<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<dsr:documentSearchResults size="10877" mode="q" baseURL="/find.dyn/news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091214/bs_nm/us_xto_exxon" urlParams="" pageSize="25" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.grassroots.com/xml/schemas/documentSearchResults1_0.xsd http://admin.grassroots.com/documentSearchResults1_0.xsd" xmlns:dsr="http://www.grassroots.com/xml/schemas/documentSearchResults1_0.xsd" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
    <dsr:responseTime search="16" facets="0">578</dsr:responseTime>
    <dst:pagingToggle xmlns:dst="http://www.grassroots.com/xml/schemas/documentSearchTypes1_0.xsd">on</dst:pagingToggle>
    <dst:documentOutput timeZone="America/Los_Angeles" xmlns:dst="http://www.grassroots.com/xml/schemas/documentSearchTypes1_0.xsd"/>
    <dst:criteria xmlns:dst="http://www.grassroots.com/xml/schemas/documentSearchTypes1_0.xsd"/>
    <dsr:paging>
        <dsr:nextPage>
            <dsr:urlParams>?index=25</dsr:urlParams>
            <dsr:url>/find.dyn/news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091214/bs_nm/us_xto_exxon?index=25</dsr:url>
            <dsr:pageSize>25</dsr:pageSize>
        </dsr:nextPage>
    </dsr:paging>
    <dsr:story score="0.021037534" indexId="11098">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-16T03:03:36.180-07:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33279</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Google's arrogant, self-righteous executives</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporateering/articles/?storyId=33279</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-15T17:01:00.000-07:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>Posted by John M. Simpson</dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>5264575</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content>Google &lt;a href="http://www.google.com/corporate/execs.html#eric" target="_blank">CEO Eric Schmidt's&lt;/a> recent speech to the &lt;a href="http://www.ameinfo.com/222534.html" target="_blank">Abu Dhabi Media Summit&lt;/a> offers a revealing glimpse...&lt;/a></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9877</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Blog Post</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>On the blog</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9916</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Corporateering</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9918</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Privacy</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10097</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Corporateering Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Fighting Corporateering</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>11589</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Google</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt>Google &lt;a href="http://www.google.com/corporate/execs.html#eric" target="_blank">CEO Eric Schmidt's&lt;/a> recent speech to the &lt;a href="http://www.ameinfo.com/222534.html" target="_blank">Abu Dhabi Media Summit&lt;/a> offers a revealing glimpse...&lt;/a></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021037534" indexId="11087">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-15T11:27:44.836-07:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33275</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Blaming Big Oil</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.oilwatchdog.org/?storyId=33275</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-15T11:26:00.000-07:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>By Editorial, LATimes</dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4563274</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content><![CDATA[<p>
<img class="icon" src="http://www.oilwatchdog.org/images/blog/5844684/media-cover.gif" />
</p>
<p>
Some refineries already have been closed, such as a Delaware facility
owned by Valero Energy and a New Jersey plant owned by Sunoco. Industry
analysts say there is little choice because of excess capacity, but
consumer advocates such as <a href="http://www.citizen.org/">Public Citizen</a> and Santa Monica-based <a href="http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/">Consumer Watchdog</a>
think refiners are just trying to keep the price of gas artificially
high by constraining supplies. Some advocates are calling on regulators
to probe whether the companies are violating antitrust laws.
</p>]]></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>8065</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Media Coverage</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>881</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt><![CDATA[<p>
<img class="icon" src="http://www.oilwatchdog.org/images/blog/5844684/media-cover.gif" />
</p>
<p>
Some refineries already have been closed, such as a Delaware facility
owned by Valero Energy and a New Jersey plant owned by Sunoco. Industry
analysts say there is little choice because of excess capacity, but
consumer advocates such as <a href="http://www.citizen.org/">Public Citizen</a> and Santa Monica-based <a href="http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/">Consumer Watchdog</a>
think refiners are just trying to keep the price of gas artificially
high by constraining supplies. Some advocates are calling on regulators
to probe whether the companies are violating antitrust laws.
</p>]]></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021037534" indexId="11086">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-15T11:21:27.980-07:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33274</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Blaming Big Oil</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/articles/?storyId=33274</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-15T11:12:00.000-07:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>By Editorial, &lt;font size="3">THE LOS ANGELES TIMES&lt;/font></dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4563274</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content><![CDATA[<strong>Critics see price-gouging as refinery capacity is cut; the industry says it's just business.</strong><br />
<br />
Today's problem isn't so much high prices, which have fallen since
2008. It's that actions by oil companies may be preventing them from
dropping as much as they should. The combination of the recession and
improved fuel efficiency has greatly reduced demand, and major refiners
are considering cutbacks, <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-refineries11-2010mar11%2C0%2C5317635.story">according to a report by Times staff writer Ronald D. White</a>.
Some refineries already have been closed, such as a Delaware facility
owned by Valero Energy and a New Jersey plant owned by Sunoco. Industry
analysts say there is little choice because of excess capacity, but
consumer advocates such as <a href="http://www.citizen.org/">Public Citizen</a> and Santa Monica-based <a href="http://www.consumerwatchdog.org">Consumer Watchdog</a>
think refiners are just trying to keep the price of gas artificially
high by constraining supplies. Some advocates are calling on regulators
to probe whether the companies are violating antitrust laws.]]></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9872</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>News Clipping</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>In the media</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9878</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Energy Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Cleaner, Cheaper, Energy</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10082</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Oil Watchdog</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10267</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Gas Prices</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt><![CDATA[<strong>Critics see price-gouging as refinery capacity is cut; the industry says it's just business.</strong><br />
<br />
Today's problem isn't so much high prices, which have fallen since
2008. It's that actions by oil companies may be preventing them from
dropping as much as they should. The combination of the recession and
improved fuel efficiency has greatly reduced demand, and major refiners
are considering cutbacks, <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-refineries11-2010mar11%2C0%2C5317635.story">according to a report by Times staff writer Ronald D. White</a>.
Some refineries already have been closed, such as a Delaware facility
owned by Valero Energy and a New Jersey plant owned by Sunoco. Industry
analysts say there is little choice because of excess capacity, but
consumer advocates such as <a href="http://www.citizen.org/">Public Citizen</a> and Santa Monica-based <a href="http://www.consumerwatchdog.org">Consumer Watchdog</a>
think refiners are just trying to keep the price of gas artificially
high by constraining supplies. Some advocates are calling on regulators
to probe whether the companies are violating antitrust laws.]]></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021037534" indexId="11090">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-15T12:32:25.692-07:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33277</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Insurance Ballot Fight Warms Up In Court</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/insurance/articles/?storyId=33277</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-13T12:27:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>By Dale Kasler, &lt;font size="3">THE SACRAMENTO BEE&lt;/font></dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4563274</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content>&lt;p>
Lawsuits ensued over just how that impact would be described in the
voter pamphlets, landing all three parties in court: Attoney General Jerry Brown, Harvey Rosenfield
and the backers of Proposition 17. Brown, for instance, insisted on language saying the initiative &amp;quot;will
allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who
do not have a history of continuous insurance coverage.&amp;quot; Backers of Proposition 17 wanted that language stricken, but the judge disagreed.
&lt;/p></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9872</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>News Clipping</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>In the media</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9879</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>legislation</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9881</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Insurance Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Affordable Car &amp; Home Insurance</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9883</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Politicians Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Keeping Politicians Honest</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9884</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Courts Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Going to Court</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9905</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Litigation</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9909</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Auto Insurance</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9911</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Prop 103</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10085</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Enforcing Prop. 103</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10228</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>vs. Insurers</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10259</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Insurance Reform</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10260</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Ballot Initiatives</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10264</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Sacramento</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt>&lt;p>
Lawsuits ensued over just how that impact would be described in the
voter pamphlets, landing all three parties in court: Attoney General Jerry Brown, Harvey Rosenfield
and the backers of Proposition 17. Brown, for instance, insisted on language saying the initiative &amp;quot;will
allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who
do not have a history of continuous insurance coverage.&amp;quot; Backers of Proposition 17 wanted that language stricken, but the judge disagreed.
&lt;/p></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021037534" indexId="11089">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-15T12:01:45.550-07:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33272</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Judges Review Language Of State Ballot Measures</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/insurance/articles/?storyId=33272</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-13T10:32:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>By Carol J. Williams, &lt;font size="3">THE LOS ANGELES TIMES&lt;/font></dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4563274</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content><![CDATA[<strong>A teachers union's effort to change wording in Prop. 14, which would allow open primaries, was largely rejected. Measures on car insurance and public financing got only minimal adjustments.</strong><br />
<br />
&quot;All Proposition 17 does is allow people to take it with them when they
move to a new insurance company and get the lower rate,&quot; argued Richard
Martland, an attorney for the supporters. But Consumer Watchdog founder Harvey Rosenfield said the measure is a
thinly disguised attempt by Mercury to be allowed to charge higher
rates for those it doesn't want to insure. Rosenfield's attorney,
Fredric Woocher, said the proposition is being misleadingly cast as an
opportunity for drivers to retain their loyalty discounts even if they
switch insurers. &quot;You can't take it with you,&quot; Woocher said. &quot;You are taking away the
one thing that makes persistency persistent. It would be like taking a
good student discount and extending it to people who fail.&quot;]]></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9872</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>News Clipping</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>In the media</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9879</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>legislation</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9881</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Insurance Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Affordable Car &amp; Home Insurance</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9883</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Politicians Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Keeping Politicians Honest</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9884</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Courts Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Going to Court</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9905</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Litigation</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9909</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Auto Insurance</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10085</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Enforcing Prop. 103</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10228</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>vs. Insurers</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10259</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Insurance Reform</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10260</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Ballot Initiatives</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10264</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Sacramento</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt><![CDATA[<strong>A teachers union's effort to change wording in Prop. 14, which would allow open primaries, was largely rejected. Measures on car insurance and public financing got only minimal adjustments.</strong><br />
<br />
&quot;All Proposition 17 does is allow people to take it with them when they
move to a new insurance company and get the lower rate,&quot; argued Richard
Martland, an attorney for the supporters. But Consumer Watchdog founder Harvey Rosenfield said the measure is a
thinly disguised attempt by Mercury to be allowed to charge higher
rates for those it doesn't want to insure. Rosenfield's attorney,
Fredric Woocher, said the proposition is being misleadingly cast as an
opportunity for drivers to retain their loyalty discounts even if they
switch insurers. &quot;You can't take it with you,&quot; Woocher said. &quot;You are taking away the
one thing that makes persistency persistent. It would be like taking a
good student discount and extending it to people who fail.&quot;]]></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021037534" indexId="11088">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-15T11:34:45.569-07:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33276</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Judge Rules On Proposition 17 Ballot Measure</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/insurance/articles/?storyId=33276</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-12T11:27:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>By Nannette Miranda, &lt;font size="3">KGO-TV ABC-7 SAN FRANCISCO, CA&lt;/font></dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4563274</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content><![CDATA[<p>
Consumer Watchdog argues Prop 17 also allows insurance companies to
charge a severe penalty to customers who do not have a history of
coverage, therefore, the voter pamphlet should say the initiative will
raise rates. &ldquo;It allows insurance companies to surcharge people just because they
didn&rsquo;t have previous insurance, maybe they didn&rsquo;t even have a car, or
they were in the military serving stateside, or they missed a single
payment on their insurance,&rdquo; said Harvey Rosenfield with Consumer
Watchdog.
</p>]]></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9872</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>News Clipping</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>In the media</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9879</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>legislation</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9881</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Insurance Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Affordable Car &amp; Home Insurance</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9883</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Politicians Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Keeping Politicians Honest</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9884</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Courts Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Going to Court</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9905</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Litigation</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9909</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Auto Insurance</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9911</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Prop 103</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10085</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Enforcing Prop. 103</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10228</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>vs. Insurers</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10259</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Insurance Reform</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10260</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Ballot Initiatives</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10264</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Sacramento</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt><![CDATA[<p>
Consumer Watchdog argues Prop 17 also allows insurance companies to
charge a severe penalty to customers who do not have a history of
coverage, therefore, the voter pamphlet should say the initiative will
raise rates. &ldquo;It allows insurance companies to surcharge people just because they
didn&rsquo;t have previous insurance, maybe they didn&rsquo;t even have a car, or
they were in the military serving stateside, or they missed a single
payment on their insurance,&rdquo; said Harvey Rosenfield with Consumer
Watchdog.
</p>]]></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021037534" indexId="11083">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-11T15:44:43.886-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33199</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Assembly Bill Would Slash Coverage Mandates For Health Insurers</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=33199</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-11T15:44:23.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>By Kenny Goldberg, &lt;font size="3">KPBS 89.5 FM (SAN DIEGO, CA)&lt;/font></dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4563274</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content><![CDATA[Modesto Assemblyman Tom Berryhill (R) has introduced a bill that would
allow insurers to drop some four-dozen coverage mandates. These include
overnight hospital stays for new mothers. Jerry Flanagan is with the non-profit <a href="http://www.consumerwatchdog.org//">Consumer Watchdog</a>. &quot;If you take those laws away, insurance companies can still charge as
much as they want, but provide far less health care,&quot; Flanagan argues.
&quot;That's really good for the insurance company, because they can keep
more of our money for themselves; it's the last thing you want to do
for patients.&quot;]]></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9872</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>News Clipping</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>In the media</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9879</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>legislation</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9880</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>lobbying</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9882</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Protecting Patients Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Protecting Patients</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9883</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Politicians Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Keeping Politicians Honest</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10077</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Action on Medical Care</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10079</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>HMO/PPO Abuse</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10219</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Health Insurer Accountability</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10261</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Campaign Finance</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10264</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Sacramento</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10321</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>deregulation</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt><![CDATA[Modesto Assemblyman Tom Berryhill (R) has introduced a bill that would
allow insurers to drop some four-dozen coverage mandates. These include
overnight hospital stays for new mothers. Jerry Flanagan is with the non-profit <a href="http://www.consumerwatchdog.org//">Consumer Watchdog</a>. &quot;If you take those laws away, insurance companies can still charge as
much as they want, but provide far less health care,&quot; Flanagan argues.
&quot;That's really good for the insurance company, because they can keep
more of our money for themselves; it's the last thing you want to do
for patients.&quot;]]></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021037534" indexId="11080">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-11T11:19:45.220-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33194</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Insurers Test Health Plans That Stress Patient Choices</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=33194</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-11T11:16:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>By Julie Appleby, &lt;font size="3">USA TODAY&lt;/font></dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4563274</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content><![CDATA[<p>
Workers at a Portland, Ore., steel mill soon will be able to pick a new
type of insurance that offers free care for some illnesses, such as
diabetes or depression, but requires hefty extra fees for treatments
deemed overused, including knee replacements, hysterectomies and heart
bypass surgery. The policies are among the first to apply financial incentives on both
sides of one important factor driving up the nation's health care tab:
The underuse of proven treatments and overuse of certain surgeries and
diagnostic tests that may be less valuable. But efforts to charge workers more for some treatments put employers in
the position of &quot;playing doctor&quot; and are well into a &quot;danger zone of...
limiting access to medical care,&quot; says Jerry Flanagan of the Santa
Monica, Calif.-based advocacy group Consumer Watchdog.<br />
</p>
<p>
&nbsp;
</p>]]></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9872</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>News Clipping</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>In the media</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9882</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Protecting Patients Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Protecting Patients</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10077</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Action on Medical Care</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10079</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>HMO/PPO Abuse</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10219</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Health Insurer Accountability</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt><![CDATA[<p>
Workers at a Portland, Ore., steel mill soon will be able to pick a new
type of insurance that offers free care for some illnesses, such as
diabetes or depression, but requires hefty extra fees for treatments
deemed overused, including knee replacements, hysterectomies and heart
bypass surgery. The policies are among the first to apply financial incentives on both
sides of one important factor driving up the nation's health care tab:
The underuse of proven treatments and overuse of certain surgeries and
diagnostic tests that may be less valuable. But efforts to charge workers more for some treatments put employers in
the position of &quot;playing doctor&quot; and are well into a &quot;danger zone of...
limiting access to medical care,&quot; says Jerry Flanagan of the Santa
Monica, Calif.-based advocacy group Consumer Watchdog.<br />
</p>
<p>
&nbsp;
</p>]]></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021037534" indexId="11085">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-15T10:35:25.121-07:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33193</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Insurance rate curbs continue to gain steam</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=33193</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-11T10:59:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>Posted by Carmen Balber</dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4529835</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content>&lt;p>
The latest round of exhorbitant rate increases nationally has helped
more and more people recognize what Consumer Watchdog has been arguing
for the last year: Congress cannot require all Americans to purchase
insurance from the for-profit insurance industry without real oversight
of what they charge ...
&lt;/p></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9877</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Blog Post</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>On the blog</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9882</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Protecting Patients Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Protecting Patients</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9883</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Politicians Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Keeping Politicians Honest</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9911</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Prop 103</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9914</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Affordable Medicine</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10077</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Action on Medical Care</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10079</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>HMO/PPO Abuse</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10219</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Health Insurer Accountability</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10259</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Insurance Reform</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10262</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Health Insurance Mandate</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10265</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Washington DC</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt>&lt;p>
The latest round of exhorbitant rate increases nationally has helped
more and more people recognize what Consumer Watchdog has been arguing
for the last year: Congress cannot require all Americans to purchase
insurance from the for-profit insurance industry without real oversight
of what they charge ...
&lt;/p></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021037534" indexId="11084">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-15T10:20:25.332-07:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33271</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>FTC May Put Kibosh On Google's AdMob Deal</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporateering/articles/?storyId=33271</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-11T10:14:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>By Erika Morphy, &lt;font size="3">E-COMMERCE TIMES&lt;/font></dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4563274</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content><![CDATA[Despite the fact that the mobile advertising market is still young and fragmented, U.S. regulators apparently are concerned that Google's proposed acquisition of AdMob could give it an unfair competitive advantage. Google got an inkling that the FTC might want to give the deal a second look shortly after it was announced. At the end of December, the company received a &quot;second request&quot; for
additional information from the agency, Paul Feng, group product
manager, wrote in <a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/12/update-on-our-admob-acquisition.html">Google's Public Policy blog</a>. Shortly thereafter, two consumer groups -- Consumer Watchdog and the
Center for Digital Democracy -- asked the Federal Trade Commission to <a href="http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/68996.html">block the deal</a>, arguing that it would lessen competition and harm consumers, advertisers and application developers, among others.]]></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9872</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>News Clipping</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>In the media</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9883</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Politicians Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Keeping Politicians Honest</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9916</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Corporateering</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9918</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Privacy</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10097</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Corporateering Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Fighting Corporateering</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10265</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Washington DC</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>11589</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Google</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt><![CDATA[Despite the fact that the mobile advertising market is still young and fragmented, U.S. regulators apparently are concerned that Google's proposed acquisition of AdMob could give it an unfair competitive advantage. Google got an inkling that the FTC might want to give the deal a second look shortly after it was announced. At the end of December, the company received a &quot;second request&quot; for
additional information from the agency, Paul Feng, group product
manager, wrote in <a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/12/update-on-our-admob-acquisition.html">Google's Public Policy blog</a>. Shortly thereafter, two consumer groups -- Consumer Watchdog and the
Center for Digital Democracy -- asked the Federal Trade Commission to <a href="http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/68996.html">block the deal</a>, arguing that it would lessen competition and harm consumers, advertisers and application developers, among others.]]></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021037534" indexId="11076">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-10T17:20:53.195-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33176</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>FTC reportedly seeking sworn statements in Google-AdMob deal</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporateering/articles/?storyId=33176</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-10T17:12:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>Posted by John M. Simpson</dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>5264575</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content><![CDATA[<p>
Antitrust regulators are reported by <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&amp;sid=aKExU2YhcqLU&amp;pos=4" target="_blank">Bloomberg news service</a> to be seeking sworn statements from <a href="http://www.google.com/corporate" target="_blank">Google's</a> competitors and advertisers as they continue to investigate the the Internet giant's proposed $750 million deal to buy <a href="http://www.admob.com/" target="_blank">AdMob</a>.
</p>]]></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9877</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Blog Post</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>On the blog</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9916</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Corporateering</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9918</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Privacy</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10097</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Corporateering Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Fighting Corporateering</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>11589</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Google</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt><![CDATA[<p>
Antitrust regulators are reported by <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&amp;sid=aKExU2YhcqLU&amp;pos=4" target="_blank">Bloomberg news service</a> to be seeking sworn statements from <a href="http://www.google.com/corporate" target="_blank">Google's</a> competitors and advertisers as they continue to investigate the the Internet giant's proposed $750 million deal to buy <a href="http://www.admob.com/" target="_blank">AdMob</a>.
</p>]]></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021037534" indexId="11077">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-11T09:47:45.032-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33175</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Health insurance premium curbs are catching on</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=33175</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-10T17:00:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>Posted by Judy Dugan</dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>5448270</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content><![CDATA[<p>
Consumer Watchdog's <a href="http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=33144">calls for tough and open health insurance rate regulation </a>are
being echoed and amplified. The latest instance is in Connecticut, the
home state of insurance companies, where Attorney General Earl
Blumenthal <a href="http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=33144">recently proposed major reforms </a>that would require the state to review and reject, modify or allow a rate change before it goes into effect. No more shrugging and letting it happen without a public review.
</p>]]></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9877</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Blog Post</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>On the blog</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9879</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>legislation</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9881</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Insurance Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Affordable Car &amp; Home Insurance</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9882</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Protecting Patients Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Protecting Patients</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9883</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Politicians Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Keeping Politicians Honest</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9911</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Prop 103</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9914</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Affordable Medicine</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10077</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Action on Medical Care</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10079</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>HMO/PPO Abuse</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10219</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Health Insurer Accountability</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10265</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Washington DC</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt><![CDATA[<p>
Consumer Watchdog's <a href="http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=33144">calls for tough and open health insurance rate regulation </a>are
being echoed and amplified. The latest instance is in Connecticut, the
home state of insurance companies, where Attorney General Earl
Blumenthal <a href="http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=33144">recently proposed major reforms </a>that would require the state to review and reject, modify or allow a rate change before it goes into effect. No more shrugging and letting it happen without a public review.
</p>]]></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021037534" indexId="11082">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-11T13:07:42.701-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33197</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>California Group Urges National Freeze On Health Insurance Rates</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=33197</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-10T13:03:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>By John Reichard, &lt;font size="3">CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY HEALTHBEAT&lt;/font></dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4563274</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content>President Obama should include a provision freezing health insurance
rates in the package of revisions Democrats are drafting for the
Senate-passed health care overhaul bill (HR 3590), a California-based
consumer group said Wednesday. Other provisions that the Consumer Watchdog group wants to see included
are a requirement that state regulators approve rate increases before
they go into effect, and that federal grants be made available to
states for developing these &amp;quot;prior approval&amp;quot; regulations. &amp;quot;Given the audacity of health insurance rate increases last year and
this year, and with the economy in deep recession, only federal
legislation can curb the spiral of unaffordability,&amp;quot; said Carmen
Balber, the Washington director for the group.</dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9872</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>News Clipping</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>In the media</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9879</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>legislation</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9881</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Insurance Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Affordable Car &amp; Home Insurance</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9882</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Protecting Patients Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Protecting Patients</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9883</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Politicians Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Keeping Politicians Honest</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9911</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Prop 103</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10077</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Action on Medical Care</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10079</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>HMO/PPO Abuse</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10219</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Health Insurer Accountability</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10265</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Washington DC</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt>President Obama should include a provision freezing health insurance
rates in the package of revisions Democrats are drafting for the
Senate-passed health care overhaul bill (HR 3590), a California-based
consumer group said Wednesday. Other provisions that the Consumer Watchdog group wants to see included
are a requirement that state regulators approve rate increases before
they go into effect, and that federal grants be made available to
states for developing these &amp;quot;prior approval&amp;quot; regulations. &amp;quot;Given the audacity of health insurance rate increases last year and
this year, and with the economy in deep recession, only federal
legislation can curb the spiral of unaffordability,&amp;quot; said Carmen
Balber, the Washington director for the group.</dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021037534" indexId="11073">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-10T12:35:16.051-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33170</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Put corporate political spending to a vote</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/politicians/articles/?storyId=33170</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-10T12:34:51.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>Posted by Carmen Balber</dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4529835</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content>&lt;p>
When the US Supreme Court decided to allow corporations to spend
money directly on campaign advertising, they opened the floodgates to
excessive spending by companies to change the outcome of elections. The
long-term solution is a...
&lt;/p></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9877</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Blog Post</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>On the blog</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9879</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>legislation</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9883</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Politicians Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Keeping Politicians Honest</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9907</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>DirtyMoneyWatch</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10088</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Reforming Politics</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10261</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Campaign Finance</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10265</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Washington DC</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt>&lt;p>
When the US Supreme Court decided to allow corporations to spend
money directly on campaign advertising, they opened the floodgates to
excessive spending by companies to change the outcome of elections. The
long-term solution is a...
&lt;/p></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021037534" indexId="11075">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-10T12:42:34.612-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33169</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Oil Co's Look At Refinery Cuts</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.oilwatchdog.org/?storyId=33169</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-10T12:02:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>Ron D. White, LA Times</dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4563274</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content><![CDATA[<img class="icon" src="http://www.oilwatchdog.org/images/blog/5844684/media-cover.gif" />
<p>
<strong>The
response to slumping gasoline use would likely mean higher prices for
drivers.</strong> Judy Dugan, research director for the Santa Monica-based advocacy group
Consumer Watchdog, said that &quot;closing or selling refineries to others
who would limit production would be a serious case of corporate
irresponsibility.&quot;
</p>]]></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>8065</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Media Coverage</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>881</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt><![CDATA[<img class="icon" src="http://www.oilwatchdog.org/images/blog/5844684/media-cover.gif" />
<p>
<strong>The
response to slumping gasoline use would likely mean higher prices for
drivers.</strong> Judy Dugan, research director for the Santa Monica-based advocacy group
Consumer Watchdog, said that &quot;closing or selling refineries to others
who would limit production would be a serious case of corporate
irresponsibility.&quot;
</p>]]></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021037534" indexId="11074">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-10T12:41:13.292-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33168</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Oil Companies Look At Permanent Refinery Cutbacks</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/articles/?storyId=33168</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-10T11:53:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>By Ronald D. White, &lt;font size="3">THE LOS ANGELES TIMES&lt;/font></dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4563274</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content><![CDATA[<strong>The
response to slumping gasoline use would likely mean higher prices for
drivers. Consumer advocates want regulators to examine the firms' plans.
</strong>
<p>
Consumer advocates want regulators to probe refinery closures or consolidations that slash supply. Judy Dugan, research director for the Santa Monica-based advocacy group
Consumer Watchdog, said that &quot;closing or selling refineries to others
who would limit production would be a serious case of corporate
irresponsibility.&quot;
</p>]]></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9872</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>News Clipping</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>In the media</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9878</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Energy Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Cleaner, Cheaper, Energy</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10082</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Oil Watchdog</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10267</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Gas Prices</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt><![CDATA[<strong>The
response to slumping gasoline use would likely mean higher prices for
drivers. Consumer advocates want regulators to examine the firms' plans.
</strong>
<p>
Consumer advocates want regulators to probe refinery closures or consolidations that slash supply. Judy Dugan, research director for the Santa Monica-based advocacy group
Consumer Watchdog, said that &quot;closing or selling refineries to others
who would limit production would be a serious case of corporate
irresponsibility.&quot;
</p>]]></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021037534" indexId="11081">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-11T11:23:06.527-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33195</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Calif. Regulators Defend Dropped Insurance Deals</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=33195</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-10T11:19:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>By Shaya Tayefe Mohajer, &lt;font size="3">ASSOCIATED PRESS&lt;/font></dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4563274</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content>LOS ANGELES, CA (AP) &amp;#8213; State insurance regulators on Wednesday defended their actions against health insurers after a report showed few consumers who complained that their coverage was canceled after they took ill actually benefited from state-negotiated settlements. The settlements may not have appealed to many consumers because they
were &amp;quot;very stilted towards insurance companies,&amp;quot; said Jerry Flanagan, a
health advocate for Consumer Watchdog. Consumers weren't allowed to hire lawyers for arbitration, and had to
prove all their past medical bills were &amp;quot;medically necessary, which is
a hard legal standard to meet&amp;quot; without a lawyer's help. Additionally, the coverage that was offered through arbitration was
usually a policy with a lower benefit than the wrongfully rescinded
policy, said Flanagan.</dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9872</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>News Clipping</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>In the media</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9882</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Protecting Patients Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Protecting Patients</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9883</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Politicians Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Keeping Politicians Honest</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9884</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Courts Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Going to Court</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9905</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Litigation</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10077</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Action on Medical Care</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10079</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>HMO/PPO Abuse</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10219</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Health Insurer Accountability</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10228</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>vs. Insurers</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10230</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Access to Justice</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10264</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Sacramento</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10342</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Unfair Billing</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt>LOS ANGELES, CA (AP) &amp;#8213; State insurance regulators on Wednesday defended their actions against health insurers after a report showed few consumers who complained that their coverage was canceled after they took ill actually benefited from state-negotiated settlements. The settlements may not have appealed to many consumers because they
were &amp;quot;very stilted towards insurance companies,&amp;quot; said Jerry Flanagan, a
health advocate for Consumer Watchdog. Consumers weren't allowed to hire lawyers for arbitration, and had to
prove all their past medical bills were &amp;quot;medically necessary, which is
a hard legal standard to meet&amp;quot; without a lawyer's help. Additionally, the coverage that was offered through arbitration was
usually a policy with a lower benefit than the wrongfully rescinded
policy, said Flanagan.</dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021037534" indexId="11070">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-10T10:34:58.240-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33167</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Profiting From Collusion: Why Californians Can't Afford Health Insurance</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=33167</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-10T10:33:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>By Don Monkerud, &lt;font size="3">COUNTERPUNCH.ORG&lt;/font></dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4563274</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content>California's Consumer Watchdog group is suing Anthem Blue Cross after
they raised health care insurance premiums 39 percent, but the company
isn't budging. Meanwhile Goldman Sachs recommended buying health insurance company
stock because competition is decreasing and prices are going up. The
Center for Retirement Research at Boston College estimates that &amp;quot;the
typical married couple at age 65 should expect to spend&amp;quot; a whopping
$197,000 on uninsured medical expenses. Obama urges action on a
watered-down health care bill, but the Republicans and conservative
Democrats just say no and collect money from the private health care
lobby. Will we continue to tolerate skyrocketing health care costs?</dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9872</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>News Clipping</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>In the media</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9879</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>legislation</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9880</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>lobbying</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9882</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Protecting Patients Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Protecting Patients</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9883</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Politicians Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Keeping Politicians Honest</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9884</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Courts Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Going to Court</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9905</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Litigation</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10077</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Action on Medical Care</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10079</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>HMO/PPO Abuse</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10219</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Health Insurer Accountability</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10222</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Universal Health Care</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10264</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Sacramento</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10265</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Washington DC</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10342</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Unfair Billing</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt>California's Consumer Watchdog group is suing Anthem Blue Cross after
they raised health care insurance premiums 39 percent, but the company
isn't budging. Meanwhile Goldman Sachs recommended buying health insurance company
stock because competition is decreasing and prices are going up. The
Center for Retirement Research at Boston College estimates that &amp;quot;the
typical married couple at age 65 should expect to spend&amp;quot; a whopping
$197,000 on uninsured medical expenses. Obama urges action on a
watered-down health care bill, but the Republicans and conservative
Democrats just say no and collect money from the private health care
lobby. Will we continue to tolerate skyrocketing health care costs?</dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021037534" indexId="11069">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-10T09:14:15.838-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33166</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Insurance Regulation Expert Calls For Freeze Of Health Rates Until 'Prior Approval' Regulation Is Adopted</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=33166</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-10T09:13:54.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>CONTACT: Jerry Flanagan, (310) 889-4912; or Carmen Balber, (202) 629-3043</dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4563274</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content>&lt;p>
Washington, DC -- Harvey Rosenfield, author of California&amp;rsquo;s landmark
insurance regulation Proposition 103&amp;mdash;recognized as the most successful
insurance regulation in the country&amp;mdash;was joined today by people
struggling to pay for health insurance in calling on President Obama
and Congress to impose a national freeze on health insurance rates as
part of the final round of votes on reform. Consumers must have a
breather from yearly premium hikes like the 39% increase planned by
Anthem Blue Cross, said Consumer Watchdog, which Rosenfield founded.
&lt;/p></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9871</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Press Release</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Breaking news</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9879</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>legislation</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9881</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Insurance Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Affordable Car &amp; Home Insurance</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9882</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Protecting Patients Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Protecting Patients</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9883</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Politicians Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Keeping Politicians Honest</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9911</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Prop 103</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10077</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Action on Medical Care</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10079</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>HMO/PPO Abuse</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10219</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Health Insurer Accountability</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10222</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Universal Health Care</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10259</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Insurance Reform</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10264</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Sacramento</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10265</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Washington DC</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10321</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>deregulation</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10342</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Unfair Billing</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt>&lt;p>
Washington, DC -- Harvey Rosenfield, author of California&amp;rsquo;s landmark
insurance regulation Proposition 103&amp;mdash;recognized as the most successful
insurance regulation in the country&amp;mdash;was joined today by people
struggling to pay for health insurance in calling on President Obama
and Congress to impose a national freeze on health insurance rates as
part of the final round of votes on reform. Consumers must have a
breather from yearly premium hikes like the 39% increase planned by
Anthem Blue Cross, said Consumer Watchdog, which Rosenfield founded.
&lt;/p></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021037534" indexId="11066">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-09T16:05:20.753-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33161</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Australian news video calls Google "a company on steroids"</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporateering/articles/?storyId=33161</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-09T15:53:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>Posted by John M. Simpson</dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>5264575</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content>&lt;p>
A video produced by &lt;a href="http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/well-here-we-are-then" target="_blank">Hungry Beast&lt;/a>, a weekly news show on Australian television puts Internet giant ...
&lt;/p></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9877</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Blog Post</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>On the blog</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9916</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Corporateering</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9918</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Privacy</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10097</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Corporateering Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Fighting Corporateering</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>11589</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Google</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt>&lt;p>
A video produced by &lt;a href="http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/well-here-we-are-then" target="_blank">Hungry Beast&lt;/a>, a weekly news show on Australian television puts Internet giant ...
&lt;/p></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021037534" indexId="11065">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-09T14:38:42.472-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33160</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Slide show features companies Google calls competition</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporateering/articles/?storyId=33160</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-09T13:56:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>Posted by John M. Simpson</dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>5264575</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content>I recently &lt;a href="http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporateering/articles/?storyId=33077" target="_blank">delved into Google's 10-K filing&lt;/a> covering 2009 with the &lt;a href="http://sec.gov/" target="_blank">Securities and Exchange...&lt;/a></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9877</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Blog Post</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>On the blog</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9916</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Corporateering</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9918</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Privacy</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10097</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Corporateering Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Fighting Corporateering</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>11589</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Google</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt>I recently &lt;a href="http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporateering/articles/?storyId=33077" target="_blank">delved into Google's 10-K filing&lt;/a> covering 2009 with the &lt;a href="http://sec.gov/" target="_blank">Securities and Exchange...&lt;/a></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021037534" indexId="11061">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-09T12:43:34.656-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33157</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Google Identifies Competitors</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporateering/articles/?storyId=33157</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-09T12:42:56.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>By Mike Swift, &lt;font size="3">THE SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS&lt;/font></dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4563274</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content><![CDATA[Google sees an Internet far more crowded with competitors than just a year ago. At least, that's what the company is telling government regulators. Critics of Google's dominance in search &mdash; Americans use Google for
about two thirds of U.S. searches, and the company has more than 70
percent of U.S. search advertising revenue, and about 90 percent in
Europe &mdash; say the expanded list of competitors is an attempt by Google
to paper over its dominance. &quot;I think they are feeling the heat from several serious antitrust
investigations, and that's reflected in the language they are using in
the 10-K,&quot; said John Simpson, of Consumer Watchdog. He argued in a
recent blog post that Google's statements that it has many competitors
actually proves that &quot;the opposite is actually true&quot; and that &quot;the real
risk to Google's business is not from competition,&quot; but that regulators
in the U.S. and Europe &quot;will act in the interest of consumers and force
the Internet giant to engage&quot; in competition.]]></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9872</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>News Clipping</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>In the media</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9916</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Corporateering</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9918</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Privacy</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10097</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Corporateering Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Fighting Corporateering</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>11589</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Google</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt><![CDATA[Google sees an Internet far more crowded with competitors than just a year ago. At least, that's what the company is telling government regulators. Critics of Google's dominance in search &mdash; Americans use Google for
about two thirds of U.S. searches, and the company has more than 70
percent of U.S. search advertising revenue, and about 90 percent in
Europe &mdash; say the expanded list of competitors is an attempt by Google
to paper over its dominance. &quot;I think they are feeling the heat from several serious antitrust
investigations, and that's reflected in the language they are using in
the 10-K,&quot; said John Simpson, of Consumer Watchdog. He argued in a
recent blog post that Google's statements that it has many competitors
actually proves that &quot;the opposite is actually true&quot; and that &quot;the real
risk to Google's business is not from competition,&quot; but that regulators
in the U.S. and Europe &quot;will act in the interest of consumers and force
the Internet giant to engage&quot; in competition.]]></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021037534" indexId="11063">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-09T13:02:38.352-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33156</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Sarah Palin wasn't the only Alaskan border-hopping for health care</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=33156</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-09T11:31:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>Posted by Judy Dugan</dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>5448270</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content>&lt;p>
Sarah Palin, the Cruella DeVille of anti-government-health care, caught everyone's attention with the story of her family hopping the
border from Skagway, Alaska, into the Yukon Territory for Canadian government health care when Palin was a child. &lt;a href="http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/03/08/13158001.html">Canadian newspapers&lt;/a>
noted cattily that Palin previously described going to Juneau, Alaska, for the
same treatment for her brother's burned foot. Whatever. I wanted to
know whether other Alaskans went to Canada for medical care--and still
do.
&lt;/p></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9877</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Blog Post</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>On the blog</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9882</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Protecting Patients Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Protecting Patients</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9883</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Politicians Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Keeping Politicians Honest</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9914</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Affordable Medicine</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10079</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>HMO/PPO Abuse</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10088</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Reforming Politics</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10219</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Health Insurer Accountability</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10222</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Universal Health Care</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10262</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Health Insurance Mandate</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10265</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Washington DC</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt>&lt;p>
Sarah Palin, the Cruella DeVille of anti-government-health care, caught everyone's attention with the story of her family hopping the
border from Skagway, Alaska, into the Yukon Territory for Canadian government health care when Palin was a child. &lt;a href="http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/03/08/13158001.html">Canadian newspapers&lt;/a>
noted cattily that Palin previously described going to Juneau, Alaska, for the
same treatment for her brother's burned foot. Whatever. I wanted to
know whether other Alaskans went to Canada for medical care--and still
do.
&lt;/p></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021037534" indexId="11062">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-09T12:59:01.531-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33155</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>The no. 1 cure for Anthem Blue Cross greed: Here's the plan, from the expert</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=33155</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-09T10:32:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>Posted by Judy Dugan</dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>5448270</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content>Harvey Rosenfield, the founder of Consumer Watchdog and the author of
California's landmark insurance regulation, is the original expert on
making insurance companies friendlier to consumers. So when he outlines
a plan to make health insurance more affordable--and combat price spikes
like the recent 39% annual increase by Anthem Blue Cross--he's got 20
years in the trenches making insurance companies toe the line, to back
him up.</dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9877</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Blog Post</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>On the blog</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9882</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Protecting Patients Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Protecting Patients</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9883</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Politicians Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Keeping Politicians Honest</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9914</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Affordable Medicine</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9916</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Corporateering</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10077</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Action on Medical Care</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10079</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>HMO/PPO Abuse</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10219</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Health Insurer Accountability</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10264</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Sacramento</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10265</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Washington DC</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10342</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Unfair Billing</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt>Harvey Rosenfield, the founder of Consumer Watchdog and the author of
California's landmark insurance regulation, is the original expert on
making insurance companies friendlier to consumers. So when he outlines
a plan to make health insurance more affordable--and combat price spikes
like the recent 39% annual increase by Anthem Blue Cross--he's got 20
years in the trenches making insurance companies toe the line, to back
him up.</dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021037534" indexId="11059">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-08T18:36:44.173-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33150</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Auto Insurer Revs Measure's Motor</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/insurance/articles/?storyId=33150</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-08T18:33:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>By Howard Fine, &lt;font size="3">THE LOS ANGELES BUSINESS JOURNAL&lt;/font></dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4563274</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content>Opponents, including Doug Heller, who works with Proposition 103 author
Harvey Rosenfield at Santa Monica-based Consumer Watchdog, said the
real aim of Mercury is to lift the ban on surcharges for drivers who
need to reinstate coverage after letting their auto insurance policies
lapse. &amp;ldquo;This would allow Mercury to jack up prices for customers they don&amp;rsquo;t
really want,&amp;rdquo; said Heller, spokesman for Campaign for Consumer Rights,
the main opposition group to Proposition 17.</dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9872</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>News Clipping</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>In the media</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9880</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>lobbying</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9881</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Insurance Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Affordable Car &amp; Home Insurance</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9909</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Auto Insurance</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9911</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Prop 103</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10088</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Reforming Politics</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10259</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Insurance Reform</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10260</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Ballot Initiatives</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10261</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Campaign Finance</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt>Opponents, including Doug Heller, who works with Proposition 103 author
Harvey Rosenfield at Santa Monica-based Consumer Watchdog, said the
real aim of Mercury is to lift the ban on surcharges for drivers who
need to reinstate coverage after letting their auto insurance policies
lapse. &amp;ldquo;This would allow Mercury to jack up prices for customers they don&amp;rsquo;t
really want,&amp;rdquo; said Heller, spokesman for Campaign for Consumer Rights,
the main opposition group to Proposition 17.</dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
</dsr:documentSearchResults>