Elimination of ‘Public Option’ Threw Consumers to the Insurance Wolves

[RiverLover]

Elimination of ‘Public Option’ Threw Consumers to the Insurance Wolves
Published: February 18, 2015 | Authors: Wendell Potter | The Center for Public Integrity | News Investigation


When members of Congress caved to demands from the insurance industry and ditched their plan to establish a “public option” health plan, the lawmakers also ditched one of their favorite talking points, that a government-run plan was necessary to “keep insurers honest.”

Getting rid of a government-run insurance option was the industry’s top objective during the health care reform debate. Private insurers set out to persuade President Obama and Congressional leaders that they were trustworthy. Lawmakers were led to believe, for one thing, that insurers could be trusted to offer policies that would continue to give Americans’ access to the doctors they had developed relationships with and wanted to keep. And they were persuaded that insurers wouldn’t think of engaging in bait-and-switch tactics that would leave folks with less coverage than they thought they were buying.

When he was running for president, Obama regularly talked about the need for a public option. That was one reason why many health care reform advocates supported him instead of Hillary Clinton.

He kept insisting on a public option for months after he was elected. He said on July 18, 2009, “Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange—a one-stop-shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, costs and track records of a variety of plans, including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest…”

Soon after that, though, he began to waffle. It became clear to me as well as public option supporters in Congress that industry lobbyists had gotten to him. In an effort to keep the public option idea alive, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi invited me to testify during a Sept. 16, 2009, meeting of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee Forum on Health Insurance Reform.

Knowing the industry as I did, I told the committee that if Congress failed to create a public option to compete with private insurers, “the bill it sends to the President might as well be called “The Insurance Industry Profit Protection and Enhancement Act.” Pelosi insisted that Congress had no intention of doing that.

While Pelosi was able to get a bill through the House with a public option provision, she couldn’t control what was happening in the Senate. Although a majority of Senate Democrats supported the public option, the industry knew it only needed one senator who caucused with the Dems to change his mind and kill it.

A senator from Connecticut, the insurance capital of the world, became the industry’s go-to guy. Insurers had spent years investing in Sen. Joe Lieberman, a former Democrat-turned-Independent....

http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/02/18/elimination-public-option-threw-consumers-insurance-wolves/

[world wide wally]

1. Of course it threw us to the wolves.

This would be a Republican wet dream if they could just eliminate the part that says the insurance companies actually have to pay.

[DhhD]

69. Yes, we have to pay. Insurance companies sustain no losses in real life situations like the free

ACA health screening once a year. It is basically two parts, if they find something from the blood test, like high lipids, you get low cost medicine. The other side is if they find something abnormal from the tests of your physical conditions/pre-existing conditions, then you pay that $6,000.00 deductible or the amount of your Plan. So why have a colonoscopy or mammogram if you cannot afford to do anything about it? IMO, most people using an ACA Marketplace Plan, do not have the deductible and would be paying the insurance company monthly payments for life. What happens next year when the test are all due again? The cost will be mounting to about $12,000.00 for two years by then! You are now bankrupt or past it. Will your children be paying off the debt? 50% of American children live in poverty. Every American needs affordable and REAL Healthcare.

The Republican Plan is to drop anyone who cannot pay a deductible/drop those with physical conditions/pre-existing conditions. That is most everybody above 35 years age. The rest of the GOP Plan is to put most of us out to pasture to eat grass and allow the counties to accept tax monies to bury the dead. It is the GOP American Way, to get ride of all those who have become poor in America due to the theft of Trickle-Up. Health Insurance companies remain unchanged even though most consumers live pay check to pay check. This is another harmful part of inequality and austerity.

[woo me with science]

95. How corporate Democrates colluded with Republicans to trash the public option:

The Democratic Party’s deceitful game
They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

In other words, Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing (sadly, we just can’t do it, because although it has 50 votes in favor, it doesn’t have 60). But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process — which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option — Rockefeller is suddenly “inclined to oppose it” because he doesn’t “think the timing of it is very good” and it’s “too partisan.” What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldn’t pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he “would not relent” in ensuring its enactment.

The Obama White House did the same thing. As I wrote back in August, the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it). Yesterday, Obama — while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary — finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include? The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted: Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just don’t have 60 votes for it; what can I do?. As I documented in my contribution to the NYT forum yesterday, now that there’s a 50-vote mechanism to pass it, his own proposed bill suddenly excludes it.

This is what the Democratic Party does; it’s who they are. They’re willing to feign support for anything their voters want just as long as there’s no chance that they can pass it. They won control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections by pretending they wanted to compel an end to the Iraq War and Bush surveillance and interrogation abuses because they knew they would not actually do so; and indeed, once they were given the majority, the Democratic-controlled Congress continued to fund the war without conditions, to legalize Bush’s eavesdropping program, and to do nothing to stop Bush’s habeas and interrogation abuses (“Gosh, what can we do? We just don’t have 60 votes).

The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it. One minute, it’s Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, it’s Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and “breaking with their party” to ensure Michael Mukasey’s confirmation as Attorney General; then it’s Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then it’s Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they can’t blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they don’t need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation.

[hughee99]

2. Why do you think it passed?

Insurance companies "eased up on the reins" of their people in congress when they realized how much they could make off this. The only way they could have passed the public option would have been if insurance companies were allowed to dump all their high risk customers onto the government, but that would have made it prohibitively expensive.

[BlueMTexpat]

3. Ugh - seeing that photo

of traitor Lieberman just made me ruin my keyboard.

And not in a fun way.

[RiverLover]

8. Sorry

Brings back bad memories, doesn't it?

[tblue37]

35. I truly despise that smarmy Lieberdweeb. nt

[Joe Bacon]

41. LIEberman

So glad that ass is gone from the Senate!

[Dont call me Shirley]

65. Sleezerman.

[jwirr]

4. I think that may be one of the reasons why it works for so many of us here in MN. We had already

established MNCare years before. Unfortunately during the Palenty years most of our health care programs - MNCare, Medicaid, etc. were changed to include a choice of plans offered by an insurance company such as Humana, Medica, etc.

[bigwillq]

5. Lieberman is scum.

Awful senator, awful VP candidate. Just awful. He was my senator, and I couldn't stand him.

[annabanana]

9. And at the time he was head of the "Joe Lieberman for Joe Lieberman Party",

having been defeated in the Democratic primary.

It was his last big wet kiss to the insurance industry.

[bigwillq]

10. All about Joe.

The rest? Who cares, as long as Joe got his. AWFUL.

[MisterP]

22. I remember what the party did to Lamont

[bvar22]

23. Remember the Standing Ovation given to Lieberman....

...by the Democratic Senators when Lieberman returned to the Senate?

[MisterP]

28. and then they wagged their fingers and told us that supporting third parties was what got

Republicans in

they tell us to go to the primaries, but they torpedo them when the money-party candidates are about to lose

remember how the leaders expressed RELIEF after Scott Brown won? the supermajority was over and now the pressure to pass bills was off

it's a sweatshop model for the party: they get the same corporate contributions even if they lose: if they lose they get to blame the American people for their own condition; if they win, they work with the GOP they threaten us with and pass crippling policies that they threaten us with, and ask us what are we gonna do about it

[ND-Dem]

49. +100

[Phlem]

39. damnit!

There aren't enough emoticons.

[sabrina 1]

79. I remember the standing ovation and the Committee Chairs he received from the Party

after his despicable betrayal of that same party. THAT was such a slap in the face to all those who had worked so hard to rid the Senate of his presence. And they WON. But his huge donors weren't about to let their best advocate lose like that. So he was hugely funded to run a ridiculous, one man party race to keep his place in the Senate.

He wanted those chairs so badly. Had the Dems chosen to threaten to remove them, he would have caved like the weakling he is.

Which begs the question, why didn't they? He is NOW the 'excuse' used for why there is no PO. They really do think we are stupid, don't they?

[SheilaT]

6. And we all knew that at the time.

I recall genuine outrage both here on DU and in the progressive community in general when the Public Option was taken off the table at the very beginning.

I really do hope that the good Obama care has done along with its faults will push this country to a genuine universal health care system of some kind. I'm now on Medicare and I'm very pleasantly surprised at how good it is. At least for my needs.

[annabanana]

7. This can't be stated often enough. If the media has it's way,

this WHOLE episode and the details of it will vanish into the wayback machine and not be learned by the next batch of activists..

[Capt. Obvious]

11. LEAVE OBAMA ALONE

[Enthusiast]

52. Yes! Stop with the crticism of Obama!

You just don't appreciate the President!

[kath]

12. "The Insurance Industry Profit Protection and Enhancement Act"

yep, that's what we ended up with.

[mrmpa]

44. That's exactly what I've been saying........

since day one. The ACA is not health care, it's health insurance. And it's not affordable health insurance at that.

[C Moon]

13. Can't believe Gore chose that traitor as his VP pick...

or did he just go sour after losing?

[mountain grammy]

32. I think, without Lieberman, Gore would have won..

oh wait, he did. Re-phrase, would have won big enough to not have the Supreme Court hand the election to Bush.

[tblue37]

36. I suspect Lieberman was foisted on Gore by TPTB. nt

[Enthusiast]

54. Good guess.

[tblue37]

64. If I remember correctly, the two of them didn't even like each other

Last edited Thu Feb 19, 2015, 07:15 PM - Edit history (1)

and never spoke after the campaign. In fact, I seem to remember Lieberman being angry at Gore for not telling hims about something after the campaign, because he felt Gore should have told him as his former running mate. I don't remember specifics, just that Gore had no desire to reconnect with Lieberman after the campaign.

[C Moon]

75. He probably gave Gore the creeps. :D

In my life, I think he was the worst choice for VP—from both sides. Well, Palin was bad. So I'll have to think about that.

[Enthusiast]

82. Even as I voted for Gore I never felt

he had dynamic appeal. But compared to Lieberman Gore was positively a dynamo of personality. Lieberman actually came off as cartoonish.

Just imagine....a world that never had to experience President Dubya Bush. No 911, no Iraq War and no 2008 economic collapse. Maybe.

[tblue37]

84. Lieberman, the Keebler elf--definitely cartoonish. nt

[Enthusiast]

53. It raises a lot of questions.

[Gman]

14. Horse manure

Lieberman was a great friend of organized labor. A great friend. That's why I know he's a great guy.

[bobclark86]

16. So was Jimmy Hoffa n/t

[Gman]

18. You need to learn some history.

[bobclark86]

19. You do, too...

Lieberman sucked up how much in donations from the insurance agency before becoming a party turncoat?

Oh, yeah. Like half a million or so.

http://www.insurancepuppets.com/puppets/joelieberman

In June, Lieberman said, "I don't favor a public option because I think there's plenty of competition in the private insurance market."
In July, Lieberman said he opposes a public option because "the public is going to end up paying for it."
In August, Lieberman said we'd have to wait "until the economy's out of recession."
In September, Lieberman said he opposes a public option because "the public doesn't support it."
In October, Lieberman said the public option would mean "trouble ... for the national debt," by creating "a whole new government entitlement program."
In November, Lieberman called the public option “a radical departure from the way we've responded to the market in America in the past.”

"But he was pro-labor, so that makes up for him backing the Heritage Foundation-authored, Romney-approved health care act that does nothing but line more insurance companies' pockets while not actually fixing all that much."

[Gman]

20. He supported labor

I don't care about much else. We could usually count on him. I don't need to learn the history. I was in his office making the history.

[Ikonoklast]

33. And Holy Joe killing the public option has cost Labor BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

Fuck that guy, Lieberman used you like a rented mule.

[Gman]

34. Yeah but you don't have a clue

How valuable to labor he was during his tenure.

[Ikonoklast]

76. You were useful tools to him. Nothing more.

He then massively fucked you over, and took his payoff and left with Hadassah to count their millions gained from sticking it to you and every working man and woman in this nation.

Fuck both of them, one day I'll read their obits with great pleasure. Two people who put personal gain above all else.

[Enthusiast]

55. +1 an entire shit load.

[ND-Dem]

50. because organized labor is doing so well because of that history; it's dead, jim

[bread_and_roses]

68. And we - Labor - are still gasping on our deathbed

So what did that unholy marriage of business unionism and electoral politics really get us?

[Gman]

70. "We"? Are you a are you a member of an

AFL-CIO affiliated union? If not you really can't say "we".

[bread_and_roses]

73. Yes, I am, Brother

I am OPEIU in good standing. And an organizer and activist. And the daughter of a USW steelworker. The sister of a UBC carpenter.

And I call you Brother even if you a member of a non-AFL-CIO affiliated union (there are quite a few - SEIU and UBC for example) or are not even a union member. If we are in the fight together, you are my brother or sister, organized or not.

Our House is in shambles, and we are dying, but we are still one of the last great hopes. But every time we put our energies into electing some damned Pol who'll just turn around and screw us (Employee Free Choice Act anyone? Those comfortable shoes?) that hope dims a little more.

And no friend of the Vampire Insurance industry or the Ghoul Banksters is a friend of ours.

[merrily]

77. If he were a friend of labor, he would not have stood in the way of a public option.

[Gman]

80. The public option is just one issue.

There are many more. You see, we don't dwell on just one single issue. It's a big world out there.

[merrily]

81. Sorry, friends of labor make sure working people are taken care of.

[Mnpaul]

87. NAFTA is another

and Lieberman wasn't a friend of labor there either.

[Amimnoch]

15. Even with the single payer option, it was never healthcare reform, just health insurance reform.

What we REALLY need, more than anything is health care reform, not just insurance.

The plan I've laid out in each one of these threads I've come across for years, and have sent to my representatives:

Health insurance reform alone does not address the medical needs of the people who need health care the most. We need more hospitals, clinics, and hospital staff. We already have, right now, networks of charity hospitals, University hospitals, and free clinics. These have been getting pillaged and plundered by cost reductions for decades, but even so, you'd be hard pressed to find a single city in the US with a population of 150,000 or more that doesn't have some sort of free clinic/University/charity hospital available. That's the good news. The bad news.. these places are under staffed, under funded, and in such a dire state of affairs that nobody who is ill wants to be caught dead in them (or die in them as it would stand).

My proposal:
1. Infuse the funding for these places. Pick 10x military bases around the world that no longer serve a viable function, and redistribute the funds to support these facilities.
2. Just as the military has ROTC and various medical scholarships to fund the staffing of military hospitals, expand those programs for the civilian clinics and hospitals.
3. Path to success programs for inner city public school children, and public school children coming from low income families who show the best aptitude. Provide University programs for these children to be the next generation of Nurses, Dr.'s, PA's, Hospital administrators, and specialists. Tie to these degrees a requirement of a proportional number of years of required service at free clinics, and public health care facilities and hospitals at a reasonable salary.

SOOO many more benefits than just a health insurance reform. Available free, or cost controlled healthcare for all. A way out for poor families (if just one child of a struggling working poor family can make it in this program, this doesn't just help the kid but in most cases the entire family benefits!). A way for the free clinics/hospitals to actually become an appealing option for those who don't have the luxury of Cadillac healthcare plans.

[BubbaFett]

67. We're already paying the taxes

sufficient to provide healthcare to everyone.

Anything else is double-dipping the middle class and a free handout to the insurance industry.

[Amimnoch]

83. Read much? nothing at all in my proposal about increases in taxes.

I even state where more than enough money can come from without increasing taxes.

[BubbaFett]

92. we already pay the taxes

I said nothing about tax increases.

Read much?

[Amimnoch]

96. "Anything else is double-dipping the middle class and a free handout to the insurance industry."

I do.

You set the subject as taxes, then add "anything else" which directly insinuates your issue is an increase in taxes.

[BubbaFett]

98. anything else,

which means "other than taxes" is double dipping.

If you try to lead in with understanding rather than nastiness, you might comprehend more.

again, "read much?"

[Doc Holliday]

17. So sad....

I was a "Medicare For All" guy.

[bvar22]

24. There were other players,

..like Max Baucus and Blanche Lincoln.

Former Chairman of the DLC, Joe Lieberman, had nothing to lose,
so he got to play Judas in the Kabuki Theater.

Lieberman Took One for Team DLC.
If not him, another Corporate Democrat would have been assigned to play the scapegoat.

[annabanana]

25. no doubt. . .

He was the best candidate because he had already decided to retire.

[bvar22]

42. The Democratic Party Leadership would have been banned from DU...

..for a TOS violation.

[cui bono]

47. Hehe...

[Enthusiast]

56. +1

[still_one]

26. It would have never happened at the time, too many Demcrats

would never had gone for a public option r Medicare for all

It is not the best thing but better than what was before, and a start, an important start

In order for things to improve more progressives need to be in Congress

Not sure if that will happen soon since the country has been going right for some time.

Best recent examples are Iowa and Wisconsin

What the hell happened

[Enthusiast]

57. What happened is the growing influence of Citizens United and a massive voter suppression effort.

Last edited Thu Feb 19, 2015, 03:55 PM - Edit history (1)

[still_one]

63. I don't buy the voter suppression argument in the two states I named

[geek tragedy]

27. Lieberman was never going to let a public option through the Senate. That slimebag even

threatened to filibuster his own proposal--Medicare expansion--just because he wanted to stick it to the left.

[JoePhilly]

29. Lieberman was NEVER going to support a PO.

Even if you flip all the other blue dogs, Lieberman was never supporting a PO.

Here is why.

1) Lieberman campaigned against Obama knowing that if McCain had won, he would have been offered either SecState or SecDef in the McCain administration. These were Lieberman's dream jobs. Obama won, thus blocking Lieberman's preferred outcome. Being a vindictive little S**T, Lieberman was going to do what he could to screw Obama going forward.

2) Lieberman has already announced that he was not going to seek another term. Which means there was really no leverage to use to pressure him to support a PO. And he was pissed when he received a challenge from the left in the last election. Did I mention he's a vindictive S**T?

3) Lieberman (already known as the senator from Aetna), was never going to risk a 7 figure job at a think tank after leaving office by supporting a PO. Where is Lieberman now? In a 7 figure job in a think tank.

There is nothing Obama could have done to get a YES vote from Lieberman, even if he could flip the other 4 or 5 blue dogs.

It was never going to happen.

[mountain grammy]

31. Personally, I would like to beat the shit out of Joe Lieberman..

The last arguments I had with my sister before she died suddenly and unexpectedly in June, 2008, were about scumbag Joe. She supported him, and worse, because she lived in Connecticut, voted for him in 2006, when he lost his primary and ran as an independent. I believe the health care debate and Lieberman's role in screwing us all would have finally changed her mind.

[Demobrat]

37. Obamacare was a gift to the insurance companies

which is why I'll never understand why the Republicans hate it so much. If a Republican had passed it they would have loved it.

[cui bono]

48. If they know the Dems are going to coopt their ideas out of fear, then they will keep pushing their

ideas farther to the right. Then they get to have the Dems vote in what the GOP actually wants.

It's long past time to get some Dems with some spunk in them instead of all these "leaders" who in actuality are being led themselves, by the GOP!!!

[Enthusiast]

58. The ACA could be more accurately described as the Single Payer Prevention Act.

[RufusTFirefly]

38. Why, of course it did! And the Public Option would've been sabotaged anyhow

Just as our public school system is being sabotaged. Private insurers would've siphoned off the healthy folk, which would've left the government footing the bill for the highest risks. Meanwhile, Congress would've starved funding (just as they've done for Amtrak and the Post Office) in an effort to prove that government programs never work as well as private ones. That's why it was so important for them to avoid Single Payer, which would've proved exactly the opposite.

[Rex]

40. "When members of Congress caved to demands from the _________ industry."

It should be a form letter. When was the last time Congress or the WH did not cave in to Big Biz? I've been told it's always been that way. I don't remember it being that way with Carter, but totally with Raygun. I've read Nixon is the original caver, but I bet it is usually and consistently Congress.

Do not fear! Magic Congress will one day arrive from the sky to save us!

I mean not today, but one day so keep your chin up.

[Midnight Writer]

43. Joe also proposed a Medicare expansion to age 55

Then he came out against it, effectively killing his own proposal.

Also, and I don't have a specific reference for this, as I recall his wife got a lucrative job as a "consultant" to a large health insurance company while the healthcare debate was ongoing.

Maybe some more internet savvy DU'er can help me with this.

[RiverLover]

60. I'd forgotten about that.

The Guardian
Dec 2009

It has also not gone unnoticed that Lieberman's wife, Hadassah, works for a major lobbying firm as its specialist on health and pharmaceuticals. She previously worked at drug companies such as Pfizer and Hoffmann-La Roche.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/16/joe-lieberman-barack-obama-us-healthcare

[Midnight Writer]

90. Thank you, RiverLover

Too bad we have to go to the foreign press to find out what is going on in our own country.

Just started reading today Greg Palast's "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy". Essentially a collection of articles American Palast published in British press because American media would not publish his work.

[Thespian2]

45. Not difficult to see

why American politicians pushed aside single-payer, which would put insurance companies out of medical care. Having Medicare, a single-payer system, that works well enough meant that all that was necessary was to open the system to all Americans. No need for all the bull-shit. The insurance industry went ballistic; the politicians folded. Mission accomplished. Americans get to enjoy a shitty system while paying insurance companies and worrying about their health.

[charles d]

46. Agreed

But did you have to show a pic of Joe Lieberman? I just had a late-night snack, f'Gawd's sake!

[Enthusiast]

51. A health care plan that include a robust Public Option had no need for a private insurance industry.

Last edited Thu Feb 19, 2015, 07:14 AM - Edit history (1)

That is the reason we have no Public Option.

The insurance industry must feel wanted.

[Helen Borg]

61. Not necessarily...

The Insurance industry could still find some niche, when you think about it. For example, it could focus on superduper and exclusive services for very wealthy individuals. But they would have to work for it.

[Skittles]

59. wasn't that the whole point?

[KG]

62. ACA - one of the great kabuki plays.

[merrily]

78. I suspect so.

[woo me with science]

94. +100000

[Orsino]

66. The Insurance Wolves already had us and the Congress. n/t

[Dwight42]

71. There is no public opition because of NAFTA, Gat, etc.

Countries that signed on to NAFTA, GAT, and now TPP and Tipp will be sued over a single payer system as it undermines private healthcare ability to make a profit since single payer systems are much more efficient as proved by Medicare.

This is what happens when corporatist governments sell out our sovereignty so that CEO's of multinational corporations can suck every last cent out of the economies of countries stupid enough to fall for their trickle down BS and promises of temporary jobs which usually turn out to be short term gain for long term pain.


Here are but a few examples of how these ''free'' trade agreements are working for industry and the cost of national sovereignty.

Canada has been the target of over 70% of all NAFTA claims since 2005. Currently, Canada faces nine active claims challenging a wide range of government measures that allegedly interfere with the expected profitability of foreign investments.

Foreign investors are seeking over $6 billion in damages from the Canadian government. These include challenges to a ban on fracking by the Quebec provincial government and a decision by a Canadian federal court to invalidate a pharmaceutical patent on the basis that it was not sufficiently innovative or useful.

The pervasive threat of investor-state challenge under NAFTA chapter 11 puts a chill on public interest regulation. Current trends will only worsen unless political and legal action is taken.


Six times Canada had to pay foreign investors under NAFTA’s Chapter 11:

1. Case: Ethyl Corp. (1997)
Amount awarded: US$13 million, out-of-court settlement.
What happened: The U.S. chemical company challenged a Canada-wide ban on import and trade of the gasoline additive MMT, a suspected neurotoxin. Following a preliminary judgement against Canada, the government repealed the ban, issued an apology and paid a settlement.

2. Case: S.D. Meyers (1998)
Amount awarded: CDN$6.05 million, plus interest and compensation.
What happened: The U.S. waste disposal firm challenged a temporary Canadian ban on the export of toxic PCB wastes, something the country was obliged to do under an international environmental treaty. The tribunal ruled that Canada violated standards of treatment under NAFTA.

3.Pope and Talbot (1998)
Amount awarded: CDN$870,000.
What happened: The U.S. lumber company challenged Canada’s lumber export rules implemented under the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement. The tribunal ruled Canada violated NAFTA’s minimum standards of treatment.

4. Mobil Investments/Murphy Oil (2007)
Amount awarded: Not yet determined, but damages continue to accrue as long as violating guideline in effect.
What happened: The oil investors argued that Canada’s guidelines requiring energy companies to invest in research and development in Newfoundland and Labrador are inconsistent with NAFTA rules. The tribunal ruled in favour of the investors and Canada is liable to pay damages.

5. AbitibiBowater (2009)
Amount awarded: CDN$130 million in settlement — the largest NAFTA-related settlement to date.
What happened: The pulp and paper company closed its last mill in Newfoundland and Labrador in 2008 and the provincial government enacted legislation to return its timber and water rights to the Crown and expropriate some of its lands and assets associated with water and hydroelectric rights. Abitibi was to be paid fair market value for the assets.The company launched a NAFTA claim and the government decided to settle without going to court.

6. St. Marys (2011)
Amount awarded: $15 million.
What happened: The company alleges its Canadian subsidiary was the victim of political interference when it tried to open a quarry near Hamilton, Ont., after residents grew concerned about the groundwater. The provincial government issued a zoning order preventing the site from being converted into a quarry and the company claimed that was unfair and discriminatory. The parties reached a settlement in 2013 that saw the company withdraw the claim in exchange for compensation from the Ontario government.

Source: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/nafta-chapter-11-investor-state-disputes-january-1-2015#sthash.zj0SyaUt.dpuf

[arcane1]

72. Interesting post, thanks for sharing!!

[hifiguy]

85. Which is precisely why it was taken off the table

at the outset by the Administration.

[woo me with science]

86. Huge K&R

[Hekate]

88. 19 million covered, according to Mother Jones. You think they should walk away from the ACA?

"Politics is the art of the possible."

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/02/obamacare-will-cover-about-19-million-people-year

[Bonobo]

89. That's the man that so many DU'ers think we should have elected as VP! nt

[woo me with science]

91. kick

[woo me with science]

93. kick

[hootinholler]

97. Wasn't the public option the compromise with those of us who want single payer?

I seem to remember that, and being told half a loaf! After all that we got a slice or two, not even 1/4 of the loaf.