THANK YOU FOR SMOKING

Health and life insurance companies in the US and abroad have nearly $4.5 billion invested in tobacco stocks, according to Harvard doctors.



“It’s the combined taxidermist and veterinarian approach: either way you get your dog back,” says David Himmelstein, an internist at the Harvard Medical School and co-author of a letter published in this week’s issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

The largest tobacco investor on the list, the 160-year old Prudential company with branches in the US and the UK, has more than $1.5 billion invested in tobacco stocks. The runner-up was Toronto-based Sun Life Financial, which apparently holds over $1 billion in Philip Morris (Altria) and other tobacco stocks. In total, seven companies that sell life, health, disability, or long-term care insurance, have major holdings in tobacco stock.

Why is it a big deal? “If you own a billion dollars [of tobacco stock], then you don’t want to see it go down,” says Himmelstein, “You are less likely to join anti-tobacco coalitions, endorse anti-tobacco legislation, basically, anything most health companies would want to participate in.”

The letter is the third report that the doctors – who all support a national healthcare program – have published in the last 14 years.

We decided to check in with some of the insurance companies mentioned in the letter to learn more about their policies with respect to tobacco stock. Prudential was unable to respond by press time. Sun Life, however, flatly denied the charges.

“Sun Life does not carry significant holdings in tobacco stocks,” says representative Steve Kee, “We do not disclose specific holdings and, for good measure, we conducted a review further to your inquiry and our exposure to ‘tobacco’ stocks is less than 0.005 percent [about $5 million] of the investment portfolio. Importantly, tobacco-related businesses can be part of a broader conglomerate involving other aspects such as food production.”

Himmelstein rechecked his numbers in the Osiris database, and said, “I fear that if Sun Life has a dispute, it is with Osiris not with us.”

In any event, the doctors’ persistence over the years seems to be working to some extent. They targeted MetLife and Cigna in their 1995 and 2000 letters to medical journals, but neither is listed in the latest reckoning, indicating that the insurers no longer hold enough to stock to be noted on filings for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, a representative for Cigna says they currently have no direct holdings in tobacco stock unless it is part of an index fund.

But with $4.5 billion still invested in Big Tobacco, many insurers are reaping profits from a cancer-causing industry. As Himmelstein puts it, "Is this who we want running our healthcare system?"

Orginal article at Scientific American blog.

GETTING REAL



As they say, governing is a lot different than campaigning. After the initial honeymoon infatuations, it is now apparent that promises are yielding to pragmatics and compromises almost across-the-board.

Here are two assessments that seem worthy of serious consideration: Paul Krugman on climate change legislation and Andrew Sullivan on the wars. What strikes me most is how easy it was to take a clear and righteous stand against the absurdities of the Bush-Cheney years and how difficult the choices appear as Obama gets real.

[UPDATES -- 22 may 2009: The first US Climate legislation cleared one of committees of the House last night. Grist has a review of the reactions to this historic legislation. There's also an excellent outline of the various positions of agreement and disagreement being staked out among US environmentalists. And, while still hoping for the improvement, treehugger notes that US Political Will and Scientific Recommendations Rapidly Drifting Apart.

Sullivan's blog The Daily Dish is all over the torture-Gitmo-security-vs-liberty debate. Here's a summary of reactions to yesterday's dueling Obama and Cheney speeches.]

A CHILLING EFFECT

IT CHILLS ME FOR SURE that today Obama reversed his previous decision to release the torture photos, saying the images could "further inflame anti-American opinion." My first reaction is to agree with Xeni Jardin at boingboing who said, "What BS. You know what will help dampen those flames? An end to war crimes impunity, and the dawn of that true transparency he promised America during his presidential campaign."


The story is all over the media and, of course, the opinions and interpretations are multiplying as well. I am grateful for the possibility that some courageous journalists and bloggers like Andrew Sullivan will hold Obama's toes to the fire of public scrutiny.

It's understandable that releasing new evidence of the widespread torture and abuse policy of Bush and Cheney, including techniques that were tailored specifically against Muslims, could inflame the populations of Iraq and Afghanistan, the two newest military theaters for the US. On the brink of what may be a brutal summer in all theaters in a war whose purpose is now opaque, one can understand the caution, and there is no reason to doubt the genuine worries of commanders in the field. But it is important to remember that it is the abuse that inflames, not the accounting of the abuse. And for Obama to act as an extension of the Bush era of secrecy is potentially more damaging to the US and its interests and service members. read more

[NOTE - 14 MAY - There's a VERY interesting follow-up from Sullivan in which he speculates that there may be some clever strategy behind Obama's "Rope-a-Dope" ways and quite a real politik dissent here.]

Yes, I'm willing to be compassionate about the errors of the past if, and only if, I am convinced that they are past. And, YES, I do want to see Cheney, et al, brought to full public exposure. That makes me feel that the real test will come not over photos but over whether the various investigations of wrong-doing will proceed, whether Gitmo will indeed be closed, or whether loss of transparency will continue.

Now, as I watch the great morality play unfolding, I read Obama's signals as meaning that I better wear a heavier coat and not assume that spring flowers will soon bloom.

But I still hope...