/PRNewswire/ -- Charles T. Drevna, president of NPRA, the National Petrochemical &Refiners Association, today issued the following statement on the defeat of Proposition 23 in California:
"Proposition 23 was defeated because a sophisticated multimillion-dollar misinformation campaign falsely led Californians to believe they were voting to clean their air of pollutants that posed a danger to their health. In fact, Proposition 23 would simply have temporarily postponed drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that are made up largely of carbon dioxide, the same substance humans and animals exhale after every breath we take. The postponement would have been in effect only until California's unemployment rate dropped to reasonable levels for a year.
"The defeat of Proposition 23 will hurt families across California by destroying jobs and raising the costs of gasoline, diesel fuel, electricity and more. It is the wrong medicine at the wrong time for California's ailing economy, which suffered from a 12.4 percent unemployment rate in September that left 2.27 million men and women unable to find jobs they so desperately need.
"The severe economic pain and hardship caused by the extreme mandates of Proposition 23 will accomplish absolutely nothing positive in terms of climate change. They will result in the relocation of jobs and businesses from California to other states and other countries, along with the relocation of carbon emissions produced by those businesses and people. Since every state and nation on Earth share the same atmosphere, moving carbon from one location to another will not bring about any reduction in greenhouse gases.
"The victories of Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer in Tuesday's election certainly helped win passage of Proposition 23, since voters who cast ballots for the winning candidates understandably heeded their calls for support of Proposition 23. I would not be surprised to see Californians vote again on this issue in the future, after the full magnitude of the suffering created by AB32 becomes a reality. It's tragic that this economic pain now looming in California's future was not averted with the passage of Proposition 23."
Showing posts with label defeat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label defeat. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Uncle Sam Down and Out as Congress Prepares to Raise Debt Ceiling
/PRNewswire/ -- Today the Employment Policies Institute's (EPI) "Defeat the Debt" campaign will station eleven destitute Uncle Sams in New York City's Times Square to beg for $12 trillion from taxpayers. The appearance comes one day before Congress is scheduled to begin debate on raising the debt ceiling, as the nation's $12.3 trillion debt is coming dangerously close to the current $12.4 trillion limit.
The "Defeat the Debt" campaign aims to highlight the threat posed by unsustainable borrowing and spending by the federal government. Additionally, EPI has placed two adjoining billboards on the corner of 45th and Broadway that also feature a bedraggled Uncle Sam.
The campaign includes a national television commercial, which has aired on CNN, Fox News, and CNBC. Throughout September and November, EPI also placed 17 homeless Uncle Sams on the streets of Washington, New York City, and Chicago to beg for $12 trillion from taxpayers. In addition, EPI's website DefeatTheDebt.com was developed in order to educate the public about the enormous federal debt.
Through its ads and website, the "Defeat the Debt" campaign strives to put into perspective the size of a multi-trillion dollar debt. For example, using the passage of time as a reference, a million seconds will elapse in 12 days, while a trillion seconds is equivalent to more than 30,000 years.
"This campaign is all about getting people to understand the frightening reality of the massive federal debt," said EPI Executive Director Richard Berman. "People do not realize what it will take for our country to get out from under a $12 trillion debt when the government is expected to be adding over $1 trillion in new budget deficits each year. Last year, all of the government's tax revenue was used to cover Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and a few other entitlement programs. Funding for everything else, from the Department of Defense to the National Park Service, went onto the nation's credit card. We're even borrowing to pay the $500 million in daily interest payments we owe on the debt. How insane is that?"
Berman continued, "America's current level of spending is unsustainable. The country has never before been in such a precarious financial position where we are so indebted to foreign governments. The government must defeat the debt now, or we will live to regret it."
The Employment Policies Institute is a nonprofit research organization dedicated to studying public policy issues that affect the American economy.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
The "Defeat the Debt" campaign aims to highlight the threat posed by unsustainable borrowing and spending by the federal government. Additionally, EPI has placed two adjoining billboards on the corner of 45th and Broadway that also feature a bedraggled Uncle Sam.
The campaign includes a national television commercial, which has aired on CNN, Fox News, and CNBC. Throughout September and November, EPI also placed 17 homeless Uncle Sams on the streets of Washington, New York City, and Chicago to beg for $12 trillion from taxpayers. In addition, EPI's website DefeatTheDebt.com was developed in order to educate the public about the enormous federal debt.
Through its ads and website, the "Defeat the Debt" campaign strives to put into perspective the size of a multi-trillion dollar debt. For example, using the passage of time as a reference, a million seconds will elapse in 12 days, while a trillion seconds is equivalent to more than 30,000 years.
"This campaign is all about getting people to understand the frightening reality of the massive federal debt," said EPI Executive Director Richard Berman. "People do not realize what it will take for our country to get out from under a $12 trillion debt when the government is expected to be adding over $1 trillion in new budget deficits each year. Last year, all of the government's tax revenue was used to cover Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and a few other entitlement programs. Funding for everything else, from the Department of Defense to the National Park Service, went onto the nation's credit card. We're even borrowing to pay the $500 million in daily interest payments we owe on the debt. How insane is that?"
Berman continued, "America's current level of spending is unsustainable. The country has never before been in such a precarious financial position where we are so indebted to foreign governments. The government must defeat the debt now, or we will live to regret it."
The Employment Policies Institute is a nonprofit research organization dedicated to studying public policy issues that affect the American economy.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Votes Against 'Public Option' Make Regulation of Health Insurance Premiums and Rates a Last Chance for Healthy, Competitive Market Under Reform,
Votes Against 'Public Option' Make Regulation of Health Insurance Premiums and Rates a Last Chance for Healthy, Competitive Market Under Reform, Says Consumer Watchdog
/PRNewswire/ -- The defeat of the so-called public insurance option in the Senate Finance Committee's version of health reform makes regulation of insurance premiums and copays even more critical, said Consumer Watchdog. If Americans are forced to buy private insurance policies under national health reform and nothing is done to regulate the prices of policies, consumers will remain trapped in a rising cost spiral enabled by insurers. Rate regulation is far from radical and is also good for the insurance industry, said the nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy group.
The nation's toughest regulation of other types of insurance, including auto and homeowner policies, has produced a healthier, more competitive and even more profitable insurance market in California than in other states.
A 2008 study by Robert Hunter of the Consumer Federation of America found that since California passed highly effective regulation of property and casualty insurance in 1998, the state's dysfunctional insurance market has transformed. It is now the nation's fourth most competitive, fewer drivers are thrown into high-risk pools and insurers' average profits, at 10.6%, are well above the national average. Yet consumers also saved $61.8 billion dollars on their premiums over the same period and California insurance prices went from the second most expensive in the nation in 1989 to 20th in 2005 for auto liability premiums.
(see the study at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/state_auto_insurance_report.pdf)
Even medical malpractice insurance prices in California dropped sharply after the introduction of regulation, which appears far more effective in cost control than forbidding lawsuits against malpractice.
With health insurance rate regulation, insurers would have good reason to push for better, more effective and less wasteful health care, said Consumer Watchdog, just as auto insurers in California have backed tough auto and driver safety measures and home safety measures, as well as curbing fraud. Without regulation, insurers have no need to become more efficient.
"Mandatory insurance, as proposed in all the major bills in Congress, will turn government into a massive customer delivery system on behalf of a private industry," said Judy Dugan, research director of Consumer Watchdog. "Regulation is no more than a balancing force to this great benefit for insurance companies. For the Senate to brush off regulation as too much 'intervention' will leave millions of consumers dangling at the mercy of corporate sharks."
In a recent news report, former California Lieutenant Gov. and former Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi pinpointed the lack of cost controls without rate regulation. But Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, a key figure in developing the Senate's proposals on health reform, said of regulation:
"That would be a very substantial additional intervention in the marketplace. I just don't think the support would be there for that kind of a change."
(see the L.A. Times story at http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-healthcare-affordability2 -2009sep24,0,2139648,full.story )
Consumer Watchdog said rate regulation is a far lighter intervention than requiring everyone to purchase health insurance, and is a familiar presence in the U.S. marketplace.
"The mystery of today's debate is that tough rate regulation is not being seriously considered," said Dugan. "Forcing Americans to buy private insurance is radical, but rate regulation is the opposite of radical. It results in both lower rates and a healthier marketplace."
Here are some of the key points of the 2008 Consumer Federation study of Proposition 103, the 1998 voter initiative that regulates property and casualty insurance:
*An important adjunct to the regulatory framework established by Proposition 103 is its mechanism for public scrutiny and participation in the process of reviewing and approving rates. Proposition 103 grants consumers the right to challenge improper rates and practices before the Department of Insurance as well as the courts.
*A key factor in reducing insurer costs and consumer rates for automobile insurance is the strong financial incentives that the law provides consumers to drive more safely.
*California profits outpaced national insurer profits:
CALIFORNIA AND NATIONAL AUTO INSURER PROFITS
1989 - 2005 Return on Net Worth
(First figure is California returns, second figure is national returns)
Personal Auto Liability 12.9% 7.5%
Personal Auto Physical Damage 15.8% 16.3%
Personal Auto Total 13.5% 9.9%
Homeowners 7.4% -1.2%
All Property/Casualty Lines 13.9% 6.5%
-- California is first among all states in holding down insurance
premiums, with a 12.9 percent increase compared to an average national
increase of 50 percent;
-- California is the fourth most competitive auto insurance market in the
nation; Completely unregulated Illinois ranks 44th.
Other regulations under Proposition 103 that would benefit consumers directly, if applied to health insurance, include:
-- Requirement that insurers be transparent about how rates are
developed;
-- Prohibition on pass-through of excessive costs including unjustifiable
expenses, fines, and excessive executive salaries;
-- Standards that test the assumptions insurers make in setting rates.
It is worth recalling, in response to Sen. Bingaman, that insurance companies warned in 1988 that insurance regulation would be "massive government intervention" and would sharply raise insurance rates.
The result, notes Consumer Watchdog, was the opposite. And regulation was good for the industry as well.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
/PRNewswire/ -- The defeat of the so-called public insurance option in the Senate Finance Committee's version of health reform makes regulation of insurance premiums and copays even more critical, said Consumer Watchdog. If Americans are forced to buy private insurance policies under national health reform and nothing is done to regulate the prices of policies, consumers will remain trapped in a rising cost spiral enabled by insurers. Rate regulation is far from radical and is also good for the insurance industry, said the nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy group.
The nation's toughest regulation of other types of insurance, including auto and homeowner policies, has produced a healthier, more competitive and even more profitable insurance market in California than in other states.
A 2008 study by Robert Hunter of the Consumer Federation of America found that since California passed highly effective regulation of property and casualty insurance in 1998, the state's dysfunctional insurance market has transformed. It is now the nation's fourth most competitive, fewer drivers are thrown into high-risk pools and insurers' average profits, at 10.6%, are well above the national average. Yet consumers also saved $61.8 billion dollars on their premiums over the same period and California insurance prices went from the second most expensive in the nation in 1989 to 20th in 2005 for auto liability premiums.
(see the study at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/state_auto_insurance_report.pdf)
Even medical malpractice insurance prices in California dropped sharply after the introduction of regulation, which appears far more effective in cost control than forbidding lawsuits against malpractice.
With health insurance rate regulation, insurers would have good reason to push for better, more effective and less wasteful health care, said Consumer Watchdog, just as auto insurers in California have backed tough auto and driver safety measures and home safety measures, as well as curbing fraud. Without regulation, insurers have no need to become more efficient.
"Mandatory insurance, as proposed in all the major bills in Congress, will turn government into a massive customer delivery system on behalf of a private industry," said Judy Dugan, research director of Consumer Watchdog. "Regulation is no more than a balancing force to this great benefit for insurance companies. For the Senate to brush off regulation as too much 'intervention' will leave millions of consumers dangling at the mercy of corporate sharks."
In a recent news report, former California Lieutenant Gov. and former Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi pinpointed the lack of cost controls without rate regulation. But Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, a key figure in developing the Senate's proposals on health reform, said of regulation:
"That would be a very substantial additional intervention in the marketplace. I just don't think the support would be there for that kind of a change."
(see the L.A. Times story at http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-healthcare-affordability2 -2009sep24,0,2139648,full.story )
Consumer Watchdog said rate regulation is a far lighter intervention than requiring everyone to purchase health insurance, and is a familiar presence in the U.S. marketplace.
"The mystery of today's debate is that tough rate regulation is not being seriously considered," said Dugan. "Forcing Americans to buy private insurance is radical, but rate regulation is the opposite of radical. It results in both lower rates and a healthier marketplace."
Here are some of the key points of the 2008 Consumer Federation study of Proposition 103, the 1998 voter initiative that regulates property and casualty insurance:
*An important adjunct to the regulatory framework established by Proposition 103 is its mechanism for public scrutiny and participation in the process of reviewing and approving rates. Proposition 103 grants consumers the right to challenge improper rates and practices before the Department of Insurance as well as the courts.
*A key factor in reducing insurer costs and consumer rates for automobile insurance is the strong financial incentives that the law provides consumers to drive more safely.
*California profits outpaced national insurer profits:
CALIFORNIA AND NATIONAL AUTO INSURER PROFITS
1989 - 2005 Return on Net Worth
(First figure is California returns, second figure is national returns)
Personal Auto Liability 12.9% 7.5%
Personal Auto Physical Damage 15.8% 16.3%
Personal Auto Total 13.5% 9.9%
Homeowners 7.4% -1.2%
All Property/Casualty Lines 13.9% 6.5%
-- California is first among all states in holding down insurance
premiums, with a 12.9 percent increase compared to an average national
increase of 50 percent;
-- California is the fourth most competitive auto insurance market in the
nation; Completely unregulated Illinois ranks 44th.
Other regulations under Proposition 103 that would benefit consumers directly, if applied to health insurance, include:
-- Requirement that insurers be transparent about how rates are
developed;
-- Prohibition on pass-through of excessive costs including unjustifiable
expenses, fines, and excessive executive salaries;
-- Standards that test the assumptions insurers make in setting rates.
It is worth recalling, in response to Sen. Bingaman, that insurance companies warned in 1988 that insurance regulation would be "massive government intervention" and would sharply raise insurance rates.
The result, notes Consumer Watchdog, was the opposite. And regulation was good for the industry as well.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)