I’ve posted before about health care and problems with it.  Well, here’s a connected problem with the idea of privatized health care.

There’s a long complicated story I wrote earlier about the build up to this, but here’s the shorter version: I applied for Catamount in mid-November and it took six weeks to get final approval, with lots of redundant and unnecessary steps in the meantime.  But I got my forms into Catamount Blue by late December and when I contacted them about it, they told me I was all set provided all my paperwork was in by December 29th, which it was, and that I should get something from them by mid/late January but that I shouldn’t worry, that I was covered, etc.

In the meantime, I got hired for a new job, and I will have insurance through the new job soon, but thought I had a few weeks to decide which plan I wanted, review the information, etc.

Not so much so.  Catamount Blue, even though I was approved for care from the state of Vermont and have been paying a monthly premium to the state, rejected my application for care because I forgot to check off marital status on the application.  

Of course, they send me this notification on a Friday so I can’t call anyone to resolve it until next week, but in the meantime, I have medical appointments scheduled for Monday that I will probably have to cancel.

In the meantime, I’m concerned that this will cause my new insurance to view this period as a gap in coverage, giving them the option to reject treatment for prior conditions.

I am working under the belief that this will all get resolved, even if I have to hire a lawyer to intervene, but this is a major “you have got to be kidding me” situation.  It’s completely absurd to reject an application because of a minor and irrelevant clerical error.  I have resources and ways to handle this.

I can’t imagine what this is like for people without means.  This is insane and inhumane.

Crossposted at Air America Radio.

Too much to say, too little time. Making YouTubes is hard and TIME CONSUMING! Lesson learned.

I won’t repost the article but I highly recommend people check it out on Air America’s Web site. I heard some of it was shown on Rachel Maddow’s show tonight but I don’t have cable. Let me know if you saw it.

More to come folks. My experience at “The Purple Ball” was much more positive. I got a chance to interview musician Herbie Hancock and actor Ed Harris. Stay tuned.

When was the last time someone asked you NOT to give them money?  Not recently, right? Now, when was the last time a non-profit asked you NOT to give money?

In our new economy, every penny counts, but in politics, every penny counts more – especially at the federal level. Lawrence Lessig and the team at Change-Congress.org have come up with the perfect marriage of NOT spending money and making our lawmakers accountable to us, instead of those who … um, well, have all the money.

How does it work?

It’s easy: You go to the Change-Congress.org (note the hyphen) web site and pledge NOT to donate to federal candidates, unless they pledge to support legislation making congressional elections citizen-funded, not special-interest funded.

Here’s what the pledge looks like:

I’m pledging not to donate to any federal candidate unless they support legislation making congressional elections citizen-funded, not special-interest funded.

Simple, right?

Change-Congress.org keeps track of how much money is being un-pledged to each lawmaker, and lets lawmakers know how much they’ll lose if those lawmakers don’t take the pledge.

The way things work right now, our leaders keep coming up with legislation that favors Goliath over David. And we’re David. This is largely because, if they want to get elected, they need millions of dollars every few years, and most of those dollars come from … not us. If we can change that one thing about our political system, we can give David back the slingshot.

As we watch our neighbors lose their jobs and homes (while investment companies are given billions of our tax dollars to fund corporate bonuses and office upgrades); as we hear about the state being unable to meet its Unemployment Insurance obligations; as we learn that food pantries are running out of food; the problem becomes crystal clear. The political system has become steeply tilted, and not in a good way.

So, spread the word about Change-Congress.org, and citizen-funded elections. You can help level the playing field, and it won’t cost you a penny.  

P.S. – Congressman Welch has already signed the pledge, so be sure send him a note of thanks.

Here’s a YouTube explaining the idea:

the Governor is concerned about the number of non-profits in VT and suggested that they consider merging to reduce costs (way to really focus on the core of the budget problem)

if we follow this logic, many VT towns would be well advised to merge; it’s so inefficient (and inconsiderate) for them to waste money being separate jurisdictions; and what about all those small businesses? oh wait, the Governor supports Wal-Mart so there will be fewer small businesses going forward; and how about all those tiny churches that don’t pay property taxes? couldn’t they come together and free up some of that land for more important stuff?

Jim Douglas is an unemployment machine and an embarrassment to this state  

FYI:

Playwright Spencer Smith is hosting her Readers’ Theater Play Voices from Chernobyl tonight 7:30 p.m., Unitarian Church (head of Church Street) Burlington. Smith, a Fulbright Scholar and Burlington College Professor, has traveled extensively in the Ukraine.  The play was adapted from the book Voices from Chernobyl: The Oral History of a Nuclear Disaster by Svetlana Alexievich.

In the play the survivors of the Chernobyl disaster tell their stories.  Smith said, “This is timely as we are considering whether to relicense Vermont Yankee which is also a plant run by nuclear fuel. The dangers of radiation have been long suppressed by those hoping to profit from these plants and who have disregarded those hazards.”  

Now, yes, I know, there's still a lot of corporate-friendly types in the Obama administration, as well a a heckuva lot of rich people in there, so I'm not being naive. And of course, there's a big difference between saying and actually doing. We well know Obama has no shortage of lofty rhetoric. Some people dig it and swoon, some people see it for what it is, and some people think it's a complete crock. But that's not what this about.

As one who's had to listen to the supply-side b.s. since I can remember, I'm detecting a whiff of change here… in the conventional wisdom, that is. As been repeated many times elsewhere, there were many things in the inaugural speech that said, in no uncertain terms, that Reaganism is finally dead, or at the very least, should be on death watch, as the “cut taxes/spending, no matter what” nonsense that's driven the country to the edge of ruin has finally exposed itself to the broader public for what it really is.

We have recent Krugman:

Old-fashioned voodoo economics — the belief in tax-cut magic — has been banished from civilized discourse. The supply-side cult has shrunk to the point that it contains only cranks, charlatans, and Republicans.

Of course, Krugman is saying this in the context of the new “voodoo”, i.e. just throw money at everything, but his point stands. And Pelosi (I know, for whatever her word is worth) is pushing for a repeal of the Bush tax cuts now.

Now, once again, I'm putting this out there to talk about the conventional wisdom may be changing to… how “mainstream thought” (whatever that is) may be changing, not necessarily what the pols will do. Is it changing?

( – promoted by odum)

Below is an article from today’s Burlington Free Press.  Fletcher Allen management is clearly worried that employees are banding together to improve their working conditions.  Anyone who has been subjected to the so-called “other side of the story” by management knows how nasty – not to mention inaccurate – it can get.  

Workers looking to organize are often pressured and subjected to captive audience meetings and anti-union literature, in hopes they will turn against the union.  It is because of this that we must pass the Employee Free Choice under President Obama.  I urge the Green Mountain Daily community to familiarize themselves with this legislation if they haven’t already:

http://www.americanrightsatwor…

http://www.aflcio.org/joinauni…

http://www.freechoiceact.org/

————-

Workers at hospital consider union

By Matt Sutkoski, Free Press Staff Writer

A group of technical health care employees who are considering joining a union at Fletcher Allen Health Care said Wednesday that management is pressuring them against joining the collective bargaining unit.

Hospital officials deny the charge.

(Note from odum – Click here for the complete article… diarists please remember we can only excerpt from published articles and link to the full piece, we cannot copy them in toto, as that’s a copyright violation)

Per Today’s Rutland Herald:

I propose a budget adjustment that includes a number of difficult changes. Eliminating the VPharm programs, which provide supplemental prescription drug assistance to Medicare beneficiaries, is particularly difficult. When the federal Medicare prescription drug benefit, part D, was instituted, my Administration and the Legislature authorized a new wrap-around benefit to allow coverage comparable to the state assistance programs that were previously in place.

[…]

For exempt employees, I have taken steps to exercise those alternatives – as well as eliminating positions – to save state money and share the sacrifice broadly. Last summer, I denied cost of living adjustments to exempt employees making over $60,000 per year. Further, as part of the most recent rescission, I ordered the same group to take a 5% reduction in pay. I am grateful that most elected officials and the Judiciary voluntarily joined me in this cost saving measure.

Unfortunately, the state’s multi-year contract precludes such options for classified employees – despite the fact that many state employees have requested such measures to avoid layoffs. This leaves a single, blunt instrument, reductions-in-force, as the only option to reduce labor expenses for remaining state employees.

Reducing our workforce in the middle of a recession is not our first choice. But the growth in payroll costs in the current economy make this difficult step a necessity. In addition to 60 positions eliminated through program changes, my recommended fiscal 2010 budget includes $17 million in General Fund savings by eliminating 600 positions within state government. While some of these positions may be cut through further vacancies and retirements, there will be reductions-in-force and an impact to state services.

I know this is difficult news that will affect the lives of many people. But given our current contract and the need to make labor costs sustainable for the long-term, a reduction in the state workforce must be part of our overall plan.

And now for the shell game:

At the other end of the spectrum, I propose increased support by 20% for early care and education to bring greater balance to our education continuum. This funding will be directed through the Department for Children and Families for increased quality to ensure that more children arrive at kindergarten ready to learn and for improved access for lower income families through the child care subsidy program.

While he might be claiming to propose this, it’s kind of odd, since at the exact same time he’s doing this, the administration has been drastically cutting child care benefits.  See this piece from December 11th for some details on that.

He can pretend to have a commitment to and interest in child care, but at the same time, propose a $2,000,000 cut to human services grants.  All the local resource and referral agencies which provide support for child care providers, parents receiving subsidized child care, referral services and a host of other benefits get part of their funding from those human services grants.

He can pretend to have a commitment to and an interest in early childhood education, but without an understanding of what child care is and what the purpose of it is (it is not so that they arrive at kindergarten “ready to learn”), false increases in funding provide no useful service.  

He can pretend to have a commitment to and support for children, but without being willing to support reach-up and TANF, he’s basically saying he doesn’t give a damn about children.

He can pretend to support early childhood curricula but without having a sufficient number of workers to review the operating conditions of child care providers, he’s saying that their safety is irrelevant.

Jim Douglas clearly wants the cover of being able to say he’s supporting Vermont’s kids.  

We can’t let him get away with that.

(Voluntary update: When I posted this, I hadn’t spotted BP’s earlier post on the same subject. Didn’t mean to steal anyone’s thunder.)

There’s been a series of articles in the Burlington Free Press lately about IBM, and it’s pretty much been portents of doom. “IBM’s Vermont Plant Continues to Lag.” “Economist Forecasts IBM Layoffs.” And, of course, the ever-popular play-one-community-against-another, “Iowa Woos IBM.”

So now, in the 1/22 edition, “Plant Wants Energy Flexibility.” In which IBM declares that it wants to end its payments to Efficiency Vermont.

The company wants the state to allow large corporations that agree to do at least $1 million a year in energy-efficiency work to opt out of contributing to Efficiency Vermont, a state program funded through a charge on every electric bill, O’Kane said. By running its own efficiency program, IBM would have more flexibility, he said.

“It would, in our view, be much more effective if we could make investments and then get audited,” said O’Kane, government affairs director for IBM.

Let’s leave aside for the moment the laughable notion that the Douglas gang would conduct effective audits of an IBM efficiency program. Anyone see a pattern here? Storm clouds over state’s biggest corporate employer, hints that they may look elsewhere… followed by demands for relief. Do you suppose this will be the last item on IBM’s wish list? Do you think they might use all the bad news as leverage? And, given the Administration’s pro-corporate proclivities, don’t you think IBM will be given pretty much whatever it wants?

One more question for those more knowledgeable than I: If large corporations are allowed to opt out of these payments, what kind of a cut will be forced on the extremely effective but already underfunded EV program?  

• It’s been all but officially announced that Deb Markowitz is running for Governor. If the rumors that she has been raising money are true, she’ll have to open a campaign account sooner rather than later. The question, then, is who will run for Secretary of State in 2010? Expect a primary, expect a relatively strong Prog candidate, and expect an unexpected name or two.
• Philip posts a picture of Obama uber-financial-contributor Jane Stetson of Norwich in a plum inauguration seat next to Chelsea Clinton. Given that Obama intends to continue the tradition of giving major donors ambassadorships, how much you wanna bet Stetson lands herself one?
• Philip also posts what I forgot to: the info on the Burlington Dems’ fundraiser with Speaker Smith. Woops. It’s today, 5:30-7:00 pm
  
  “In the Wine Cellar of 135 St. Paul Street, Burlington (Corner of Main Street and St. Paul Street).” Suggested contributions start at $25, and info (and RSVPs) can go to Selene at 802-578-7250 or selenehs-at-gmail.com.
• The Dean era is over – is the 50-State Strategy toast too? Bowers thinks so. Meanwhile rumors are that the GOP is looking into emulating it themselves (you know, because it worked). Ahh, Democrats…