I was very surprised to Markos Moulitsas, owner of Daily Kos, link to an anti-OFA screed, describe OFA's organizational model as "OFA's whatever-the-[expletive deleted]-it-is-that-they're-doing model" and declare "Sounds about right". It's particularly surprising when the ridiculous screed was so full of contradictions, misinformation and general whining about how the Democratic party has done gone and changed.
With all due respect to Markos and the author, John Morgan, they clearly don't have a clue what they are talking about when it comes to OFA. So I thought I'd try to give them little dose of reality.
After my diary about the epic Frank Luntz fail got so much attention here and at Daily Kos yesterday, I emailed Countdown with Keith to bring it to their attention. It seemed to fit in nicely with their segment about Luntz from the day before.
Sure enough, they picked it up and it was the subject of Keith's only "Short Comment" last night. The video can be seen in bfealk's diary.
It was a fun day. We've had our laugh at Mssr. Luntz. But now it's time to move forward. The fact is he doesn't give a damn if we're laughing at his mistake. He will continue to help the GOPosaurs eat the Dems' lunch if they don't get our messaging act together.
A new ranking of the world's nations by environmental performance puts some of the globe's largest economies far down the list, with the United States sinking to 61st and China to 121st.
In the previous version of the Environmental Performance Index, compiled every two years by Yale and Columbia University researchers, the United States ranked 39th, and China 105th.
The top performer was Iceland, which gets nearly all of its power from renewable sources, followed closely by Switzerland, Sweden, Norway and Finland.
"Countries that take seriously the environment as a policy challenge do improve, and those that don't deteriorate," said Daniel C. Esty, director of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, who oversees the index project.
The paper does note that because most of the data is from 2007 and 2008, "the index does not fully reflect new efforts by the Obama administration" to improve environmental performance. It also notes that the U.S. scores well in forestry and safe drinking water, but our ranking is abysmal because we score low in areas like heat-trapping emissions and urban air pollutants.
Increasing renewable energy would help decrease our emissions. The good news is that we're advancing quickly in one area - wind power.
Despite a crippling recession and tight credit markets, the American wind power industry grew at a rapid pace in 2009, adding 39 percent more capacity. The country is close to the point where 2 percent of its electricity will come from wind turbines.
According to the NYT, that's up from virtually nothing a few years ago, and they reported that the American Wind Association said "the amount of capacity added last year, 9,900 megawatts, was the largest on record, and was 18 percent above the capacity added in 2008, also a banner year."
The nation's wind turbines generate enough electricity to power the equivalent of 9.7 million homes, according to the report. Last year, Texas consolidated its lead as the nation's top wind producer, with a total capacity of 9,410 megawatts, about three times more than the second-largest producer, Iowa. They were followed by California, Washington and Minnesota.
And guess what the AWEA credits for the growth of wind power? "The U.S. wind industry shattered all installation records in 2009, and this was directly attributable to the lifeline that was provided by the stimulus package," said Denise Bode, the trade association's chief executive.
However, as extraordinary as growth has been in this area, they also point out that it could be better if Congress would pass a a federal mandate requiring that a certain percentage of power come from renewable sources. Mandates already exist throughout the European Union and in China, and in the U.S. 29 states have adopted a renewable power standard, including Michigan, which set a standard of 10% of electricity from renewable resources by 2015.
"The wind manufacturing sector has the potential to employ many more Americans in green jobs, but without a renewable electricity standard to provide a long-term market, the sector will be slow to grow," the trade group said in its report.
I'm so tired of the U.S. falling behind in everything but the strength of our military. The U.S. should be leading the way in this area instead of falling further behind. And although we're fortunate to have Gov. Granholm and other Democrats with foresight and vision pushing for higher standards, we're still stuck with obstructionist Republicans who would rather help their fossil fuel cronies than our environment. Just imagine how much better our country could be if Republicans didn't always stand in the way.
I am extremely disillusioned with the shape the healthcare bill has taken, but I'm not willing to say it shouldn't pass and/or we should start over. I'll let Kevin Drum speak for me. He makes a compelling argument for seeing this bill through.
With the public option now out of the healthcare bill, is it still worth passing? Regular readers will be unsurprised that I think the answer is pretty firmly yes-and that liberals who now want to pick up their toys and hand reform its sixth defeat in the past century need to wake up and smell the decaf. Politics sucks. It always has. But the bill in front of us-messy, incomplete, and replete with bribes to every interest group imaginable-is still well worth passing.
When big legislative efforts go down in flames, they almost never spring back onto the calendar anytime soon - and that's especially true when big healthcare bills fail. It didn't happen in 1936, it didn't happen in 1949, it didn't happen in 1974, and it didn't happen in 1995. What makes anyone think it will happen in 2010?
Drum also makes the point that if healthcare reform dies this year, it dies for a good long time, and Republicans know it. And even though it's not the bill we wanted, it's a good start. Via Ezra Klein:
"This is a good bill," Sen. Sherrod Brown said on Countdown last night. "Not a great bill, but a good bill." That's about right. But the other piece to remember is that more than it's a good bill, it's a good start. With $900 billion in subsidies already in place, it's easier to add another hundred billion later, if we need it, than it would be to pass $1 trillion in subsidies in 2011. With the exchanges built and private insurers unable to hold down costs, it's easier to argue for adding a strong public option to the market than it was before we'd tried regulation and a new competitive structure. With 95 percent of the country covered, it's easier to go the final 5 percent. And with a health-care reform bill actually passed, it's easier to convince legislators that passing such bills is possible.
Insurers have to take all comers. They can't turn you down for a preexisting condition or cut you off after you get sick.
Community rating. Within a few broad classes, everyone gets charged the same amount for insurance.
Individual mandate. I know a lot of liberals hate this, but how is it different from a tax? And its purpose is sound: it keeps the insurance pool broad and insurance rates down.
A significant expansion of Medicaid.
Subsidies for low and middle income workers that keeps premium costs under 10% of income.
Limits on ER charges to low-income uninsured emergency patients.
Caps on out-of-pocket expenses.
A broad range of cost-containment measures.
A dedicated revenue stream to support all this.
Drum is right. This is still a huge achievement, one that will benefit tens of millions of people in very concrete ways and will do it without expanding our long-term deficit. And he also points out "this is more than Bill Clinton ever did, more than Teddy Kennedy did, more than LBJ did, more than Truman did, and more than FDR did."
A new Bloomberg poll shows Americans want the government to do something about the economy.
Americans want their government to create jobs through spending on public works, investments in alternative energy or skills training for the jobless.
They also want the deficit to come down. And most are ready to hand the bill to the wealthy.
A Bloomberg National Poll conducted Dec. 3-7 shows two- thirds of Americans favor taxing the rich to reduce the deficit.
Raising taxes on the rich was popular across party lines too: About half of Republicans back the idea and it is more popular among Democrats and Independents.
Teabagger Republicans. According to the latest Rasmussen poll, Republicans have fallen to third place in terms of popularity.
In a three-way Generic Ballot test, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds Democrats attracting 36% of the vote. The Tea Party candidate picks up 23%, and Republicans finish third at 18%. Another 22% are undecided.
So are Republicans worried? Nope. Greg Sargent asked for the GOP's leadership view of the poll and this was one senior GOP aide's reply:
This proves one of the major points that Democrats have tried hard to deny: the Tea Party movement is not some fringe group of ultra-conservatives, it is most popular among independents, many of whom believed President Obama's campaign promises about doing things differently in Washington, and feel burned by the fact that he has governed in a relentlessly partisan fashion.
Partisan? Did he really say partisan? Three words: Health care reform. Obama reached out to Republicans and they said NO.
I think GOP leadership has to spin this in a favorable light. After all, several Glenn Beck inspired Tea Party candidates are causing problems for a number of GOP lawmakers, including John McCain. They're caught between a rock and a hard place. They can't afford to ignore the teabaggers, and they can't afford to embrace them at the risk of losing their moderate members.
And I don't take too seriously the GOP spokesperson's comment that "the Tea Party movement is not some fringe group." Again, really? What else would you call a group that invited Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman to speak at their national convention next year. And don't forget about Joe the Plumber.
I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing that any independents with a smidgen of commonsense will embrace the teabaggers, the same group that shows up at rallies with guns and posters comparing health care reform to pictures of dead bodies at the Dachau concentration camp. These people are not mainstream Americans, they're extremists.
And when a fake party "that doesn't have organized candidates or organized fundraising is more highly thought of than one of the two traditionally dominant political parties," that's a sign that Republicans are in big trouble, no matter how much they spin this poll.
Thank you for respecting a woman's right to choose, Congressman Schauer, and for also having the courage to say what many women think - "The government doesn't belong in the room when these very personal, private decisions are being made." And neither does the religious right, Council of Catholic Bishops and Bart Stupak. They certainly don't speak for all people of faith.
UCC Minister and Co-Team Leader for the Cleveland-based Team, the Rev. Loey Powell, reiterated the UCC's 40-year history of support for reproductive health care and said of the amendment, "We join [partner faith] groups in expressing our disappointment that the House bowed to pressure exerted at the last minute from anti-abortion lobbyists ... Once again women's health and well-being have been compromised in the halls of Congress."
The United Methodist Church's official positions on abortion and immigration stand in opposition, however, to restrictions placed in the bill that limit coverage for all of God's children living in the United States. H.R. 3962 excludes immigrants and women whose circumstances indicate need for an abortion. These restrictions even include persons who now have such insurance.
The bill establishes a two-tiered system of health delivery. It essentially penalizes women and immigrants with fewer economic resources.
"This Stupak-Pitts amendment is an egregious assault on the rights of women and an enormous step backward for those who believe in the separation of religion and state. It enshrines one religious view of abortion into law and enlists the federal government to enforce it.
Regardless of Republican gloating, I'm not reading too much into yesterday's election. They picked up a couple of governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, but Democrats picked up two seats in Congress, and those two seats might just make the difference in getting health care reform passed.
The NY-23 seat abdicated by Republican John McHugh (who resigned to become Secretary of the Army) went to Democrat Bill Owens--the first Democrat to hold the seat in over a century. And the CA-10 seat abdicated by Democrat Ellen Tauscher (who resigned to become Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs) went to Democrat John Garamendi.
That creates some simple arithmetic. Yesterday, Democrats had 256 voting members in the House. By week's end, they'll have 258. Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi could afford to lose no more than 38 Democratic votes on a landmark health care reform bill. Next week, after Owens and Garamendi are sworn in, she can lose up to 40. For legislation this historic and far-reaching, she'll need every vote she can get--and both seem likely to support reform.
I'll give up two governorships in return for getting health care reform passed.
And this news will be music to the ears of gay rights activists: "As gay marriage was being voted down in Maine, several openly gay candidates in the South scored victories."
In the south!! So go ahead and gloat, Republicans. It doesn't matter, because mainstream America is not red. (Are you paying attention, Dems?)
As Cordelia Lear pointed out yesterday, the opt-out choice that allows states to withdraw from the public option is no panacea. Read what she says about Mike Bishop and Andy Dillon to understand why opt-out is a bad idea, but it's basically because the public option choice will literally be in the hands of lawmakers who don't care about us.
I originally figured I could live with the opt-out plan because it's loosely modeled on Medicaid, "which originally allowed states to "opt-out" of the program and today enjoys the participation of all 50 states." And, as TPM pointed out, there was good reason to believe that the public option would have been a lot scarier as a GOP straw man than it would as a real world option for people who can't get private coverage.
And if the public option is available in North Carolina, just to pick a hypothetical, and not South Carolina, after a while, people in the South Carolina might start to wonder what the logic was of denying them a lower cost health insurance option. And if that's true, presumably, pressure will build in the opt-out states to opt-in. So even if a substantial number of people aren't covered at the start, there's good reason to believe that will change over time.
There's just one tiny problem with the "presumably, pressure will build to opt-in" scenario. We're dealing with politicians who often put party ideology ahead of people. If pressuring our leaders worked, we would have had health care a long time ago.
And, as Cordelia mentioned, it's not exactly clear who gets to do the opting-out. Will governors be able to unilaterally make that decision or will it take action by both houses of the state legislature? As Jon Walker at FDL pointed out, depending on how the opt-out is written, millions of people in states controlled by Republicans could find themselves disenfranchised.
If a Republican becomes Michigan's next governor, or they manage to pick up any seats, we can kiss opting-in goodbye. Seriously. That makes the next election extremely important because there's just one thing standing between national health care and the 1.13 million uninsured adults in our state - Republicans (and DINO's like Dillon).
The Democracy Corps released a survey last week about conservative Republicans that highlights how they're a world apart from most of us. I know, shocking!
These voters identify themselves as part of a 'mocked' minority with a set of shared beliefs and knowledge, and commitment to oppose Obama that sets them apart from the majority in the country. They believe Obama is ruthlessly advancing a 'secret agenda' to bankrupt the United States and dramatically expand government control to an extent nothing short of socialism.
They also believe they possess a level of knowledge and understanding when it comes to politics and current events, one gained from a rejection of the mainstream media and an embrace of conservative media and pundits such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.
There was one area where we shared common ground though: "These voters had virtually nothing positive to say about the Republican Party. They see their own party as weak, old, and out of touch."
It's what the survey showed about independents that I found most interesting though:
The independent voters ... share the conservative Republicans' disdain for the current Republican Party, but their critique is not that the party has abandoned its conservative principles but instead that it advances the interests of the rich and big businesses at the expense of the middle class. They worry about the Democratic Party's proclivity to spend tax dollars and provide 'freebies' to those who do not do their fair share, but they appreciate the Democrats' focus on 'the little people' (among which they included themselves) and the fact that 'it's not all about the money.'
It appears the GOP's single-minded focus on corporate America and tax breaks for the rich is a failure in terms of increasing market share - a.k.a. voters.
In late January, a USA Today/Gallup poll recorded 27 percent of respondents saying they identified with the Republican Party, 36 percent with Democrats and 25 percent as unaffiliated or independent. Now in mid-October, the average data compiled from dozens of surveys over more than a year shows Republican ID at 22.5 percent, Democratic ID at 33.7 percent and Independent ID at 35 percent.
Mainstream America is represented by nearly 70% of the electorate consisting of Democrats and Independents, a group that cares about the common good, the "little people." It is not represented by the 22% of Republicans (18% in Michigan) that to a large degree are defined by voters who embrace Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.
If only we could get our lawmakers in Lansing and Washington to remember that.
This is short notice, but here's news about a "Storm The Capital - Save The Promise" rally being held today in Lansing. From the MSU College Democrats:
As our Legislators continue attempting to balance Michigan's budget, it is not looking good for the Promise Scholarship.
If we as students don't act now, the Promise Scholarship is going to be ELIMINATED, forcing you to find up to an additional $2,000.00 to pay for college THIS YEAR.
We need to let our Legislators in Lansing know that we cannot afford to eliminate the Michigan Promise Scholarship for students. That is why we are going to Storm the Capitol.
This Tuesday, we need hundreds of students to Storm the Capitol to help save the Promise Scholarship. Budget decisions could be made any day, and this will be the last chance to try and save the scholarship.
Any student who wants to Storm Lansing will be provided with free transportation to and from the Capitol; we will be providing free transportation via CATA. All you need to do is meet at MSU Union at 2:00 p.m. this Tuesday, September 22nd.
THIS IS IT. This is not a partisan issue or about politics, it is about being able to continue attending college. We will be urging both chambers - Democrats or Republicans - to support higher education and the Promise. Please make an effort so show up; your scholarship relies on it!
The MI Chamber of Commerce has a real image problem. They don't care two bits (which I believe translates into 25 cents) about the unemployed and they apparently support Glenn Beck's view that President Obama is a racist, along with Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor. How else to explain the fact they invited him to be the keynote speaker at the Chamber's annual meeting in September?
Michigan Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer has some questions for the Chamber that I think are relevant.
"Does the Chamber agree with the views of Beck that President Obama and Justice Sotomayor are racists? What's next for the Chamber? Inviting Jackson County Commissioner Phil Duckham, who has compared President Obama to Hitler, to address the Chamber on health care reform?"
I'd like to hear the answer to those questions, particularly since 36 companies have now distanced themselves from Beck by refusing to run ads during his show.
The new companies distancing themselves from Beck include Airware Inc. (makers of Brez anti-snoring aids), Ancestry.com, AT&T, Blaine Labs Inc., Campbell Soup Company, Clorox, Ditech, The Elations Company, Experian (creator of FreeCreditReport.com), Farmers Insurance Group, Johnson & Johnson (makers of Tylenol), Lowe's, NutriSystem, Sprint, The UPS Store and Verizon Wireless.
Those businesses join twenty other companies who previously pledged not to run additional ads on Beck's show, including the recent addition of Bank of America.
Beyond Beck's racist rantings, he's also known for other crazy, lunatic statements, including wanting to kill Michael Moore, praying that Dennis Kucinich would burst into flames, and telling people he takes his gun to the movies.
I thought the whole point of the Chamber was to further the interests of businesses. Why any Michigan business would want to be associated with an organization whose "interests" include racism, violence and murder is beyond me. The MICOC is not only unprofessional, they're downright scary.
Former Davison City Council Member Kevin McKague has a LTE in the Flint Journal about the lies and innuendo surrounding health care reform. Kevin believes the GOP's tactics will backfire, just as they did during the presidential election last year, and we'll see a reform bill passed. This is part of what he had to say:
Today, millions of people have no health care insurance. Instead of seeing a primary health care provider at the first signs of illness, they are forced to wait until they are seriously sick, and receive emergency room care, where the costs are far higher, and the bills are often passed onto the rest of us.
Rather than live with a status quo, which will only get worse, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are working to find a solution. The Republicans, led by radio talk show hosts and insurance company executives, spread discredited rumors. Let's not mince words. Much of what you've heard from the "hide grandma" crowd arguing against health care reforms are lies, plain and simple.
Mark my words, these tactics will fail, just as they did in last year's election. The only people who believe the lies were never in a million years going to support President Obama to begin with. The rest of us are fair enough, and care about the future of this nation enough, to see who has our best interests at heart.
There will be a health care reform bill passed into law this year. Come mid-term elections next year, more Americans will have health care coverage as a direct result of this law, and most Americans are going to remember which party they have to thank for that. [emphasis added]
Conversely, most Americans are going to remember which party they have to blame for obstructing health care reform and they'll vote accordingly.
The Democratic National Committee called me this morning and asked if I could contribute $100 dollars to help move the Democratic agenda forward. This was my not too lady-like response:
I will not contribute another dime to Democrats until they get their shit together on passing health care reform that includes a public option.
What is the matter with Democrats? Voters handed them a mandate for change and they're wimping out on us. Quit listening to the teabaggers, deathers, Blue Dogs, and people like Grassley, Betsy McCaughey and Dick Armey and his Freedom Works. They don't represent the majority of Americans who say we should have the option of government-run health insurance.
They don't represent the majority of Americans who took this CNN poll. (Results as of 9:30 a.m. this morning.)
And they don't represent the one in four Americans who now call health care the nation's most important problem - up from 16% a month ago and 6% a year ago.
Consider this tough love, Dems. I can't show my displeasure at the ballot box until next year, but I can - and I will - stop enabling your bad behavior. When you're ready to start talking about public health insurance again, I'll consider making a donation, but until then you're on your own.
What two words have been missing from the health care debate on the right? Compassion and religion. The party of compassionate conservatism has always been quick to use religion when it served their purpose in the past, but curiously, neither word has been mentioned often in relation to health care reform. There have been a few exceptions though. While conducting a town hall in Lebanon, PA, Sen. Arlen Specter was threatened with God's wrath by one protester.
"One day, God's gonna stand before you," he said. "And he's gonna judge you and the rest of your damn cronies up on the Hill, and then you can get your just desserts."
I wonder if that person was referring to the lies being told by some critics? As Jim Wallis of Sojourners recently said, "one important moral principle for the health-care debate is truth-telling."
The religious right may be keeping quiet about this issue, but a coalition of interfaith religious groups is backing health care reform. They've launched a 40 day campaign targeting 100 member of Congress and they'll participate in a telephone call-in event with President Obama on Aug 19.
Members of the group said Monday that they intend to fight back against what they say are lies being told about health reform.
"All of God's children [have] got to be covered now," said Rev. Jim Wallis, the CEO of Sojourners. "This is not a partisan political move. You are going to hear the moral drumbeat throughout this debate."
The campaign is sponsored and organized by PICO National Network, Faith in Public Life, Faithful America, Sojourners and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.
Catholics in Alliance believe "health care is a basic human right, not a privilege," and Faithful America is letting Congress know people of faith support health care reform in a national TV ad.
Christians aren't alone in this effort. The coalition also includes Jewish and Muslim leaders. In fact, the National Democratic Jewish Council launched a "Rabbis for Health Insurance Reform" webpage urging Congress to get legislation passed for "Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Muslims, and Jews."
"Our tradition teaches us to pursue justice," the site reads. "Yet it is not a just society when families are forced to choose between paying their mortgages or paying for prescription drugs. It is not a just society when small businesses must choose between being profitable or providing coverage to their employees. It is not a just society when people are denied health insurance because they have a pre-existing condition for which they need medical care. Equal access to safe and affordable health care is an essential social justice issue of our time.
If ever there was a time to bring religion and compassion into the discussion, this is it. As one Indianapolis pastor who is part of the coalition said, this "effort addresses the suffering parishioners they [clergy] see each week who can't afford treatments until their ailments reach emergency room levels. ... This is as much a crisis of faith as it is a crisis of health care."
Via Kevin Drum comes this news about Bart Stupak and John Dingell from yesterday's House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing into the practice of rescission. This is when a health insurer retroactively cancels coverage after a patient becomes sick with an expensive-to-treat illness. As Drum pointed out, the insurance industry executives did not exactly cover themselves with glory:
A Texas nurse said she lost her coverage, after she was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer, for failing to disclose a visit to a dermatologist for acne.
The sister of an Illinois man who died of lymphoma said his policy was rescinded for the failure to report a possible aneurysm and gallstones that his physician noted in his chart but did not discuss with him.
....Late in the hearing, [Bart] Stupak, the committee chairman, put the executives on the spot. Stupak asked each of them whether he would at least commit his company to immediately stop rescissions except where they could show "intentional fraud."
The answer from all three executives: "No."
Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) said that a public insurance plan should be a part of any overhaul because it would force private companies to treat consumers fairly or risk losing them. "This is precisely why we need a public option," Dingell said.
And this is precisely why 76 percent of Americans say it's "extremely" or "quite" important to "give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance."
John Dingell gets it. Bart Stupak gets it. He said an insurance company "is supposed to honor its commitments and stand by you in your time of need."
Come on, Washington. How many more people have to die, forego needed medical care or file for bankruptcy before you do the right thing? Stop playing games with our lives.
Gallup asked Americans who they trust to make the right recommendations on health care reform. Guess who came in last. Republicans. Behind insurance companies!
Why don't Americans trust Republicans? Possibly because they continue to peddle lies and scare stories (socialism, socialism!).
Or because the Medicare Advantage program they rammed through during Bush's first term will give insurance companies "an estimated $177 billion in excess payments over 10 years to compete with Medicare - subsidies that Obama would sensibly cut to help pay for health care reform."
Or because Republicans blocked Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices, blocked importing drugs from Canada or Mexico, and argued that competition would lower prices. How did that work out?
Today, seniors pay 60% more for the same drugs than the price charged veterans because the Veteran's Administration does negotiate lower prices.
Republicans just aren't credible. They had an opportunity to do something good for seniors and they blew it, choosing instead to side with powerful pharmaceutical lobbyists.
Michigan has a dirty little secret and it's driving people out of our state.
Lindsay Duneske said she discovered how weak Michigan's Consumer Protection Act has become after the company that built her new home in Milan kept putting off needed repairs.
She said she and her husband bought the house in 2007 for $306,000, after receiving assurances that the builder would fix buckling roof shingles and vinyl siding, leaky windows and other problems.
After the builder reneged, Duneske said, she couldn't find a lawyer to help her because home builders are no longer covered by the Consumer Protection Act.
She said the builder eventually went out of business and its lawyer got a court order to stop her from pestering him.
"We have been totally and completely cheated," Duneske said, adding that she feels betrayed by state officials. "We are looking to move, and it will be anywhere but Michigan." [emphasis mine]
Builders aren't the only ones exempted from the law. Banks, mortgage brokers, debt collectors, finance companies, home improvement contractors, new and used car dealers, auto repair shops, funeral homes, and plumbers and electricians are included. And according to a State Bar of Michigan Consumer Law Section study, consumers are at risk:
The study, titled "Consumers at Risk: Are Most of Michigan's Worst Business Practices Exempt from Our Consumer Protection Act?", examined businesses on the state Attorney General's list of top 10 consumer complaints for 2008. It found that 72 percent of businesses generating the most complaints are exempt from the state's Consumer Protection Act due to Michigan Supreme Court decisions. [emphasis added] That includes nearly all the businesses in the top three complaint categories - credit and finance; gasoline, fuel and energy; and telecommunications, satellite and cable TV.
Michigan Supreme Court decisions (a Republican Supreme Court majority installed by former Gov. John Engler) in 1999 and 2007 turned the law into mush according to former State Attorney General Frank Kelley, leaving people in the lurch. Frank says he's "sick about what happened," and he added that, in his judgment, the court's interpretations have "been against the public."
A decade ago we had some of the nation's best consumer protection laws on the books, now we're ranked with Rhode Island as "the Terrible Two" by the National Consumer Law Center.
Rising health care costs for Michigan's insured families are becoming a real burden. The statistics are depressing. Families USA reports that the number of insured people in families paying 10 or 25 percent of their pre-tax income on health care has climbed dramatically, a symptom of the runaway costs plaguing the U.S. health care system. The report reveals:
Nearly 2.1 million non-elderly Michiganders are in families that will spend more than 10 percent of their pre-tax income on health care in 2009.
Between 2000 and 2009, the number of people in families spending more than 10 percent of their pre-tax income on health care will have increased by 661,000, or 46.4 percent.
Nearly nine out of 10 people (86 percent) in families spending more than 10 percent of their pre-tax income on health care are insured.
1.8 million non-elderly Michiganders with insurance are in families that will spend more than 10 percent of their pre-tax income on health care in 2009.
The report also looks at the number of people in families that spend more than 25 percent of their pre-tax income on health care:
562,000 Michiganders are in families that will spend more than 25 percent of their pre-tax income on health care in 2009.
Between 2000 and 2009, the number of people in families spending more than 25 percent of their pre-tax income on health care will have increased by 183,000, or 48 percent.
Almost four out of five people (79.9 percent) in families spending more than 25 percent of their pre-tax income on health care are insured.
449,000 Michiganders with insurance are in families that will spend more than 25 percent of their pre-tax income on health care in 2009.
This is taking money out of wallets that could be used on food, shelter or education. We desperately need a public health insurance option to ease the burden on families (hopefully with the administrative efficiencies and cost-effectiveness of Medicare). Fortunately for Michigan's citizens, Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow support such reform.
The swine flu (aka H1N1) appears to be milder than experts initially anticipated, but what if it had turned out to be much worse? What if people felt early symptoms coming on and had to chose between staying home from work or going in and exposing their coworkers? That could be problematic.
...millions of Americans can't just stay home because they're under the weather. When EPI looked at corporate sick leave policies in 2007 it found that some 43% of all private-industry workers have no paid sick days. Rather than the common sense precaution the President advices, these workers have a more difficult choice of going to work sick or staying home without pay and risk losing their jobs. In this current climate of high unemployment and even higher job insecurity, workers without any formal sick leave are even less likely to risk taking a day off.
Even more problematic, access to time off for health reasons is especially rare in low-paying jobs. In a 2006 compensation survey, the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that 79% of those earning more than $29.47 per hour had sick time, but only 16% of those earning less than $7.38 an hour had the same benefit.
The EPI also points out what a challenge it is for working parents if their children get sick.
The Huffington Post, citing data from the Institute for Women's Policy Research, notes that fewer than one in three U.S. workers who do have sick leave are allowed to use that time to stay home and care for a sick child.
The Institute argues that "workers who lack paid sick time are more likely to go to work with a communicable illness, and parents who cannot stay home with a sick child are more likely to send them to school or day care." That just spreads germs around even more.
In Michigan, 1,725,000 residents - 48 percent of Michigan workers - are not able to take a paid sick day when they are ill.
