California’s largest for-profit health insurance company, Anthem Blue Cross, has notified their 800,000 individual policy holders to expect an increase in premium rates of up to 39%.

Considering the rate hike comes in the middle of the profound economic disaster that is California, it takes a pretty cold-blooded company to institute such a boost. But then, nobody should be particularly surprised when considering that, just last year, the company raised premiums for many of these same people by up to 68%.

California Insurance Commissioner, Steve Poizner, who is engaged in a primary battle for the California GOP gubernatorial nomination, has weighed in big saying that he is hiring an independent actuarial firm to determine if the price increase is reasonable.

Even HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has sent a letter to Anthem’s president calling foul.

But to those about to be slammed with the increase, I wouldn’t get too excited by all this government action.

In California, the Insurance Department can regulate the premium charges on home and automobile insurance. Not so for health insurance. Regulators can, technically, ‘oversee’ the increased cost but they have no power whatsoever to control these charges. Thus, it is anyone’s guess what it means to ‘oversee’ when you can’t regulate.

As for Secretary Sebelius, while she can write tough letters letting us know the Obama Administration cares, she too has no authority to regulate these premium charges.

What does Anthem have to say about the matter?

In a statement, Anthem Blue Cross attributed the increased premiums to a bad economy and rising health care costs, forcing members to drop coverage, which “leaves fewer people, often with significantly greater medical needs, in the insured pool.”
Via ABC News

Is it me or is that the greatest circular argument ever? Because of the bad economy, members have had to drop their coverage leaving them uninsured. Because the healthy people can no longer afford the coverage, that leaves more sick people in the pool, raising the costs to the insurance company and forcing them to raise premium costs for those who can continue to pay for their coverage.

I don’t suppose this ever occurred to Anthem, but based on their logic, were they to lower their prices, they would attract more members, rather than force members to drop out, greatly improving the ratio of healthy to sick in their insurance pool. This would leave them with the opportunity to earn more profit.

But these are tough times. No doubt Anthem has been struggling to make money in this difficult economic environment.

Or not.

In Sebelius’ letter, the Secretary points out –

Anthem Blue Cross’s parent company, Wellpoint Inc., earned a record $2.7 billion in profits for the last quarter of 2009. Its quarterly sales grew to $19 billion, up 26 percent from $15.1 billion in the comparable 2008 period, Sebelius pointed out.
Via ABC News

For you consumer driven health care and free market believers, you might be interested to know that there is virtually no competition in California when it comes to individual health insurance policies. Anthem pretty much has the market sewn up.

And for those who buy into the GOP nonsense that the answer to rising health insurance costs is to allow insurance companies to sell their policies across state lines, you might care to note that Anthem Blue Cross is the California branch office for Wisconsin based Wellpoint, Inc.

It is worth noting that those who have individual policies with Anthem are middle class Californians who can – or previously could – afford to pay the already high premium charges.

For Jeff Sher of San Francisco, who is both an independent health insurance agent and an Anthem customer, his 38 percent increase comes on top of a 41 percent increase last year. That means that in just a year, his premium increased from $273 to $530 per month, or 94 percent. Sher, who is 59, said he hasn’t needed to see a doctor in seven or eight years.
Via San Francisco Gate

What happens when the middle class can no longer afford health insurance?

Like it or not, say hello to single-payer government provided insurance. It’s one thing to leave the poor or those just above the poverty line without health care coverage. The truth is, they don’t vote in sufficient numbers to get the attention of the politicians.

However, it’s quite another when the middle class no longer can afford coverage.

So far, California’s GOP congressional caucus has been conspicuously silent on the subject. And, contrary to what most think, there are quite a few Republicans representing the state in Congress.

So, Darrell Issa – are you out there, brother? We know you are and can’t wait hear what you have to say about all this? 

Image via Wikipedia

Giving the keynote speech at the Tea Party convention in Nashville last night, Sarah Palin informed her audience that “America is ready for another revolution!”

Judging by the standing ovation, Governor Palin’s fellow Tea Party participants wholeheartedly agree.

But  here’s the deal. If The Tea Party wants me -or the rest of centrist America – to take it all seriously, they are going to have to convince us that they have an adequate grip on the history that brought us to where we are today and a legitimate grasp on where it is they want to take us.

I say this because a revolution is more than a bunch of people screaming in the streets. To succeed, it must be based on an alternative, workable form of government loyal to a fundamental principle. Failing that, this revolution is nothing more than a bunch of folks walking around drinking beer, wearing silly costumes and looking more like Comic-Con than a political convention.

I believe most exponents of the Tea Party agenda would agree that the movement is fundamentally about honoring the requirements of the Tenth Amendment which requires that power not expressly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and to the people.

This is not such a bad starting point for an alternative point of view on American government. There is no question that the history of the federal government is one of constant ‘power creep’ resulting in an overblown central bureaucracy that was likely never intended by the nation’s founders. For that matter, it was probably not even intended by those who participated in bringing about the ever compounding growth.

But a revolution founded on misinformation and misunderstanding is a very dangerous thing. It is also one that is likely to have a very unhappy ending.
While the ‘heart’ of the movement may present us with a legitimate political philosophy well worth exploring, it will come to no positive result if the effort is drowned out by the sounds of nonsense and the lack of a plan.

With that in mind, here are a few things the Tea Party might want to consider if they hope to be more than a fringe group available for exploitation by politicians looking for a short cut into public office.

Thou shall not worship false idols.

This weekend’s Tea Party convention happened to coincide with what would have been the 99th birthday of President Ronald Reagan, a true hero of The Tea Party movement. I’m told many a toast was raised in Nashville in tribute to our 38th President.

Yet, history tells us that President Reagan fell well short of delivering on the promise suggested by the Reagan rhetoric that is so irresistible to today’s Tea Party movement.

As president, Reagan expanded the size of the federal government and saved Social Security, two concepts that are highly antithetical to the movement. And while Reagan did give us a major tax cut in 1981, he followed that cut with two large tax increases.

In fact, no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people.
Via New York Times

As the Governor of California, Reagan presided over the largest tax increase in the state’s history. It took a liberal Democrat, Jerry Brown, to bring down the state’s tax rate upon succeeding Reagan. And, if you’re a tea bag toter, it gets worse. While serving as governor, Reagan signed The Therapeutic Abortion Act into law, a liberalization of abortion that led to a huge increase in the number of abortions in California.

I’m not knocking Reagan. At the end of the day, I think Reagan often successfully used his conservative rhetoric to enable him to do pragmatic things that needed to be done. I’m saying that if you are going to set up someone as your spiritual leader, you need to know the true history of that individual or you’re building your movement on a foundation of sand. Political movements must be careful to vet all of its motivating forces lest they be caught with their political pants down.

If you’re going to rely on the philosophy of The Founding Fathers to drive the new American Revolution, you can’t pick and choose what you do and don’t like about their concept for American Democracy.

The Tea Party suggests that what we need is to get back to the architecture of America as originally conceived by the nation’s Founders.

Not a bad argument – however, when you do your level best to inject God and Jesus into the functioning of the government, you turn your back on the Founders’ directive regarding the separation of church and state.

If you want to base a movement on staying true to the Founders then you are obligated to actually stay true to all their ideals – not just the ones that work for you.

A serious revolution requires serious leaders.

While I expect that this will irritate and anger many supporters of the Tea Party, it has to be said – Sarah Palin is not a serious leader. Try as they will to turn  away from every signal Palin sends out in this regard, eventually, the Tea Party folks will realize that Governor Palin is using them for her own purposes and will not be someone to be counted on when it matters.

Being a leader is all about character. A year ago, The Tea Party understood this. In the early rallies, politicians – no matter what their party affiliation- were not welcomed. There was a recognition and understanding among the movement’s followers that our leaders lacked the character to stand up to the special interests and work for the people who elected them.

That early message of The Tea Party seems to have been forgotten. If this movement is to progress, they will need to recall the importance of character in those who would lead – and Sarah Palin clearly does not possess the character to be a legitimate leader of any political movement.

This past week, Governor Palin took a stand in defense of her young son, who was born with Down Syndrome, and others like him. While I, admittedly, have never held Sarah Palin in high regard, and while I thought she got a little carried away when calling for Rahm Emanuel’s resignation over his use of the word ‘retard’, I admired her standing up for her son. That’s the sort of thing that reveals character.

When Palin failed to respond to Rush Limbaugh’s crass use of the same word, I was genuinely -if naively – surprised. Surely, her concern for her son would trump any political concerns she might have in calling out Limbaugh’s behavior.

This morning, Palin appeared on Fox News where she went to bizarre lengths to insist that Limbaugh’s use of the term ‘retard’ was just fine because he was doing so in the role of a political humorist. In describing the people that Limbaugh was calling retards, making it okay to use the word according to the Governor, Palin said-

They are kooks, so I agree with Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh was using satire … . I didn’t hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people whom he did not agree with ‘f-ing retards,’ and we did know that Rahm Emanuel, as has been reported, did say that. There is a big difference there.”
Via Huffington Post

The thing is, Limbaugh was precisely calling a group of people he disagreed with ‘retards”! Rush just left out the “f-ing”, an easy choice since he said all of this on his radio broadcast.

So dreadfully inartful was this attempt to cynically get around her shameful and cowardly behavior, that even the most devoted Palin supporters cannot convince themselves that this is anything more than the mumbo-jumbo of a self-serving politician –pure and simple.  These are the words of a woman who would sell out the interest of her own child and all the others with developmentally challenged children who rely on her to stand up for their families,  in order to avoid offending an important political voice.

Can you imagine the founders of this nation caving to a Rush Limbaugh or anyone else? These were people of extraordinary courage and conviction for whom Sarah Palin professes undying admiration. Yet, when called upon to take a stand that I believe would have shown true character, she folded like a cheap suit.

Sarah Palin will break the heart of those who believe in her. The sooner they realize it – and seek out serious leaders for their movement who truly have their interests at heart – the sooner they will begin to have a legitimate impact on the direction of the country. Because when the chips are down, Sarah Palin will not be there for them.

Tell us how you are going to take us where you want to go.

Anyone can stand up in front of a large crowd and mouth the words the crowd wants to hear just as anyone can carry around a sign.

But leadership is about telling us how we are going to get where a movement wants us to go.

So far, we know that the Tea Party wants to return to smaller government with powers residing to the state. Fine. But dismantling a huge federal government takes some doing. After all, it took quite a while to build it into the monolith it is today.

So, how’s it going to be done? What’s the plan? Where are the policy papers telling us how this can be achieved without destroying the operations of an entire nation in the process?

A movement based on complaint without workable alternatives may succeed in upsetting the status quo. But when we upset the status quo with no plan for replacing it, we end up with the same kind of empty leadership we already have – or worse.

The Founding Fathers had a plan. They weren’t just about throwing off the British yoke. They knew where they wanted to go and they had ideas on how to get there. They  published those ideas in an intelligent and meaningful way so as to persuade their fellow colonists. So where are The Tea Party policy papers? Where’s the plan to replace big government with small government?

So you say you want a revolution? Then tell us how you propose to make your ideas reality.

If you want to be more than a small footnote in American political history, it’s time to get out of the silly Paul Revere costumes and begin presenting policy explaining how you would bring your vision for America to fruition.

Failing that, we’re all just wasting so much digital ink writing about you.

It turns out that the Tea Party has more in common with the mainstream political parties than we may have realized.

They too are completely and utterly dysfunctional.

Kicking off their controversial national convention in Nashville last night, Tom Tancredo, the one time GOP Congressman, presidential candidate and confirmed wing-nut, presented the opening speech. To make certain that the event got off to the right start, Tancredo proceeded to give the most racist speech I can recall since David Duke, the Ku Klux Klan leader turned politician, amazed us with his vile dribble.

Ripping into Obama, Tancredo announced that the president had won his office because “we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country.”

This was no accidental choice of words. Back in the days of the Jim Crow south, literacy tests were used to take away the right to vote from the majority of African Americans. It was a practice successfully employed to deny these rights from the late nineteenth century right on through to the 1960’s when it was mercifully ended by The Voting Rights Act of 1965, and one that continues to be one of the darkest stains on our national history.

But Tancredo was just getting warmed up.

People who could not spell the word vote or say it in English put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House — name is Barack Hussein Obama.”
Via Fox News

But he wasn’t finished yet. He still had to point out that America’s problems are the result of the nation’s “cult of multiculturalism.” Tancredo basically did everything he could to make his racist point short of handing out copies of “Mein Kampf” and carrying a sign reading, “If you ain’t white, you ain’t right.”

I have never accused the Tea Party of being a racist movement. While I acknowledge that there are certainly those who identify with the group whose objection to Barack Obama is based on his race, it seems unfair to paint everyone in the movement – many of whom are upset with the state of the country and want to express their concerns – with so negative a brush.

But if these people want to be taken seriously, why would they waste the national stage they have created with this convention to highlight a racist like Tom Tancredo?

To be fair, there were those in attendance who get that. Mark Skoda, a founder of the Memphis Tea Party and a spokesman for the convention, was left shaking his head in amazement, saying “It doesn’t further the dialogue.”

You can say that again, Mark.

Image via Wikipedia

Wisdom has it that there’s one born every minute.

This time, it’s me.

Two days ago Sarah Palin called for the resignation of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel for making a profane reference to the developmentally impaired. Having been told that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party wanted to run an attack ad aimed at fellow, if conservative, Democrats, Emanuel got angry and called the progressives “f—ing retards.”

Palin took to her Facebook page looking for blood, suggesting that public officials should not be participating in talk demeaning the developmentally impaired.

This isn’t about politics; it’s about decency. I am not speaking as a political figure but as a parent and as an everyday American wanting my child to grow up in a country free from mindless prejudice and discrimination, free from gratuitous insults of people who are ostensibly smart enough to know better… Have you no sense of decency, sir?”
Via Facebook

Who could argue with that? And while I thought that calling for Emanuel’s resignation was well over the top, I certainly agreed that the Chief of Staff deserved to be taken to task for his comment.

Governor Palin’s sensitivity is completely understandable. As the mother of a child born with Down’s Syndrome, I would expect that she loses countless hours of sleep over how her son will be treated by the world as he grows up. Indeed, I would have agreed with Ms. Palin’s complaint even if she were not the mother of such a child.

And so, I found myself in the very rare circumstance of actually defending Sarah Palin.

My liberal friends suggested that I was getting sucked into Palin’s cynical effort to score political points against the Obama Administration. I wholeheartedly disagreed. After all, even the most partisan politician is capable of an honest emotional response when it comes to something so close to the heart. Surely, this reaction had to be sincere as the Governor’s concern for her son would surely trump any desire Palin might have for gain – either political or financial.

Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh took to the airwaves to add insult to injury-

Our political correct society is acting like some giant insult’s taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards,” Rush said, adding that Rahm’s meeting yesterday with advocates for the mentally handicapped was a “retard summit at the White House.”
Via The Plumline

This was interesting, I thought. Now Governor Palin would have to come out against Limbaugh and call for his resignation just as she had done with Emanuel. While what Rahm had done was certainly wrong, Emanuel had committed his infraction to a closed audience in his office while Limbaugh had broadcast his profane message directly to his millions of listeners.

Believe it or not, I actually felt badly for Palin. Here was her ally adding to her pain for his own gratification and benefit.

I waited about an hour before bringing up Palin’s Facebook page to read her response.

Nothing.

I found myself returning to the page every hour on the hour until I went to sleep last night and immediately upon getting up this morning.

Nothing.

Finally, this afternoon – a full day after Limbaugh made his unfortunate remarks – Palin’s spokesperson, Meghan Stapleton, responded to a request for a comment from a reporter. Here’s what she had to say –

Governor Palin believes crude and demeaning name calling at the expense of others is disrespectful.
Via The Plum Line

Really? That’s it? Are you kidding me? Not only was the response tepid beyond any rational belief, she never even mentioned Limbaugh’s name.

It turns out that Palin had actually used her own child’s life challenges to score political points after all. What’s more, so afraid is Sarah Palin of Rush Limbaugh she actually gave him a complete and total pass.

Am I a putz or what?

But then, other than John Edwards, who does such a thing?

When popular politicians turn out to be perfectly awful human beings, it’s not just about that politician. It’s about us. While I readily admit that I’ve never understood how anyone could be supportive of Sarah Palin as a politician, I could nevertheless appreciate how one could support her as a person.

Wrong again.

A politician who lacks the character to stand up to a bully in support of her own son, or would use her own child’s challenges for political gain, has no business representing a can of sardines let alone holding a position in a city, state or, God forbid, federal government. And no matter how conservative you may be, if you can still support such a person for office, there is something seriously wrong with you.

As for me, it’s time to hit the shower…I feel so dirty.

Image by AFP/Getty Images via Daylife

Answering a question about the State of the Union Speech posed to him by Fox News’ Gretchen Carlson during a televised interview, Rush Limbaugh said the following -

I think this is the first time in his life that there’s not a professor around to turn his C into an A or to write the law review article for him he can’t write. He’s totally exposed and there’s nobody to make it better. I think he’s been covered for all his life. The fact that his agenda failed this year is the best thing that could have happened to this country.
Via Think Progress

While this is obviously not the first time Rush has uttered an outrageous statement about the president, this remark takes things to an entirely different place.

It’s one thing to voice political opinions, wish for the president’s failure, etc. It’s an entirely different thing to accuse Obama of plagiarism. Stating that the president had other people write his law review articles is a textbook case of alleging plagiarism and,  absent a basis in truth, a clear cut example of actionable defamation.

Opinion, no matter how colored  or unfair one might find it, is protected by the First Amendment. That’s why Rush has a job. But defamatory statements made with malice are not entitled to these protections.

As an attorney and a writer, I place accusations of plagiarism right up there with allegations of building Nazi death camps or plotting the death of John Lennon. Accordingly, if I were Barack Obama, I would have my private attorney filing a defamation suit against Limbaugh by the time Rush can learn how to spell o-x-y-c-o-n-t-i-n.

In making such a statement, Limbaugh is relying on the law that gives greater latitude in hurling such accusations at elected officials in the name of exercising his First Amendment Rights.

But Rush has this one wrong. The First Amendment protection is not a free pass to say such a thing unless one is prepared to prove the allegation is true.

In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court altered the direction of libel laws in America in a landmark case entitled New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964) .  In its decision, the Court held that, given the importance of protecting the unfettered flow of ideas in the political area, a public official cannot recover damages based on allegations of libel unless the public official can prove actual malice.

The court goes on to define ‘actual malice’ as having knowledge that the statement was false or that the statement was made with reckless disregard as to whether it was false or not.

Unless Limbaugh has a reasonable basis to suggest such a grave offense, he can, indeed, be judged guilty of defaming the president and subject to paying  money damages.

There is, however, an ultimate defense to a charge of defamation.

Truth.

Was Limbaugh telling the truth?

Not according to a fellow student and member of the Harvard Law Review during Obama’s tenure.

Meet Bradford Berenson, an attorney who worked with Obama on the Harvard Law Review. As further proof that we in the legal profession take defamation charges very seriously you might be interested to know that Mr. Berenson isn’t just any old lawyer – he’s a lawyer who served in the Bush White House.

Here’s what Mr. Berenson had to say:

These charges are not accurate (emphasis added.) As a 2L [second year law] student, Barack wrote the same amount as all of his 2L peers, although by policy of the Harvard Law Review, no student writing is signed or attributed to individual authors. As a 3L, it is true that he did not write, but that is because he was the President of the Review. Because the President does so much editing, including of all the major faculty articles, he is not expected to author original pieces himself and almost never does so. I saw Barack hunched over manuscripts editing articles on many a late night at Gannett House. He simply could not have been elected President [of the Law Review]  if he was not regarded by his fellow editors as being among the best legal writers and legal minds in his class.(emphasis added.)

Via Think Progress

I am rarely accused of being naïve when it comes to the reality of politics. It’s a nasty business. But there are times where the opportunity exists to draw a line in the sand in order to say that things are going too far.

This is one such time.

The president has an obligation to go after Limbaugh on this. It’s not about politics. It’s not about scoring points against his opponents. It’s about upholding the importance of the law and setting the boundaries of acceptable behavior in a free society.

This is also not just about the president. If Limbaugh, or anyone else, is permitted to knowingly or recklessly defame those who are either elected officials or seek office, how many candidates in the future will be unfairly and illegally slandered in an effort to skew public opinion in an illegal and vicious way? This is not what the First Amendment is all about. While the right of anyone behind a microphone to voice opinions serves the interest of the American people, flat out lying, either knowingly or recklessly, does precisely the opposite and simply cannot be permitted.

Obviously, it isn’t about the money. It’s about the abuse of free speech. I have no doubt that were Obama to proceed, any money awarded would end up with a charity or maybe used to pay down the national debt. .

This is also not about political sour grapes. On the contrary, this is about a principle every bit as important as other issues the president is taking on and one that serves public officials of either party.

The president has an obligation to pursue this matter in the courts. After all, if  the President of The United States will not stand up for a hugely important principle, who will?