Mn-prog-events Mailing List: Progressive Calendar 04.08.06

[David Shove (shove001]

             P R O G R E S S I V E   C A L E N D A R    04.08.06

1. Brahmaputra/women  4.08 6pm
2. Global Islam       4.08 7pm
3. GP Jay Pond/WCCO   4.08 10:10pm

4. Atheist games      4.09 1pm
5. Garden stories     4.09 1:30pm
6. Palestine/film     4.09 2pm
7. Immigration march  4.09 2:30pm
8. KFAI/Indian        4.09 4pm
9. Vets for peace     4.09 6pm
10. Sustainable Mpls  4.09 7pm
11. Corporate tyranny 4.09 7pm
12. Arab/immigrant/tv 4.09 10:30pm

13. Welfare rights    4.10 9:30am
14. Trans/walk/bike   4.10 12:30pm
15. ComoPark N4Peace  4.10 6pm
16. Eminent grab      4.10 6pm
17. SpiritProgressive 4.10 6:30pm
18. NOW               4.10 7pm
19. 9-11 video        4.10 7pm

20. Woolhandler/+ - MA health bill: false promise of universal coverage
21. John Schwarz  - My Mass plan review
22. Gilman/Sullivan - Lourey, health insurance, Leg session

--------1 of 22--------

From: Mili Dutta <mili_dutta [at] yahoo.com>
Subject: Brahmaputra/women 4.08 6pm

"Where the Brahmaputra meets the Mississippi..."  and cultures come
together for an evening of dance and laughter, food and fine music.

The Brahmaputra snakes its way S from the Himalayas and engulfs the banks
of Assam, India every year during the spring monsoon.  As the river flows
many girls are forced to leave their villages and are exploited as maid
servants making 500 rupees ($12) a month.  The Society for Promotion of
Appropriate Development Efforts (SPADE) is a volunteer organization in
Assam training young girls as nursing assistants, finding them employment
where they earn a livable wage and are offered safe places to live.

The festivities will benefit girls and women from Assam, India and
Minneapolis , MN through programs by the Powderhorn Phillips Cultural
Wellness Center (PPCWC) and the Society for Promotion of Appropriate
Development Efforts, Assam, India (SPADE).

7pm Saturday, April 8th Doors open 6pm
Jefferson Elementary School, 1200 W 26th St, MN 55405
TICKETS:  $13 in advance, $15 at the door

To learn more about SPADE visit http://www.spadeindia.org
<http://www.spadeindia.org/
To learn more about PPCWC visit
http://www.ppcwc.org/  <http://www.ppcwc.org/ >

And also if you are able to volunteer on the day of the event or donate
something for the silent auction please call Cara 612-998-4094 or respond
to this e-mail.


--------2 of 22--------

From: Charles Underwood <charleyunderwood [at] hotmail.com>
Subject: Global Islam 4.08 7pm

Saturday, 4/8, 7 pm, M.M. Taqui Khan speaks on "Globalization of Islam,"
Coffman Union, U of M East Bank, Mpls.  lhowell [at] visi.com


---------3 of 22--------

Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 12:28:05 -0500
From: Jay Pond <jay [at] twoturtles.net>
Subject: GP Jay Pond/WCCO 4.08 10:10pm

Green Party Candidate Jay Pond WCCO Radio this Saturday night 10:10pm
4/8/06

--------4 of 22--------

From: August Berkshire <augustberkshire [at] gmail.com>
Subject: Atheist games 4.09 1pm

Minnesota Atheists Game Day - Sunday, April 9, 1-4 p.m.

Celebrate the arrival of spring at an informal get-together with atheist
and humanist friends, socializing over fun, games, and food. Bring a game
to play or play the games of others.  You are encouraged to bring a dish
to share or chip in $3 for pizza.

Sunday, April 9, 1-4pm
Larpenteur Estates Party Room
1280 Larpenteur Ave. W #210
St. Paul, 55113.

Enter the Party Room from the back of the complex.  For more information
call George Kane, 651-488-8225.


--------5 of 22--------

From: Larry Johnson <elent7 [at] comcast.net>
Subject: Garden stories 4.09 1:30pm

JOIN KEY OF SEE STORYTELLERS IN APRIL

Sunday, April 9 at 1:30 we will do a family performance of GARDEN STORIES
TO GALVANIZE GOOD WILL as part of Open House at Bachmans at 6010 Lyndale
in Minneapolis.  This is also part of the Home Stretch for raising money
for the new bridge and SPIRIT OF PEACE statue at Lake Harriet Peace
Garden.  Bring the children for the stories, enjoy the others kids
activities at Open House, donate to the Peace Garden and HAVE FUN.
612-747-3904 (Larry's cell phone) for more information.

Larry Johnson and Elaine Wynne
KEY OF SEE STORYTELLERS
1-866-893-2637 (toll-free so you can come from out of town)
612-747-3904


--------6 of 22--------

From: Jess Sundin <jess [at] antiwarcommittee.org>
Subject: Palestine/film 4.09 2pm

Films for Justice: Paradise Now
Sunday 4/9 @ 2-4pm @ Mayday Bookstore (301 Cedar Ave. Minneapolis)

Come see the film that sparked huge controversy at the Oscars.  This film
explores the lives that Palestinans are forces to lead under occupation
and the options that they choose because of it.  Also join us in
commemorating the massacre at Deir Yassin that happened April 9, 1948.
This massacre symbolizes the Zionist quest to build a Jewish state on
Palestinian land that had been inhabited for centuries.  It marks the
beginning of the destruction of over 400 Palestinian villiages and the
exile of more than 700,000 Palestinians.


--------7 of 22---------

From: wamm <wamm [at] mtn.org>
Subject: Immigration march 4.09 2:30pm

March for Immigration with Dignity
Sunday, April 9, 2:30pm.
The Cathedral of St. Paul, 239 Selby Avenue, St. Paul.

March for immigration reform that will provide: a path to citizenship,
family reunification, protection of workers' rights, dignity and civil
liberty for all. Help defeat efforts in Congress that would instead:
transform millions of hard working immigrants into felons, criminalize
charitable and religious assistance of undocumented immigrants, separate
millions of immigrant families.

(Steelworkers Union: 2829 University Ave SE, Minneapolis will meet at 1 pm
to join up with others marching to support our immigrant brothers and
sisters and the struggle for the dignity of all workers. If you have
questions please call Merideth at 612-702-8542 or Gerardo Cajamarca at
612-623-8003.) Sponsored by: the Alliance for Fair Immigration Reform of
Minnesota (AFFIRM), and its member organizations. FFI: Call 651-291-4542.

---
From: PRO826 [at] aol.com

Hello YAWR supporters:
This SUNDAY there will be a very important local demonstration for
immigrant rights (see announcement below), part of a national call to
action on April 9/10, where hundreds of thousands, potentially millions,
are expected to come onto the streets across the country. We are in the
midst of the largest protest movement in at least a generation, and it
does not appear to have peaked yet!

Please spread the word in your schools, and come out in force to show our
solidarity against racism this Sunday!

---
From: David Strand <mncivil [at] yahoo.com>

At this moment Congress is debating the most far-reaching changes to our
immigration laws in decades.  What Congress chooses to do in the next two
weeks will determine the fate of millions of immigrant families and their
children.  The very character of our nation is at stake.

Join in this national day of action to support humane immigration reform
that will provide:
- A path to citizenship
- Family reunification
- Protection of workers' rights
- Dignity and civil liberty for all

Help defeat efforts in Congress that would instead:

- Transform millions of hard working immigrants into felons.
- Criminalize charitable and religious assistance of undocumented
immigrants.
- Separate millions of immigrant families.

Sponsored by the Alliance for Fair Immigration Reform of Minnesota
(AFFIRM), and its member organizations.  For Information, call
651-291-4542


--------8 of 22--------

From: Chris Spotted Eagle <chris [at] spottedeagle.org>
Subject: KFAI/Indian 4.09 4pm

KFAI's Indian Uprising for April 9, 2006

I'll be out of town on April 9th, so there will be another volunteer
hosting Indian Uprising ­ Chris

This week is KFAI¹s SPRING FUND RAISING PLEDGE DRIVE through April 11th
with a goal of $106,700!  Call 612-375-9030 CST to make a pledge.  KFAI is
truly people-powered radio!  Programming is commercial-free -- instead of
advertisers, KFAI depends on their listeners to help cover their operating
costs. And as soon as KFAI (www.kfai.org) reaches its goal, the Pledge
Drive will end.  However, if you call during Indian Uprising, Sunday,
April 9th (between 4:00 & 4:30 p.m. CST) and make a pledge or online,
there are premium gifts for those who pledge at least the amount
indicated.  There are other gifts too, depending on the donation amount.

$100.00 pledge - AMERICAN INDIAN HOMELANDS: Matters of Truth, Honor and
Dignity-immemorial, a new 78 minute film on DVD produced by Vanbar
Productions in association with the Indian Land Tenure Foundation,
www.indianlandtenure.org, hosted and narrated by ABC-TV's Sam Donaldson.
"The film seeks to educate the public about the effects of federal law on
Indian land ownership. Its stories of land theft by government swindle, by
legislative action and by abdication of trust responsibilities should make
you angry." ­ Art Coulson, St. Paul Pioneer Press

$75.00 pledge - WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXIST: A translation of Aboriginal
Indigenous Thought. The first book ever published from an
Ahnishinahbaeojibway perspective by Wub-e-ke-niew, Black Thistle Press.

* * * *
Indian Uprising is a one-half hour Public & Cultural Affairs radio program
for, by, and about Indigenous people & all their relations, broadcast each
Sunday at 4:00 p.m. over KFAI 90.3 FM Minneapolis and 106.7 FM St. Paul.
Current programs are archived online after broadcast at www.kfai.org, for
two weeks.  Click Program Archives and scroll to Indian Uprising.


--------9 of 22--------

From: Charles Underwood <charleyunderwood [at] hotmail.com>
Subject: Vets for peace 4.09 6pm

Sunday, 4/9, 6 to 8 pm, Veterans for Peace monthly meeting, St. Stephans
school basement, VFP office, 2030 Clinton Ave, Mpls.  waynewittman [at] msn.com


--------10 of 22---------

From: Dave Bicking <dave [at] colorstudy.com>
Subject: Sustainable Mpls 4.09  [ed head]

Sustainable Mpls
The next meeting of our group is Sunday, April 9 at 7pm, at my house,
3211 22nd Ave. S., Mpls (lower)
Dave Bicking H:  612-276-1213 W:  612-729-8580

[No flicking Bicking - ed]


---------11 of 22--------

From: Linda Winsor <ljwinsor [at] yahoo.com>
Subject: Corporate tyranny 4.09 7pm

Crocus Hill / W. 7th Neighbors for Peace Dessert Potluck Party Sunday,
April 9, 7-9pm.  Saint John the Evangelist Church 60 North Kent Street,
Saint Paul (1 block north of Summit, 1 block east of Dale)

Corporate Tyranny 101: How Corporations Have Taken Over What is "corporate
personhood"?  And what does "corporate personhood" mean for democracy?
IMPACT panel on how corporations have taken over:  our election system,
universities, healthcare system, environment, and media. IMPACT is a
grassroots group of concerned citizens, whose purpose is to raise
awareness about the impact of corporations on our society, promote
sustainable lifestyles and mobilize us and our communities to take
cooperative action.  We believe another world is possible, a world where
people and the earth are more valued than profits.

Bring neighbors, friends, and a snack or dessert to share.  Larry
McDonough will play piano.  Non-perishable food items for Neighborhood
House will be collected.  We hold Dessert Potluck Parties for Peace every
second Sunday of the month. Linda Winsor / ljwinsor [at] yahoo.com

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crocushillpeace/


--------12 of 22--------

From: Ahmed <ata200221 [at] msn.com>
Subject: Arab/immigrant/tv 4.09 10:30pm

Professor Katherine Fennelly will talk about the hot issue of immigration
- why the question of immigration keeps on coming back in a country of
immigrates. Professor Fennelly will answer this life persistence question.
Must see TV

Courses <http://www.hhh.umn.edu/people/kfennelly/#courses#courses>
Selected <http://www.hhh.umn.edu/people/kfennelly/writings.html>  Writings
Humphrey Institute Directory <http://www.hhh.umn.edu/people/index.html>

Areas of expertise: immigration and public policy; diversity and
cross-cultural relations; health and public policy; leadership in the
public sector

Katherine Fennelly's research and outreach interests include leadership in
the public sector, the human rights of immigrants and refugees in the
United States, and the preparedness of communities and public institutions
to adapt to demographic changes. She has been dean of the University of
Minnesota Extension Service, a faculty member and department head at the
Pennsylvania State University, and a faculty member at Columbia University
School of Public Health. At Penn State, she was a senior faculty associate
in the Population Research Institute and associate editor of Demography.

Fennelly is bilingual in Spanish and English and has worked and traveled
extensively throughout Latin America. Fennelly has served as consultant to
scores of organizations ranging from the Kellogg Foundation to the
Ministry of Health of Chile.

She holds a certificate of studies from the University of Madrid, a
master's of philosophy, a master's of health education, and a doctorate in
adult education from Columbia University.
http://www.hhh.umn.edu/people/kfennelly/

Ahmed Tharwat/Host
BelAhdan with Ahmed
Arab Americans TV show
Airs on MN Public TV Ch17
Sundays at 10:30pm
And every Tuesday at 6:30pm ET on
National TV/ Bridges TV
Channel 578 on DISH Network


--------13 of 22--------

From: Welfare Rights Committee - Alt Email <welfarerights [at] qwest.net>
Subject: Welfare rights 4.10 9:30am

Monday, April 10th, 2006
Join the Welfare Rights Committee For a Press Conference at the State
Office Building in front of Room 10 at 9:30 AM

Join the Welfare Rights Committee for Testimony in the Jobs and Economic
Opportunity Policy and Finance Committee Hearing at 10:00am, the State
Office Building, Room 10

Welfare Rights Committee will testify in Favor of the Following Amendments
ELIMINATING THE $50 HOUSING CUT
ELIMINATING THE $125  HOUSING CUT
RAISING THE WELFARE GRANTS
INCREASING CHILD CARE FOR POOR AND WORKING FAMILIES

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT WELFARE RIGHTS COMMITTEE 310 E 38TH STREET
#207 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55409 612-822-8020 welfarerightsmn [at] yahoo.com


--------14 of 22--------

From: Darrell Gerber <darrellgerber [at] earthlink.net>
Subject: Trans/walk/bike 4.10 12:30pm

The Center for Transportation Studies cordially invites you to attend the:
2006 James L. Oberstar Forum on Transportation Policy and Technology
"Transportation Choices: The Important Role of Walking and Biking"

Monday, April 10, 2006
12:30 - 4:30 p.m.
Great Hall, Coffman Memorial Union

The 2006 Oberstar Forum will explore the value of integrating non-motorized
transportation into communities. SAFETEA-LU has provided substantial federal
funding to advance and evaluate walking and biking systems. The forum will
explore several key aspects of investing in these modes, including:

-- the integration of the design of non-motorized facilities into the
community and transportation network
-- the value of increased accessibility on economic activity, livability,
and community identity
-- recreation and health benefits, and safety concerns
-- the role of local, state, and federal government, and the impacts of
geography and culture

The featured speaker of this year's forum is Berthold Tillmann, the mayor
of Munster, Germany. Munster looks like the medieval village it once was
but features a highly effective transportation network to allow quick and
easy access to work, shopping, entertainment, and schools. Munster boasts
of a daily mode share of bicycling approaching 40 percent, and recently
received a global "Most Livable Community" award.

View the forum program, including details about keynote presentations and
panel discussions, on the Oberstar Forum Web site at
www.cts.umn.edu/events/oberstarforum/2006/2006program.html.  

PROGRAM LOCATION Coffman Memorial Union Great Hall University of Minnesota
300 Washington Avenue S.E. Minneapolis, MN 55455   www.coffman.umn.edu  

There is no fee for this event, but attendees are encouraged to register.
Please register online at http://register.cce.umn.edu/ and enter event
number 178177.  For more information, contact Shirley Mueffelman,
conferences2 [at] cce.umn.edu, 612-624-4754, download the forum brochure (160
KB PDF) at
www.cts.umn.edu/events/oberstarforum/2006/pdf/2006oberstarforumbrochure.pdf,
or visit the 2006 Oberstar Forum Web site at
www.cts.umn.edu/events/oberstarforum.  


--------15 of 22--------

From: Sheila Sullivan <aiisullivan [at] yahoo.com>
Subject: ComoPark N4Peace 4.10 6pm

We are coming upon our monthly meeting.  April 10th at 6:00pm at the
Coffee Grounds, Hamline Av 4 blocks S of Larpenteur.  We will be
discussing sharing tasks with other neighbors for peace groups and also
the possibility of showing the War Plays Project - a presentation by
professional actors who read letters that were written during WWII, The
Korean War, Vietnam and the Gulf Wars.  Please come.  Your input is much
appreciated and we need to keep hope alive!


--------16 of 22--------

From: Amy Ihlan <amyihlan [at] comcast.net>
Subject: Eminent grab 4.10 6pm

Town Hall Meeting and "Quick Take" Eminent Domain for Twin Lakes Monday
Night

I wanted to let everyone know that Monday night's council meeting includes
a "Town Hall" public comment session beginning at 6pm at City Hall.
Residents are invited to speak about what's on your mind, and tell the
council what you think our policy and budgeting priorities should be.
There will be another "Town Hall" session on May 8.  So please come and be
heard!

I also wanted to let you know that on Monday night the Twin Lakes
developers will be asking the council to authorize "quick take" eminent
domain for the Twin Lakes project.  This would allow the property to be
seized within 90 days.

As you know, I am opposed to the use of eminent domain for the Twin Lakes
project because I do not believe that it is a "public use" that justifies
taking land from one set of businesses for the benefit of the developers.
I am also troubled by the request for a "quick take", given that there is
an appeal still pending on environmental and land use issues that will
probably not be decided before the land is taken -- and given that
legislation restricting the use of eminent domain has just passed with
overwhelming bipartisan support both the Minnesota House and Senate, and
is now in conference committee.

If you are concerned about the use of eminent domain for Twin Lakes, I
encourage you to come to the meeting and be heard on that as well.

Please call or e-mail me if you have any questions -- Amy

[There is no end to what the developers demand - and get - from the
Roseville 3/2 majority. Get it fast, get it now, get it free, get it
before the November election. Grab your cash and goodbye Roseville! -ed]


--------17 of 22--------

From: Charles Underwood <charleyunderwood [at] hotmail.com>
Subject: SpiritProgressive 4.10 6:30pm

Monday, 4/10, social hour 6:30 pm, meeting at 7, Network of Spiritual
Progressives, Plymouth Church, 1900 Nicollet, Mpls  brucelissem [at] aol.com


--------18 of 22--------

From: erin [at] mnwomen.org
Subject: NOW 4.10 7pm

Monday, April 10 : Twin Cities NOW Tea and Conversation. "Passing the
Torch and Stepping Up to the Plate." 7pm. The Minnesota Women's
Consortium's Erin Parrish will lead a dialogue based on the information
gathered at their Generations conference in 2005. Blue Moon Coffee Cafe,
3822 East Lake Street, Mpls. www.tcnow.org


--------19 of 22--------

From: alteravista [at] earthlink.net
Subject: 9/11 video 4.10 7pm

Begin Questioning 9/11!

9/11 has redefined the course of the future for the whole world.  Is the
official story true?

Come see a free movie about the events of 9/11 and the many unanswered
questions.

LOOSE CHANGE, 2nd Edition, 2006
Produced by Korey Rowe, directed by Dylan Aver
Monday, April 10, 7 pm

Mim's Cafe/Lori's Coffee House
1435 Cleveland Av N (at Buford) StPaul
(West of the StPaul farm campus; 4 blocks S of Larpenteur)
Parking in street or behind restaurant

Presented by MN911 group

Comments about this film:
" a brilliant piece of research presented cinematically with great
effectiveness. It's one particular selection of the mountains of evidence
that are available about what happened on 9/11.

"even a small portion of it is enough to convince you that the official
story is nowhere near true."

"...Hands down the very best video analysis of the events of 9/11."
-Republic Broadcasting Network

 * Why did six of the alleged 19 hijackers turn up alive right after 9/11?
 * Who made millions selling "puts" on (short selling) United and American
Airlines just before 9/11?
 * Why did firefighters report hearing explosions in the towers before
they fell?
 * Why was the steel wreckage immediately hauled off and shipped abroad
before forensic examination was done?
 * Why was there no sign of an airliner or bodies in the PA meadow where
Flight 93 supposedly went down?
 * and many many others

Come view one of the best recent videos about 9/11. FFI 651-633-4410.


--------20 of 22--------

Massachusetts Health Reform Bill:
A False Promise of Universal Coverage
By Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H.
and David U. Himmelstein, M.D.
Common Dreams - Apr 6, 2006
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0406-35.htm

It's a stirring scene. The Governor, legislative leaders and leaders of
Health Care For All standing in the State House Rotunda declaring victory
in the fight for universal health coverage. Unfortunately, this week's
tableau merely repeats one from 20 years ago when Governor Dukakis was
celebrating passage of his universal healthcare bill. That plan imploded
within two years, and today about 250,000 more people are uninsured in
Massachusetts than the day it was signed. Unfortunately, Massachusetts'
new health reform legislation looks set to repeat that disaster. What's in
the New Bill?

The new bill includes three key provisions meant to expand coverage.
First, it would modestly expand Medicaid eligibility. Second, it would
offer subsidies for the purchase of private coverage to low-income
individuals and families, though the size of the subsidies has yet to be
determined. Finally, those making more than three times the poverty income
(about $30,000 for a single person) would have to buy their own coverage
or pay a fine.

To help make coverage more affordable, a new state agency will connect
people with the private insurance plans that sell the coverage, and allow
people to use pre-tax dollars to purchase coverage (a tax break that
mostly helps affluent tax payers who are in high tax brackets). This new
agency is also supposed to help design affordable plans.

Businesses that employ more than 10 people and fail to provide health
insurance will be assessed a fee (not more than $295) to help subsidize
care. Additionally, hospitals won a rate hike assuring them better
payments from state programs, and several provisions were included that
are meant to attract additional Federal funding to help pay for the
Medicaid expansion.

What's Wrong With This Picture?

First, the politicians assumed that only about 500,000 people in
Massachusetts are uninsured. The Census Bureau says that 748,000 are
uninsured. Why the difference? The 500,000 figure comes from a phone
survey conducted in English and Spanish. Anyone without a phone or who
speaks another language is counted as insured. The 748,000 figure comes
from a door-to- door survey carried out in many languages (including
Portuguese and Haitian Creole, common languages in Massachusetts). In sum,
the reform plan wishes away 248,000 uninsured people who don't have phones
or don't speak English or Spanish. It provides no funding or means to get
them coverage.

Second, the linchpin of the plan is the false assumption that uninsured
people will be able to find affordable health plans. A typical group
policy in Massachusetts costs about $4500 annually for an individual and
more than $11,000 for family coverage. A wealthy uninsured person could
afford that but few of the uninsured are wealthy. A 25 year old fitness
instructor can find a cheaper plan. But few of the uninsured are young and
healthy. According to Census Bureau figures, only 12.4% of the 748,000
uninsured in Massachusetts are both young enough to qualify for
low-premium plans (under age 35) and affluent enough (incomes greater than
499% of poverty) to readily afford them. Yet even this 12.4% figure may be
too high if insurers are allowed to charge higher premiums for persons
with health problems; only half of uninsured persons in those age and
income categories report that they are in 'excellent health'.

The legislation promises that the uninsured will be offered comprehensive,
affordable private health plans. But that's like promising chocolate chip
cookies with no fat, sugar or calories. The only way to get cheaper plans
is to strip down the coverage - boost copayments, deductibles, uncovered
services etc.

Hence, the requirement that most of the uninsured purchase coverage will
either require them to pay money they don't have, or buy nearly worthless
stripped down policies that represent coverage in name only.

Third, the legislation will do nothing to contain the skyrocketing costs
of care in Massachusetts - already the highest in the world. Indeed, it
gives new infusions of cash to hospitals and private insurers.
Predictably, rising costs will force more and more employers to drop
coverage, while state coffers will be drained by the continuing cost
increases in Medicaid. Moreover, when the next recession hits, tax
revenues will fall just as a flood of newly unemployed people join the
Medicaid program or apply for the insurance subsidies promised in the
reform legislation. The program is simply not sustainable over the long -
or even medium - term.

What Are the Alternatives?

The legislation offers empty promises and ignores real - and popular -
solutions.

A single payer universal coverage plan could cut costs by streamlining
health care paperwork, making health care affordable. Massachusetts Blue
Cross spends only 86% of premiums paying for care. It spends the rest -
more than $700 million last year - on billing, marketing and other
administrative costs. Harvard Pilgrim and Tufts Health Plan - our other
big insurers - are little better; each took in about $300 million more
than it paid out. That's ten times as much overhead per enrollee as
Canada's national health insurance program. And our hospitals and doctors
spent billions more fighting with insurers over payments for each bandaid
and aspirin tablet.

Overall, Massachusetts residents will spend $13.3 billion on health care
bureaucracy this year - nearly one third of our total health bill. If we
cut bureaucracy to Canada's levels we could save $9.4 billion annually,
enough to cover all of the 748,000 uninsured in Massachusetts and to
improve coverage for the rest of us.

Study after study - by the Congressional Budget Office, the General
Accounting Office and even the Massachusetts Medical Society - have
confirmed that single payer is the only route to affordable universal
coverage.

And single payer is popular. The Massachusetts Nurses Association supports
it along with dozens of other labor, seniors and consumer groups; so do
62% of Massachusetts physicians according to a recent survey. National
polls find that almost two-thirds of Americans favor a tax-funded plan
like Medicare that would cover all Americans.

But single payer national health insurance threatens the multi-million
dollar paychecks of insurance executives, and the outrageous profits of
drug companies and medical entrepreneurs.

It's time for politicians to stand up to the insurance and drug industries
and pass health reform that can work.

[Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein are primary care physicians at
Cambridge Hospital and Associate Professors at Harvard Medical School.
They co-founded Physicians for a National Health Program. They can be
reached via info [at] pnhp.org]

--
Comment by local: Joan Malerich <joanmdm [at] comcast.net>

This article criticizing the new Massachusetts Health Reform Bill ends
with:  "It's time for politicians to stand up to the insurance and drug
industries and pass health reform that can work."

Well, guess what, the politicians are NOT going to stand up to the
insurance and drug companies unless YOU make them.  Do not accept any
lesser evil plans.  Do not accept a remake of the the Sheila
Kiscaden/Becky Louresy/Linda Berglin SN 1933 presented last year--at least
do not accept it if you truly want universal single-payer health care.

Tell those "progressive" Democrats that you absulutely will NOT vote for
them unless they get the state of MN Universal Single-Payer Health Care.
When they respond that the Republicans make it impossible for them to get
what the people want, then ask them what is the purpose of their being
elected and taking our tax payer money via their salaries, pensions AND
healthcare benefits.  Why should any of these "progressive" Democrats take
you seriously, if you don't follow through on your demands?????


--------21 of 22--------

Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 15:18:32 -0500
From: John Schwarz <john [at] unitedhealthsystem.org>
Subject: My Mass plan review

The main things is its being lauded as an attempt/plan for universal care.
And because everyone bought off on it - all sectors of society. But, as
you might have read, Mass went through this in the late 80s when Dukakis
was around. They passed a universal bill, got started on implementing it,
then it died on the vine after 2 years. The reforms they did make were cut
in the 90s by Republicans (probably Dems too).

Aside from the universal part, it's not a good bill. By being so
inclusive, everyone got something they wanted, nobody got everything they
wanted, and the end result is a mish-mash that lacks solid footing. It's
not coherent, especially financially. Makes even greater use of employers
and private market - the 2 biggest problems with our system.

Main points v. 2.0

General issues:

1. Involved all stakeholders in Mass. - unions, corporations, small
employers, HMOs, hospitals, doctors, religious community, consumers, etc.,
both parties. That's the big spin, as I see it: It shows that grand reform
is possible and can bring everyone together. All committed to universal
care. Serves as example that all can come together. This is the main
point, along with "universal" part. The Spin/media focus.

2. Mass plan Mandates that individuals have health insurance - doesn't
actually provide "universal coverage," just provides the opportunity for
it based on financial help, not necessarily adequate $ help.

3. Uses a progressive "affordability scale" . Uses subsidies extensively
for low-income.

4. Uses a "pay or play" requirement of employers to provide health
benefits - minimal $ requirement of employers - $295 per worker.
Personally, I oppose employer-based health benefits vehemently. Employee
benefits in general, actually. These benefits give employers a role -
read: influence, control, power, surveillance, nothing good - in worker's
lives for issues not related to the "production relationship" of
worker/owner.  This makes employers policymakers to some degree over these
issues, as in health care where employers have/have had extensive
influence over health policy at both the macro- and micro-levels.

5. It creates a huge new state agency that is part-insurance broker
(helping people get hooked up with insurance companies), part regulating
body, part administrator of some small employer health plans. Essentially
it's just another intermediary that doesn't provide medical care but eats
up tons of $ for nothing but admin services. It's difficult to explain
what it exactly is because nothing like it exists. It is completely
bizarre and unnecessary.

6. Makes insurance affordable for many that currently can't afford it, or
don't have access via their employer. But not everyone.

7. Mass has put a moratorium on its mandates (required coverage) until
2008, at which point a study commission will deliver its recommendations
on what mandates to keep or ditch. Part of their projected savings seems
to come from cutting some mandates, though that's not in the bill or in a
summary report issued by the legislature.

8. No quality mechanisms included.

Financial issues

A. It relies on increased federal $ for Medicaid that might not be
permanent (haha) source of $. Unstable funding not in Mass/state control.
Federal ability to undermine system.

B. The "pay" part of the employer pay-or-play is only $295 per FTE
employee. That's ridiculously low as a source of raising $ for an employer
that doesn't offer health benefits. Per capita health care spending in
Mass/Mn is probably $6000 year. $295 is a drop in the bucket; Romney is
talking about vetoing even that "high" of an amount - line item veto in
Mass. That $ funding isn't going to get them anywhere. Smoke and mirrors.

C. Mass has a fund like our HCAF for MnCare (their funding source isn't
health care related like our provider tax) that is used to reimburse
providers/hospitals for uncompensated/"charity" care that they perform.
The Mass plan takes that $ away from the provider reimbursements and uses
it to fund the subsidies for health insurance. That's just cost-shifting,
not cost control. If you follow the trail of $ back throughout the whole
system, overall health costs in the state aren't cut with the shift
they're going to be making.

D. They have no other funding source. Nothing new in taxes, etc. They do
say they'll collect fines from those without insurance - that's not going
to net much $. They say the Medicaid, employer "pay," new premium revenue
from previously uninsured, and shift in reimbursement funding will pay for
it. No way, especially since a huge chunk of it is cost-shifted.
Pie-in-the-sky funding. No real #'s provided yet - I've seen figures all
over the place.

E. Mass has no cost control elements in their plan.  Moving some from
public to private market plans means negative $ drain (via subsidies)  of
low-income participants out of state to HMOs.  For Mass these fully paid
policyholders will remain in the private sector and thus can't offset -
directly - the low income public program enrollees. The Mass HMOs will be
making $ from the new plan that will flow into HMOs directly in contrast
to single-payer which truly matches the $ contributions from the wealthy
and the poor. In Mass that balance isn't there and is split.

2. It's market-based, without a vision to increase public programs. In
fact, the way it's designed - from what I can tell so far - it will reduce
the size of the public programs and shift more people into HMOs.

3. It's boon for the HMOs. With vast numbers of new people enrolling in
HMOs, they're going to profit greatly - and a lot of the $ is going to
come from public funds. That's why the HMOs have been going along with it.

4. HMOs will (might - undecided yet, but I'm sure it'll happen) be able to
offer plans with reduced benefits - "stripped down plans" - that eliminate
many of the mandates. The mandates are what stands between decent,
semi-just coverage and no coverage for new-born babies and pregnant women,
etc.

5. There's no cost control mechanisms at all. Mass is saying they'll save
money by getting more federal $ to offset the extra cost of insuring more
people - some at state-subsidized rates. The federal gov't won't let that
happen for long, if that's the case, aside from the fact that the claim
re: more fed $ is not spelled out. It's merely an assertion.

6. They do predict much higher health costs for the state, allegedly
offset by fed money. Won't be there from fed.

7. It addresses insurance, not health care itself. No quality improvements
in it.

8. It continues the multi-payer system, no cost reduction there.

These are the basic, simply explained issues. It's a boon for the private
sector, bad for the public sector, and will make for worse coverage for
many already insured.

It passed so overwhelmingly because everybody wants to claim credit by
saying it brings things they want - universal, more fed $ - less state
money, expand employer-coverage, good for HMOs....it's a travesty. They
were considering something Much better but it got ditched. The Democrats
sold the people out by abandoning their very good plan for this joke.

The critical comments will take a little while to hit the press; don't be
seduced by the seemingly positive comments in the press right now.

Best that can be said, in brief, is that it's good to aim for universal,
doesn't really achieve it, and is flawed in many ways in policy terms.


--------22 of 22--------

Gilman/Sullivan - Lourey, health insurance, Leg session

[Introduction: Since the account may be obscure at first, here's an
introduction. The essence of it is that Becky Lourey dropped her support
for a health insurance reform bill this session. Consequences follow.

Becky Lourey promised some time ago to be the main sponsor of a bill for
better health insurance (see details below). On that basis other
legislators signed on, because they knew it would be heard. Then toward
the beginning of this last session, she was unavailable to bill
supporters. Then she dropped her support; followed by those depending on
her; the bill is dead.

This is not a profile in courage. Some think this issue is the most
important one in the state, but apparently the people can't get a word in
edgewise when the HMOs and insurance companies are talking. Just like
almost everywhere else.

Two reports, from Rhoda Gilman, and Kip Sullivan; Kip gives background
for what is assumed in Rhoda's report: -ed]

--1
From: "Rhoda Gilman" <rhodagilman [at] earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:33 PM
Subject: Report from the Capitol -- the last 3 weeks

This will just wrap up what's been going on at the Capitol since March 3,
when I reported that Becky Lourey had told me she would introduce our
deprivatization bill and promised that we would get a hearing on it.

In the Senate, the week of March 4-10 was mainly consumed with confusion
about getting the jacket copy of our bill, which had been introduced in
the House by Neva Walker, to Sen. Lourey's office.  It seemed puzzling
that communication was so difficult between the State Office Building and
the Capitol.

Early on the morning of Friday, Mar. 10, our House bill was heard before
the Health Policy and Finance Committee, chaired by Fran Bradley. Kip has
reported fully on that hearing, including Rep. Tom Huntley's unexpected
attack, and the fact that Neva was forced into withdrawing the bill.

At the end of the hearing I went to Becky Lourey's office.  The jacket
copy of the bill had at last made it across the street, but to my surprise
and disappointment her assistant, Will Wilson, said that before Becky
signed it, I would need to meet with her again. I urged speed, since I
already had appointments with several prospective co-authors.  The best he
could do was 8:00 am on Tues. That was just after the first big snowstorm,
and Becky, who had gone home to Kerrick the previous night, was delayed.
What I did learn from Will that morning was that Sen. Leo Foley had signed
the bill as principal author instead of Becky.

The next day Sen. Solon signed as a co-author and it became clear that
Sen. Moua had reconsidered and would not sign. I also learned that Sen.
Solon has temporarily replaced Sen. Moua on the Health and Family Security
Committee. (She is already on Sen. Berglin's Health and Human Services
Budget Division Committee.) Quite by chance that afternoon, I met Becky
Lourey in the hall outside a hearing room, and we had a friendly but frank
talk. I told her of our disappointment that she would not carry our bill,
and I asked if she intended to sign as a co-author.  She said no.  She had
been convinced by advisors that it was not compatible with her announced
health care program as a candidate for governor. I replied that I felt it
was instead a step toward implementing that program, which calls for
administrative costs of no more than five percent. She hesitated and said
she would think it over and might change her mind. Again she assured me
that in any case, the bill would have a hearing.

On Thursday I found Senators Sandy Pappas and Ellen Anderson still firm in
their support and willing to sign as co-authors.  Neither of them,
however, is on a health committee.

On Friday morning, Mar. 17, I gave the bill back to Will Wilson, asking
him to show it to Becky and give her a final chance to sign it if she had
changed her mind.  He could then "drop it in" for numbering and committee
assignment.

Members of the MUHCC steering committee spent the early part of this week
discussing strategy and making plans for testimony at the hearing, which
we learned was likely to be on Mar. 28.  We felt sure that the bill could
not pass the committee and that any hope for it rested with possible
action on the floor of either House or Senate.  Then on Wednesday Don
Pylkkanen met with Sen. Foley and learned that Leo does not even want to
have a hearing on it -- with or without a vote. Therefore, since the
principal author will not push the bill, we feel that for this session it
is essentially dead.


--2
From: "Kip Sullivan" <kiprs [at] usinternet.com>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:27 AM
Subject: Re: Report from the Capitol -- the last 3 weeks

I'll add a little more history to Rhoda's chronology of very recent events
regarding our direct purchasing (deprivatization) bill. The main point I
want to make is that Becky Lourey's last minute decision not to be the
chief author of our bill, or even a co-author, set off a chain of events
that quickly sank our bill. I'll start by recounting some history going
back to December 2004, and then add my interpretation of how Becky's
reneging on her promise to author our bill affected other senators.

A question that might have occurred to some of you is why we were
scrambling to find authors on our bill as late as March when we knew a
year ago this would be a very short session and we needed to have all our
authors lined up by the start of the session. The answer is: We were
waiting for a meeting with Becky to get her approval of the bill's
language. Becky kept finding reasons to put off that meeting, and didn't
have the gumption to call us and tell us she was not going to keep her
promise to support the bill. When senators do that to you -- they tell you
they'll support you and don't let you know they've changed their minds
till deep into a session -- you have serious problems, especially when the
senator in question chairs the key policy committee.

(For those of you who are new to the legislative process, a bill has a
chief author and several co-authors. Typically you line up your chief
author first, which means you get the chief author's approval of bill
language and you have some discussion about other topics, such as who
should co-author. Typically you seek a chief author and co-authors from
the policy committee with jurisdiction, in this case, the Senate health
committee.)

Becky told us in December 2004 she would give us a hearing in the 2005
session on our proposal to remove the HMOs from MnCare, MA, and GAMC. She
didn't give us that hearing, and didn't have the courtesy to call us and
tell us that. Then, late in the 2005 session (that is, about a year ago)
she told Rhoda she would give us a hearing during the interim (that is,
between the last day of the 2005 session and the start of the 2006
session). We were slow to call her up and ask for execution of this
promise in part because it wasn't clear whether and when a special session
would be called in the fall of 2005 (long after the official close of the
2005 session), and in part because we trusted Becky to carry out her
promise. Becky didn't give us an interim hearing and didn't call us to
tell us there would be no interim hearing.

Last November or so our sister coalition, the Greater Minnesota Health
Care Coalition, set up a meeting with Becky in Duluth, a meeting that
several MUHCC people attended (I think they were Rhoda Gilman and Don
Pyllkanen). At that meeting, which occurred in December 2005 or January
2006 (can't recall now), Becky reaffirmed her willingness to author the
direct purchasing (deprivatization) bill and to give it a hearing. By then
we had approached Rep. Matt Entenza about this bill, and he had agreed to
get it drafted.

As soon as Matt got the bill drafted (which occurred in the last week of
December), I set about the laborious and ultimately impossible task of
getting a meeting with Becky to discuss the draft bill. If she was going
to be our chief author, MUHCC and GMHCC wanted her approval of the
wording. Strangely enough, getting that meeting turned out to be
impossible throughout the entire first quarter of this year. On the night
of January 4, when I joined a group of ten people at Becky's campaign
headquarters in St. Paul to discuss the health proposal Becky should
endorse as a gubernatorial candidate, Becky agreed to meet with me later
to discuss the direct purchasing bill. After several phone calls and
cancelled meetings stretching out over a period of six weeks, I gave up
and we turned the task over to Rhoda Gilman who had volunteered (again) to
spend some time acting as MUHCC's lobbyist at the capitol. By now it was
early March and the session had begun.

In January, I was told by a member of this list that Becky had personally
told her she opposed our bill (she implied opposition by answering this
person's question about our bill with another question, "But what about
HMO jobs?"). I emailed a copy of that person's email to Becky's staff, and
quickly received written assurance that it was not true and that Becky
"supported" the direct purchasing bill.

Because we had Becky's assurances she would author the bill and hear it,
we relayed that information to other senators who we approached about
being co-authors, including Senators Leo Foley (our single-payer chief
author)  and Mee Moua (both members of the health committee). I have no
doubt that our statement that Becky had agreed to author our bill had a
significant impact on Senators Foley and Moua, because, sad to say, we
also had to tell them that Senators Berglin and Kelley (both DFLers and
members of the Senate health committee) opposed our bill.

Thus, it was quite a shock to learn from Rhoda on March 15, 2006 that
Becky had told her (during an accidental meeting at the Capitol) that she
would not support the bill. Oddly, Becky told Rhoda she would still give
our bill a hearing.

That information set off a chain reaction. I'm 99% sure it was the factor
that caused Sen Moua to indicate she wanted to reconsider, and the factor
that caused Sen. Foley (our accidental, last-minute chief author)  to
decide not to ask for a hearing. Senators don't mind asking for hearings
on bills they know won't go anywhere if they know they have support from
their party. But when your party "leaders" don't support your bill, you
are understandably relunctant to ask busy colleagues to sit through a
hearing on a bill that isn't going to clear that committee.

Reporting this information is no fun. I personally like Becky a lot, and
have appreciated her past support for our single-payer bill (she has
authored it and held two hearings on it). I believe her inability to tell
us what she was really thinking about our direct purchasing bill was due
in part to her affection for all of us. But her attitude toward our direct
purchasing bill raises questions for me about whether she continues to
support single-payer. We proposed the direct purchasing bill precisely
because we thought it would be easier for legislators to support than the
full-blown single-payer bill and yet would raise the central issue
single-payer raises, namely, Is it possible for insurance companies to be
more efficient than government agencies?

You have to ask, If a senator can't support our direct purchasing bill,
will she do anything to irritate the HMO industry? I understand she is
proposing that as governor she will support legislation requiring HMOs to
get their overhead costs under 5% in order to participate in state
programs. I understand that that proposal will infuriate the HMO industry.
My question is, Will Becky follow through on that promise if she becomes
governor? At this point, I'm very unhappy to say, I don't know what the
answer to that question is.

The above email is not a statement that the steering committee has
approved. It's my opinion only.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   - David Shove             shove001 [at] tc.umn.edu
   rhymes with clove         Progressive Calendar
                     over 2225 subscribers as of 12.19.02
              please send all messages in plain text no attachments