Too Little of a Good Thing: But can we afford to do more? We can’t afford not to.

Op-Ed Columnist

Too Little of a Good Thing

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: November 1, 2009

The good news is that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a k a the Obama stimulus plan, is working just about the way textbook macroeconomics said it would. But that’s also the bad news — because the same textbook analysis says that the stimulus was far too small given the scale of our economic problems. Unless something changes drastically, we’re looking at many years of high unemployment.

Skip to next paragraph

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Paul Krugman

And the really bad news is that “centrists” in Congress aren’t able or willing to draw the obvious conclusion, which is that we need a lot more federal spending on job creation.

About that good news: not that long ago the U.S. economy was in free fall. Without the recovery act, the free fall would probably have continued, as unemployed workers slashed their spending, cash-strapped state and local governments engaged in mass layoffs, and more.

The stimulus didn’t completely eliminate these effects, but it was enough to break the vicious circle of economic decline. Aid to the unemployed and help for state and local governments were probably the most important factors. If you want to see the recovery act in action, visit a classroom: your local school probably would have had to fire a lot of teachers if the stimulus hadn’t been enacted.

And the free fall has ended. Last week’s G.D.P. report showed the economy growing again, at a better-than-expected annual rate of 3.5 percent. As Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com put it in recent testimony, “The stimulus is doing what it was supposed to do: short-circuit the recession and spur recovery.”

But it’s not doing enough.

Suppose that the economy were to keep growing at 3.5 percent. If that happened, unemployment would eventually start falling — but very, very slowly. The experience of the Clinton era, when the economy grew at an average rate of 3.7 percent for eight years (did you know that?) suggests that at current growth rates we’d be lucky to see the unemployment rate fall by half a percentage point per year, meaning that it would take a decade to return to something like full employment.

Worse yet, it’s far from clear that growth will continue at this rate. The effects of the stimulus will build over time — it’s still likely to create or save a total of around three million jobs — but its peak impact on the growth of G.D.P. (as opposed to its level) is already behind us. Solid growth will continue only if private spending takes up the baton as the effect of the stimulus fades. And so far there’s no sign that this is happening.

So the government needs to do much more. Unfortunately, the political prospects for further action aren’t good.

What I keep hearing from Washington is one of two arguments: either (1) the stimulus has failed, unemployment is still rising, so we shouldn’t do any more, or (2) the stimulus has succeeded, G.D.P. is growing, so we don’t need to do any more. The truth, which is that the stimulus was too little of a good thing — that it helped, but it wasn’t big enough — seems to be too complicated for an era of sound-bite politics.

But can we afford to do more? We can’t afford not to.

High unemployment doesn’t just punish the economy today; it punishes the future, too. In the face of a depressed economy, businesses have slashed investment spending — both spending on plant and equipment and “intangible” investments in such things as product development and worker training. This will hurt the economy’s potential for years to come.

Deficit hawks like to complain that today’s young people will end up having to pay higher taxes to service the debt we’re running up right now. But anyone who really cared about the prospects of young Americans would be pushing for much more job creation, since the burden of high unemployment falls disproportionately on young workers — and those who enter the work force in years of high unemployment suffer permanent career damage, never catching up with those who graduated in better times.

Even the claim that we’ll have to pay for stimulus spending now with higher taxes later is mostly wrong. Spending more on recovery will lead to a stronger economy, both now and in the future — and a stronger economy means more government revenue. Stimulus spending probably doesn’t pay for itself, but its true cost, even in a narrow fiscal sense, is only a fraction of the headline number.

O.K., I know I’m being impractical: major economic programs can’t pass Congress without the support of relatively conservative Democrats, and these Democrats have been telling reporters that they have lost their appetite for stimulus.

But I hope their stomachs start rumbling soon. We now know that stimulus works, but we aren’t doing nearly enough of it. For the sake of today’s unemployed, and for the sake of the nation’s future, we need to do much more.

They had an anti-war demonstration and nobody came

Published on Monday, November 2, 2009 by CommonDreams.org

Where Were the Anti-War Demonstrators?

by Tom Gallagher

The occasional sign at an antiwar demonstration used to ask, "What if they had a war and nobody came?" Unfortunately, right now the question is more like "What do we do when they have an antiwar demonstration and nobody comes?" While I can't readily come up with a satisfying answer to that one, I thought it might at least be a useful first step to find out why they're not coming.

A couple of weekends ago, there was a demonstration against the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan in San Francisco. The San Francisco Chronicle put the crowd at 1,000. I might have said something more - not over 2,000, though - and certainly wouldn't argue with the paper's headline: "S.F. anti-war march smaller than some hoped for."

It reported that "by 2 p.m., the crowd had dwindled to just a few dozen ... when peace activist Daniel Ellsberg, the former military analyst who released the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War, took his turn at the microphone" (a claim whose veracity I cannot judge as, I too had left for another commitment by that point.) Since more people had turned out to hear Noam Chomsky at a couple of Bay Area appearances the prior weekend than came to the demonstration, the problem obviously wasn't lack of interest in the issues it raised. But as a quoted demonstrator said, "It should be 10-fold" and that probably was about the size it would have had to be to make people feel really good about it.

I decided I'd ask - mostly via email - a group of people, whose likelihood of attending the average antiwar march seemed to range from possible to probable, to "give me some idea of what your reasons were for not coming." The responses will not be confused with a scientific sampling, to be sure, but I was struck by the breadth of the reasons cited as well as by a certain eagerness in putting them forward. People seemed to want to talk about why they weren't there. This appeared to be a question they were asking themselves.

There were, of course, the routine everyday reasons: People didn't hear about it, or at least not soon enough. Some had to be at the kid's soccer game or they were in Portland, Oregon, and the like. Certainly the lack of reach of the publicity on this one did seem particularly pronounced. San Francisco Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, who came to the rally and ultimately spoke at it, told me he'd only heard about it two days earlier through an email reminder I'd sent out. One organizer of the event noted that the two public radio stations most likely to give it advance notice didn't and/or couldn't. (Pacifica station KPFA had been in the midst of an extended on-air fund-raising drive - times are tough there too.)

But some people who cited mundane reasons didn't let it go at that. One who felt he was "suffocating under a blizzard' at work," allowed that it was "not the full story" in that "in the past, I've made the decision to put things off," but "in this case, I have to say that I couldn't face another dispiritingly underpopulated demo." One who'd been out of town for the event noted that "I heard no one say they were going." Her sense was "that people haven't quite ramped up to be full out in their critique of Obama," a theme echoed personally in a reply that "I'm giving the president the benefit of the doubt" and another expressing the desire "to give Obama a chance. I'd hate to see the left do to him what we did to Jimmy Carter; look who that got us as President!"

At this point, the only surprising element about the "Obama factor" is how strong it's stayed for so long. The diminished enthusiasm for antiwar demonstrations aimed at Obama rather than Bush was obvious last spring, but with about half of the population now leaning against the proposal that the Administration increase Afghanistan troop levels a second time in its first year in office, it seemed that the bloom might be off the Rose Garden, but apparently not so much that you'd notice in the streets, anyhow.

And, while those of us devoted to stopping the wars he now presides over may cringe at the thought, let's not forget that Nobel Peace Prize. There were a few who first hoped that the awarding of the prize might be some subtle Scandinavian shaming exercise - giving the award to someone who really hadn't yet done much to promote world peace but, by virtue of his office, had the potential to do so. But Thorborn Jagland, past prime minister of Norway, has since clarified matters. According to Jagland, who currently serves as the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, "we have to look strictly to what Alfred Nobel said in his will - namely, to give the prize to the person who has done the most for peaceful development in the world in the last year. So we got to the conclusion unanimously that it is President Barack Obama." So, absurd as it may be, there are lots of people out there who think that the Administration's performance over the past year is what peacemaking looks like.

And the idea that a Democratic President must be "strong on defense," which is to say that he might have to wage wars that his supporters don't like, is a familiar one anyhow. The thinking goes that he won't be able to fulfill the rest of his agenda if he doesn't, presumably a consideration of some importance to a couple of respondents who cited their engagement in other issues like the national health insurance debate and "fighting the cuts to public higher education" as reasons for their not focusing on the ongoing wars.

The very busy leaflet that announced the October 17 San Francisco rally did address concerns such as these in calling for "Money for jobs, pensions, education, healthcare and housing, not wars & corporate bailouts." But perhaps the nation's track record of producing fabulous wealth - for some - while continuing to spend almost as much on its military as the rest of the world combined has made the argument that we can only have "guns or butter" less compelling for some. Maybe we should engage those who want to "give Obama a chance" on a more fundamental point.

The situation we face today is quite a bit different than during the administrations of either Carter - who almost pulled off the feat of having no one killed in combat on his watch - or Clinton - who did order the bombing of five countries and arguably greased the skids for Bush's "humanitarian invasion" of Iraq, but engaged in no sustained combat. We have to go back to the Kennedy/Johnson years to find a Democratic President so heavily involved in military action as Obama is now.

Just as a thought experiment, we might pose to those wanting to give him the benefit of the doubt the question of what we would think if Obama were to actually end our military engagement in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, but failed to win reelection to a second term as a result. Would that make him a failure? Is it more important that he walk out of the White House having fixed the home mortgage situation than having stopped eight years of killing than has produced little but coffins and enemies for this country and unmeasured death and destruction in the countries where the wars are actually fought? Or wouldn't we consider his one term the most successful stint served by a President in a very, very long time?

Of course, the more we pose the fundamental questions, the more likely we are to come up against the unpleasant fact that not all of our friends may support our call for immediate withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. For some who may have opposed this war for eight years now, it can be hard to come to grips with the fact that people we traditionally count in the antiwar camp may still be working their way through it. But, as recent statements of members of Code Pink following their visit to Afghanistan showed, there are, indeed, hardcore antiwar activists whose position is that the US needs to set a withdrawal date and work from there. While this does not mean that "Out now" activists should change their position, it may suggest a need to engage with proposals that fall short of the ultimate goal. After all, should we somehow succeed in blocking the troop increase currently under consideration, everything we know about the actual course of the war suggests that the facts on the ground will bring the logic of withdrawal to the fore.

Do they accomplish anything?

Clearly even those dead-set against the wars are not responding to calls to action. Some cite fundamental questions as to the ultimate value of demonstrations. One wrote: "I have to admit, the media blackouts do make me suspect that the mass mobe, however newsy and interesting and it-bleeds-it-leads it was 40 years ago, may have run its course. I don't think I'd argue the point very hard, but it's been on my mind." Another wrote that she "did attend the rally and subsequent march last March. I would say that I have attended about 75% of the peace events in San Francisco, including the one before the invasion of Iraq. I have attended one demonstration in Washington DC," but "my personal belief is that I continue to go to antiwar events because of the benefit I get from seeing and hearing other groups' perspectives on peace issues. I don't really think that the events have much of an effect on the opinions of folks who don't already agree with me that the wars should end."

And there are those who believe that demonstrations like the one on October 17 may actually have a negative impact: "I think it's politically a very bad idea to publicize one's weakness. In my view, that's a major, although unintended consequence of some of these things." For all we know, the demonstration skeptics may be right. We can certainly see how our failure to thwart the invasion of Iraq with the largest pre-war antiwar demonstrations the world has ever seen will suggest to some that they might just as well work around the garden. And if our ultimate argument is simply that it's important to do something rather than nothing, we shouldn't be afraid to say so. As one demonstrator the Chronicle quoted said, "People who have been out here year after year, they're demoralized. It's exhausting. But if I'm not out here, then I'm approving of the current policy."

And there are demonstrations and there are demonstrations - some stayed away because of their sense of what this particular one was all about. One long-time war opponent explained that he had another commitment at the time of the march, "but I cant say I would have shown up if I was free. I don't see any march in SF having much of an impact unless it is both large and broad-based. I think the two are connected. When I see a flyer that says ‘U.S. hands off Iran and North Korea!' it doesn't exactly inspire me to want to get involved."

Were there others who wouldn't come because they weren't comfortable with one or another aspect of the event's stated goals? Hard to say, but there were no shortage of positions to find fault with. In addition to all of the above mentioned issues, the rally's flyers argued to "End the siege of Gaza," for "Self determination for all oppressed nations and peoples," and to "End war crimes including torture! Prosecute the criminals!"

The event's multiple issues raise a fundamental question of organizing. Put in mathematical terms, that question is - When you're dealing with fractions of the population, do you add or multiply? For instance, if one-half of the population opposes the Afghanistan War and one-quarter is concerned with seeing the Israeli Army back off from Gaza, what is the result of combing the issues? Do we somehow add the two groups and wind up with more people on our side - potentially as much as three-quarters of the population if the two groups were entirely distinct? Or do we wind up multiplying the fractions and end up with support of as little as one-eighth of the population - one-quarter of the one-half who agreed with us on Afghanistan? While the goal of all events need not be to appeal to whatever polls tell us is our broadest potential constituency, we probably should at least consider whether we are placing so much on the agenda as to appeal to a vanishingly small sector of the public. In this case, the numerous slogans might have been more appropriately placed on individual banners at a rally that might have been more massive had it been called around fewer issues.

Finally, there were those who were not comfortable with the groups organizing the demonstration, or at least the groups they thought were organizing it.

One person whose absence I'd found particularly striking, given his seemingly perfect attendance record at such things, had been delayed by a meeting and arrived after the march had left, but noted that he couldn't say he "was inspired by seeing the same old radical sectarian tables" at the rally site.

Another said she "wasn't going to go because I don't like ANSWER demonstrations (because they have too many topics) but then I ended up with time on Saturday morning and felt that I'd like to stand against escalation of troops in Af/Pak." A couple of others also cited the fact of the ANSWER Coalition's organizing the rally as a factor in their non-attendance, either because they thought the group had tried to go it alone and failed to have sufficient reach or because they didn't like the type of event the group generally organizes. But they were wrong.

As the rally's emcee told the crowd at one point, the event was actually the product of the combined work of five separate coalitions. While the slim turnout raises the issue of whether the groups in question are really functioning as meaningful "coalitions," the inaccuracy of people's perceptions as to who was behind the demonstrations suggests they may have been looking for reasons not to turn out. All of which raises one of the most fundamental points of this entire discussion. This is not the place to debate the merits or demerits of the ANSWER Coalition, United For Peace and Justice, World Can't Wait, or any other group. The simple fact is, however, that they are the ones trying to do something. As Bay Area newscaster Scoop Nisker used to say, "If you don't like the news, go out and make some of your own." Ain't nobody else going to do it for us.

Tom Gallagher is a San Francisco antiwar activist who initiated last November's successful Proposition U calling upon the city's congressional representatives to vote no further funding for the Iraq War. He is a past member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives. Contact him at TGTGTGTGTG@aol.com

Published on Monday, November 2, 2009 by TruthDig.com

Opium, Rape and the American Way

by Chris Hedges

The warlords we champion in Afghanistan are as venal, as opposed to the rights of women and basic democratic freedoms, and as heavily involved in opium trafficking as the Taliban. The moral lines we draw between us and our adversaries are fictional. The uplifting narratives used to justify the war in Afghanistan are pathetic attempts to redeem acts of senseless brutality. War cannot be waged to instill any virtue, including democracy or the liberation of women. War always empowers those who have a penchant for violence and access to weapons. War turns the moral order upside down and abolishes all discussions of human rights. War banishes the just and the decent to the margins of society. And the weapons of war do not separate the innocent and the damned. An aerial drone is our version of an improvised explosive device. An iron fragmentation bomb is our answer to a suicide bomb. A burst from a belt-fed machine gun causes the same terror and bloodshed among civilians no matter who pulls the trigger.

"We need to tear the mask off of the fundamentalist warlords who after the tragedy of 9/11 replaced the Taliban," Malalai Joya, who was expelled from the Afghan parliament two years ago for denouncing government corruption and the Western occupation, told me during her visit to New York last week. "They used the mask of democracy to take power. They continue this deception. These warlords are mentally the same as the Taliban. The only change is physical. These warlords during the civil war in Afghanistan from 1992 to 1996 killed 65,000 innocent people. They have committed human rights violations, like the Taliban, against women and many others."

"In eight years less than 2,000 Talib have been killed and more than 8,000 innocent civilians has been killed," she went on. "We believe that this is not war on terror. This is war on innocent civilians. Look at the massacres carried out by NATO forces in Afghanistan. Look what they did in May in the Farah province, where more than 150 civilians were killed, most of them women and children. They used white phosphorus and cluster bombs. There were 200 civilians on 9th of September killed in the Kunduz province, again most of them women and children. You can see the Web site of professor Marc Herold, this democratic man, to know better the war crimes in Afghanistan imposed on our people. The United States and NATO eight years ago occupied my country under the banner of woman's rights and democracy. But they have only pushed us from the frying pan into the fire. They put into power men who are photocopies of the Taliban."

Afghanistan's boom in the trade in opium, used to produce heroin, over the past eight years of occupation has funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to the Taliban, al-Qaida, local warlords, criminal gangs, kidnappers, private armies, drug traffickers and many of the senior figures in the government of Hamid Karzai. The New York Times reported that the brother of President Karzai, Ahmed Wali Karzai, has been collecting money from the CIA although he is a major player in the illegal opium business. Afghanistan produces 92 percent of the world's opium in a trade that is worth some $65 billion, the United Nations estimates. This opium feeds some 15 million addicts worldwide and kills around 100,000 people annually. These fatalities should be added to the rolls of war dead.

Antonio Maria Costa, executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), said that the drug trade has permitted the Taliban to thrive and expand despite the presence of 100,000 NATO troops.

"The Taliban's direct involvement in the opium trade allows them to fund a war machine that is becoming technologically more complex and increasingly widespread," said Costa.

The UNODC estimates the Taliban earned $90 million to $160 million a year from taxing the production and smuggling of opium and heroin between 2005 and 2009, as much as double the amount it earned annually while it was in power nearly a decade ago. And Costa described the Afghan-Pakistani border as "the world's largest free trade zone in anything and everything that is illicit," an area blighted by drugs, weapons and illegal immigration. The "perfect storm of drugs and terrorism" may be on the move along drug trafficking routes through Central Asia, he warned. Profits made from opium are being pumped into militant groups in Central Asia and "a big part of the region could be engulfed in large-scale terrorism, endangering its massive energy resources," Costa said.

"Afghanistan, after eight years of occupation, has become a world center for drugs," Joya told me. "The drug lords are the only ones with power. How can you expect these people to stop the planting of opium and halt the drug trade? How is it that the Taliban when they were in power destroyed the opium production and a superpower not only cannot destroy the opium production but allows it to increase? And while all this goes on, those who support the war talk to you about women's rights. We do not have human rights now in most provinces. It is as easy to kill a woman in my country as it is to kill a bird. In some big cities like Kabul some women have access to jobs and education, but in most of the country the situation for women is hell. Rape, kidnapping and domestic violence are increasing. These fundamentalists during the so-called free elections made a misogynist law against Shia women in Afghanistan. This law has even been signed by Hamid Karzai. All these crimes are happening under the name of democracy."

Thousands of Afghan civilians have died from insurgent and foreign military violence. And American and NATO forces are responsible for almost half the civilian deaths in Afghanistan. Tens of thousands of Afghan civilians have also died from displacement, starvation, disease, exposure, lack of medical treatment, crime and lawlessness resulting from the war.

Joya argues that Karzai and his rival Abdullah Abdullah, who has withdrawn from the Nov. 7 runoff election, will do nothing to halt the transformation of Afghanistan into a narco-state. She said that NATO, by choosing sides in a battle between two corrupt and brutal opponents, has lost all its legitimacy in the country.

The recent resignation of a high-level U.S. diplomat in Afghanistan, Matthew Hoh, was in part tied to the drug problem. Hoh wrote in his resignation letter that Karzi's government is filled with "glaring corruption and unabashed graft." Karzi, he wrote, is a president "whose confidants and chief advisers comprise drug lords and war crimes villains who mock our own rule of law and counter-narcotics effort."

Joya said, "Where do you think the $36 billion of money poured into country by the international community have gone? This money went into the pockets of the drug lords and the warlords. There are 18 million people in Afghanistan who live on less than $2 a day while these warlords get rich. The Taliban and warlords together contribute to this fascism while the occupation forces are bombing and killing innocent civilians. When we do not have security how can we even talk about human rights or women's rights?"

"This election under the shade of Afghan war-lordism, drug-lordism, corruption and occupation forces has no legitimacy at all," she said. "The result will be like the same donkey but with new saddles. It is not important who is voting. It is important who is counting. And this is our problem. Many of those who go with the Taliban do not support the Taliban, but they are fed up with these warlords and this injustice and they go with the Taliban to take revenge. I do not agree with them, but I understand them. Most of my people are against the Taliban and the warlords, which is why millions did not take part in this tragic drama of an election."

"The U.S. wastes taxpayers' money and the blood of their soldiers by supporting such a mafia corrupt system of Hamid Karzai," said Joya, who changes houses in Kabul frequently because of the numerous death threats made against her. "Eight years is long enough to learn about Karzai and Abdullah. They chained my country to the center of drugs. If Obama was really honest he would support the democratic-minded people of my country. We have a lot [of those people]. But he does not support the democratic-minded people of my country. He is going to start war in Pakistan by attacking in the border area of Pakistan. More civilians have been killed in the Obama period than even during the criminal Bush."

"My people are sandwiched between two powerful enemies," she lamented. "The occupation forces from the sky bomb and kill innocent civilians. On the ground, Taliban and these warlords deliver fascism. As NATO kills more civilians the resistance to the foreign troops increases. If the U.S. government and NATO do not leave voluntarily my people will give to them the same lesson they gave to Russia and to the English who three times tried to occupy Afghanistan. It is easier for us to fight against one enemy rather than two."

© 2009 TruthDig.com

Chris Hedges writes a regular column for Truthdig.com. Hedges graduated from Harvard Divinity School and was for nearly two decades a foreign correspondent for The New York Times. He is the author of many books, including: War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning, What Every Person Should Know About War, and American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. His most recent book is Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle.

Published on Monday, November 2, 2009 by Al Jazeera English

The Paradox of US Healthcare

by Andrew Kennis

For nearly two decades, Wendell Potter led a very comfortable life as a public relations health insurance executive.

Protesters stage a crime-scene-like "body pile-up" to show the poor state of US health care in Los Angeles, October 6. (AFP/File/Mark Ralston)

However, while flying on a corporate jet and being served lunch on gold-rimmed china with gold-plated cutlery, Potter had an epiphany of sorts.

He realised that the reason why millions of Americans were without health insurance or under-insured was because: "Our Wall Street-driven healthcare system has created one of the most inequitable healthcare systems on the planet."

This June, Potter left his well-paid and secure job at CIGMA, one of the US's largest health insurance companies, and has spoken out in favour of healthcare reform.

'Killing thousands'

With almost 50 million people living without any health insurance and another 25 million people under-insured during a recession, the debate about how to reform the US healthcare system has been underway for many months in Washington and is expected to continue through to the end of the year.

Potter become a whistleblower and is now speaking out against industry abuses on national television news shows.

He does not mince words when telling Al Jazeera that if a strong "public option" is not passed by Congress, healthcare executives would be effectively allowed to continue policies that "literally kill thousands of Americans every year, through denied coverage, as a result of relentless pressure coming from Wall Street".

The public option, currently favoured by the White House, would attempt to insure the uninsured, with the government providing a non-profit, publicly-funded insurance plan.

The public option, however, has not been fully vetted and passed by Congress and Republicans, coupled with a number of Democratic allies, have vowed to prevent it from reaching the desk of Barack Obama, the US president.

Paying more, getting less

In the meantime, the US continues to be the country with the highest proportion of uninsured people in the developed world. It also has the distinction of spending a greater portion of its total economic output on healthcare than any other developed country - just over 17 per cent of its gross domestic product (GDP) last year.

On average, the US spends twice as much as other developed countries on healthcare.

But even though US citizens pay more for healthcare, they get less of it, resulting in a lowly 37th place ranking among healthcare systems in the world, according to a study by the World Health Organization based on quality and fairness.

In terms of the infant mortality rate, a common marker for the overall state of healthcare systems, the US was outranked by all of the following countries according to the CIA's World Factbook: Sweden (3rd), Japan (4th), France (7th), Norway (10th), Germany (14th), Israel (17th), Denmark (21st), United Kingdom (31st), Canada (35th), Taiwan (39th), Italy (41st) and even a few underdeveloped countries, including Cuba (43rd).

How can this paradox of the US spending the most and getting the least for its healthcare occur in the country with the world's largest economic output?

Claudia Schaufan, an Argentine physician and professor of comparative health policies at the University of California in Santa Cruz, explains that the common characteristics of healthcare systems in the developed world have to do with the universality of coverage and the lack of for-profit entities.

The key behind each of these systems is that they all outperform the US in terms of their infant mortality rates, administrative costs, the extent of population with coverage and the proportion of GDP spent on healthcare.

Furthermore, there are no documented instances of citizens going bankrupt because of medical care in these systems while, conversely, some studies have shown as many as 700,000 Americans suffer that fate annually.

'Making a buck'

One grouping of healthcare systems can be described as socially insured and multi-payer (Germany, Switzerland, Japan, Israel, Belgium and Austria), another as socially insured and single-payer (Taiwan and Canada), and a third as nationally insured and delivered (United Kingdom, Spain, all of Scandinavia, Italy and Iceland).

Socially insured and multi-payer systems feature health insurance delivered by non-profit insurers. Those who are unemployed or cannot afford to pay for the insurance, receive governmental assistance so that universal coverage is achieved.

Certain multi-payer countries have a wide choice of insurance programmes, as is the case in Germany. When you choose a private, non-profit insurer - Germany has 240 of them - the government pays a portion of the costs based on your income.

Developed countries with one national insurer that is funded publicly - often described as single-payer - have a healthcare system that is delivered by either private (as is the case in Canada) or publicly-run institutions (as is the case in all of Scandinavia).

While these systems differ in their specific characteristics, the similarities are more important, according to Schaufan.

"Everyone has health insurance and there is no significant for-profit aspect in any part of the medical sector ... nobody in these systems 'makes a buck' at the expense of the health of patients," she says.

Learning from others

Taiwan, which spends three times less than the US on healthcare, developed its current healthcare system in the mid-1990s, when the majority of citizens were uninsured and policymakers collectively decided the health system needed to be radically overhauled. However, the Taiwanese looked to other countries to forge their own system.

Asked what the proposed US reforms show in terms of learning from other examples, Naoki Ikegami, a leading Japanese healthcare economics professor, says simply: "Not much, because there has to be a willingness to learn and if anything, US leaders have isolated themselves from learning about other healthcare systems."

Professor Ikegami's co-author on numerous scholarly publications, John Campbell, an American-born political science professor, says: "The reforms being proposed in the US simply do not fix or get at the heart of the problem, which is price containment and unsustainable healthcare costs.

"The US would stand to gain a lot from going to a single-payer system, where costs could easily be contained and controlled."

Failing millions

In terms of for-profit and corporate healthcare interests influencing policy in universally insured systems, however, the situation is quite different.

Campbell says: "Insurance companies have a very small presence here in Japan and simply do not influence policy at all. The exact opposite is the case in the US where they basically dictate policy."

Potter explains that the situation in the US is a far-cry from that in Japan, as a result "of the lobbying strength of the for-profit, special interests in this country".

Consequently, Potter describes current reforms being considered by Congress as little more than "limited" in their scope.

Schaufan is also critical, adding that for most people, the measures being debated in Washington will be little more than "mandates forcing people to take on for-profit-based insurance companies, which already depend upon the government to cleanse itself from having to cover the elderly and the poor, through the popular Medicare and Medicaid programmes".

She believes the US should adopt more fundamental reforms putting it in line with the rest of the developed world that has opted for universal coverage within the scope of non-profit-based and administered systems.

Potter echoes Schaufan's sentiments: "The system has already failed millions of Americans and will continue to fail millions more in the years to come."

Other experts, however, disagree and point out that trying to rid the US of its profit-based system is unrealistic.

Timothy Jost, a healthcare policy expert and law professor at Washington and Lee University, says: "I would like to have world peace, but I just don't think we're going to get rid of a for-profit healthcare system."

He says there are several significant steps Congress can take by passing meaningful reforms, including "the expansion of Medicaid, as all reform bills are currently proposing that Medicaid would be expanded to 133 per cent of the poverty line".

Jost also points to "affordability subsidies, which would take care of a sizable portion of the population and help put limits on cost-sharing, which will cover most of the people who are under-insured".

Cost-sharing transfers much of the burden of paying for healthcare to insured consumers and is a significant reason why many people are under-insured and many others have to declare medical bankruptcy, despite having insurance.

What the public wants

Despite Jost's optimism about some of the reforms under consideration, the public opinion polls suggest a possible disconnect between politicians and the reforms they are proposing and what the public really wants from their healthcare system.

Based on a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, the New York Times reported that, "most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance and said the government could do a better job of holding down healthcare costs than the private sector".

Another recent ABC News/Washington Post poll documented public support for governmental insurance going even farther, as 56 per cent supporting the idea even if it meant running corporate insurers out of business.

What is even clearer than the apparent gulf that exists between public opinion and the limited reforms being considered, however, is that the US stands alone among other developed countries in terms of its profit-driven and industry-dictated healthcare system.

© 2009 Aljazeera.net/english

Converting SILK into a Sows Ear

Silk (WhiteWave/Dean Foods)

Recently, co-op retailers around the country sent us a number of communiques from Dean Foods (WhiteWave), and their brokers, concerning their Silk product line (please see the corporate damage control materials being sent out by Dean Foods, below). Their attack on the credibility of The Cornucopia Institute, and our soy study, is certainly an effort to deflect attention away from the fact that they have switched most of their products to “natural” (conventional) and away from certified organic.

At The Cornucopia Institute, we are confident in our research and we stand by our recent report: Behind the Bean – The Heroes and Charlatans of the Natural and Organic Soy Foods Industry. We are providing you with additional information and clarification about Silk products, uncensored by Dean Foods’ public relations staff:

Company Structure:

1. Silk used to be owned by White Wave, an independent company and a pioneer in the organic industry. When it was still independent, White Wave used 100% organic soybeans in their Silk products.

2. Today, the Silk brand is owned by Dean Foods and the brand is mostly conventional, not organic. Dean Foods is an $11 billion agribusiness giant and the largest milk processor in the United States. They own over 50 milk labels around the country, including Horizon Organic, a brand that heavily depends on factory farms each milking thousands of cows.

Sourcing:

1. Nowhere in any communications from The Cornucopia Institute, including in our soy report, does it say that Silk is currently manufactured with Chinese soybeans.

MAKING THIS THE HALLMARK OF THEIR COMMUNICATIONS EFFORT IS A CRASS ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT CORNUCOPIA’S WORK AND DEFLECT CRITICISM OVER THEIR SWITCHING THE SILK ORGANIC PRODUCT LINE OVER TO CONVENTIONAL.

2. According to reports by farmers and farmer-owned cooperatives, after Dean Foods purchased the Silk brand in 2002, they told domestic farmers that they would not work with them and buy their organic soybeans unless they could match the cheaper price of imported Chinese soybeans.

3. Dean Foods gradually began introducing additional varieties and flavors, many made with “natural” soybeans. Make no mistake about it, these are conventional soybeans. The percentage of Silk products manufactured with organic soybeans has declined steadily over the years, and recently plummeted.

4. Dean Foods’ statement about buying all North American soybeans was recently added to their web page, presumably, since we had announced the imminent release of our report and they understood the outlines of our research based on their receipt of our soybean sourcing surveys. We have no way of verifying whether the information about Dean Foods’ soy sourcing is accurate today because of their refusal to participate and share such data. Unlike their two competitors in the refrigerated dairy case (Organic Valley and Wildwood), Dean Foods refused to transparently participate in Cornucopia’s study – depriving their customers of an independently verified review of their practices.

Many other prominent soy food brands around the country also were fully transparent in their practices. Another major name in the organic and natural foods industry, Eden Foods, deserves particular recognition for its exemplary practices in full and open disclosure of its business practices.

5. In terms of Dean Foods buying a “small portion” of their soybeans from China in the past, that seems to contradict the reports from organic growers in the United States, and the company has never released any hard data on their purchases.

Commitment to Organics and Sustainability:

1. Recently, Dean Foods reformulated their Silk product line converting almost all their products to “natural” (conventional) soybeans. They did this, quietly, without telling retailers or changing the UPC code numbers on the products. Many retailers have reported to us that they didn’t find out about the change until their customers noticed and complained.

2. To add insult to injury, not only did the price of Silk products not go down when they switched to cheaper conventional soybeans, but they now reintroduced three products with organic soybeans and raised the price on those. Greedy profiteering plain and simple.

3. Dean Foods tells its customers that it partners with Conservation International to source soybeans that are produced in a sustainable, socially responsible and ethical manner. Dean Foods has not made these standards of sustainability available to its customers – unlike the USDA organic standards, customers have no way of accessing their exact definition of sustainability, which remains unclear. We question why they do not simply purchase USDA-certified organic soybeans.

Production with a Neurotoxic Chemical:

1. Silk’s Light soymilk products, as well as its “Heart Health” soymilk, are made with soy flour instead of whole soybeans. The only known sources of conventional soy flour, suitable for soymilk, are produced by first bathing the soybeans in a “hexane bath” in order to extract the oil. Hexane is a highly explosive volatile solvent. It is a byproduct of gasoline refining and a neurotoxin. We believe that soybeans used in Silk’s Light and Heart Health soymilk are immersed in this neurotoxic petrochemical to make soy flour, which is listed as the main ingredient in these Silk products.

2. Hexane is classified as a “hazardous air pollutant” by the Environmental Protection Agency and emissions are regulated for their contribution to air pollution. Food processors are the country’s major hexane emitters. When The Cornucopia Institute sent samples of hexane-extracted soy flour to an independent lab for residue testing, residues as high as 21 parts per million were found. The effects on consumer health of repeated and long-term consumption of hexane-extracted soy ingredients have not been thoroughly studied. An extraction process that does not involve hexane is available, but using hexane is cheaper for the processor.

3. Silk’s creamers contain another hexane-extracted ingredient, soy lecithin.

4. Silk “Plus DHA” contains algal oil that is commonly hexane-extracted. Moreover, the Cornucopia Institute has received reports from parents of toddlers and children who experienced diarrhea and stomach upset from the proprietary DHA used in Silk (Life’sDHA by Martek Biosciences Corporation). This is the same additive, found in infant formula (extracted from algae and soil fungus), that has been linked to severe adverse reactions in infants. (Cornucopia, through a freedom of information request, has obtained adverse reaction reports from the FDA verifying this unfortunate health side-effect.) The FDA has never tested the safety of Life’sDHA, relying instead on safety data supplied by the same corporation that has a financial interest in selling and placing these additives in foods. The FDA did, however, indicate serious reservations regarding the safety of these additives.

View Soy Scorecard

Communiques from Dean Foods (WhiteWave), and their brokers, concerning their Silk product line

Dear Valued Partner,

As our valued customer, our goal is to keep you updated on Silk initiatives and news that involves the soymilk industry.

As you may remember, in 2008 Silk partnered with Conservation International to create Silk’s Soybean Sourcing and Production Program, which reinforces our values and commitment to sourcing soybeans that are produced in a sustainable, socially responsible and ethical manner. We are very proud of this work, and are continuing our work with Conservation International on future initiatives.

Because you may be hearing about the results of the Cornucopia soy scorecard in the news, we wanted to remind you of just a few highlights from Silk’s Sourcing Program:

- Currently, we source all of our beans from North America. If the product is from Silk, the soybeans are from North America.

- Silk is not sourcing beans from China. In the past, we have sourced a small portion of beans from China. Silk stopped contracting for soybeans from China at the end of 2006.

- We only partner with suppliers that can produce beans that pass our robust quality testing and evaluation protocols.

- All Silk soybeans ” non-genetically modified organism (GMO) and organic” are currently sourced domestically.

- Our non-GMO beans are put through robust quality testing and evaluation protocols.

- We have comprehensive testing protocols in place to detect GMOs, pesticide residue and other potential contaminants - all of which are above and beyond regulatory requirements.

- From the seed to manufacturing, beans are tested four times to ensure they are GMO-free.

- Organic soybeans purchased by Silk are certified organic by independent agencies accredited by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), in compliance with the organic standards set by the National Organic Program (NOP).

- We also work with independent, third-party auditors for added assurance that international supplies meet USDA organic standards.

If you have not already done so, we encourage you to visit our Web site (http://www.silksoymilk.com/SourcingProgram.aspx), where more details are available. We appreciate your ongoing support, and remain committed to consistently providing consumers with high-quality, great-tasting soymilk.

Best Regards,

Cornucopia Institute Survey

- While we do not participate in Cornucopia Institute’s industry surveys, Silk remains committed to providing information about our products to consumers, customers, and anyone with an interest.

- We believe the information gathered by Cornucopia Institute for the Soybean Scorecard is not representative of the soy industry. We chose not to participate in the exercise because of the inherent bias and lack of objectivity demonstrated by Cornucopia Institute. In the current economy, publishing information that may confuse consumers and customers could lead to lessened demand for soy products.

- We recognize it is becoming increasingly important to our consumers to learn more about their food, how it’s made and where it comes from and have developed a Sourcing Program to reinforce our values and commitment to sourcing soybeans that are produced in a sustainable, socially responsible and ethical manner. Please visit http://www.silksoymilk.com/SourcingProgram.aspx for more information.

- We engaged external resources and expertise to support our efforts. For example, we partnered with Conservation International to create the Sourcing Program.

- Conservation International – applies innovations in science, economics, policy and community participation to protect the Earth’s richest regions of plant and animal diversity in biodiversity hotspots, high-biodiversity wilderness areas and key marine ecosystems.

Our Commitment to Quality

- We are committed to consistently providing our consumers with high-quality, great-tasting soymilk and only partner with suppliers that can produce beans that pass our robust quality testing and evaluation protocols.

- All Silk soybeans - non-genetically modified organism (GMO) and organic - are currently sourced in North America.

- Silk is not sourcing beans from China. In the past, we have sourced a small portion of beans from China. Silk stopped contracting for soybeans from China at the end of 2006.

- Our non-GMO beans are put through robust quality testing and evaluation protocols.

- We have comprehensive testing protocols in place to detect GMOs, pesticide residue and other potential contaminants - all of which are above and beyond regulatory requirements.

- From the seed to manufacturing, beans are tested four times to ensure they are GMO-free.

- Organic soybeans purchased by Silk are certified organic by independent agencies accredited by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), in compliance with the organic standards set by the National Organic Program (NOP).

- Silk also works with independent, third-party auditors for added assurance that international supplies meet USDA organic standards.

Who's Really Behind Organic Food Brands Like Amy's and Odwalla?

Who's Really Behind Organic Food Brands Like Amy's and Odwalla?

By Vanessa Barrington, EcoSalon. Posted November 2, 2009.

Over the past decade many small organic food brands have been snapped up by giant corporations. Clearly, this can be bad for standards and quality.

I’ll never forget the time I first tried an Odwalla tangerine juice. It was back when tangerine juice was a seasonal offering, during a short window of time in January and February.

I’d just finished a long uphill walk on an unusually warm winter day in San Francisco, and that bottle of juice was manna for my thirsty body.

Then Coke bought Odwalla and seasonality went out the window, along with the pure natural taste of unadulterated juice. Now, if you could find a plain Odwalla tangerine juice not all dolled up with some “functional” additive, you’d be hard-pressed to distinguish it from generic orange juice.

It’s no secret that there’s been consolidation in the organic and natural foods industry over the past decade or so. And clearly, consolidation can be bad for standards and quality.

These Who Owns Organics? charts have been passed around The Internet for years. Most people are shocked the first time they see them (Hershey’s owns Dagoba?).

Organics have always been big money, even in a recession. This attracts well-capitalized companies who want to invest, and who can blame them?

Mega packaged food companies and investor groups buy successful organic brands that were started by visionaries who began the companies with a commitment to the organic ideal of family farms, a clean environment, and simple food without additives. But often, when the big companies buy in, this ideal flies out the window.

I’ve chosen ten of the more prominent organic and natural brands to survey. I’m comparing the stories they tell their customers to the likely (and often proven) reality, based on who owns them.

I purposely put all of the prominent, still-independent brands in this list because I want to tell their stories. But this isn’t a story about small vs. big, small being good and big being bad.

All the independents listed below are big companies, but they have the ability to uphold higher standards and work within their missions because they aren’t beholden to the intense scrutiny of the money managers.

Just for fun, can you guess which ones they are?

Amy’s
Amy’s Kitchen is the real deal. Named after the actual daughter of the company’s founders, Amy’s mission was to create a line of vegetarian food products for busy families that would be healthier than typical convenience, frozen, and packaged foods. Started in Petaluma, Ca., the company remains an independent, family-run business to this day and Amy herself blogs about her life as a college student (including her organic agriculture classes at Stanford). The company headquarters is still in Petaluma where the founders live. All Amy’s foods are vegetarian, but not all are organic. I get a kick out of looking at the old photos of the early days on the company website. I try to cook everything from scratch, but if I’m going to eat a frozen meal, make mine Amy’s!

Arrowhead Mills
Owned by Hain-Celestial, which also owns many other natural and organics brands. The good thing about Hain-owned brands is that they don’t generally try to fool their customers. They come right out and say it. The story on Arrowhead’s website is a folksy one about founder Fred Ford in the Texas panhandle, but it clearly states when the company was purchased by Hain. The other good thing about Hain is they specialize in natural and organic foods, so I feel a bit better about buying their brands. But Hain is also partially owned by Heinz, so that’s the reality.

I like Arrowhead because their product line is not processed. They sell mostly whole grains, beans, and nut butters (high quality ones at that). I do wonder where they source their raw ingredients, especially with this line: “bringing deliciously wholesome choices from America’s Heartland to your table.” Though it may not be, that line sounds like pure marketing to me. It’s true that many of these crops can be more cheaply grown in China and I’m not saying that Arrowhead sources from China. I can’t find any evidence of it (or that they buy from anywhere outside the US), but then again, their website and none of the product packages I surveyed for this article state country of origin information. Your guess is as good as mine.

Cascadian Farms
If they have to tell you it’s a real place, there’s something not quite right. Oh, and General Mills owns Cascadian Farms. Founder Gene Kahn was featured in the excellent book, Organic, Inc. defending himself against those who would say that he sold out. General Mills also owns Muir Glen and Small Planet Foods, both of which are mentioned on Cascadian Farms’ website, while General Mills is not. General Mills is one of the largest packaged food companies in the world and has a joint operating agreement with Nestle. In the fourth quarter of 2009, General Mills posted revenues of $3.646 billion. Not that there’s anything wrong with it, but it sort of brings the pastoral image into question.

Eden
If you guessed Eden Foods as one of the independents, you guessed right. In this fantastic article the founder of the company tells his story about fending off the advances of multiple large corporations. Why? Because he wanted to run the company his way, with careful attention to the quality of the product and sustainability practices. Eden is probably my favorite organic food company, mostly for being pioneers in BPA-free cans. (Except for the tomatoes, for which they are looking for an option). According to the company’s website, they process their soybeans without toxic chemicals. All Eden soy products are made from multi-tested GEO free, USA family farm organically grown soybeans, with no refined sugar and no synthetic processing aids. They do not add isoflavone supplements or soy protein isolate. All of the above questionable additives and practices are routine in the industry. Plus, they employ people in Detroit, one of the country’s most economically distressed areas. What’s not to like?

Horizon
I’m not sure what the giggling children on the Horizon website have to do with organic milk, in fact, I’m not sure what Horizon has to do with organic milk either. The company is owned by Dean Foods, a huge conglomerate that is said to be in control up to 90% of the milk market in many states. The company has reported record profits this year as dairy farmers all over the country have gone under. The company is currently being sued by farmers and also being investigated by the Justice Department for monopolistic practices. In other news, Horizon has long been accused of selling “fake organic” milk by the Cornucopia Institute. Enough said.

Nature’s Path
I was surprised and delighted when I found out that this Canadian company is still family owned, because I like their products. The son of an ecologically-minded organic farmer, founder Arran Stephens believes in not expanding the company beyond the point where he can personally run it. The company does a lot to support organic farming, packages their products as sustainably as possible, and engages in many green business practices. While I don’t usually eat packaged cereal, if I were going to, I’d buy Nature’s Path over any other brand. There’s some interesting reading on their website about the family and company origins. At first glance the site looks like it was developed as a homey, “real” brand by a team of corporate image experts, but then you read the content and it’s too personal to be branding. So refreshing.

Newman’s Own Organics
Privately owned by Nell Newman, this company is an offshoot of the original Newman’s Own company, started by Paul Newman. They make tasty snack foods that are less bad for you than the chemical laden non-organic foods, but they are still snack foods and should be used sparingly in favor of real, cooked from scratch food. The company is very transparent about the ingredients in their products. Although the original Newman’s Own company gives tons of money to progressive charities, I don’t see this as part of the Newman’s Own Organics branding.

Organic Valley
Organic Valley is a true cooperative of family farms, meaning all farms that sign on share in the management and the profits. The company is involved in advancing the organic movement through organizations like Rodale Institute. Their website is very interactive. You’ll find various community pages and a cool little calculator that lets users figure out how many pounds of synthetic nitrogen, pesticides and fertilizers they’ve prevented from being released into the soil, air, and water through buying Organic Valley products. I buy my dairy products from local-regional suppliers, but if I’m in a big national grocery chain store and I have a choice between the store brand, Horizon, or Organic Valley, I’ll always choose Organic Valley.

Stonyfield
Depending on whom you ask, founder and CEO Gary Hirshberg of Stonyfield Farm is a sell out or a visionary. French company Groupe Danone bought a huge ownership stake in the company, but Hirshberg is still CEO. Critics charge that companies like Stonyfield dumb down organics by engaging in questionable sourcing. A few years ago when the demand for organic milk outstripped supply, Stonyfield was under fire for buying powdered milk from New Zealand and shipping it here to make yogurt. This year, Stonyfield got into trouble with organic farmers because when demand for organic milk went down and the big companies (like Hood, Stonyfield and Horizon) stopped buying or lowered the prices paid farmers, dairy farmers were left holding the bag.

White Wave – Silk
White Wave, the company that makes Silk Soymilk, was once thought of as one of the most exemplary companies in the organic business. When Dean Foods bought the company in 2002 things slowly started changing. They introduced new flavors made with non-organic soybeans, and this year they did something unforgivable to many. They sneakily changed all the Silk soymilk products to natural from organic. They didn’t change the packaging, UPC codes or prices and they didn’t inform consumers or their grocery customers. All they did was very, very quietly change the word “organic” to “natural” on the front of the package. But then what do you expect from Dean Foods? See above.

People buy organic and natural foods for many reasons: their own personal health, the health of the planet, matters of taste and the desire to support family farms. When faced with the dizzying array of choices on the shelves, it’s satisfying to look behind the marketing hoopla and choose the products that are most likely to align with your own personal values.

See more stories tagged with: health, progressives, organics, silk, white wave

Top 10 Reasons Why Republicans Should Support the House Health Bill

Top 10 Reasons Why Republicans Should Support the House Health Bill

By Igor Volsky, The Wonk Room. Posted October 30, 2009.

The House health-care bill does much of what Republicans said they wanted. So they've launched a disinformation campaign. Rep. Mike Pence was first out of the gate.

Friday, Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., characterized the entire House health care bill as a "government run insurance 2.0." "I mean, what we are seeing here is, you know, government-run insurance, mandates for businesses, an enormous tax increase, most of which or at least half of which will be paid for by small business owners." But Pence and the Republicans should actually read the bill before dismissing it. For while the party may oppose the bill's provisions to tax the top 0.3% of Americans to fund reform or the new fees imposed on the pharmaceutical industry to help close the donut hole in Medicare Part D, on the whole, the 1,990 page bill is a fairly moderate proposal that incorporates numerous conservative policies.

Here are just 10 reasons for why Republicans should support the House health bill:

1. REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR -- DEFICIT NEUTRAL BILL: "Do the American people believe that this almost 2,000 page bill won't add to the deficit?" [Rep. Eric Cantor, 10/29/2009]

HOUSE BILL -- DEFICIT NEUTRAL BILL: According to the Congressional Budget Office, the House bill costs $894 billion over 10 years and actually reduces the deficit by $30 billion and continues to reduce the deficit over the second 10 years.

2. REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR -- REDUCE COSTS OVER LONG TERM: "Nevertheless, House Republicans recognize the need to lower health care costs." [Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), 9/9/09]

HOUSE BILL -- REDUCES COSTS OVER LONG TERM: Encourages payment reforms that can help lower costs. Requires the Department of Health and Human Services to establish specific benchmarks for expansion of the Accountable Care Organization, Payment Bundling, and Medical Home pilot programs. The bill will also slow the rate of growth of the Medicare program from 6.6% annually to 5.3%.

3. REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR -- POLICIES ACROSS STATE LINES: "Interstate competition allowing people to buy insurance across state lines." [Sen. John Thune (R-SD), 9/8/2009]

HOUSE BILL -- POLICIES ACROSS STATE LINES: Allows for the creation of State Health Insurance Compacts -- permits states to enter into agreements to allow for the sale of insurance across state lines.

4. REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR -- MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REFORM: "Why not bring about reasonable restrictions and limits on medical malpractice claims to end the era of defensive medicine?" [Rep. Mike Pence (R-IA), 9/9/2009]

HOUSE BILL -- ENCOURAGES MALPRACTICE REFORM: The bill establishes a voluntary state incentives grant program to encourage states to implement "certificate of merit" and "early offer" alternatives to traditional medical malpractice litigation.

5. REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR -- HIGH RISK POOLS: "Senator McCain has a proposal sometimes called high-risk pools at the state level…These are efforts I think we can have bipartisan agreement on and deal with the question of pre-existing conditions." [Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), 9/10/2009]

HOUSE BILL -- HIGH RISK POOLS: To fill the gap before the Exchange becomes available in 2013, the bill creates an insurance program with financial assistance for those uninsured for several months or denied policy due to preexisting conditions.

6. REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR -- ALLOW YOUNG PEOPLE TO STAY ON PARENTS' POLICIES: "Recognizes that not all high school and college graduates are able to find a job that offers health care coverage after graduation. By allowing dependents to remain on their parents' health policies up to the age of 25, the number of uninsured Americans could be reduced by up to 7 million." [Republican Health Solutions Group]

HOUSE BILL -- ALLOW YOUNG PEOPLE TO STAY ON PARENTS' POLICIES: The bill requires health plans to allow young people to remain on their parents' insurance policy until they turn 27.

7. REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR -- NO PUBLIC MONEY FOR ABORTION: "The American people will not stand for government-run insurance that uses taxpayer money to fund abortions in this country." [Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), 10/16/2009]

HOUSE BILL -- NO PUBLIC MONEY FOR ABORTION: The bill prohibits abortion services from being made part of essential benefits package and prohibits federal funds from being used to pay for abortion (except in cases of rape, incest, and to save life of the woman).

8. REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR -- PROTECT SMALL BUSINESSES: "Helps employers offer health care coverage to their workers by reducing their administrative costs through a new small business tax credit." [Republican Health Solutions Group]

HOUSE BILL -- PROTECTS SMALL BUSINESSES: The bill exempts 86% of businesses from the requirement to provide coverage. Businesses with payrolls below $500,000 are exempt while firms with payrolls between $500,000 and $750,000 would pay a graduated penalty. Small businesses would also receive a tax credit that helps cover 50% of their health care expenses.

9. REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR -- PROMOTE JOB WELLNESS PROGRAMS: "Promotes prevention and wellness by giving employers and insurers greater flexibility to financially reward employees who seek to achieve or maintain a healthy weight, quit smoking, and manage chronic illnesses like diabetes." [Republican Health Solutions Group]

HOUSE BILL -- PROMOTE JOB WELLNESS PROGRAMS: The bill establishes a grant program to help small employers create or strengthen workplace wellness programs.

10. REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR -- DELIVERY SYSTEM REFORM: "Uses new and innovative treatment programs to better coordinate care between health
care providers, ensuring that those with chronic disease receive the care they need and do not continue to fall through the cracks." [Republican Health Solutions Group]

HOUSE BILL -- DELIVERY SYSTEM REFORM: The bill requires the Department of Health and Human Services to establish specific benchmarks for the expansion of the Accountable Care Organization, Payment Bundling, and Medical Home pilot programs.

See more stories tagged with: republicans, health care, healthcare reform, mike pence, government-run health car

Igor Volsky is a Health Care Researcher/Blogger for ThinkProgress.org and The Progress Report at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Igor is co-author of Howard Dean’s Prescription for Real Healthcare. Reform.