The Supreme Court Decision to Stifle Democracy

It's official: The United States, as some have always suspected, is truly governed by corporate America. Not content to continue on as the power behind the throne, it has finagled its way into that revered document, the U.S. Constitution. Even the most starry-eyed idealist will now have trouble maintaining that this great country of ours is "for the people".

Of course, the Supreme Court itself is more to blame. Its responsibility is to interpret and uphold the Constitution, not backpedal on its own decisions when faced with spurious legal babble presented by corporate lackeys. I can understand the latter trying anything to get the case decided in favor of big money, even proffering an idea as ridiculous as the concept of a corporate entity being equal to a human being and thereby capable of free speech. But where, I wonder, did the Court find in our founding document that very definition?

Apparently, these behemoths of industry will now enjoy all the rights and protections of citizens. The Court would have us believe that the framers intended to have "corporations", a term and concept not heard of at the time, on an equal footing with persons. Certainly, corporations are considered "entities" as far as tax law is concerned; these companies make profits in addition to the individuals who own and work for them, so why should they not pay taxes, as well? This is a far cry from considering them actual persons, with brains and mouths with which to formulate and voice thoughts and opinions. It boggles the mind that any rational person would consider this notion for even one moment.

But, it is done. If you have any doubt that marketing and propaganda can sway an election, witness the recent victory of Scott Brown. Money talks, and people listen, even when what is being said is ludicrous. As Doug Kendall, founder of Constitutional Accountability Center wrote in an editorial back in September of 2009, the record-breaking fundraising coup by Barack Obama in the last presidential election would be nothing against the money that a company like Exxon Mobil could muster. The ability to shout down even the most popular candidate is a powerful tool, and they will make the most of it.

At least, I suppose, there is a bright side. Now, any one of us, not just the wealthy, can run for public office. A candidate only need to present his or herself to any number of fat cat corporate entities and determine what they need to say in order to have their journey to public service financed. Every elected official will be no more than a corporate mouthpiece, forcing big business' agendas down our throats in the form of new legislation. Who would have thought that the body whose charge it is to interpret and uphold the law of the land would be the very instrument that the rich and powerful would use to obstruct this democracy?

Drug Safety Decreases as Prices Increase

As prices for prescription drugs rise, there has not been a commensurate increase in quality. Indeed, if the products produced were actually decent, one might not be so annoyed by the astronomical rise in costs, since the consumer would at least be getting something for his money. Alas, in the real world where the market is not the real governor of big corporate profits, this is not so.

The fact is that drug manufacturers consistently market harmful products, with the collusion of the U.S. government. Back in November 2009, an AP article by Matthew Perrone described detritus found in many of Genzyme's products. Rubber, steel and other garbage, apparently big enough to see floating in vials of the drug, was declared by the Food and Drug Administration as capable of causing "serious adverse health effects". Did they force the removal of these dangerous concoctions from the market? Not on your life; there were too few "alternatives" available. Doctors were encouraged to look closely at the vial before injecting its contents into patients. Nice to know that the FDA is on our side.

In another article by this same author, an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine in October 2009 criticized the FDA for not disclosing pertinent information about drugs' side effects on labels. Since these labels are written by the industry and only rubber-stamped by the agency, this is no surprise. The labels only report (in part, it seems) results from the company's own studies, not independent trials. The FDA is supposed to weigh positive v. negative outcomes and only deny approval when the latter outweighs the former. When all negatives are not disclosed, though, problems can arise, and obviously do.

Another revenue enhancer for big pharma was discussed in the latest issue of For Your Benefit, a publication of the MA Group Insurance Commission. Direct marketing to consumers by the drug industry has helped push their profit rates to 15.8% of gross revenues compared to only 5.7% for all Fortune 500 companies. These ads promote the prescribing of name brands, rather than generics, which are generally priced much lower. Here's another "side effect" of this marketing strategy: According to a report last fall by the Centers for Disease Control, drug-related deaths now outnumber those from automobile accidents in at least 16 states. The majority of these deaths are from prescribed pain-reducing drugs, not illegal ones. The prime offender? Opiates. According to a researcher from the University of Washington, "There has been a dramatic change in how doctors prescribe opiates" during the past 10 years; today, 1 in 5 adults and 1 in 10 teenagers are taking these prescribed drugs.

Why does our government not step in? It seems apparent that drugs that routinely are involved in untimely deaths should be scrutinized, as well as their delivery mechanism (prescription). Obviously, the war on drugs only pertains to those opiates and other drugs that interfere with the profits of the pharmaceutical industry. Health care reform could and should have targeted this problem. Once again, money talks and the needs of the people walks. Oh, well. I think I'll go turn on the TV and watch some prescription drug ads, and relax.

Prescription Drug Prices Rising Faster Than Inflation

Another byproduct of the health care reform debate is the recent escalation of prescription drug prices. According to the latest edition of the AARP Bulletin, between October 2008 and September 2009, brand-name drugs often prescribed to those patients receiving Medicare rose an average of 9.3%. It is noteworthy that during this same time period, other consumer prices were in decline.

Why the price rise? The industry, concerned about possible regulation if reforms were actually put in place, was apparently running up prices ahead of reform, according to a memo received by the Government Accountability Office. The congressional authors are requesting an investigation.

That is all well and good, but the chances of big pharma being called to task for this behavior are very small indeed. Remember, this is the industry that was given every concession they wanted, as well as a seat at the table, during health care reform negotiations. They, along with health care delivery entities, were the biggest spenders last year when it came to showering congress with greenbacks.

The last time drug prices rose at his rate was back in 2003, when our pals in congress passed the Part D "benefit" to Medicare, according to the article. Fear of a new government entity that would be empowered to negotiate lower prices for the government health plan was the impetus behind those price hikes. However, the legislation specifically prohibited this type of negotiation, thanks to lobbying by the industry. So, what were they afraid of, really? Nothing, probably. They saw another opportunity to make a killing, and they did, much like big oil does every now and then. Despite the cries for investigation, which sometimes actually occurs, nothing is ever done by our elected officials to stop the plunder. And so, it goes on.

The most recent attempt at health care reform also prohibits the government from creating a national formulary to procure discounted pricing on drugs. However, the article points out that the Department of Veteran Affairs has always used a two-tiered system to attain the steepest discounts from drug companies. This agency requires discounts before formulary-based negotiations even take place.

Why, then, can't this be done for Medicare, and by a government-sponsored public option program? Because the industry doesn't want it to happen, that is why. Not only is the public option issue dead, but congress caved in to lobbyists (while accepting renumeration, no doubt) and inserted anti-negotiation language in the Medicare reform bill. According to a report from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, applying the VA model to Medicare would save the government approximately $24 billion per year, savings that could bridge the gap popularly known as the "doughnut hole".

PhRMA, big pharma's trade group, says price hikes are necessary to offset high research and development costs and the loss of income from patent expiration. In a market economy, though, no one is supposed to be guaranteed a profit. If you cannot make a living, you go out of business, plain and simple, right? More and more, that applies only to small, not large, businesses. Government giveaways support the oligarchies while family businesses flounder. According to the Kaiser Foundation, the drug industry spent $10.4 billion in 2007 just for advertising. Does that sound like a company descending into the throes of poverty?

Massachusetts Votes for More Washington Inertia

Massachusetts voters decided, for the first time in almost 40 years, to send Republican representation to Washington in the form of Scott Brown, R-Wrentham. This was no ordinary race, mind you, as this is the very seat that our venerable statesman, Edward Kennedy, held for almost 50 years. If there is anyone more dissimilar to that great man, I would be surprised.

How did this happen? Sure, Martha Coakley ran a lousy campaign, which even the assistance of Barak Obama could not save. But this race was more than that. It was also about preserving a Democratic majority in Washington, as well as passing health care reform. Ted was indisputably popular, yet Brown is almost his exact opposite. He has vowed to vote against health care reform, one of Kennedy's lifetime goals. He is also arrogant. In his "Open Letter to the People of Massachusetts" he states, "We can send another (emphasis mine) rubber stamp to Washington or...we can elect an independent voice..." Well, I assume he's speaking of Coakley here, but he appears to also be referring to Kennedy. Brown sits on many key committees, yet I have yet to hear what good his "independent" voice has done for us. Someone needs to tell him that he is no Ted Kennedy!

This election has been labeled a "referendum" not only on the track record of Democrats, but also that of President Barak Obama. People are disappointed with the lack of promised change, they say. So--they elect a Republican? Who has been keeping real health care reform from occurring? The Republicans. Who started both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Right. Which party has made the health reform bill about Obama, and not health care? Right again.

People blame Obama for making promises he could not keep, yet obstructionism, not lack of effort on his part, has kept real change from taking place. On the other hand, politicians always make promises during election campaigns; why should Obama have been any different? Decades and decades of corruption and ineffectual rule have gotten us to the point we are today. Expecting one man to change it all in a year's time is just plain ridiculous. By the way, do you remember any other President being called on the carpet only one year into a new administration? Perhaps there is more to this "referendum" than meets the eye.

Banks Stick it to Consumers Before CARD Rules Take Effect

If you are a credit card holder, you probably already know that on February 22, new rules governing these accounts goes into effect. Titled "The Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act" (CARD), this law is a consumer-protection piece of legislation meant to keep the more barbaric practices of the industry under control. It will bar issuers from raising rates retroactively, instituting limitless fees and giving fewer than 6 weeks notice of rate increases (already in effect). It also protects gift card holders from finding their entire gift amount used up by issuer fees before they get a chance to use it.

My husband and I generally do not have problems with our credit card issuers. So when he received his Barclay's credit card bill this month, we were surprised but not upset to see a $42 charge for being 2 days late with the payment. After all, we always pay the full amount each month, and on time; between the holiday and the due date of January 2, however, his payment supposedly didn't get to them until the 4th. Although the penalty seemed high, we were sure he could get it removed, since this was the first time that this had happened.

Wrong! When he called Barclay's, not only did they say they could do nothing about the charge, they were downright rude. My husband became livid as his eyes sought out the "new" interest rate on his account: 933.85% per annum. Almost 1000% interest? Was this a mistake? Oh, no. You know what the bank rep said? "That's not a monthly rate, sir. It's for the whole year." Well, thanks for explaining to us what "per annum" means, you nasty little person.

I suggested he call our senator, John Olver. He spoke with one of his aides, who said that the credit card companies are going "crazy" with charges on the eve of the reform bill taking effect. Apparently, this is legal. He said he would like a copy of our bill to send along to Washington, though, just in case. My husband also mentioned that once he said he wanted to cancel his account, he was put on hold for ten minutes, twice in a row. Once they decide they don't want to talk to you anymore, this is what they do.

We will follow through by sending the bill and a letter to Olver, and closing the account. I had a few laughs listening to my spouse berating the bank reps, asking them whether they thought this was good customer relations and demanding of them how they could sleep at night while engaging in practices more befitting a pirate. Of course, they don't care. Their job is to squeeze as much money out of the customer as possible, by any means necessary.

As my husband commented, it is easy to see how these bank CEOs find the money for their huge bonuses. This incident doesn't scratch the surface of sleazy business practices banks use to take advantage of consumers. By the way, isn't it nice to know that our tax dollars were used to bail out these guys? Gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling, doesn't it?

Skyrocketing Health Care Costs Need Reforming, Too

Despite the months of lip service and mounds of paperwork that have come to symbolize the health care reform debate, very little has been said about controlling costs associated with health care delivery. Not only are these costs hurting workers and the economy, they are bucking the deflationary trend by rising faster than any other indicator (except, perhaps, the unemployment rate).

A blurb in our local paper Saturday stated that despite last year's low inflation rate of 2.7%, college tuition and health care were two costs that continued to rise far above that meager rate. I recently read an article about a local girl with a rare disorder, whose treatments were expected to cost tens of thousand of dollars each month. A letter to the Editor of the Valley Advocate last week praised the state-funded MassHealth insurance for paying for treatments costing $3500 per month. Over $40,000 a year for medical care? What "treatments" can possibly cost that much?

Unfortunately, this is reality. The health care industry and the insurance industry have developed a symbiotic relationship whereby each makes gargantuan profits off of spiraling health care costs. Imagine if there was no such thing as health insurance. Would people purchase these overpriced and often marginally helpful treatments? Most probably, they would not. No matter how much you feel you need it, thousands of dollars out-of-pocket for health care is not workable for most of us. We would do without, find alternatives, or stay sick, maybe even die. Medical professionals don't give health care away for free.

Such high costs are only sustainable on a large scale when people have insurance that will cover most of the costs. The higher costs become, the more people need insurance. The insurance industry thrives because without the high costs, people wouldn't need their services. Remember, no matter how high medical costs become, there are only a small percentage of claims paid compared to the millions of customers paying exorbitantly high premiums each month. At any rate, insurers raise their rates each time health costs rise, so they don't ever lose; either do the hospitals and doctors charging these rates. The only losers are you and me, the customer/patient. Oh, and don't forget that insurers are exempt from anti-trust laws, as well.

An article by Stephanie Kraft in the September 24, 2009 Advocate presents some sobering statistics. According to the California Department of Managed Care, six of the largest health care insurers rejected, on average, nearly 32% of all claims submitted in the first half of 2009. That's an extraordinary percentage of refusals for an industry whose reason for existence is to pay medical claims. Not only that, but the number of insurance administrators has increased 3,000% since 1970, while the number of doctors has only risen by 200%. The greatest surge has occurred within the last 20 years.

As long as this profit-taking alliance exists, there will be no real reform in health care delivery. Our lawmakers had another chance to rectify this situation, but did not. In fact, they have succeeded in making it worse for us, by now guaranteeing increased revenue to these monoliths in the form of a requirement that each of us buy their products. Government by and for the corporations strikes again!

The "Making Home Affordable Program" Helps Very Few

The Today Show aired a segment this morning in which Ann Curry questioned two of the show's real estate "experts" regarding the Obama administration's mortgage loan modification program. The numbers they quoted were grim: Out of 760,00 applications, only 30,00 have been approved. Their advice? One of the experts suggested the bootstrap theory for troubled homeowners, advising them not to expect government to help them out with their problems. The other was more succinct. She said that sometimes the only option is to "walk away".

It seems this latter comment is probably the one to take to heart. Ever since the government came out with the Making Home Affordable Program, it has been beset with problems. One big issue is that banks do not have to participate if they don't want to. Some of these banks, mind you, received TARP money (Well Fargo, Bank of America), yet feel no compelling need to give something back in the form of loan modifications. Considering that the government has set aside $75 billion to entice them, it makes you wonder why.

A big problem is that banks make more money when a property goes into foreclosure than by saving the loan. Ilyce Glink, of Tribune Media Services, frequently comments on this program and the myriad of reasons why it is not working. Last fall, she cited a report by the National Consumer Law Center that examined this issue in depth. They found that loan modifications cost servicers more than, for instance, letting homeowners take a "break" from loan payments while they get their financial house in order, or foreclosing on the loan. The report cites "a lack of third-party oversight" that could nudge lenders into modifying troubled loans rather than taking the easy, and most profitable, way to dispose of the problem. A lack of regulation of the mortgage industry is, apparently, mentioned more than once.

Until Congress gets to work overseeing the financial industry, we, both as homeowners and taxpayers will continue to suffer, while the big guys continue to stick it to us. Obama keeps saying he's going to do something about it. Let's hope it he actually does.

Bailout Backlash for Geithner

At the end of 2009, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner declared that this year will not bring another financial meltdown. As much as we all hope that this is true, it is getting more and more difficult to believe anything Geithner says. Not only was he head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York during the biggest corporate welfare bonanza ever, but the mainlining of funds from taxpayers to Wall Street has now been extended until at least October. Now, to top it all off, memos have surfaced outlining an elaborate hushing up by the New York Fed of the methods used to funnel billions to the largest banks during the mopping-up operations regarding AIG's failure.

It has certainly taken a long time for this issue to become front-page news. Back in early February 2009, an AP article by Jim Kuhnhenn cited a report released by the Congressional Oversight Panel that noted a $40 billion payout to AIG, funded by taxpayers, for a mere $14.8 billion in assets. It went on to state that overpayments to Wall Street totalled $78 billion. I remember reading another article that described so-called negotiators, pockets stuffed with our money, practically forcing the big banks to take these bloated payments in return for canceling AIG's liabilities. I am not being blithe here. While many of these banks were actually willing to take less than what was owed them, it seems that this was not allowed. They had to take more.

The government is finally admitting that it lost at least $30 billion on the AIG bailout. Now Geithner is taking heat for the huge AIG bonuses that were given out on his watch, as well as the secrecy surrounding the AIG bailout itself. Why was so much money essentially thrown away? The old adage to "follow the money" is useless here, as our government has shown itself incapable of doing anything of the kind. So, it seems they have chosen to follow Geithner, until he breaks down and gives everyone some answers. But, will we be able to believe him?

Health Bill in Need of Reform

Passage of the health care reform bill, now predicted to be a reality by the time Obama delivers the State of the Union address, has turned into a bipartisan slug fest. Democrats and Republicans, each claiming to be the voice of the people, snipe at each other and tear bits of real change from this legislation like wolves fighting over a carcass. And that's exactly what the reform bill has become: A carcass, a mere shadow of its former, historically reform-minded self.

Gone are the items that would benefit the masses, such as the public option alternative to private health insurance. Even an expansion of Medicare to those aged 55 or older has been pulled, thanks to the very public bleating of legislators like Joe Leiberman. His recent crusade to embarrass the Democrats while getting his name in the newspaper is supposedly based on the fact that this benefit would, "add taxpayer costs...add to the deficit. It's unnecessary." For a guy so concerned about costs, it seems odd that he never mentions cracking down on Medicare fraud, which reportedly costs taxpayers billions each year. Speaking of taxpayer costs, the new legislation will now increase most people's monthly premiums, while providing no alternative relief.

Another benefit that has fallen off the table is the hoped-for introduction of the insurance industry to the world of competition. Not only has the status-quo been preserved, but additional revenue is guaranteed by the aforementioned premium increases as well as the new bill's requirement that everyone purchase health insurance, or face fines. Reform of health insurance practices very quickly became additional legislated enhancements to the industry's bottom line.

The pharmaceutical industry also got their dibs in, winning long-term protection of their drugs patents against more affordable generics. The cosmetic surgery lobby was successful in heading off a tax on their largely unnecessary services, which could have provided a source of revenue that might have been used to offset the costs of true health care reform.

What is left? More corporate giveaways, more costs to the taxpayer. Less reform, fewer benefits and now financial consequences for those who can't or won't buy health insurance. Exactly what the GOP previously railed against, they have helped bring about. It's nice to know that some things never change.

Another Bad Day for Airline Passengers

Since the thwarted Christmas day terrorist attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, airline security and government agencies have responded to the revelation that current security measures aren't working in their customary way: Don't let one hand know what the other is doing.

Newspaper reports confirm that security protocols have been beefed up to absurd levels on some flights while remaining unchanged on others. The Transportation Security Administration explains the confusion away by claiming that the idea is to keep terrorists guessing. Oh, sure. It couldn't be that they just don't know what they're doing, right?

Apparently, frisking infants and making them scream, causing long lines to form on an airborne plane within minutes of announcing an upcoming ban on using the toilets and not allowing passengers to read on flights are now "anti-terrorist" measures.

The incident that occurred at Newark Liberty International airport last night shows just how ridiculous these assertions are. A man was allowed, by sheer neglect, to walk through a door into a secured area without being screened. Luckily, the man was not a terrorist, he just made a mistake. Thanks goodness for luck, or many tragedies would have taken place on planes since 9/11. The airport's reaction to this security flub was typical: Harass passengers by forcing them to be re-screened. Delay flights and re-rout passengers. And, most important of all, don't tell anyone what is going on.

Ever since 9/11, airport security has consisted of inconveniencing customers while charging them higher fares. While persons such as the late Ted Kennedy are placed on "do not fly" lists, those who should be added to these lists are not. In the name of safety, airplanes are left idling on the tarmac, full of passengers without access to toilets or food, for hours. Meanwhile, supposedly secure doors are left unlocked and unattended.

I think I've figured out what they're doing. Think about how recent would-be terrorists like Richard Reid and Abdulmutallab have been foiled: they were subdued by passengers. How does an airline prepare passengers for such duty? By annoying the heck out of them before takeoff. Angry, frustrated passengers with adrenaline coursing through their veins not only make great stand-ins for the absent sky marshals, but the airlines don't have to pay them. They actually pay for the privilege of saving their own lives! And you thought they didn't know what they were doing.