The early results are in. Today, almost all residents in the city have affordable access to a comprehensive health care delivery system through the Healthy San Francisco program. Covered services include the use of a so-called “medical home” that coordinates care at approved clinics and hospitals within San Francisco, with both public and private facilities. Although not formally insurance, the program is tantamount to a public option of comprehensive health insurance, with the caveat that services are covered only in the city of San Francisco. Enrollees with incomes under 300 percent of the federal poverty level have heavily subsidized access, and those with higher incomes may buy into the public program at rates substantially lower than what they would pay for an individual policy in the private-insurance market.

To pay for this, San Francisco put into effect an employer-health-spending requirement, akin to the “pay or play” employer insurance mandates being considered in Congress. Businesses with 100 or more employees must spend $1.85 an hour toward health care for each employee. Businesses with 20 to 99 employees pay $1.23 an hour, and businesses with 19 or fewer employees are exempt. These are much higher spending levels than mandated in Massachusetts, and more stringent than any of the plans currently under consideration in Congress. Businesses can meet the requirement by paying for private insurance, by paying into medical-reimbursement accounts or by paying into the city’s Healthy San Francisco public option.

There has been great demand for this plan. Thus far, around 45,000 adults have enrolled, compared to an estimated 60,000 who were previously uninsured. Among covered businesses, roughly 20 percent have chosen to use the city’s public option for at least some of their employees. But interestingly, in a recent survey of the city’s businesses, very few (less than 5 percent) of the employers who chose the public option are thinking about dropping existing (private market) insurance coverage. The public option has been used largely to cover previously uninsured workers and to supplement private-coverage options.

Through our experience working on health-care-reform efforts in California and Washington (one of us worked for President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers), we have seen how concern over employer costs can be a sticking point in the health care debate, even in the absence of persuasive evidence that increased costs would seriously harm businesses. San Francisco’s example should put some of those fears to rest. Many businesses there had to raise their health spending substantially to meet the new requirements, but so far the plan has not hurt jobs.

As of December 2008, there was no indication that San Francisco’s employment grew more slowly after the enactment of the employer-spending requirement than did employment in surrounding areas in San Mateo and Alameda counties. If anything, employment trends were slightly better in San Francisco. This is true whether you consider overall employment or employment in sectors most affected by the employer mandate, like retail businesses and restaurants.

So how have employers adjusted to the higher costs, if not by cutting jobs? More than 25 percent of restaurants, for example, have instituted a “surcharge” — about 4 percent of the bill for most establishments — to pay for the additional costs. Local service businesses can add this surcharge (or raise prices) without risking their competitive position, since their competitors will be required to take similar measures. Furthermore, some of the costs may be passed on to employees in the form of smaller pay raises, which could help ward off the possibility of job losses. Over the longer term, if more widespread coverage allows people to choose jobs based on their skills and not out of fear of losing health insurance from one specific employer, increased productivity will help pay for some of the costs of the mandate.

The San Francisco experiment has demonstrated that requiring a shared-responsibility model — in which employers pay to help achieve universal coverage — has not led to the kind of job losses many fear. The public option has also passed the market test, while not crowding out private options. The positive changes in San Francisco provide a glimpse of what the future might look like if Washington passes substantial health reform this year. 

The World turned upside down.  II

The original thought behind our constitution was to protect the individual against the excesses of a powerful govt. The present Court appears to have taken the opposite tack.  It is deciding to protect large businesses and govt institutions against the clams of the citizens.

The Court is accomplishing this by limiting citizens rights to go to court to seek relief from what the citizen believes to be an injustice. The Court is  using a very strict, “mean”, interpretation of the law,and legal procedures, to DENY STANDING limit cases accepted by the Court.

Speaking for the majority in a recent Supreme Court case, Justice Clarence Thomas ruled, “Time limits for filing a notice of appeal are  jurisdictional in nature and therefore cannot be waived by Judges for reason for fairness”.   “We hold that the defendant’s untimely notice—even though filed in reliance upon a District Court order--deprived  the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction”,

The defendant’s lawyer sought to reopen an appeal, under a federal rule of civil procedure he had 14 days to file a notice of appeal.  The Judge granted the motion to reopen on Feb 1 0^th but inexplicably said the notice must be filed by Feb. 27.  The notice was filed Feb.26 the day before the Judge’s deadline but two days beyond the legal deadline.

In dissent, Judge David Souter wrote, ”it is intolerable for the judicial system to treat people this way,  Congress put no  jurisdictional tag on the  time limit here” and the court was wrong to add one.  Souter  pointed out, “We have the authority to recognize an equitable  exception to the 14 day limit, 1962 decision, and we should do that here, as it certainly seems reasonable to rely on  order from a federal judge.

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS Often led by Justice Antonin Scalia the Supreme Court has limited access to the Courts on a wide range of issues .Restrictive “standing” has tended to harm liberal public-interests and lenient “standing” to help them.

The three essential requirements for standing are; an actual injury, proof that the injury was due to something the defendant did or failed to do, and proof that the injury would  be  redressed if the defendant did as the plaintiff

asked.

Of interest, large majorities of Justices have denied or limited access to businesses in cases where they fear the free interplay of the market  could  be effected.

During .the 07-08 term the Court voted to protect some        business  practices  from anti-trust suits, require greater evidence of collusion  to allow cases to proceed, immunize Wall Street banks and brokers from anti-trust suits relating to activities regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission,, require plaintiffs to  state allegations in greater detail .  These decisions all set out rules that will bar some future claims from being  heard.

The conservative Court is  more  friendly to business and gov’t and less friendly to individual rights than the liberal courts.

Three cases  of interest.  The Court ruled that the Freedom from Religion Foundation had no standing to sue over the executive   promotion  of  faith  based initiatives because the money came from executive discretionary funds not a congressional appropriation.   Citizens can  not file suits alleging that the government is spending money illegally.    except for suits based on the Constitution’s Establishment clause, first amendment, the basis for separation of church and state.

Secondly Chief Justice  Roberts  has  been  very  much  against  law suits contesting environmental rulings.  Environment is one area, voter ID is another where conservatives rejected the idea of assessing statues as soon as they are passed.  The conservatives want to have a clear idea of the nature and effect in the real world.  In the voter ID case the lawyer for the people bringing suit pointed out that waiting may influence the outcome of an election..  The voter ID requirement was upheld even though there was no evidence of voter fraud, 

Get the Facts Behind the News. Chief Justice Roberts in an article written in 1993 wrote, ”A relaxed doctrine of ‘standing’. would  transform the courts into an ombudsmen  of the administrative bureaucracy, a role for which they are ill-suite both institutionally and as matter of democratic theory.”  In another.” article written in 1993 Justice Roberts wrote, “The one thing(Congress) may not due is ask the courts in effect to exercise (legislative) oversight responsibility at the behest of ANY  John Q. Public whom happens to be interested in the issue.”

Justice Scalia has gone  one  step further.  Writing about the Lujan vs. Wildlife Defenders, he wrote, “If Congress could authorize MERE citizens to ensure that federal agencies followed the law it would interfere with the president’s  constitutional duty to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed”.  Diogenes’ personal  opinion, nonsense This is what Liberals believe t he Supreme Court is supposed to do.

“But the biggest change under Chief Justice John Roberts might not involve who wins on the merits, but rather, it maybe who gets through the courthouse door in the first place.  In case after case the court shifted toward what Chief Justice Roberts has previously referred to as ‘judicial restraint’. As it addressed issues large and small, in civil liberties and criminal justice alike, the conservative bloc repeatedly found that the question didn’t belong before a judge at all. 

One of the major thoughts behind judicial restraint is the “conservative’s antipathy to what they label as judicial activism—courts making decisions  they believe are best left to an elected executive, a legislature or the rough  and tumble of the free market”.  The court’s conservatives have used judicial arguments such as finding the plaintiff had no right to sue, or the courts lack jurisdiction to hear the claim.  When interpreting statutes the conservatives  have strictly interpreted deadlines and procedural requirements to keep claims out of court.  When the Court reviews the actions of lower courts the Supreme Court has taken a narrow view of a trial judge’s discretion.

When a suit is dismissed   preventing  the court from deciding the merits of the case, it is without “standing”.  Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “Standing is thus properly regarded as a doctrine of judicial self-restraint”. More om standing.

.

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS

Elizabeth Warren head of the oversight panel setup by Congress to  monitor the Federal Bailout  says, “THE GOV’T STILL DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE A COHERENT STRATEGY FOR EASING THE FINANCIAL CRISIS.  “Instead the gov’t seemed to go from one tactic to the next without clarifying how each step fits into the overall plan.

A reason for Ms. Warren’s observation is the US does not have an economic strategy.   Professor Michael Porter distinguished Harvard School Professor  notes the American political system has evolved with piecemeal reactions to current events.   

Where do we really stand?  Prof Porter says the US has prospered because of unique competitive strengths.

 1) The US has an unparalleled environment for entrepreneurship and starting new companies.

 2) US Entrepreneurship has  been fed by a science, technology, and innovation that is by far the best in the world.

 3) The US has the world’s best institutions of higher learning .

 4)  The US has been the country with the strongest commitment to competition and free markets.

 5) The task of forming economic policy and putting it into practice is highly decentralized across states and regions.  This  decentralization  maybe the US greatest competitive strength.

 6)  The US benefits from the most efficient capital markets of any nation.  This especially true  of risk capital.

 7)  US has remarkable dynamism and resilience to take losses and move on.

Prof Porter believes” a series of policy failures have offset and even nullified “US “  strengths  just as other nations are becoming more competitive”. Let’s have a look at nine of the economic areas.

SAVE US FROM CONGRESSIONAL& EXEC ACTIVISTS

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS.  Ex-Pres  George Bush. Chief Justice Roberts, and many congressional republican leaders are always talking against Judicial activism(legislating from the bench).

Maybe they should look in the mirror.  If they do they will see much greater activism from the Congress and the Executive branches than the Judicial(legislating in areas outside the political sphere where most are not qualified).  Politics, business, and economics are different fields.  Congress and the executive are entering and making decisions in  these outside areas.  CROSS YOUR FINGERS.  Suggestion--Perhaps placing the “peoples” organizations in some form of independent authority would be best.

Let’s see a few examples.

Should the executive be owning and financing large co’s,ie General Moters, AIG Insurance etc?  Does the gov’t have the expertise to do this or if the gov’t only lends money than the same people who managed to get the companies into their present troubles are  left to get them out of their troubles.

Should the Congress be deciding how many and which auto dealers  should  be kept? Does this mean that Congress will also decide what manufacturing facilities are kept and where new ones are  built.  The basis of their decisions resting on political clout like closing military bases?  If so the outlook for the “people’s business” is very dim.  We can end up like the “old communists” situation, where large organizations with many workers are managed politically so they are economically inefficient and  can  not compete in the marketplace.   These inefficient large organizations will require constant capital which  will be given to them and justified due to the large number of workers employed.

Speaking of closing military bases, why not have a military establishment suited to present military conditions.  Most of the Indians are no longer physically on the war path.  Obsolete bases should  be closed and cold war weaponry discontinued.  Good luck to Secretary Gates.

Lastly  abortions should be left to Doctors and patients not to gov’t legislative bodies.  Perhaps Supreme Court designate Ms. Sotomayor is right.  More  later.

  WHERE OBRAMA WET WRONG  

Get the fact behind the news No 2

 By no later than the summer of 2004, the American people had before them the basic narrative of h

Yet we still shrink from the hardest truths and the bigger picture: that torture was a premeditated policy approved at our government’s highest levels; that psychologists and physicians were enlisted as collaborators in inflicting pain; and that, in the assessment of reliable sources like the F.B.I. director Robert Mueller, it did not help disrupt any terrorist attacks

We now have evidence for an explanation of what motivated Bybee to write his memo

that August, thanks to the comprehensive Senate Armed Services Committee report on detainees released last week.

The report found that Maj. Paul Burney, a United States Army psychiatrist assigned to interrogations in Guantánamo Bay that summer of 2002, told Army investigators of another White House imperative: “A large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq and we were not being successful.” As higher-ups got more “frustrated” at the  inability to prove this connection, the major said, “there was more and more pressure to resort to measures” that might produce that intelligence.

In other words, the ticking time bomb was not another potential Qaeda attack ow the elected and appointed officials of their government decided to torture prisoners and how they went about it.” When the Obama administration said it declassified four new torture memos 10 days ago in part because their contents were already largely public, it was right.

 on America but the Bush administration’s ticking timetable for selling a war in Iraq; it wanted to pressure Congress to pass a war resolution before the 2002 midterm elections. Bybee’s memo was written the week after the then-secret (and subsequently leaked) “Downing Street memo,” in which the head of British intelligence informed Tony Blair that the Bush White House was so determined to go to war in Iraq that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” A month after Bybee’s memo, on Sept. 8, 2002, Cheney would make his infamous appearance on “Meet the Press,” hyping both Saddam’s W.M.D.s and the “number of contacts over the years” between Al Qaeda and Iraq. If only 9/11 could somehow be pinned on Iraq, the case for war would be a slam-dunk.

But there were no links between 9/11 and Iraq, and the White House knew it. Torture may have been the last hope for coercing such bogus “intelligence” from detainees who would be tempted to say anything to stop the WATER BOARDING.

Thanks to Frank Rich and his recent NY Times op-ed.

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS

Elizabeth Warren head of the oversight panel setup by Congress

to monitor the Federal Bailout  says, “THE GOV’T STILL DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE A COHERENT STRATEGY FOR EASING THE FINANCIAL CRISIS.  “Instead the gov’t seemed to go from one tactic to the next without clarifying how each step fits into the overall plan. .

A reason for Ms. Warren’s observation is the US does not seem to have an economic Policy.  Professor Porter, noted Harvard School Professor.  reminds  us the American political system has evolved with piecemeal reactions to current events.

Prof Porter believes” a series of policy failures have offset and even nullified “US “  strengths  just as other nations are becoming more competitive”.  . .

1)  “An  inadequate rate of reinvestment in science and technology is hampering our feeder system for entrepreneurship.  Research and development as a share of the GDP has declined, while it has risen in other countries”.  This is well recognized but policy makers have failed to act.

2) Our belief in competition is waning.  “A creeping relaxation of antitrust enforcement has allowed mergers to dominate markets”.  “We are seeing more interference in competition with protectionism and favoritism.”

3)  US colleges and universities do not have a serious plan, such as GI Bill or National Science Foundation programs, to improve access to them.  The US now ranks 12^th in educational attainment for 25 to 34year olds.  For 30 yrs we have not improved ourselves in this area. This is an “ominous trend in an economy that  must have the skills to justify our high wages.”

4) At a time when job insecurity and turnover are high the US gov’t  has not taken responsibility to provide a transition safety net for US working people.  The job training system is ineffective and receives less funding each year.  Pension security is declining.  Social security is not being adjusted and strengthened.  Access to affordable health insurance is a major worry to most people. The gov’t could equalize the tax deductibility of individuals purchasing insurance to assist those not covered by their employers, but has failed to do so.

5) The US is energy inefficient.  Public policies fail to promote energy conservation.

6)  “Trade and foreign investment are fundamental to the success of the   US economy but the US has lost its focus and credibility in shaping the international trading system.”   “With no strategy the US has failed to work with other advanced countries to assist poorer countries to feel confident about opening markets and internal reform.” “Our foreign aid is still tied to the purchase of US goods rather than the actual needs of countries.”

7) “The federal gov’t has failed to recognize and support the decentralization and regional specialization that drives our economy.

8) Lack of regulatory oversight combined with lack of a strategic plan has resulted in a hodge-podge of policies that have driven up the costs of doing business.  TO SUM UP WE HAVE HAD POOR ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT.

9) Is good strategic economic plan possible considering our political system?

It requires political parties and private leaders to come together and chart a long  term plan.  Prof Porter recommends a bipartisan joint planning group to coordinate priorities,

Does the new Stimulus Bill help solve these problems?