Tales of Change

Cornel West on Barack Obama

From Chris Hedges' The Obama Deception: Why Cornel West Went Ballistic:

“Can you imagine if Barack Obama had taken office and deliberately educated and taught the American people about the nature of the financial catastrophe and what greed was really taking place?” West asks. “If he had told us what kind of mechanisms of accountability needed to be in place, if he had focused on homeowners rather than investment banks for bailouts and engaged in massive job creation he could have nipped in the bud the right-wing populism of the tea party folk. The tea party folk are right when they say the government is corrupt. It is corrupt. Big business and banks have taken over government and corrupted it in deep ways.

“We have got to attempt to tell the truth, and that truth is painful,” he says. “It is a truth that is against the thick lies of the mainstream. In telling that truth we become so maladjusted to the prevailing injustice that the Democratic Party, more and more, is not just milquetoast and spineless, as it was before, but thoroughly complicitous with some of the worst things in the American empire. I don’t think in good conscience I could tell anybody to vote for Obama. If it turns out in the end that we have a crypto-fascist movement and the only thing standing between us and fascism is Barack Obama, then we have to put our foot on the brake. But we’ve got to think seriously of third-party candidates, third formations, third parties.

“Our last hope is to generate a democratic awakening among our fellow citizens. This means raising our voices, very loud and strong, bearing witness, individually and collectively. Tavis [Smiley] and I have talked about ways of civil disobedience, beginning with ways for both of us to get arrested, to galvanize attention to the plight of those in prisons, in the hoods, in poor white communities. We must never give up. We must never allow hope to be eliminated or suffocated.”

BP Sued in Ecuadorian Court For Violating Rights of Nature

Democracy Now reports briefly today on a lawsuit filed against BP for the Gulf Oil Spill for violating the rights of nature (see the clip in the video below at 6:25). The Rights of Nature was added to the Ecuadorian Constitution September 28, 2008 by an overwhelming margin through a national referendum. You can read the English language complaint here (I've also embedded it below the video):

We are filing this lawsuit because the international system of rights is clearly biased towards protecting the interests of transnational corporations that make excessive, irresponsible and predatory use of their rights to property and free enterprise, based on a development philosophy that is antagonistic to nature.

We are filing this lawsuit to break with the longstanding colonial logic of positive rights, which closes the doors to us for demanding fulfilment of the rights of Pachamama in formal spaces and limits us to alternative spaces such as Courts of Opinion, where, although we honourably exercise our right to have and to demand our rights, decisions are not binding on the transnational corporations or on the governments who back them, and thus they do not serve as an effective means to guarantee that the crimes denounced will not be repeated.

We submit as grounds for the admissibility of this suit both factual and legal grounds. With regard to the former, as we will presently demonstrate, the oil spill has global impacts: it impacts the ecosystems of every one of the countries of which the plaintiffs are nationals.

With regard to the latter, we base our claim on the Ecuadorian Constitution of 2008, which obliges all public officials, including constitutional court judges, to protect subjects of rights, establishing as duties of the Ecuadorian state, among others: To guarantee the rights of nature (Art. 277), To protect nature from the negative effects of anthropogenic disasters (Art. 389), To establish effective mechanisms for the prevention and control of environmental pollution, for the recovery of degraded natural areas, and for the sustainable management of natural resources (Art. 397-2).  

Ecuador worked with the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) which helped draft the language for the rights of nature based on other work that it had been doing with communities in the United States. CELDF recently helped Pittsburgh pass an ordinance to ban natural gas drilling/fracking within the city limits.

I appreciate CELDF's work because of the way they get activists to break out of failed regulatory fights which end up permitting certain levels of corporate harm and into right's based local lawmaking which allows communities to once again choose a path of self-determination. 

Bob Herbert on Winning the Class War

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert acknowledges "the class war that no one wants to talk about" .. saying "[it] continues unabated."

There is no way to bring America’s consumer economy back to robust health if unemployment is chronically high, wages remain stagnant and the jobs that are created are poor ones. Without ordinary Americans spending their earnings from good jobs, any hope of a meaningful, long-term recovery is doomed.

Beyond that, extreme economic inequality is a recipe for social instability. Families on the wrong side of the divide find themselves under increasing pressure to just hold things together: to find the money to pay rent or the mortgage, to fend off bill collectors, to cope with illness and emergencies, and deal with the daily doses of extreme anxiety.

Read his whole column here

How To Save the Planet Now: Admit We've Failed

It’s time for climate activists to admit our tactics have failed. I commend the movement for all of its efforts but the recent congressional takeover by Republicans demonstrates how ineffective we’ve been. Karl Rove is right, “Climate is gone.”

And we’re not alone. The first two years of Obama’s presidency have seen the failure of many progressive groups: anti-war and health care activists most notably.

So, who is winning? The wealthy, especially executives of multinational corporations. In Sunday’s New York Times, Nicholas Kristof wrote:

“The richest 1 percent of Americans now take home almost 24 percent of income, up from almost 9 percent in 1976. … C.E.O.’s of the largest American companies earned an average of 42 times as much as the average worker in 1980, but 531 times as much in 2001. Perhaps the most astounding statistic is this: From 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent.”

We’re in the midst of a rapidly escalating class war marked by an increasingly successful movement by corporate leaders seizing power and rights from individuals.

Perhaps the greatest harm from this war is the nearly complete failure by Congress and the Obama administration to curb greenhouse gas emissions and move us in a significant way towards cleaner energy solutions.

The Supreme Court’s recent Citizens United decision was a massive victory that opened the floodgates for unlimited anonymous spending which helped Republicans gain control of the House on November 2nd. And, they’ll spend even more in 2012.

Thanks to Republican victories in state legislative races, they’ll be solidifying these gains for the next decade: the GOP gets to redraw 147 more Congressional districts than Democrats (see also gerrymandering).

The tactic of electing democrats to legislate sensible climate policy is clearly a dead end.

Time to Give Up on Failed Tactics

So, when the Democratic party starts rallying progressives and environmental nonprofits to get behind their candidates for 2012, it’s time to say, "No more!" When democrats say “if Republicans gain control of the Presidency and Senate, everything we care about will be lost,” we have to remember that President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid never even brought the climate bill up for a vote.

In fact, it’s democrats who solidified the conservative voting bloc for the Citizens United case. Twenty-two democrats voted to ratify the nomination of Supreme Court Justice John Roberts  and none filibustered the nomination of Justice Alito.

Similarly, when <insert large environmental nonprofit here> asks you to make an end of year donation, instead ask them if they are ready to abandon their failed tactics. Hold onto your wallet and ask them what they plan to do differently.

So, How Do We Save the Planet?

First, we have to recognize that our movement has failed because we’ve hitched its success to the votes of elected officials whose influence is legally bought and paid for by corporate interests on an ongoing basis.

Climate activism is doomed as long as corporate money retains a central role in elections and government policy.

Second, we have to begin questioning the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and its long history of granting rights not found in the Constitution to corporations. If not for the questionable Bush v. Gore decision, Roberts and Alito might not even be on the Court. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito routinely rule on the side of wealthy shareholders. Says the People for the American Way:

“What is striking today, however, is how often the Roberts Court, like its predecessor the Rehnquist Court, hands down counter-intuitive 5-4 victories to corporations by ignoring clear precedents, twisting statutory language and distorting legislative intent. From labor and workplace law to environmental law, from consumer regulation to tort law and the all-important election law, the conservative-tilting Court has reached out to enshrine and elevate the power of business corporations --what some people have begun to call ‘corporate Americans’--over the rights of the old-fashioned human beings called citizens.”

Finally and most importantly, it’s time for environmental nonprofits and climate activists to work together in coalition to restore individual rights and reject this corporate takeover of our society.

We have to put as much effort as we’ve put into educating the public about climate change into educating people about how the rise of corporate power is blocking sensible climate policy, destroying our environment and putting future generations at risk.

With fifteen million unemployed Americans and anger on the left and the right about Citizens United, there is a huge opportunity to organize against the continued consolidation of corporate power.

Climate organizations and activists of all kinds need to unite to lead a movement to restore rights for individuals and the environment and reject the dominance of corporate power and money in our public institutions.

After Citizens United, with Republicans in control of the house and redistricting and many democrats already influenced by corporate interests, we’re not going to win by playing elections or by playing by the same old rules.

Now for what really matters...

I'm not too concerned about the outcome of Tuesday’s election. There's only one major issue facing America today and it's not that the Democratic congressional majority is too slim. It’s time to put to rest the myth that electing more democrats will lead to the change we believe in.

While you may not yet be ready to accept this, the primary issue facing America today is an increasingly successful movement by wealthy shareholders of multinational corporations seizing power and rights from individuals.

Choose any issue e.g. the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, health care, the environment, job loss and the decline of the middle class, immigration, gay rights, the drug war, campaign finance and you will find corporate influence either directly driving policy or manipulating the issue to build power.

The battle between industry and individuals pre-dates our republic but we are essentially in the midst of a rapidly escalating class war in which ordinary Americans are losing.

Despite the rabid media coverage of the Tea Party this year, few reports noted the common thread of concern for individual rights that stretches across the American political spectrum. This can be seen most clearly in the universal outrage to the Supreme Court's awful Citizens United decision, from radical left to radical right. Surely, there is an opportunity here to bring people together for change.

Oedipus Wrecks: Obama's Failing Presidency

From the day he took office, President Obama and his advisors have been working feverishly to avoid the "missteps" that led to the Clinton midterm backlash. That which they so deeply feared and worked to avoid may now be upon them. How did this happen?

Much of Obama's current political weakness stems from his adoption of terrible policy, often favoring corporations, which can be torn apart by both the left and the right.

The fact that everyone hates a bill does not necessarily indicate good compromise. In Obama's case, it's usually indicated bad policy that solves nothing for anyone.

I often joke that Obama is the most successful Republican president since Reagan. Most of the major legislation he's signed follows in the conservative mold, solidifying corporate power and occasionally giving lip service to the rights of individuals.

It's certainly possible that Obama is a progressive who has been poorly advised to govern as a centrist in order to avoid the kind of political midterm defeat that he ironically now faces. The problem is that he was elected on a platform for change and he's leading preservation of the establishment.

Compromise Legislation Not Values

It's simply not credible when the century's greatest orator throws up his hands saying he doesn't have the votes.

It's okay to compromise on legislation but never our values. Unfortunately, Obama compromises both, in his rhetoric and his legislation.

The health care bill is a blatant giveaway of tax dollars to corporate insurers without the consumer protections and cost controls needed to actually make anything work. The most blaring defect to me is the right of insurers to drop coverage of the seriously ill by paying a $100 per day penalty.

Similarly, there's no great mystery to why we're in the midst of a jobless economic recovery. Obama has continued decades old policies of globalization that reward the export of jobs and production by corporate entities that pay almost no tax here at home.

For some reason, Obama negotiates by staking out weak compromise positions on terrible legislation then fighting for them. He’s essentially been trying to lead towards the middle rather than advocating for sound public policy that works. This country needs not a Commander but an Educator in Chief willing to take risks to push us forward.

The events of this election cycle demonstrate that people across the political spectrum intuitively sense that there's something increasingly wrong with our country but don't necessarily know how to direct their energy. Sadly, President Obama abdicated the mantle of change the day he stopped leading the way to actual reform.

Neither has the Democratic Party fought for individual rights. Repeatedly over the past two years, mainstream democratic leaders with strong ties to corporate money and lobbyists have undermined sensible legislation.

The failures of this Congress have finally convinced me that electing more democrats will not provide the change we need. In fact, I’d rather have principled gridlock than what we have now - silent acquiescence to increasingly bankrupt policies. 

If anything, it’s the lack of leadership by Obama and the Democrats that have led to today’s widely predicted election losses. It’s certainly not the platform of unrestrained corporate power of the Republican Party and the fragmented Tea Party, itself a child of corporate lobbyists.

The Way Forward

What’s most notable to me about the first two years of Obama’s presidency is the near complete and utter failure of key progressive groups. Anti-war activists, climate activists and health care activists pretty much all failed to effect change.

It’s time for progressives to stop blindly funding and supporting the corporatist Democratic Party and its candidates hoping for change that never comes. 

Neither can we continue to fund the ineffective strategies used by many progressive nonprofit organizations. 

How hot will we let the planet get before we admit to ourselves that the tactics we’ve been using are failing? How broke our country? How corrupt our government?

It’s time for progressive nonprofits and activists to fight the growth and consolidation of corporate power as their primary agenda. It's time for us to collaborate to strengthen individual rights and deconstruct corporate power.

I’m a big fan of the Community and Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) for two reasons: 1) they are out there on the front lines teaching activists about the historical, cultural and legal framework of corporate power in America and 2) they are teaching activists how to focus on building rights rather than falling into the tired failed scripts that most organizations follow.

I think this election cycle has actually helped highlight the opportunities to build bridges between the left and right in America. As an example, CELDF often works with dyed in the wool Republicans working to protect their communities from the environmental and economic harms from corporations.

If we really are the ones we’ve been waiting for then it’s time we recognize the battlefield isn’t terrorism…it’s the wealthy shareholders of multinational corporations stealing our democracy, playing the least educated among us as pawns to cast the deciding vote.

What are we going to do about it?

Pennsylvania Township Declares Freedom from Fracking

I love it when two of my favorite organizations team up ... in this case, Yes Magazine covering CELDF's work in Pennsylvania to help communities protect their local environments form harmful corporate practices.

One small community in western Pennsylvania wanted more say over what happens within its borders. Licking Township, population 500, chose to defy state law with its own local ordinance, banning corporations from dumping fracking wastewater within its borders. Licking sits atop the Marcellus Shale, a geological formation that contains large and mostly untapped natural gas reserves. On Oct. 12, 2010, the Licking Township Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to ban corporations from dumping fracking wastewater within the township.

"When it comes to land use issues and the preservation of important resources, the local community is best suited to set priorities as they feel impacts most acutely," said Mik Robertson, chairman of the Licking Township Supervisors. 

More interestingly is news that Pittsburgh, a metropolis with nearly 2.3 million residents is prepared to pass a similar ordinance.

Read the full article

Professor Lawrence Lessig on our Fundraising Congress

Recognizing you have a problem is the first step towards recovery. Professor Lessig succinctly put the problem with our country's federal policies in an excellent and concise essay in the San Francisco Chronicle today:

There was a way Obama might have governed differently. It would have been risky, but in his first speech to the nation, he could have built on the rhetoric at the core of his campaign. On Jan. 20, 2009, Obama could have said: America has spoken. It has demanded fundamental change. I commit to work with Congress to produce it. But if we fail, or more precisely, if Congress allows the special interests that control it to block change, it will be time to remake Congress. Not by throwing out the Democrats or the Republicans, but by throwing out both. If this Congress fails to deliver change, then we will change Congress.

Had he framed his administration in these terms, the failure to implement his agenda would not be the failure of Obama to woo Republicans. It would have been what America was already primed to believe: a failure of this corrupted institution.

We can hope that Obama recognizes these missteps. But as we've seen, hope will only get us so far. What's needed now is a citizens' movement to stop the Fundraising Congress. We need to demand change, including publicly funded elections, a seven-year ban on lobbying for any former member of Congress and amendments to the Constitution to assure that reform can survive the Roberts Supreme Court.

via articles.sfgate.com

As Democracy School leader Richard Grossman often points out, this is just more of the legalized corruption that is regularly accepted in our culture.

Is it time for the U.S. Treasury to provide digital cash?

The New York Times Credit and Debit Card Series raises a lot of interesting consumer questions, namely whether the emerging electronic currency system is simply a hidden private tax on commerce that largely benefits the big banks (yeah, those same ones we recently bailed out with taxpayer dollars):

For the financial year ended in June, Visa handled 40 billion transactions....While the cost per transaction may seem small, at Best Buy ... “these skyrocketing fees add up to hundreds of millions of dollars every year,” said Dee O’Malley, director of financial services. “Every additional dollar we are forced to pay credit card companies is another dollar we can’t use to hire employees, or pass along to our customers in the form of savings.” 

...some merchants are infuriated by a separate, larger fee, called interchange, that Visa makes them pay each time a debit or credit card is swiped. The fees, roughly 1 to 3 percent of each purchase, are forwarded to the cardholder’s bank to cover costs and promote the issuance of more Visa cards. - How Visa, Using Card Fees, Dominates a Market (NYT)

Most notably, credit cards have enabled online commerce. And, credit and debit cards offer tremendous advantages to carrying cash. However, as more and more transactions move from cash to the credit and debit card network, we've carved out a tiny portion but extremely large aggregate revenue stream for the private sector:

In the United States alone, banks that issue credit cards get an estimated $40 billion to $50 billion in income annually from interchange fees, which are the biggest single component of fees charged to merchants. - U.S. Looks to Australia on Credit Card Fees (NYT)

With debit transactions forecast to overtake cash purchases by 2012, the model has investors swooning: Visa’s stock traded at $88.14 on Monday, near a 52-week high, while shares of MasterCard, at $256.84 each, have soared by more than 450 percent since the company went public in 2006. - How Visa, Using Card Fees, Dominates a Market (NYT)

We all appreciate the convenience of ATMs but instead of passing along the savings of fewer bank tellers and branches, the banks created a whole new set of fees for themselves. Americans increasingly have to pay to get access to their money. I once dated a girl who withdrew $20 at a time from her ATM despite the $2 transaction fee.

Want to travel abroad? Getting cash from an ATM or using your credit card may cost you up to 3% (BoingBoing). Even just buying international travel tickets from inside the U.S. can incur these fees. Note: here are some ways to avoid this and here is a way to find better cards.

One of the duties of the U.S. Treasury is "effectively, promoting economic growth and stability". The Times series implicitly asks: is the electronic credit and debit card network creating a drag on our economy?

The prevalence of privatized digital payment systems is raising the prices of consumer products on pretty much everything we buy:

...the 1 to 3 percent or more of every transaction that merchants pay to accept the cards is a significant cost, and the small local retailers that make neighborhoods vibrant often pay a higher percentage. Stores then build those fees into higher prices, so people who aren’t earning any rewards can end up subsidizing those who do. - The Damage of Card Rewards (NYT)

Just as there are calls for the Treasury to stop minting pennies that cost more to produce than they're worth, I think it may be time for the government to recognize that providing secure, U.S. backed digital currency without the privatized tax imposed by MasterCard and Visa:

“A dollar is no longer a dollar in this country,” said Mallory Duncan, senior vice president of the National Retail Federation, a trade association. “It’s a Visa dollar. It’s only worth 99 cents because they take a piece of every one.” - How Visa, Using Card Fees, Dominates a Market (NYT)

There was a day and age where MasterCard and Visa provided a service of convenience that consumers were free to pay for. Today, having a credit card is a necessity - you can't rent a car  without one. 

Just as the government moves information and services online, it's time for it to provide digital options for our currency. Cash is a pre-Internet era currency.

In the United States, the Government Accountability Office last week issued a report showing that consumers who did not use credit cards “may be made worse off by paying higher prices for goods and services, as merchants pass on their increasing card acceptance costs to their customers.” - U.S. Looks to Australia on Credit Card Fees (NYT)

"Merchants say they cannot refuse Visa cards because it would result in lower sales." - How Visa, Using Card Fees, Dominates a Market (NYT)

We could choose to regulate MasterCard and Visa, but given what we've seen this year with healthcare, can we really trust Congress to legislate a fair take? 

The free market seems to be producing a cartel which is fixing prices and placing a drag on our economy. I want a public option.

If Medicare administrates for 6% what the private health insurers charge 20 - 30% to administrate, just think how ridiculously inexpensive our great country could make a public digital currency.

Until Reformed, Minimize Payments to Your Monopolistic Cable Provider

While this is a less serious issue than healthcare, most of us face unfairly high monthly service fees and poor customer service from our monopolistic local cable companies. In Seattle, we struggle with Comcast, which is poorly regulated by the City of Seattle. 

Until local governments require cable companies to provide high quality service at competitive rates and end common bundling practices, I suggest trying to minimize the money you're spending with them.

1) Call every six months to demand the lowest rate. It's ridiculous that a company providing a service regulated by the city is not required to provide a competitive rate, but that's the way it is in Seattle currently. In 2009, I managed to have my rate cut from $109 to $63 per month with the same service level. That's $552 annually for making one phone call. It helps to keep competitive junk mail offers in hand when you do this.

2) Comcast recently quietly increased its monthly cable modem rental to $60 annually. You can buy a used or refurbished modem at Amazon for about $35. Make sure you pick a cable modem compatible with your provider.

3) Consider transitioning more of your television viewing via online options. Cable Freedom Is a Click Away (New York Times) is an excellent primer on using the Internet to watch television using various services e.g. iTunes, Boxee, Hulu, Joost, Hulu, Netflix streaming et al. I currently use a MacMini, Apple LCD display and El Gato EyeTV 200 as my DVR and media center.

4) Contact your Mayor and City or County Council prior to the re-negotiation of their next contract with your cable provider. 

Read Glenn Fleishman's post The Killer App of 1900: Electricity about the need for broadband Internet reform in Seattle.  

Electric lights are different. Electricity is not in any sense a necessity, and under no conditions is it universally used by the people of a community. It is but a luxury enjoyed by a small proportion of the members of any municipality, and yet if the plant be owned and operated by the city, the burden of such ownership and operation must be borne by all the people through taxation. Now, electric light is not a necessity for every member of the community. It Is not the business of any one to see that I use electricity, or gas, or oil in my house, or even that I use any form of artificial light at all.

Also, check out this 2003 editorial by Jonathan Lawson: Comcast can do better by subscribers or visit his Reclaim the Media's organization website for information about their access campaigns: 

The $1.2 million payoff Comcast has offered may sound like a lot of money. It's not, considering the technology resources it would get in return. According to documents filed by Comcast in its recent unsuccessful lawsuit against the city of San Jose, the company estimated that a single cable channel had a value of $2.6 million per year (figure $1.3 million in King County's smaller market). The $1.2 million Comcast is offering King County for five channels works out to about $48,000 per channel per year. In short, King County is being offered a sucker deal, less than 4 cents on the dollar. Chump change, on top of a trail of broken promises and short-changing local non-commercial programming.

Don't let your city undersell its infrastructure! Get involved! Fleishman recommends a visit to Broadband.gov.

Starve the Health Insurance Beast

When your insurance company does business by multiple aliases, you know its scamming people. 

This past year, I spent $3,708 ($4,708 including the $1,000 deductible) on an insurance plan from Lifewise (a.k.a. Premera Blue Cross of Washington) that is expensive and increasingly difficult to navigate.

Beginning, January 1st, I'm moving to a catastrophic plan for $2,040 annually with a $1,850 deductible. It's much less out of pocket - even with deductible ($3,890 vs. $4,708), almost the same coverage - and I won't have to deal with the insurance company as closely.

If you're not fortunate enough to have employer-based health insurance (directly or via a spouse), you know that the so-called regulated insurance market for individuals is pretty awful.

Until Congress gets serious about health insurance reform (which it does not yet appear to be), Americans are going to continue to suffer, defenseless against this corrupt industry and its outrageous profits carved from the bodies of sick and dying people.

For now, I suggest spending as little as possible with these companies while providing yourselves with the minimum coverage and a catastrophic safety net.

Here are just a few of the ways Washington State health insurers cheat their customers:

• At my prior insurer, Regence Blue Shield, about 1/3 of my submissions for reimbursals were just never responded too a.k.a. circular filed/thrown away. I believe that Regence's policy is to throw away a certain percentage of submissions to increase profits, knowing that many people will just give up.
• Defining Deductible down. In car and home insurance, the term deductible is pretty straightforward. You pay a certain amount out of pocket, the insurance company pays anything above that amount. Premere and Regence are allowed to apply only reimbursable costs and only covered costs to your deductible.
• Paying lower or no benefits for providers certified as health professionals but labeled Out of Network by the insurance company. My new chiropractor charges $45/visit, less than my old "preferred" network chiropractor. But, he's not covered and the chiropractic benefits that were advertised to me are not extended to him.
• Unrealistic maximum payments for provider visits, below the cost of a typical charge
• Rejecting reimbursement requests. Expiring prescriptions and requiring costly, time-consuming, frequent visits to doctors before visiting specialists e.g. physical therapists. I'm waiting on two separate requests right now because of codes that the insurance company won't match up - even though all the providers are certified health professionals with legal invoices and chart notes.
• Higher and higher co-pays, now up to $25-$30 per visit
• Misleading marketing e.g. outpatient rehab (which sounds like substance/recovery services) is a term used to limit benefits for physical therapy
• Difficult to use websites. Premera recently downgraded its site making it much more difficult to use.
• Long hold times for customer service
• Vision and dental care are commonly excluded from health plans
• Dental plans have buy-in periods in which you can receive no benefits as well as ridiculously low coverage limits that don't pay for most catastrophic dental services.