Saturday, July 08, 2006
Medicare's Costly Misunderstanding
Are drugs for bones a threat to jaws? Rare side effect linked to treatments
Do you take a bone-building medication such as Fosamax?
These widely used drugs, called bisphosphonates, have recently been linked to a rare side effect that causes parts of the jawbone to deteriorate and die.
The bulk of the 3,000 published cases of jaw osteonecrosis - meaning "dead bone" - have occurred after dental procedures, mostly in cancer patients on intravenous bisphosphonates. But the problem has also developed out of the blue in otherwise healthy people taking bisphosphonate pills to boost bone density.
"If you're going to be on this drug, make sure you really need it," said Alan Meltzer, a Voorhees periodontist.
Since 2003, when the first 36 cases were described in a medical journal, the Food and Drug Administration has required all bisphosphonate labels to include a precaution, hundreds of lawsuits have been filed against drug makers, and expert dental groups have issued advice for managing the tens of millions of people now on the drugs.
Still, there are no good treatments for what specialists have begun calling "bisphossy jaw." Nor is it clear that quitting the drugs reduces the risk, because bisphosphonates can persist for years in the bone. The incidence, variation and progression of the jaw disease are also unclear.
"What we have seen and heard from health-care givers is that more and more people are showing up with milder forms, so the true incidence rate now is anybody's guess," said John R. Kalmar, an Ohio State University oral pathologist and author of a May review article in Annals of Internal Medicine. "We're telling people to be cautious."
The advent of bisphosphonates about a decade ago was a boon for people whose bones were riddled by cancer treatment, osteoporosis, or a disorder called Paget's disease. Since 1995, 191 million prescriptions have been filled for oral Fosamax, Actonel, and Boniva, plus millions more for intravenous Zometa, Aredia and generic Pamidronate.
However, the benefits and risks of the drugs differ for these patient groups, experts say.
For people with advanced cancer, bisphosphonates can reduce the painful, crippling damage to bones that can be a side effect of cancer treatment. But studies suggest that 3 percent to 10 percent of such patients will develop osteonecrosis of the jaw, both because intravenous bisphosphonates are so potent and because cancer treatment itself is a risk factor for bone death.
Novartis, maker of Zometa and Aredia, says it has so far received reports of 2,500 cases of jawbone damage.
"The seriousness... ranges from being asymptomatic to requiring sections of the jaw to be removed," Novartis said in a May 2005 informational letter to dentists.
For healthy people seeking to boost bone density, the risk of jawbone death appears to be remote; the estimate from Fosamax maker Merck & Co. is less than one out of 100,000 patients per year.
On the other hand, many postmenopausal women taking the pills may not really need them. Low bone density does not automatically progress to osteoporosis, and even when it does, a debilitating fracture is not inevitable.
Crystal Baxter, a former University of Pittsburgh professor of prosthodontics who now practices in Arizona, said she is very leery of doing elective dental implants in patients who have taken oral bisphosphonates. "The scary thing," she said, "is that these drugs are being marketed to practically every aging woman in the world."
It has become clear - through trial and terrible error - that trying to fix bisphossy jaw with invasive dental procedures only makes it worse.
Ruth Ann Dutton, 66, of Atco, for example, went to her regular dentist after a shard of bone spontaneously broke through her gum. Although she had taken Aredia and Zometa for advanced breast cancer, the splintering of her jaw was not triggered by a dental procedure.
"He did a root canal, but it never got better," she recalled.
A year ago, she was referred to Meltzer, who prescribed antibiotics and antiseptic rinses.
"Right now, it's doing pretty decent," she said. "The hole is mostly closed up."
Barry Levin, an Elkins Park periodontist, said one of his elderly patients has not been as fortunate. She quit Fosamax after tooth extractions led to a diagnosis of osteonecrosis, but bone grafted to her damaged jaw has not healed properly.
"It's been a nightmare," Levin said.
Bisphosphonates build bone by tamping down the normal turnover of bone cells. Kalmar and other experts speculate that osteonecrosis develops when the drugs are too effective at suppressing bone regeneration.
Why hasn't the problem shown up after, say, hip replacement surgery? Experts say the jaws are particularly vulnerable because cells turn over faster there than in other bones. Jaws are also constantly exposed to minor trauma from chewing, and to bacteria from the mouth.
"Unlike the hip, the mouth is not sterile," said Long Island Medical Center oral surgeon Salvatore Ruggiero, whose 2004 article on bisphossy jaw was among the first.
A similar phenomenon, dubbed "phossy jaw," was recognized in the mid-1800s among match factory workers who chronically inhaled the phosphorus on match tips.
"The onset of the disease was generally quite slow, an average of five years... The lower jaw was more commonly affected than the upper jaw, exactly as seen in the bisphosphonate-associate osteonecrosis," Heiner K. Berthold, a drug expert with the German Medical Association, wrote this month in Annals of Internal Medicine. "Many patients committed suicide because of pain and disfigurement."
Novartis - which received the first report of jaw osteonecrosis in December 2002 - says it has made public the cases it knows about. It also enlisted M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Texas to review patient records and try to gauge the incidence among the 2.8 million patients treated worldwide with Aredia or Zometa. It has sent letters and brochures to inform physicians and patients and formed an expert advisory committee on which Ruggiero sits.
But makers of oral bisphosphonates - Merck, Roche (Boniva) and Procter & Gamble (Actonel) - have done little to alert patients other than updating their labels as required by the FDA. Merck has also put information on its Web site.
These firms stress that in research studies involving tens of thousands of patients, no cases of jaw osteonecrosis were reported.
More recently, "we have received rare reports," said Merck spokesman Chris Loder.
Not so quiet are dozens of law firms now seeking injured clients through advertising online and on television and radio.
Advice for Patients
Although osteonecrosis of the jaw is not well understood, the American Dental Association and other expert groups have issued recommendations.
Before starting bisphosphonates, have a comprehensive dental exam and treat any tooth or gum problems.
While on bisphosphonates, make sure to brush and floss daily, and get regular dental care. If you need an invasive dental procedure, discuss the risks with your doctor. Seek the most conservative possible treatment. Avoid elective procedures that would require bone to heal.
If dental surgery is necessary, consider taking antibiotics and use daily oral rinses.
If osteonecrosis develops, special imaging studies, such as computed tomography scans, may help with diagnosis and treatment. Consider discontinuing bisphosphonate therapy until the jaw heals. If dead bone must be removed, it should be done with as little trauma to adjacent tissues as possible.
Macular Degeneration -- leading cause of blindness of those over 65 -- and a cure; and the cost; AND the related RIPOFF
But what if it turns out that new drug isn't really so new, that it is really the equivalent of selling bottled water at $2 per bottle instead of paying perhaps 2 cents for hundreds of gallons of tap water?
Don't get me wrong, water is essential, and so is this new drug, developed by Genentech.
The drug is called Lucentis, and a doctor needs to inject it into the eye. Here's a description of the drug: Lucentis is a humanized antibody fragment designed to bind and inhibit Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A (VEGF-A), a protein that is believed to play a critical role in angiogenesis (the formation of new blood vessels). These blood vessels cause the blindness.
But here's the description of another Genentech drug, called Avastin: AVASTIN® is a recombinant humanized monoclonal IgG1 antibody that binds to and inhibits the biologic activity of human vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF).
Detect the very similar language? Yep. The reason is that these are virtually the same drugs.
So what's going on here, you may wonder?
Well, Avastin is a great cancer drug. It costs about $50,000 a year when used intravenously to treat colon cancer.
But it can also be used to treat Wet Macular Degeneration. The "problem" is that very low doses are needed, so the cost for an injection into the eye is only about $20 to $100. So annual cost is "only" about $1,000.
That's not good news for Genentech.
So they "developed" Lucentis.
And whoops, now the cost for an injection of the "new" drug Lucentis is expected to be from $1,500 to well over $2,000. And the annual cost will be over $10,000.
And the world is back to where it should be, with very expensive drugs.
And that's the way Genentech likes the world.
More debate on ORTA: Tom Cooper, Molly Janczyk, Dee Scott
From Dee Scott, July 7, 2006
Friday, July 07, 2006
Sen. Marc Dann returns the favor to former STRS board member Betty (Montgomery) -- and then some!
Betty Montgomery Could have been the Hero; All her False Accusation Won't Change that
Frankly, I haven’t had time to swing at Betty for her many shortcomings as AG and Auditor because I’ve been too busy attempting to force her and her Republican buddies to tell the truth about why the BWC’s chief financial officer Terry Gasper, who, at the time was taking bribes from Tom Noe and other investment managers, was appointed to the board of the newly formed Venture Capital Authority in November of 2003.
No one seems to have an answer—at least one they want to make public. Nor do they want to tell us why Gasper remained on the VCA board for nearly a year after he was forced to resign from the BWC for losing a couple of hundred million taxpayer dollars.
Undeterred by my refusal to take a swipe at her, Betty came out swinging herself yesterday, backed up by her cornerman, perpetually truth-challenged Ohio GOP chair Bob Bennett. In a press release issued from deep within the bowels of the Party, they called me a hypocrite for criticizing Gasper’s appointment even though I voted in favor of it when it came before the Senate.
So, let me get this straight, I’m a hypocrite for voting for an appointment that was made by Governor Taft, supported by the GOP leadership, and rammed through the, yes, Republican-controlled Senate?
An appointment that was made and supported by Bennett’s Republicans because, I and the other members of the Senate were told, Gasper was doing an outstanding job investing the BWC’s money?
I don’t think so.
You see, the truth is I’m not a hypocrite—I was lied to by the Republicans, as were the other members of the legislature and the people of Ohio.
And if Betty Montgomery had done her job as auditor we all would have known about Gasper's failures and BWC corruption.
The truth is, as we’ve come to learn over the past year, things weren’t fine at the BWC as we were told repeatedly—unless you were Tom Noe or one of the other investment managers who were given tens of millions of your tax dollars to invest simply because they had made contributions to any one of a number of Republicans, including Betty Montgomery.
It’s also the truth that Bob Bennett has never let the truth stand in the way of his desperate attempts to defend what may be the most corrupt and incompetent band of officeholders and appointees in the history of the state.
Along with calling me a hypocrite because I was victimized by some of the most facile prevaricators in the land, Betty also said in the press release, as she did in the aforementioned radio interview, that I don’t quite understand the duties of her office.
It seems that Betty is upset with me for asking why she ignored a 2004 BWC audit that raised questions about investment practices at the Bureau—an audit that landed on her desk nearly one year before reports surfaced about her longtime friend and contributor Tom Noe, “Coingate” and the other investment scams. According to Betty, and this is a direct quote from her radio interview, “We don’t do the audit, we’ve never done the audit. He (that would be me) can blame me, but he should really figure out how government works.”
Yesterday, her campaign spokesman said “Betty Montgomery found out about the problems with the BWC the same time everyone else did.” He also noted that the audit was handled by an outside agency and not the state auditor’s office, then said “Mr. Dann needs a dose of reality therapy.”
Well, here’s the reality: if Betty had done her job we all would have known about Mr. Gasper long before he was appointed, the appointment never would have been made, I and the other members of the Senate who were misled about Mr. Gasper’s qualifications would not have voted for him, and millions of dollars would have been saved.
And here’s some more reality straight from the Ohio Revised Code—which Betty has either never read, doesn’t understand, or has consistently ignored.
First, here are the duties of the Auditor as defined in ORC 117.10:
The auditor of state shall audit all public offices as provided in this chapter. The auditor of state also may audit the accounts of private institutions, associations, boards, and corporations receiving public money for their use and may require of them annual reports in such form as the auditor of state prescribes.
In other words, it’s her job to look at the books of state agencies like the BWC. And although the law also gives her the authority to appoint outside firms to perform these audits when necessary, it also gives her the following responsibilities as defined in ORC 117.24, which is titled “Analysis of report”:
The auditor of state shall analyze the report of the public accountant who has audited a public office to determine whether any public money has been illegally expended, any public money collected has not been accounted for, any public money due has not been collected, or any public property has been converted or misappropriated. In addition, the auditor of state or his appointee shall determine whether there has been any malfeasance or gross neglect of duty on the part of any officer or employee of the public office.
In plain English, this means that once an outside firm completes an audit, like the one done in 2004 of BWC, she is supposed to at least open it, read the executive summary and see if something is wrong before she signs it, something she freely admits she didn’t do in this case.
Why would she admit that she failed to do her job? That’s an easy one: She figures that’s better than admitting she was asleep at the switch while her good buddy Noe was looting the state treasury.
Now, here is my final question for the day, and it’s one I’ll continue to ask for the duration of the campaign:
Do the people of Ohio really want an Attorney General who doesn’t know the law, doesn’t do her job, and then makes excuses for it rather than taking responsibility for her mistakes?
I don’t think Betty or her buddy Bennett or her campaign mouthpiece will be providing an answer any time soon, but I’m confident the voters will have a resounding response on November 7.
On Medicare D? The abyss you will encounter known as 'Customer Service'
Asclepios
Ring Ring!
* They could not tell what drugs the plan covered;
* For covered drugs, they could not explain what restrictions were imposed;
* They could not inform callers about how to appeal for coverage;
* They could not explain when the coverage gap would be reached;
* They could not correct billing errors.
'Contribution' or bribe? Depends on how you look at it!
“But if an industry lobbyist walks into the office of a key legislator and hands her or him a check for $1,000, we call that a campaign contribution. We should call it a bribe.
Laura Ecklar: How to access monthly Board News
KS schools & the "double-dip" provision re retirement system law
It is estimated that around 500 teachers who have retired and are drawing pensions from the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System currently teach part time in another district. Sen. President Steve Morris' office projects that number will climb to around 4,000 over the next several years.
But a law that went into effect Saturday, requiring public schools to pay 13.75 percent of those teachers' salaries into the retirement fund, has many retired teachers reluctant to step back into the classroom because the money is being kept out of their paychecks.
Legislators say the bill was written with the understanding that school districts would pay at least part of the 13.75 percent. But the schools say they can't afford to pay the extra cost, so the money is being withheld from the teachers' pay instead.
"If we would have known the districts were going to do that, we probably would have made adjustments and changes in the bill," said Morris, R-Hugoton.
Paul Babich, president of United Teachers of Wichita, said the country is moving toward a tremendous teacher shortage. Putting up barriers for retired teachers who want to supplement their pension income at such a time doesn't make much sense, he said.
"If the school districts and Legislature are interested in stopping the upcoming shortage, which is going to be huge, they ought to do what they can to fix this disincentive," Babich said.
Karen Davidson, 53, who taught music in the Rose Hill district for 31 years before retiring, plans to teach part time in a different district in the fall. But despite her experience, she'll be working at a lower salary because of the money that will be kept out of her checks for KPERS.
Districts that rehire their own retired teachers don't have to pay the extra amount into the pension system, but those teachers can only earn up to $20,000 before their retirement benefits stop until the next fiscal year.
"I just feel like they take advantage of the fact that we are retired," Davidson said.
Sen. Jean Schodorf, R-Wichita, said teachers who don't like the new law should either not retire or should stay out of the field after they do.
"There are too many people taking out and not enough people putting in," Schodorf said of KPERS, which has been underfunded for decades.
The new law applies to all public employees, but no other group has to pay as much into the program as retired teachers.
"We don't get people to come back when we need them by reducing their salaries and reducing their rights," said Mark Desetti, director of legislative advocacy for the Kansas National Education Association. "We need to be sure we honor these people."
Morris said the Senate probably will take another look at the issue next year.
3 YEARS AGO -- The year the Ohio Legislature didn't put their votes where their mouth was -- and still haven't!
Montgomery seeks law to review STRS practices Canton Repository, July 8, 2003 By Paul E. Kostyu Copley Columbus Bureau chief COLUMBUS — State Auditor Betty Montgomery now wants regular and independent performance reviews of the State Teachers Retirement System. Montgomery is working with Ohio Sen. Kirk Schuring, R-Jackson Township, and Rep. Michelle Schneider, R-Cincinnati, to craft a law that would require reviews of the pension fund’s investments and management practices. Montgomery said her office is equipped to handle the audit, but an outside firm should be hired so it is independent of the fund. A representative of Montgomery’s office as well as the offices of the attorney general and state superintendent of schools are voting members of the STRS board. The pension fund would be required to pay for the audit. “Members of our public pension funds deserve to know that their dollars are being invested and managed properly,” Montgomery said. Meanwhile, legislators from both parties want the House and Senate to return from their summer break to override a line-item veto by Gov. Bob Taft that prevents the state’s inspector general from investigating STRS and the other four state pension funds. Rep. Tim Grendell, R-Chesterland, sent a letter last week to House Speaker Larry Householder, R-Glenford, and Senate President Doug White, R-Manchester, asking that both chambers reconvene to deal with the issue. Nearly 50 members of the General Assembly signed the letter, though Grendell said he would have had more if not for the July 4 holiday. “The independent power of the inspector general’s office would only strengthen oversight capabilities,” he said. Minority leaders in the Senate and the House backed the veto override. Sen. Gregory DiDonato, D-New Philadelphia, joined by eight other Senators asked White to “join our colleagues in the House in a push to provide Ohio’s pensioners greater safeguards.” DiDonato said, “Taft has made a terrible error in vetoing this provision.” Rep. Chris Redfern, D-Catawba Island, said, “We need to give taxpayers confidence that this sort of mismanagement can never happen again.” Maggie Mitchell, a spokeswoman for White, said reconvening the Senate is not something that he has talked about with staff or other senators. Dwight Crum, a spokesman for Householder, said Grendell’s request has not been reviewed, and members have not been contacted. Because the line-item veto occurred on a House bill, overriding it would have to originate in the House. On another front, Schuring is backing legislation by Sen. Teresa Fedor, D-Toledo, to give Inspector General Thomas P. Charles the power to investigate the pension funds. Schuring also has introduced Senate Bill 105 with bipartisan support that would require officials and employees of the five pension funds to file financial disclosures statements with the Ohio Ethics Commission. The flurry of legislative activity comes in the wake of a revelations that STRS spent $16.1 million in staff bonuses since August 2000, according to newly computed figures, as well as millions more on board travel and artwork at its headquarters, while the fund’s portfolio lost $12.3 billion. Members of STRS are discussing how to prepare a class-action lawsuit. There also are plans to organize a protest march from the Statehouse to STRS headquarters at the fund’s next board meeting Aug. 15. Schuring said he will participate in the march. You can reach Columbus Bureau Chief Paul E. Kostyu at (614) 222-8901 or e-mail: |
Marvin and Lynne Bracy: Kudos to the investment staff
Zocor to beat generic price
June 23, 2006
NEW YORK -- Merck & Co., which loses its U.S. patent protection today on the cholesterol-lowering drug Zocor, will immediately begin pricing its brand-name drug below that of one of its main competitors.
Zocor is the second-most widely prescribed statin. The patent expiration pits Merck squarely against generic drugmakers such as Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., whose version of the drug will cost pennies per pill. Pfizer Inc., the world's largest drugmaker, makes the brand-name statin, Lipitor, which costs about $3 per pill.
Merck said yesterday that it would price its Zocor cholesterol pill below Teva's generic version, an unprecedented move by the drugmaker to salvage sales of its best-selling product. Zocor posted $4.4 billion in sales for Merck last year. Teva may begin selling its generic copy of Zocor today.
The Zocor patent loss also opens the door for an all-out battle between drug and health insurance companies over pricing for brand-name and generic versions.
WellPoint Inc. and UnitedHealth Group Inc., the two largest U.S. health insurers, received discounts on Zocor from Merck, officials at both insurers said yesterday.
Merck's discounting signals that big drugmakers are willing to use new tactics to prevent erosion of sales to generics, analysts said. Merck is attempting to fend off generic competition by initiating a price war.
"Merck has come to health plans and pharmacy benefits managers offering a significant discount on brand-name Zocor," said Robert Seidman, chief pharmacy manager at WellPoint.
Seidman declined to disclose the discounted price. "Obviously, it is lower than the price of the generic," he said.
About 70 U.S.-approved drugs, 14 of them with combined 2004 sales of $27 billion, are expected lose patent protection in the next five years. Generic versions typically sell for 80 percent less than brand-name drugs.
Some insurers, such as Aetna Inc., the third-largest U.S. insurer, have declined Merck's discount offer and will continue to promote generic drug use among its members.
Aetna said yesterday that it would buy copies of Zocor from Teva rather than accept Merck's discount.
To other insurers, Cigna Corp. and Humana Inc., will ask patients to pay higher co-payments for Merck's Zocor than generic, officials said yesterday. Neither would say if Merck had offered them price breaks on Zocor.
UnitedHealth said it would reduce the patient cost, or co-payment, for Zocor, also known as simvastatin, to $10 as part of an agreement negotiated with Merck. Patients who use Teva's version will pay five times as much out-of-pocket.
UnitedHealth will charge patients less for the brand-name drug because Merck is offering to sell Zocor for less than the price offered by Teva, said spokesman Mark Lindsay.
"As of Friday, the marketplace has changed for simvastatin, and it's our intention to be competitive in this new marketplace," said Ian Spatz, Merck's vice president for public policy.
U.S. shares of Teva, an Israeli company, fell $1.02, or 3.2 percent, to close at $31.25 on the Nasdaq stock market.
Merck's shares slipped 2 cents to $35.25, and Pfizer's shares lost 4 cents to $22.65, both on the New York Stock Exchange.
Merck's discounts on Zocor "signal a new battlefield in the price competition war that generic industry participants will have to face," wrote Robert Uhl and Alan Meyers, analysts at Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co., in an investment report yesterday.
The analysts reduced their estimate on generic Zocor sales this year by $62 million to $265 million and downgraded their rating on Teva shares.
Merck declined to discuss specific price arrangements. Discounts for health plans are generally offered as rebates, Spatz said.
Merck will also allow Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. of Hyderabad, India, to sell Zocor as a generic drug in return for a share of the revenue. Under such agreements, big drugmakers can protect some of their market share by allowing another company to sell its drug at generic prices without the brand name.
Beating generic competitors to market with an even cheaper version of its own drug might help Merck hang on to Zocor users for as long as a year, said Stephen W. Schondelmeyer, a health economist at the University of Minnesota at Minneapolis.
"When the first generation of generics comes on the market, the big chain pharmacies like to pick one and stick with it for six to 12 months," he said.
Eric S. Elliott, president of Aetna's pharmacy management program, said offering a brand-name drug at a generic price would confuse consumers and undercut efforts to persuade patients to use the cheaper copies.
"We have had conversations with Merck about a contract that would put Zocor in a generic tier," Elliott said then. "At this time, we have not signed that deal."
Aetna health plan members now pay $30 a month for a Zocor prescription. By comparison, patients pay $45 per month for Pfizer's Lipitor, the world's best-selling cholesterol drug. Generic drugs cost patients $15 per month.
"More brand pharmaceutical companies are either launching their own generic versions or creating alliances with other companies for authorized generics," said C. Anthony Butler, an analyst at Lehman Brothers. "The novelty is the negotiation at the managed-care level."
In response to Zocor competition, Pfizer plans to start a voucher program intended to minimize the costs of Lipitor to patients, said a spokeswoman.
_______
I had a conversation about Zocor with a pharmacist at Costco. He said Zocor, which now is a formulary, is cheaper than the generic. We all need to put the pressure on Caremark to recognize that fact. I plan to call Caremark today to do just that!
Steve Mitchell to Dennis Leone: STRS investment earnings 1999 - 2006
The equity markets ended June very strong but essentially only made up the weakness in the first part of the month, thus producing a slight position return for the month of June. The full year return for STRS Ohio is estimated at +13.6%. Official results will not be available for two weeks; however, our preliminary results are usually close to the actual return. The returns you requested are as follows:
Steve
Thursday, July 06, 2006
News from STRS: STRS Ohio Returns Take Investment Assets to a Record High
(STRS Ohio) now exceed $65.1 billion -- a record high for the pension fund that was established in 1920. This represents an increase of about $6 billion from the $59.1 billion total at June 30, 2005.
30, 2006) is as follows: domestic equities, 42%; international equities, 26%; real estate, 8%; fixed income, 21%; and alternative investments, 3%.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Cooper and Speas: The dialogue continues
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Dave to Tom: continuing a colorful conversation on the Fourth of July
July 4 conversation: Dave Speas and Tom Cooper
David Speas wrote: It is interesting that of those who have been shouting the loudest at us are not even members of our organization and will not be because we do not do what they want. How great it would be if they would join and fight inside for leadership positions and help make the organization stronger.
Paul Boyer to Tom Cooper: Politics in a sorry state; what could be worse than the Republicans of recent years?
Molly Janczyk: Freedom of thoughts and honest debate
Dave Speas to Tom Cooper re: Political endorsements
July 4, 2006
Tom,
ORTA does not make decisions on the idea of a few people of both political parties bolting the organization. Pointing out that Republicans are upset with us was done to show that those who back a Democratic party member that others are contacting us too. It is interesting that of those who have been shouting the loudest at us are not even members of our organization and will not be because we do not do what they want. How great it would be if they would join and fight inside for leadership positions and help make the organization stronger.
We decided not to back a candidate at this time because of the work that is being done to find a way to lessen the financial burdens of retirees. That is our focus as an organization, retirees. The healthcare initiative to change the law is ongoing and it has taken five years to get to this point. It was decided to make this our priority and anyone who knows politicians knows that they will pull support if they think they have been wronged or someone with more money or power comes along. A great deal of our efforts are now at least being recognized and some are going to look at sponsoring a bill and getting it towards a vote.
I travel around the state speaking and answering questions. The number one issue is healthcare with retirees. Some are making decisions on whether to get medicine or food. Others are using up their savings because of the cost for their spouses. We owe the retirees of this state our best efforts to lessen their burden. They have lost the most earning power because of the STRS debacle of not having an emergency plan in place to stop a financial fall of this kind for retired teachers. And, by the way, they still do not have one. Whether you think it right or wrong, we had to make a decision based on what we felt was the most important for retirees. If we did not get legislative backing or lose by very few votes possibly because of political decisions we made, we would be wrong in every way at this juncture of the work being done that will benefit retirees the most.
You have every right to discuss how you feel and I will always support that. The decisions people who have made the tough decision to step out and lead organizations are not so lucky. We have to decide what we should do by the input of our members and what their primary needs are. ORTA is an organization for retirees. We have been traveling a road working with our partners to recover needed income for our members. OEA, OFT and others need to work for actives who make up the largest membership for them. Our members deserve not to have to decide to eat or be healthy. Together the leadership have discussed, anguished over what to do, and measured the options we have in all this. It has been decided that our most needy and those who lost the most, retired teachers, deserve this chance to recover at least some of their loses.
Thank you for stirring the pot of all this debate. All those who have emailed me, others, and all have made me think deeper and deeper into all the areas, thanks, and I am even more certain that those who look into my eyes as they tell me about the terrible choices they have to make are the ones we should not abandon as an organization for retirees.
Dave
More conversation re: Political endorsements
From Don Gatchell, July 3, 2006
Tom Cooper to George Justice: No savior to education except us
July 4, 2006
Re:I haven't heard anything that shows Strickland to be the "savior" for retired teachers or the state of
Mr. George Justice I'm confused, Mr Justice, as to what qualified educational source it is exactly you heard ANY claim that Strickland is a "savior" to education. Assigning terms like "savior" to try to denigrate a leaders qualities is exactly the kind of political twisting that deflects away from real issues.
The only "savior" to education is going to be US. The only way WE will make out lives better is to take action, and if that means openly expressing our constitutional right of free speech and expression, both as individuals, and as organizations, then that is what needs to get done.
I am sick and tired of the tone that says any word that questions in any way, any Republican candidate or office holder should sit down and shut up. Churches, newspapers, business organizations, unions, police, fire and all other public employees, can support political candidates, but teachers should just shut up?
(I'm not a Democrat, and I'm not saying Democrats don't do the same. In fact, they do, but this issue is about some narrow minded bullies threatening a groups right to speak out for a Democrat, or they will take their ball and go home)
And your answer to that is "things could be worse"? Since you make reference to what you have and haven't heard, I'm wondering if you have ever heard Ken Blackwell speak? If this man is elected, things will get worse.
The fact is, when CORE was battling tooth and nail to bring STRS back from the brink of destruction, and ORTA sat idly by, calling those that cared nothing more than malcontents, it was nearly impossible to get any politician to listen to CORE' leaders. Do you wonder why? Could it be that they have absolutely no reason to pay any attention to people who do not flex some muscle come election day?
I recently read a story about a veteran who got into a public argument with a person complaining about the war in
Being a veteran myself, it was the brave people who began what is now called CORE, that caused me to get involved in their cause. CORE's leaders, and members were also told to sit down and shut up. If they had done that, like ORTA did, STRS might very well be dead by now. As you say, things could be worse. Apparently you, and many fascist minded people like you who would like to stifle voices, and salute the leadership blindly, would like to see things actually get worse.
When I retired, I gladly, eagerly, in fact, joined ORTA. I regularly attended local meetings. Through all of the uncovering of the unethical behavior of STRS officials, I remained a member of ORTA. I wrote letters imploring ORTA leader to take action. Not only was no action ever taken, none of my letters ever received a reply.
I did, however, recently receive a letter from Ann Hanning telling me that if didn't pay my dues, I would be dropped from there roll. You see, when I decided that for my dues I expected more than a ham loaf lunch once a month, I didn't threaten to quit. I just quit. I didn't threaten anyone that I would quit. My point is, these people who claim THEY will quit IF ORTA leadership takes a public stand in the interest of it's members, want to blackmail the ORTA leadership into sitting down and shutting up for their own political agenda of "my party right or wrong".
Isn't it ironic that, on Independence Day, the true independent mind, the independent thinking that gave us the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights, is dying right in front of our eyes? And that we are the ones who are killing it with our society's desire to have everyone sit down and shut up, like ORTA?
Tom Cooper