We need to get our fiscal house in order if we are ever going to be able to tackle domestic priorities like improving our economy.
And Pingree's:
Last week the Senate voted not to extend unemployment benefits or pass funding that would help keep firefighters and teachers on the job-because, they said, we couldn't afford it. Isn't it time to start asking whether we can afford a war that costs us $7 billion a month?
After the events of 9/11, the United States went into Afghanistan to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and dismantle Al Qaeda. Not to occupy the country or build the Afghan government, a government that has proven time and time again to be one of the most corrupt in the world.
A majority of American's don't think we should continue fighting the war in Afghanistan. It's time our national policy catches up with public opinion.
Congresswoman Chellie Pingree, a Member of the House Armed Services Committee, has announced her intention to vote against $37 billion in emergency spending to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"The war in Afghanistan has gone on too long, has cost us far too much in lives lost and dollars spent, and is not making America any safer," Pingree said. "We shouldn't be spending $7 billion a month to keep fighting that war when we have such pressing economic problems here at home."
Congress is considering funding requests for additional war spending and the House may vote on a bill as early as tomorrow.
"I fundamentally disagree with the notion that more US troops in Afghanistan will somehow make us safer here at home," Pingree said. "We are pursuing a failed strategy in that country and have somehow confused nation building with fighting the war on terror."
Earlier this week Pingree, and her colleague, Rep. Barbara Lee of California, began circulating this letter to President Obama demanding a certain date for withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan for their votes for additional funding.
Reps. Chellie Pingree and Barbara Lee (D-CA) have sent Presidant Barack Obama regarding U.S. efforts in Afghanistan the full text of which is below. While it doesn't explicitly that they will oppose further funding of military action there, it does say that that Obama needs to submit a comprehensive plan including when its goals need be achieved "for Congress to responsibly consider further funding requests for the war."
Pingree and Lee will begin circulating that letter amongst their colleagues today for their signatures.
Dear Mr. President,
We fully agree with your admonition that a "unity of effort" is necessary to pursue US policy in Afghanistan. We support your decisive action in accepting the resignation of General Stanley McChrystal to advance this goal. But, we believe that achieving unity of effort also requires a clear commitment, time-frame and plan for the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan.
The lack of clarity on when and how the US will end its military commitment to Afghanistan has created confusion amongst U.S. service members and the public. The controversial article in Rolling Stone Magazine that led you to accept the resignation of General McChrystal, for example, also reports that a senior military official stationed in Afghanistan believes that military success could actually lead to an escalation of forces, not a withdrawal: "There's a possibility we could ask for another surge of U.S. forces next summer if we see success here."
This view reflects the ambiguous and tentative positions that Secretary Gates and General Petraeus continue to articulate about a date certain for the withdrawal of US forces. On the ABC news program "This Week", Secretary Gates said: "We will have 100,000 troops there and they are not leaving in July of 2011. Some handful, or some small number, or whatever conditions permit, will begin to withdraw at that time." General Petraeus is described in today's Washington Post as "a commander who may become a formidable advocate for slowing, or arresting outright, the pace of troop reductions next summer."
Mr. President, we believe that it is imperative for you to provide Congress and the American people with a clear commitment and plan to withdraw US forces from Afghanistan. This should include not only a date certain for the initiation of this withdrawal but a date for its completion and a strategy to achieve it. We believe that clarity on this vital point is a prerequisite for the unity of effort that you rightly seek in the implementation of your Afghanistan policy and for Congress to responsibly consider further funding requests for the war.
I have long argued for a tax on toxic wastes, as it provides an incentive for industry to manufacture the same product while polluting less. And this bill from Rep. Chellie Pingree takes a similar tack, since it can be applied to all spills, even those currently seen as incidental to extraction:
And if you think you have seen the images of those wind turbines before, you have: in Vinalhaven wind turbines online - thanks Willy.
At first glance, the cafeteria at Bonny Eagle Middle School was typical. Students crowded around tables talking excitedly, quickly eating off trays and drinking out of milk cartons. But what made this scene stand out was the dark green swiss chard on their plates, grown by the students in the school's greenhouse. More surprising, though, was that they were eating it-and, by the looks of things, actually enjoying it.
I recently held a forum at the school to ask experts from around the state how we can make this scene the reality for more Maine schools. Now is the time to make the changes we need to get us there as we reauthorize the Child Nutrition Act. Joining me was Kevin Concannon, Under Secretary of Food and Nutrition at the U.S. Department of Agriculture-and a born-and-raised Mainer-who was eager for input on strengthening our country's child nutrition programs.
Video of the forum
What these experts-food service directors, nutritionists, agricultural leaders, child advocates, and more-had to say was clear. Maine is making incredible progress in providing our children healthier alternatives throughout the year, but things need to change so it can go further.
Every day, programs of the Child Nutrition Act help feed over 30 million of the nation's children. They are critical for the health and success of our children, and a lifesaver for low-income families, especially as a tough economy makes it more and more difficult to put a solid meal on the table. These healthy breakfasts, lunches, and snacks are as essential to education as pencils and notebooks. As Darlene French, president of Maine School Food Service Association, said at the forum, "You can't teach a hungry child."
But for too long the system has been geared toward processed food-high in calories, low in nutrition-to the benefit of a few large companies and agriculture producers. To what end? Our children eat food trucked across the country with no connection to where it came from. Childhood obesity is a national epidemic. Today's kids are dealing with health problems that, astonishingly, have made their life expectancy shorter than that of their parents.
The Nutrition Act is doing a good job at making sure children are fed-but we need to make sure it does a better job of what it feeds them.
I'm proud to say Maine is already taking the lead. Schools across the state are producing more nutritious meals that not only feed kids but also local economies. At the forum, nutrition directors recounted that they have been able to get kids to eat vegetables they wouldn't touch before, and, what's more, that students are asking their parents for it at home. The key has been engaging kids in the process, taking them to see the farms where their food grows or, in the case of Bonny Eagle, actually getting their hands dirty.
A local community feeding its own. A hundred years ago it was the norm-it's what my grandfather came to America to do. In today's drive-thru world, it's a foreign concept. But ask yourself the question, why should we truck a can of peas across the country when we can grow them right here? Like a watershed, a "foodshed" describes the food that can be produced in a given area. In Maine, that "foodshed" is rich with local farms looking to gain a foothold in the market. There is incredible potential for economic development if they have major institutions to create the demand.
Many Maine schools are eager to oblige and have been incredibly industrious in stretching their thin resources to make this change happen. But they don't have many of the resources they need. After all, for years, they made lunch from a box; it takes more equipment and more training to turn the raw ingredients into a meal.
Leaders at the forum expressed a number of ways the Nutrition Act could support their efforts. Schools need more access to grants like the one that helped Lewiston schools buy a refrigerator so it could store fresh ingredients. A more streamlined paperwork process would help eligible families sign up for free and reduced lunches as well as other programs. It should be harder for school districts to raid food budgets for other departments. A strong Farms to Schools program would set the groundwork schools need to access more local food.
Leaders also supported strengthening key Nutrition Act programs that subsidize meals at child-care facilities, provide assistance to summer student programs, provide snacks after school, funds grants for schools to provide fruits vegetables, and more.
Concannon was truly impressed with what he heard and, like me, pledged to bring their comments back to Washington as the Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act takes shape. If you have an idea to share, please email it to pingree.questions@mail.house.gov. You can find video of the entire forum at http://pingree.house.gov.
There's the old journalism phrase - "...if a man bites a dog, that is news". Well the bottom-line news right now is that the Democrats in Congress are voting to fund continuation of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and the Republicans are voting against the war funding.
What's with that?
Despite clear opposition to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars by the public, two pieces of legislation are being worked in Congress right now to fund expansion of the U.S. military occupation in Afghanistan and to fund yet another year of both U.S. wars. In each of these bills, the military-industrial-political interests have cleverly packaged war funding along with numerous other measures so many members of Congress risk the ire of at least some constituents if they vote to shut off the war funding drain.
The result -- two weeks ago, $33 billion in 2010 "emergency" war funding was approved by the U.S. Senate, and $159 billion in additional 2011 war funding was authorized by the U.S. House of Representatives. Note: more Congressional votes are needed before either of these spending measures is final, but the wars and the debts just keep rolling on with the Democrats in charge.
Beyond the fact that Congress continues to ignore the opinions of most Americans and votes contrary to America's true interests on the most important non-climate issue facing us, what's really interesting - the "man bites dog" part of the story - is how the two political parties lined up in Congress for the votes.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday morning blocked the state of Arizona from releasing further subsidy payments to candidates who are running for state offices this year with public financing. The order was issued without any noted dissent. The Court specified that the order would stay in effect until the Court acts on a coming appeal by challengers to the subsidy scheme.
---
The District judge had ruled that the subsidies would put an unconstitutional burden on state candidates who are running with only private funds, because increasing fund-raisiing and campaign spending by the privately financed candidates to get out their message would trigger added subsidies for the publicly financed candidates.
The challengers to the system, including some privately funded candidates, took the issue to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Circuit Justice for the Ninth Circuit, after the Circuit Court's may decision upholding the system. After some procedural missteps by the challengers, their latest plea to Kennedy was granted by the full Court after Kennedy shared it with his colleagues.
Maine has a similar system, but the impact of the injunction on Clean Election candidates here is unclear.
In response to the injunction, Rep. Chellie Pingree, a proponent of creating a clean election system for Federal candidates, had this to say:
The system has worked well in Maine and in states that have followed Maine's lead, like Arizona and Connecticut. But it seems that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts has set out to systematically dismantle the campaign finance reforms that people around the country have adopted.
There are three candidates for governor running clean (Pat McGowan, Peter Mills, and Libby Mitchell), as well as a majority of those seeking seats in the Legislature.
Make BP pay royalties on spilled oil and invest them in clean energy
When explosion and fire ripped through the Deepwater Horizon, the first priority was saving the lives of the crew. Sadly, for eleven workers, it was too late.
Then came the challenge of sealing the well with the blowout preventer, a mile below the surface. As we now know all too well, that effort was a complete failure.
Next there was a massive effort to contain the oil before it reached the fragile coastal ecosystem. But this week the first images of dead pelicans and oil coated marshes began to appear.
What comes next will be the assessment of the overwhelming damage to the Gulf Coast economy and environment and the long process of repairing that damage. The size of this spill is almostincomprehensible &emdash; reports of the damage have only just begun. And despite all the rhetoric we've heard, I don't think anyone is really convinced that every last fishing family will be made whole and every wetland retuned to its pre-spill condition any time soon.
Throughout all this, the public outrage has been palpable--in Washington, among the pundits and talking heads, in my own home state of Maine, and truly everywhere in the country. And while politician after politician has been clamoring to be the loudest voice shouting "make BP pay" it's been a challenge to find a clearly articulated progressive way forward--for the Gulf, or our entire nation.
Our response to this disaster--as Americans and progressives--will affect the economic and environmental health of our country and our planet for the rest of our lives. To help the Gulf recover, and to use this disaster to move our nation towards a renewable energy future, I propose that:
BP must be held accountable for this spill, and we should use the full force of government to force them to pay for every dime of the Gulf's recovery.
BP should pay royalties on every barrel of oil they have spilled into the Gulf of Mexico. That's the American people's oil, and we should be compensated for it.
Those royalty payments should be used to create clean energy projects. Let's make the big oil companies help us end our dependence on fossil fuels.
With the possible exception of Senate candidate Rand Paul, it's hard to imagine there is anyone in this country who doesn't think that BP should be made to pay--and pay dearly--for the damage they've done. Not only do we need to hold BP accountable, but we should also throw the book at them for every civil and criminal penalty that applies. But we also should look beyond reparation and retribution and use this crisis as an opportunity to move this country down the path to a clean energy future, and BP should help us get there.
Oil companies pay royalties on oil they sell. But the fact that millions of gallons of oil from the Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf will never make it to market shouldn't matter. BP should pay royalties on every drop that comes out of that well--whether or not they capture and sell it and whether or not they are proven to be negligent in the spill. By drilling quickly and ignoring what sound to be the warning signs of a blow out, BP caused massive amounts of oil to be spilled and wasted, and they should pay the same royalties on that oil, just as if they sold it.
Once we collect those royalties, we should put them to work helping developers of offshore clean energy to get their projects approved and permitted. For too long the system has been biased in favor of oil and gas developers: sweetheart lease deals, generous subsidies and a regulatory process so slanted in favor of Big Oil that often permit reviews are simply waived.
Incredibly, oil and gas companies don't have to pay certain environmental costs that amount to small change to them, while an offshore wind project start-up is faced with fees that could mean the difference between building a wind farm and packing up and going home. One way to level the playing field is to put the millions of dollars in royalties I believe BP owes on the spilled oil into a special fund to help cover those environmental permitting fees for ocean-based clean energy projects.
There is an incredible renewable energy resource off both coasts of this country--wind and tidal energy that can power our economy, create good paying jobs and reduce greenhouse gas pollution. It's time for us to start using it and if big oil companies like BP make that transition a little easier, then there is some justice in the world.
Maine Congresswoman Chellie Pingree is Vice Co-Chair of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition
Update: Rep. Pingree's amendment was voted down last night, 193 to 231 (Roll Call 316), but the companion bill in the Senate that was voted out of committee yesterday does NOT include funding for the alternative engine. It seems unlikely that any money will be added by the Senate, but we'll see what happens in the Conference Committee.
::
On the House Floor today, Rep. Chellie Pingree argued that an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter be removed from a Defense Department funding bill, saving $500 million dollars. The engines that the planes will use are manufactured by Pratt & Witney, which has a plant in North Berwick, which employs over 1,200.
Pingree said, in part, "If Congress decides to ignore Defense Department officials, estimates show we will purchase 50 to 80 fewer planes, which will definitely affect our national security. Let there be no mistake: to spend a half-billion dollars building an engine that isn't needed and the Pentagon doesn't want is a colossal waste of money."
The video from the Floor:
Rep. Pingree alludes to the position of the Obama administration, which is clear in its full statement:
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Extra Engine: The Administration strongly objects to the addition of $485 million for the extra engine program and to associated legislative provisions that limit the obligation of overall JSF development funding to 75 percent of the amount authorized until the funds for FY 2011 have been obligated for the extra engine program, require the Secretary to ensure that each budget in the Future Years Defense Plan include, and expend, sufficient funding to continue the program, and designate the F135 and F136 engine development and procurement programs as major subprograms. As Secretary Gates has noted, even after factoring in Congress' additional funding, the extra engine would still require a further investment of $2.4 billion before it could be considered as a viable extra engine for the JSF program. The Department does not believe that this cost will ever be recovered in a hypothesized competition or that the funds should be diverted from important defense needs. The current engine is performing well with more than 13,000 ground test and 200 flight test hours. If the final bill presented to the President includes funding or a legislative direction to continue an extra engine program, the President's senior advisors would recommend a veto.
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program: The Administration strongly objects to provisions of the bill which could limit the procurement of the 42 aircraft requested in the President's FY 2011 Budget. The onerous restrictions impose unacceptable schedule and budget risks on the JSF program. While the Department believes the restructured development schedule is achievable, failure to achieve any one of the criteria would affect the procurement decision with significant impact on unit cost, production ramp, and TACAIR force structure. The Department's F-35 procurement request is in line with independent manufacturing studies, risk review recommendations, and the FY11 request reflects an optimized production. If the final bill presented to the President contains provisions that would seriously disrupt the F-35 program, the President's senior advisors would recommend a veto. (emphasis in the original)
If we want to find a perfect example of why we need comprehensive health-care reform, we need look no further than our own state and the insurance company that dominates its market, Anthem.
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VA) Togus in Augusta serves thousands of Maine veterans every year. At this facility, men and women who have made great sacrifices for their country and community get the medical care they deserve. But for Anthem this has become an opportunity to cut costs.
Veterans covered by the Anthem Federal Employee Plan go to Togus for medical treatment. The hospital had a year to file claims to the insurance company for payment. That is, until last summer, when officials at Togus were told that a half-million dollars in claims would not be paid. They had not been submitted by the deadline-Anthem's new deadline of 120 days.
How did the insurance company communicate this important policy change? With a short blurb buried in the company newsletter, which, by the way, the hospital has no record of receiving. There were no letters, no calls, and no emails until the hospital had racked up a half-million in claims the company had no intention of paying.
When my office was told of the situation we looked into it and decided to send a letter to Anthem president Daniel Corcoran urging him to reconsider the new policy. Not only did the unexpected and un-communicated change result in a huge shortfall for a facility that already struggles to cover all the needs of our veterans, but the short deadline presented an unreasonable burden going forward.
We were pleased to hear in January that the company had decided to pay those claims and restore the former filing deadline. However, I do remain concerned about how the company arrived at this unfair and inconsiderate policy in the first place. Combined with other recent company decisions I consider questionable, it seems to be par for the course.
We are all dealing with the results of the economic downturn. For Maine families, it has meant working harder, cutting back, and making sacrifices. But for insurance companies, the coping strategy has been cutting coverage, denying claims, and asking customers to pay skyrocketing rates.
The strategy has certainly proved effective for the companies. Wellpoint-Anthem's parent company and the largest insurer in the nation-posted a $4.7 billion profit in 2009 (not to mention $2.5 billion in 2008 and $3 billion in 2007). The company expects to have larger returns in 2010.
What does this mean for us? The company says it's suffering from the bad economy because customers are cancelling policies which have become unaffordable. To make up for the loss of income, the company has dramatically increased the rates on its remaining customers. In California, Anthem is asking for a 39 percent increase on individual policies, sparking an investigation by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, chaired by Henry Waxman.
Maine is also being asked to absorb Anthem's dramatic rate increases. This year it's 22 percent, which will force many customers to drop their policies. The proposal comes as the company sues the State of Maine to overturn its denial of last year's 18 percent increase request.
Along with leaders in the Maine Legislature, I've written a letter to Chairman Waxman asking to expand the committee's investigation into Anthem's skyrocketing rates to include the company's practices in Maine.
Why do insurance companies think they can get away with choosing excessive profits over the very lives and livelihoods of their customers? Well, because right now they can. A handful of large corporations dominate the country's market. In Maine, Anthem's market share is nearly 80 percent. With little or no competition in the market, customers have only two choices: take the hit from an insurance company or go without.
That just isn't acceptable. We need to institute measures that give power back to consumers by holding insurance companies accountable and creating more competition. Insurance companies should not be able to deny coverage and cherry-pick the healthy. Consumers should have measures that protect them from being bankrupted by high out-of-pocket costs, and seniors should have lower prescription drug costs.
And consumers should have choices. Not between going without and an overpriced, under-covering policy, but between a number of options that all offer quality, affordable care.
I think the best way to get there is passing comprehensive health-care reform with a public option-a voluntary, publicly accountable insurance plan. This would expand and improve coverage for millions by insuring some Americans and bringing down costs for others by growing competition in the market.
Think what insurance companies would do if consumers could hold them accountable. They would probably think twice before proposing skyrocketing rates and denying payment owed for veterans. This power-the choice of the consumer-is central to the health-care reform we need.
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL8), has introduced a bill that he hopes is added to the health insurance reform bill now in Congress. The Medicare You Can Buy Into Act (H.R. 4789) would allow exactly what it says - allow anyone that does not currently qualify for Medicare to buy into it:
(a) Every individual who--
(1) is a resident of the United States;
(2) is either (A) a citizen or national of the United States, or (B) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence; and
(3) is not otherwise entitled to benefits under this part or eligible to enroll under this part;
shall be eligible to enroll in the insurance program established by this part. An individual may enroll under this section only in such manner and form as may be prescribed in regulations, and only during an enrollment period prescribed in or under this section.
In explaining his bill, Grayson has this opinion piece in OpEdNews:
Health insurance companies charge as much money as possible, and they provide as little care as possible. The difference is called profit. You can't blame them for it; that's what a corporation does.
---
In many areas of the country, one or two insurers have over 80% of the market. They can charge anything they want. And when you get sick, they can flip the bird at you. So we need a public option.
And they face no real competition because it costs billions of dollars just to set up a national health care network. In fact, the only one that's nationwide is . . . Medicare. And we limit that to one-eight of the population.
Grayson thinks he can add this language to what is currently on the House floor by demanding a vote. Rep. Chellie Pingree is already a cosponsor of H.R. 4789, but Rep. Mike Michuad is not.
In late January, I reported on a letter that Reps. Chellie Pingree and Jared Polis (CO-2) would send to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, requesting that a public option be included in the Senate version of the health insurance reform bill (a copy of the letter is here).
Because of the rules surrounding budget reconciliation, the process that would allow health care reform to move through with 51 votes, any Senator may bring up an amendment to the package. An opponent of the amendment will then likely make a point of order and argue that the amendment violates the "Byrd Rule" and is out of order. If the parliamentarian sustains the point of order, the amendment would need 60 votes to pass. But if he deems that it complies with the rules of reconciliation -- that it has a substantial effect on the budget and is germane to the legislation -- then the amendment passes with a majority vote.
Chris Bowers, who has been counting votes based on public responses and private correspondence, counts at least 45 votes for a public option. Democrats would need to find five more, with Vice President Joe Biden breaking the tie. The new movement for the public option began with a letter sent from progressive House freshmen Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) and picked up speed when freshman Sen. Michael Bennett (D-Colo.) organized his colleaguesaround it. (Read the letter here.) Meanwhile, outside progressive organizations have been flooding Congress with calls from constituents, asking members to sign on to the effort.
UPDATE: Bowers sends in a more recent item of his putting the number at 51; without Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.), the number would still hit the 50-threshold.
"Too many people in Washington believe that just saying you are for health care reform is a substitute for actually getting something done," said Bennet in a statement. "While some choose to stall progress under the pretext of principle, more and more Americans are losing the health care coverage they need."
Bennet has already secured the support of fellow Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), as well as more than 8,400 people who signed online through an accompanying website.
"Although we strongly support the important reforms made by the Senate-passed health reform package, including a strong public option would improve both its substance and the public's perception of it," Bennet said in his letter to Reid. "The Senate has an obligation to reform our unworkable health insurance market - both to reduce costs and to give consumers more choices. A strong public option is the best way to deliver on both of these goals, and we urge its consideration under reconciliation rules."
So, it seems that the public option is not quite dead yet.
DIRIGO BLUE is available as an