Rick Jacobs <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:31:24 -0700
George Halvorson <George.C.Halvorson@kp.org>
John Garcia < email@example.com>
Follow Up with John GarciaDear Mr. Halvorson:Mr. Garcia and I spoke a few hours ago. He said that he speaks on your behalf, but he could notprovide answers. We have learned with other very large corporations that telephonecommunication often gets lost or misconstrued, so I summarize here my recollection of ourconversation. Since Mr.Garcia said he'd have to check with lots of people before responding tostraightforward questions, I address this to you directly, as the Chief Executive Officer.In the interests of fostering a dialogue, Courage Campaign invites you to participate in an openforum conference call to advance the understanding of our 700,000 members and the generalpublic as to the following.1.Kaiseris a not-for-profit company that I and all California and US taxpayers subsidize. Assuch, it must operate in the public interest. Why shouldKaiserenjoy that status if it usestaxpayer subsidy dollars to "lobby" the legislature and the governor to the tune of $700,000(this year, as I understand) in opposition to regulation? How does your opposition to publicinput and regulation further my subsidy of you?2.Kaiserhas made over $5 billion in profits since the beginning of 2009. It has made $921million in profit in the first quarter of 2011, more than $10 million per day.Kaiserpays nofederal, state, or local taxes on that profit. As example, to address only one portion of Kaiser'spotential tax liability, if Kaisersimply paid state corporate income taxes at the same rate asother California for-profit service providers, our state would have received nearly $450 million intax revenues for the period between January 1, 2009 and March 30, 2011. Yet even though allCalifornians subsidize you, you refuse to allow us to participate in how you charge your policyholders and what you do with money that is given to you as part of the public trust. Why is thatappropriate or fair?3. You are compensated nearly $8 million per year, which is greater than the mediancompensation for Fortune 500 CEOs, yet your company also benefits from a taxpayer subsidyand from lack of regulation. Why is your compensation as head of a not-for-profit public trustappropriate or fair to the taxpayers and your policy holders?4. You have refused to negotiate in good faith with 4,000 professionals for over a year. Theystate that your lack of willingness to enter into good faith negotiations harms policy holdersafety. How is your unwillingness to compensate these employees fairly, with at least onepension plan when you and your colleagues benefit from as many as eight different plans, goodfor tax payers, policy holders and the community at large? Do you believe that you are infinitelymore valuable than say a respiration therapist or nurse, such that you benefit from multiplepension plans while that healthcare professional, who makes life and death decisions every day,receives no pension plan?