Other transcripts

Transcripts

November 24, 2003

Host: Michael Grant
Topics:
· Prescription Drug bill;
· Presidential campaigns — candidates' finances;
· Nature Conservancy photographic exhibit
In-Studio Guests:
· Dana Kennedy, Alliance for Retired Americans;
· Steve Nelson, Chief Medicare Officer, Healthnet;
· Patrick Kenney, Chair, Arizona State University Department of Political Science.

Michael Grant:
Tonight on "Horizon", the battle over a Medicare prescription drug plan crosses party lines. Presidential candidates are scrambling for funding as the race heats up. And a new exhibit highlights the work of the nature conservancy. Good evening, I'm Michael Grant. The Medicare prescription drug bill has survived a filibuster threat from opponents in the Senate. The house narrowly passed the bill by a vote of 220-215 over the weekend. House opponents of the plan said the bill was being forced down their throats.

>>Ed Pastor:
I support a prescription drug benefit to senior citizens. One that deals with the pricing of drugs and one that has detailed plans so that the participant knows what the benefits are and what it's going to cost them. I have to tell you this Republican plan that's going to be forced down our throats does not have anything for cost containment. Nothing to do with the prices. And so it's not a good plan.

>>Michael Grant:
Supporters of the bill say the plan contains reforms and preserves Medicare.

>>J.D. Hayworth:
I support the Medicare drug benefit plan because it immediately lowers the cost of pharmaceutical medicines for seniors. It provides life-saving help to low income seniors first. It gives Medicare enrollees the right to keep the plan they have or choose a better plan, and contains items reforms that can strengthen and preserve Medicare, and help make health care more affordable for every American. This legislation goes beyond filling a gaping hole in Medicare coverage, it addresses the reality that the cost of health care is devastating family and government budgets and initiates long overdue reforms.

Michael Grant:
Joining us to talk about the bill and what it means for Arizonans, the western regional coordinator for the Alliance for Retired Americans, Dana Kennedy, and the chief Medicare officer for Healthnet, Steve Nelson. Thank you both for being here. Particularly, since we're still trying to figure out what the final bill is going to look like, Steve, let me start with you. Why is this a good bill?

>>Steve Nelson:
I think there are several reasons but the most important one is that we're dealing with a law that was put together in 1965, nearly 40 years ago. A lot of things have happened in the health care delivery system, the health care industry and just in medicine over those 40 years. The law and program needs to be modernized, needs to be brought into the 21st century, this law gets that process started.

>>Michael Grant:
Does it get the prescription drug coverage for the elderly?

>>Steve Nelson:
It creates immediately an opportunity for seniors, there's three quarter million seniors in the State of Arizona that immediately have access to either a prescription drug discount card or, when we get to 2006, a full-on prescription drug benefit. It also creates some choices, which I think is really important to point out. I, along with the three of us, have just a lot of choices. We have prescription drug coverage, other kinds of benefits that we can choose from. My parents, who are both Medicare eligible, do not have those options.

>>Michael Grant:
Dana, your group doesn't support the proposal, why is it a bad idea?

>>Dana Kennedy:
It opens the door to privatization. We have tried that a little bit through the HMO system and it's been an absolute failure. Once the HMOs aren't profiting, they're dropping retirees. There's no guaranteed benefit as far as what the HMO's will provide and will not provide. On average, it's going to be an additional $35 a month but that can vary from region to region. It prohibits Medicare, with 40 million members, to negotiate prices. The real winners are HMO and pharmaceutical industry that will earn a 12 billion to $14 billion slush fund to entice seniors to join the HMO's.

>>Michael Grant:
You're talking about the so-called privatization aspect.

>>Dana Kennedy:
Right.

>>Michael Grant:
Aren't those -- help me understand this, though. My understanding is that program doesn't start for another seven years, until 2010. Is it a more immediate threat than that would seem to indicate?

>>Dana Kennedy:
That's what's interesting with the premium support part which is supposed to have six pilot programs. And if it's such a great deal, then why did senator Kyl work hard to make sure Arizona would not be a test pilot?

>>Michael Grant:
Steve, privatization been raised as a concern by a lot of people. Number one, does it not start by 2010, and number 2, should seniors be concerned about the privatization aspects of this bill?

>>Steve Nelson:
The answer to the first question is, the premium sharing aspect of this bill does start in the form of a pilot project in 2010. Between now and then, several things happen that we need to make sure we keep our eye on. Prescription drug benefits will be made available to all Medicare beneficiaries. That's point one. Point two is they, as early as 2006, have additional options. PPO's for example. With the respect to the privatization, there is this private sector that has been working very hard to figure out how to deliver better health care to everyone, not just seniors, but all adults and children. There have been tremendous advances. Different tools have become available. For example, the private insurance industry has tools to help make sure that seniors don't take drugs that interact in a harmful way. The government doesn't have that tool. There are some advances that we think this law creates, kind of impetus and incentive for the private industry to make those available.

Michael Grant:
Dana is your concern on this issue, we have seen a number of HMO's come and go in this area. They would offer for example, prescription drug benefits and then say I'm sorry, we have to withdraw because it's too expensive. Is that what you're concerned about?

>>Dana Kennedy:
Let me put this in a personal way. My grandparents lived in California, actually in Bill Thomas' district. He was a retired state employee. Had awesome benefits. Back in the '90's, he received this enticement, he received package after package from HMO's encouraging him to join. I kept saying, Grandpa, do not do anything until you talk to me. You do not have to switch even though it looked like he needed to switch. People switched to the HMO's, dropped their Medigap insurance and there is not one HMO where my family lives.

>>Michael Grant:
He can't go back?

>>Dana Kennedy:
He never switched. He listened to his granddaughter.

>>Michael Grant:
Had he switched, he couldn't go back?

>>Dana Kennedy:
He could go back to traditional, but the Medigap is going through the roof. That's why we fight privatization. We have tried this, it hasn't worked. If it worked, I would say let's do it.

>>Michael Grant:
Steve, there have been a number of those examples in the State of Arizona. People are worried the private sector will offer it and pull the rug on it.

>>Steve Nelson:
Absolutely. It's a valid point. I mean it really is. But you have to look at the reason for that. And that is because the government has not supplied adequate funding to make this program work. They have been really choking the private industry and not allowing them to be successful and that's, therefore, why the stabilization fund is a part of this bill. That creates the opportunity for this private insurance to really step up, invest wholeheartedly, make commitments and stick it out. Healthnet, the company I represent, in the State of Arizona we have plans to improve the benefits, lower the cost of these benefits in the State of Arizona upon passing of this law.

>>Michael Grant:
Dana, is one of your other problems with the bill the inadequate -- at least what you feel to be the inadequate level of prescription benefits that are being offered by it?

>>Dana Kennedy:
Right. There's gaps in coverage, there's the monthly premium, which on average we're not quite sure what it will be in Arizona and there's a gap in coverage, a doughnut hole.

>>Michael Grant:
We were doing fast math. It sounded like the monthly premium and other things together, you had to pay $1400 to get about $2200 in benefit.

>>Dana Kennedy:
That's the interesting thing. People are going to realize this isn't such a good deal. Why are we spending this much money for an inadequate program?

Michael Grant:
Steve, Why are we spending this much money for an inadequate program?

>>Steve Nelson:
Again, you have to start somewhere. And the fact it, that there is no drug benefit available to these two. Again, in Arizona, over 700,000 seniors. There are a couple hundred thousand seniors in Arizona who will qualify for a low income subsidy under this program.

>>Michael Grant:
Medicaid side of this thing.

>>Steve Nelson:
They get $600 a year. There are some individuals who will receive 600 to $1,000 benefit annually, and others who will receive significantly more depending on their income level. These folks did not have any option before this.

>>Michael Grant:
Steve Nelson, we are out of time. Complicated subject, appreciate your showing up Dana Kennedy, thanks as well.

>>Michael Grant:
Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold have introduced legislation that would require Senate candidates to file campaign finance reports electronically. The reports would be made available via the internet within 48 hours. The senators hope the legislation will make such information available at a relevant time to the public, that is before an election. It points out the emphasis being placed on campaign finance. Producer Larry Lemmons takes a look at some of the money behind the presidential candidates.

>>Reporter:
So far, 2004 candidates Bush, Dean and Kerry have opted out of taxpayer financing for their campaigns. They don't want to abide by state by state spending cap. Only Kerry said he will honor the overall $45 million spending limit. So far, Kerry and Dean have been able to raise more money than their Democratic rivals. Chrissy Gephardt is campaigning for her father in Arizona, Dick Gephardt.

>>Chrissy Gephardt:
That was a particular decision they made so they would have the amount of money they would need to beat bush. As my father sees it, he will have the money he needs, he is going to get the matching fund so he will have well what he needs and I think his position is that if they were going to do that, that it should have been something that maybe to wait until they are up against Bush. It's sort of something so that they can basically outspend their other rivals. So I think he was disappointed but he is going to have the money he needs to win this election. He is going to stay with the public financing.

>>Reporter:
Because three candidates are not taking advantage of public funding, that means the other candidates will receive more than anticipated. Generally there's a short fall in the system. Though candidates don't receive all that they're entitled until the year progresses and the fund is replenished. Candidates usually take out loans to make up for the gap. That means Gephardt could receive about $5 million from the fund in January. The candidates have raised more money through September than they did four years ago, a 21% increase. Howard Dean boasts a significant number of small dollar donors to his campaign. Overall, large dollar donors have dominated fund raising this year. The bipartisan campaign reform act raised the federal candidate contribution level from $1000 to $2000. At this time, 70% of all individual donations have been from contributions of $1,000 or more. So how are the candidates doing? The Center of Responsive Politics lists these numbers as of October 15. President Bush is well ahead of his democratic rivals in terms of actual money raised. Dean and Kerry have raised over $20 million. Edwards, Gephardt and Lieberman have over $10 million. LaRouche, Clark and Kucinich have over $3 million, and Braun and Sharpton are in six figures. What follows is a slice of the contributions given to individual campaigns and does not represent the bulk of contributions a campaign has received. Greater detail can be found at opensecrets.org. The largest single sector giving money to Al Sharpton is the communications and electronics industry, at over $36,000. Carol Moseley Braun receives more from the finance, insurance and real estate sector at over $40,000. Dennis Kucinich also receives a lot from the communications industry, over $100,000. Newcomer Clark has received over $290,000 from lawyers and lobbyists. Joe Lieberman has benefited greatly from lawyers and lobbyists, as well, at over a million and a half dollars. Lawyers and lobbyists have been generous to Dick Gephardt, also, over $2 million. Also, the Teamsters union gave Gephardt over $125,000. Lawyers and law firms have given former trial lawyer John Edwards over $7 million. John Kerry, too, has received money from lawyers and lobbyists, over $3 million. He also received over $2.5 million from finance, insurance, real estate. More than $3 million came to Howard Dean through other than specific sectors. Perhaps underscoring his success at internet fund raising and grass roots organization, Dean has received over a million dollars from the communication and electronics sector and lawyers and lobbyists. Many universities have given to Dean. President Bush has received nearly $15 million from the finance, insurance, real estate sector. Lawyers and lobbyists have given him over $6 million. The single largest contributors to the Bush campaign are Merrill-Lynch, UBS Americas, Price-Waterhouse, Credit Suisse and Goldman Sachs. While it's understood that money is not everything in a campaign, there can be little doubt that money is necessary to keep a campaign alive.

>>Michael Grant:
Here to help us understand the finer points of campaign finance, the chair of the ASU department of political science, Patrick Kenney. We were watching some of those numbers roll past. Congressman, senators seem to be getting a lot of money, not unexpectedly, from Washington political insiders, as well as the president.

>>Patrick Kenney:
That would be a typical pattern you would see. They have the connections with the inside Washington to lobbyists and those are the people representing the people that have the money.

>>Michael Grant:
Were you surprised by the Dean and Kerry decision to not participate in public financing?

>>Patrick Kenney:
Not really in the sense there has been a movement since '96 with Bush and Forbes leading the way in this regard, '96 Forbes and again in 2000 with Bush, there's a belief they can raise more money than the matching fund program will allow them, which is about $45 million total that they can spend. Each state has specific caps. So that's what Democrats are thinking, that they can raise more money than that, and they will need more money to win that campaign is their belief.

>>Michael Grant:
Is this a function of those limits not keeping pace with inflation, is it a function of just the enormous size of the campaigns outstripping it? Other factors?

>>Patrick Kenney:
I think it's a function of two things. That's one, in the sense of this current nomination campaign is condensed into about a four to six week stretch. That means candidates will have to campaign across the country on television, which is highly expensive. And second, political strategy, they believe they can outspend their opponents dramatically. And if they can do that, they'll take that money and do it.

>>Michael Grant:
That becomes more critical when you time compress this to a four or five week process.

>>Patrick Kenney:
That was the lesson from Bush, that was one reason Bush was able to outspend and do in John McCain, he had so much more money than McCain during the nomination campaign in 2000.

>>Michael Grant:
McCain enjoyed a little bit of success, he was at the end of his funds rope and couldn't reload, retool quickly enough.

>>Patrick Kenney:
Right, when they were head to head, Bush and McCain were head to head in a few states, financially McCain won or came in close second or he was outstripped dramatically in money. California, big states like that, he lost dramatically.

>>Michael Grant:
How much is a Dean, Kerry decision driven by the McCain-Feingold act which raised the individual, actually doubled the allowed individual contribution from a thousand to two thousand bucks?

>>Patrick Kenney:
It's partly that, but McCain-Feingold was targeting, most of what they wanted to do is to ban soft money and change the issue advocacy laws for commercials for the general election. The third aspect was to allow the two contributions to change, instead of you, an individual, wants to give a campaign $1,000, you can now give two. And a political action committee can give a campaign, instead of 5,000 they can give ten. If Dean can make a contact over the internet, he can ask for 2000 and if a political action committee wants to help him, they can give him 10,000.

>>Michael Grant:
Dean, obviously, has done very well on the internet, and John McCain has done some of that in 2000. Is that the wave of the future, those and other more advanced, enhanced campaign fund raising activities?

>>Patrick Kenney:
Candidates and parties adjust quickly to new innovation, the fact Dean has done well I'm sure candidates before this season is out will be using some of those techniques. Traditionally, you have got to get to those big money contributors, like you saw there on the screen, you can't do all that by going on the internet.

>>Michael Grant:
There's many complexities, but this particular complexity is you have the caps in the state and you also have an aggregate cap. You have to be careful those two don't run together. Explain that a little bit.

>>Patrick Kenney:
Each state, depending on how much the vote was, how much money was there, what it costs to be on TV, there's a formula sets a cap that candidates can spend in that state. When you total up each state's cap, it will exceed the 45 million. You have to be careful.

>>Michael Grant:
You pick your shot carefully on which primaries are most important.

>>Patrick Kenney:
In the early -- New Hampshire is a good example, they will easily exceed the cap. We'll have campaign folks stay in Massachusetts. They will run commercials on Boston TV so they can charge against Massachusetts law, not New Hampshire.

>>Michael Grant:
You need a degree in this, don't you?

>>Patrick Kenney:
It's complex and of course it's been evolving since '76.

>>Michael Grant:
Patrick Kenney, we appreciate very much the information.

>>Patrick Kenney:
You're welcome.

>>Michael Grant:
"In Response to Place" is the name of a photography exhibit at the Scottsdale Museum of Contemporary Art, but it's not your average exhibit. It's a marriage of art and science. Here's a look at the photographers and places.

>>Hope Sandrow:
So by the time I snapped this picture, the water had gone down.

>>Reporter:
Her work is about movement and change. That's appropriate since the people of Komodo national park in Indonesia believe life is in constant flux. Hope Sandrow is one 12 artists commissioned by the conservancy to document the response to one of the last great places through photography. The conservancy went to Andy Grundberg to put together an exhibit.

>>Andy Grundberg:
I was approached in 1999 by the nature conservancy, which was thinking about its 50th anniversary, being in 2001, and they thought that they wanted to do an exhibition, and they thought that photography would be the best thing to exhibit and to show what they have done and what they are doing.

>>Reporter:
Places like Komodo national park, the Nature Conservancy is working to protect coral reefs damaged by fishing practices. Grundberg had a different idea to depict the coral rather than traditional underwater shoots.

>>Andy Grundberg:
I looked at a lot of underwater photography, and there are some really good people that do it, but it's pretty much you know what you're going to get before you get it.

>>Reporter:
Hope Sandrow brought something different to the idea of marine photography.

>>Hope Sandrow:
My work is more conceptual-based. It's on the idea of water as the medium, unity and its own spirit, where earth and sky come together at the horizon.

>>Reporter:
In order to capture the images under and above water, Sandrow needed a guide to swim with her, that's a requirement of the island. Used to swimming in the Atlantic, treading water where the Indian and Pacific come together became surreal for the photographer.

>>Hope Sandrow:
I'm kind of fearless, I thought this looks no big deal. I jumped in with my camera and I could hardly stay afloat. If I could imagine what Alice in Wonderland felt like, I felt like Alice. It was like flying through the air. It's some of the most dangerous water in the world.

>>Reporter:
Water is Sandrow's preferred medium to photograph.

>>Hope Sandrow:
You are in water and you only see the parts with light reflecting off of it, so it's in constant motion. It's almost like watching a movie because everything is moving. The water is moving, the light is moving. And it's just constant motion. And that clearly reflects my philosophy of life, that life is in flux, there is no one point of view and I use the camera to reflect that.

>>Reporter:
Each photographer commissioned for the exhibit has an identifiable style. Annie Liebovitz is known for her portraits of political and cultural icons, William Wegman for his work incorporating Weimaraner dogs. Liebovitz chose unexpected images for the project. Uncharacteristically, none of her pictures include people. While photographers were free to include people, some chose advancements in technology, some chose to photograph those who live there.

>>Andy Grundberg:
We sent 12 people out, nobody says there has to be 12 photographers in the show. Maybe a couple will fall down and fall on their face and I'll have to say it's a 10 photographer show. What was surprising to me is that it didn't happen. Because of the energy and commitment that the photographers put into it, they came back with what I considered great, beautiful work.

Michael Grant:
The exhibit is open through December 7th at the Scottsdale Museum of Contemporary Art. For more information log on to scottsdalearts.org. Here's what you can expect tomorrow night on "Horizon"

>>Reporter:
President George W. Bush visits Arizona to talk to seniors about the Medicare package on the verge of congressional approval. Plus, a legislative study committee wants your input on how to reform Arizona's tax structure, Tuesday at 7:00 on "Horizon".

Michael Grant:
Wednesday we'll hear debate on the controversial CLEAR law enforcement for alien removal bill and a peek at the new Kartchner Caverns big room. Thursday, we'll be off for special programming, but we're back Friday with the annual Walter Cronkite awards luncheon special. That's the rest of the week on "Horizon". Thank you very much for joining us on this Monday evening. I'm Michael Grant. Have a great one. Good night.

Back to the top