Bank of America

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/finance/bofa.html 

 

Consumer complaints about Guide to Natural Healing

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/health/guide.html 

 

AT&T Wireless

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/cell_phones/att_wireless.htm  

 

Credit Cards

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/credit_cards/credit_cards.htm 

 

CheapTickets.Com

Business is based on Bad Faith

 

British Airways

Since associating themselves with Northwest Airline, an abusive American business, they became abusive.  Avoid British Airways.

To:
British Airways
Customer Relations
75-20 Astoria Blvd,
Jackson Heights, NY 11370

Reference:
British Airways Flight # 279
From Heathrow to LAX 
Date: Saturday, August 1, 2009

Management

The disappointment I, as most passengers, had experienced with your services on that flight was unprecedented. I had always had respect for BA until that momentous day. In fact, I preferred to pay more than $600 for my ticket for a total of $1612.56 just to avoid any airline that is American for I have lost my respect for American businesses. It is my belief that since you have associated yourselves with Northwest, an American company, similar to most American businesses in that bad faith, corruption and immoral business practices are what characterize the majority of businesses in the US. It is appalling. 

To begin with, you board your travelers without ensuring that your plane is functional. Then you discover that your aircraft required services. Instead of taking your passengers out of the plane, or arrange for another plane, your staff decided to keep us on the ground for three hours without air conditioning. In legal terms, this would be considered False Imprisonment. I could have never imagined that what I had always believed a decent airline as BA would act in such manner that would be nothing less than intentional infliction of emotional stress. 

Furthermore, after the suffering I had endured, considering my medical conditions, you misplace my luggage. When I went to the desk at LAX to report my luggage missing, I found a long line of travelers with the same problem and only ONE young lady handling all the claims with a manager standing uselessly next to her conducting a personal phone conversation instead of recognizing the difficulty of the situation and call for some assistance. 

Additionally, I informed the clerk who took my information that my luggage had my very important medications and I had to have it that night; she assured me I would. The fact was that the luggage arrived to my home at mid-day the next day. Appalling is an understatement. 

I shall report you to the authorities and shall list you on my website as one of the companies with whom not to do business. A formal letter of apology is in order.


Deeply Disappointed Passenger
Dr. Sabri Bebawi

Fight Customs at LAX-Los Angeles Airport

From: Dr. Sabri g. Bebawi, Ph.D.
sabri@sabri.org  

The Honorable Mayor Villaraigosa

I am Dr. Sabri Bebawi, a writing and journalism professor. I need to bring to your attention and to the attention of all elected officials of the city of Los Angeles that LAX Airport has literally become its own Police State, which is very un-American in nature. 

I have just arrived from Europe on Saturday, August 1 on the very inconsiderate airline British Airways. After having been under severe stress as we were left on the ground at Heathrow Airport for three hours without air-conditioning, and the long flight to LA, I found that my luggage was missing.

Standing in line for about an hour to report my luggage missing to the BA office, which is adjacent to the Customs area, I witnessed what can only be characterized as abuse that was nothing less than intentional infliction of emotional stress by the agents. They were treating everyone, Americans as well as Visitors, with complete disrespect, disregard to any decency, shouting and screaming at passengers, opening all luggage, throwing their contents aside and leaving the nervous and stressed passengers –young and old- to repack their suitcases as their faces depicted severe fear and strain and anxiety. This is not America, Mr. Mayor. 

Who are these agents? How are they hired? What level of education do they have? What criminal credentials have they acquired? Has America become a Police State? 

One can understand the humiliation that passengers go through leaving LAX, though still unjustified, one can tolerate it somewhat for the sake of security; however, entering into the country and suffer even more severe abuse is intolerable and a matter has to be addressed and looked at. I have traveled throughout the Western World and had never seen anything similar to what Americans do. Mr. Mayor, this is outrageous and resembles in my thoughts how the Nazis processed their victims. I believe you ought to tackle that issue. I was embarrassed as an American from the way foreign tourists were being treated, and if I were one, I would never come again to the US. 

I understand that the tone of my message is somewhat an angry tone, that is because I am. As an American who love this country, I have to be angry as I am certain you, too, would.

Copies to:

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger - HE NEVER REPLIED
President Barack Obama - PRESIDENT OBAMA REPLIED; UNFORTUNATELY I LOST HIS LETTER

California Senators: ONLY ONE SENATOR REPLIED

• BOYCOTT FOX NETWORK

Call your Cable Company to take Fox Network out of their line-up

 Fight Corrupt Corporate America and Their Abuses of the Public

From: senator@feinstein.senate.gov  [senator@feinstein.senate.gov ]
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 12:23 PM
To: Bebawi, Sabri
Subject: U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein responding to your message

Dear Dr. Bebawi:

Thank you for your letter expressing concern about Congress' recent consideration of a plan to meet our Nation's credit crisis with financial help from the Federal Government.

This is a difficult situation for which there are no perfect solutions, and I would like to share my thoughts and concerns with you. Please find attached two statements that I have given on the Senate floor detailing my reasons for supporting the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-343), which the President signed into law on October 3, 2008.

Once again, thank you for writing. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.

Statement of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein
In Support of the Economic Rescue Package

October 1, 2008

"Mr. President, I rise today to support the bipartisan economic rescue legislation.

It has been said that Senators have six-year terms for a reason. And that reason is to be able to take tough votes because it's right for the nation, and take tough votes when at times they may be adverse to the beliefs of your constituency.

This today is indeed a tough vote.

I want to thank the Banking Committee, particularly its chairman, Chris Dodd, and members on both sides of the aisle for their work on this.

So let me quickly begin.

This bill is not the bill that was put forward by Secretary Paulson on September 20th. His bill was essentially a non-starter - startling in its unbridled allocation of power to one man: the Secretary of Treasury whom we know now, and to a Secretary of Treasury after January whom we do not know.

It placed this man above the law, above administrative oversight and above Congressional action and essentially gave him $700 billion to do with what he thought best.

This bill didn't fly with virtually anyone who looked at it, particularly constituents, who have called in the tens of thousands all across this land.

My office has received over 91,000 calls and emails with over 86,000 opposed. The bill before us is not Paulson's three-page proposal. Rather, it is a bipartisan effort that adds oversight, accountability, assistance to homeowners, executive compensation limits and other measures to protect taxpayers.

But there still is a lot of misinformation on this bill.

This is not a $700 billion gift for Wall Street.

Rather, the federal government will buy equity in certain assets - both good and bad - to pump liquidity into the marketplace and unfreeze credit which is increasingly freezing and unavailable.

Over time, these assets will be sold and the federal government will be the first paid back on the investment.

The belief is that by doing this the federal government will clear much of the bad debt on the books of certain strategic financial institutions, restoring stability, adding liquidity and unfreezing credit.

Recently, we have seen major U.S. institutions fail:

Bear Stearns

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Lehman Brothers
Merrill Lynch
AIG
And, two retail banks - not investment banks:
Washington Mutual, and Wachovia

If we do nothing, more institutions will fail. Now, you may say: what does this mean to me? I work hard, I pay my bills, I pay cash.

Here's what it will mean to you: it will be harder for most Americans to get any credit. Therefore, jobs will be lost.

And we may well face a deep recession. California has 3.75 million small businesses with an average of 5.6 employees. That adds up to over 20 million jobs.

Some of these businesses are funded with cash, but most are funded with credit. When credit freezes, payrolls cannot be met. And when payrolls cannot be met, pink slips are sent out.

And this will happen to retailers, grocery stores, restaurants, electrical and plumbing contractors, apparel manufacturers, computer and electronics stores, and auto dealerships.

Sales at auto dealerships have fallen dramatically in the past year.

Ford sales are down 34 percent,
Chrysler sales are down 33 percent,
Toyota sales are down 29 percent, and
GM sales are down 16 percent.

The list will go on and on.

Importantly, there have now been several improvements to this bill. First, The FDIC insurance rate covering bank deposits has been increased from $100,000 to $250,000. Americans will know that their deposits are secure up to $250,000.

The legislation will provide tax relief to working families.

One example: the Alternative Minimum tax is a real problem. It was meant to apply only to 200 wealthy people, but it was never adjusted for inflation and it has crept down the income scale to the point where more than 25 million taxpayers today may well have to pay an Alternative Minimum Tax.

In California, 700,000 people paid this tax last year. But 4 million Californians will pay that tax this year unless we take action.

This bill takes that action. For one year it will prevent this tax increase.

The Congressional Budget Office has reviewed this bill and concluded that the net cost to taxpayers is "likely to be substantially less than $700 billion."

Again, these investments are first in line to be paid back.

It must be remembered that there was a great deal of criticism when the U.S. government bailed out Mexico in 1996 with $20 billion. The fact is, the money was paid back ahead of time and $600 million in profit was made

Let me give you the following points.

This bill mandates that the government provide loan modifications for the subprime mortgages it acquires. This will help keep families in homes rather than foreclosing and putting the house on a deteriorating housing market where property values drop and homes are looted.

The bill limits executive compensation.

It provides strong oversight and accountability, including a financial stability oversight board, a five-member Congressional oversight panel, an Inspector General, and a constant presence at Treasury by the Government Accountability Office.

This is the only choice Congress can make.

One can rail against it and vote no on it, but that's not going to solve the problem. We have one chance, and one chance only, to solve the problem, and it is this bill.

I wish I could write it differently. Others wish they could write it differently, but the fact is that we are faced with this. Again, there is no question this is a tough vote.

But there's no question that this is a vote that I believe has to be made."

U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein
Floor Statement on the Economic Rescue Proposal

September 26, 2008

"Mr. President, to date I have received from Californians more than 50,000 calls and letters, the great bulk of them in opposition to any form of meeting this crisis with financial help from the Federal Government. I wanted to come to the floor to very simply state how I see this and some of the principles that I hope will be forthcoming in this draft. Before I do so, I wish to pay particular commendation to Senator Dodd, Senator Schumer, Senator Bennett, and others who have been working so hard on this issue. I have tried to keep in touch -- I am not a negotiator; I am not on the committee -- but California is the biggest State, the largest economic engine, and people are really concerned.

We face the most significant economic crisis in 75 years right now. Swift and comprehensive action is crucial to the overall health of our economy. None of us wants to be in this position, and there are no good options here. Nobody likes the idea of spending massive sums of Government money to rescue major corporations from their bad financial decisions. But no one also should be fooled into thinking this problem only belongs to the banks and that it is a good idea to let them fail. The pain felt by Wall Street one day is felt there, and then 2,3,4 weeks down the pike, it is felt on Main Street.

The turbulence in our financial sector has already resulted in thousands of layoffs in the banking and finance sectors, and that number will skyrocket if there is a full collapse. The shock waves of failure will extend far beyond the banking and finance sectors. A shrinking pool of credit would affect the home loans, credit card limits, auto loans, and insurance policies of average Americans. I am receiving calls from people who tell me they want to buy a house, but they can't get the credit or the mortgage to do so. Why? Because that market of credit is drying up more rapidly one day after the other. It would have a major impact on State and local governments which would lose tens of millions of dollars, if not hundreds of millions of dollars.

Hurricane Ike shut down refineries on the gulf coast 2 weeks ago, and now, today, people are waiting hours in lines for gasoline in the South. Similarly, the collapse of the financial sector would have severe consequences for Americans all across the economic spectrum: for the person who owns the grocery store, the laundry, the bank, the insurance company. Then, if the worst happens, layoffs. And even more than that, somebody shows up for work and finds their business has closed because the owner of that business can't get credit to buy the goods he hopes to sell that week or that month. Wages and employment rates have already fallen even as the cost of basic necessities has skyrocketed. Our Nation is facing the highest unemployment rate in 5 years, at 6.1 percent. Over 605,000 jobs have been lost nationwide this year. My own State of California, a state of 38 million people, has the third highest unemployment rate in the Nation at 7.7 percent. That is 1.4 million people out of work today. One and a half million people -- that is bigger than some States. We have 1.5 million people out of work, and one-half million have had their unemployment insurance expire and have nothing today.

Congress is faced with a situation where we have to act and we have to do two things. We have to provide some reform in the system of regulation and oversight that is supposed to protect our economy. We also have to find a permanent and effective solution to keep liquidity and credit functioning so that markets can recover and make profit. The situation, I believe, is grave, and timely, prudent action is needed.

Just last night, the sixth largest bank in America -- Washington Mutual-- was seized by government regulators and most of its assets will be sold to JPMorgan Chase. This follows on the heels of bankruptcies and takeovers of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. If nothing is done, the crisis will continue to spread and one by one the dominos will fall.

Now, this isn't just about Wall Street. Because we are this credit society, the financial troubles facing major economic institutions will ricochet throughout this Nation and affect everyone. So I believe the need for action is clear. But that doesn't mean Congress should simply be a rubberstamp for an unprecedented and unbridled program.

My constituents by the thousands have made their views clear. I believe they are responding to the original 3-page proposal by the Secretary of the Treasury. It is clear by now that that 3-page proposal is a nonstarter. It is dead on arrival and that is good. Secretary Paulson's proposal asked Congress to write a $700 billion check to an economic czar who would have been empowered to spend it without any administrative oversight, legal requirements, or legislative review. Decisions made by the Treasury Secretary would be nonreviewable by any court or agency, and the fate of our entire economy would be committed to the sole discretion of one man alone -- the man we know today, and the man whom we don't know after January.

Additionally, the lack of governance or oversight in this plan was matched by the lack of a requirement for regular reports to Congress. This proposal stipulated that the economic czar, newly created, would report to Congress after the first three months with reports once every 6 months after that. This was untenable. Six months is an eternity when you are spending billions a week. The Treasury Secretary asked Congress to approve this massive program without delay or interference. It is hard to think of any other time in our history when Congress has been asked for so much money and so much power to be concentrated in the hands of one person. It is a nonstarter.

Yesterday, shortly before we met for the Democratic Policy Committee lunch, we were told there had been a bipartisan agreement on principles of a possible solution, and many of us rejoiced. We know that our Members, both Republican and Democrat, have been working hard to try to produce something that was positive. Then, all of a sudden, it changed. One Presidential candidate parachuted into town which proved to be enormously destructive to the process. Now, negotiations are back on the table, and as I say, we have just received a draft bill of certain principles.

I would like to outline quickly those principles that I think are important. First is a phase-in. No one wants to put $700 billion immediately at the discretion of one person or even a group of a very few people, no matter how bright, how skilled, how informed they might be on banking or finance principles. The funding should come in phases and Congress should have the opportunity to make its voice heard if the program isn't working or needs to be adjusted.

The second point: Oversight, accountability, and governance. The Treasury Secretary should not and must not have unbridled authority to determine winners and losers, essentially choosing which struggling financial institution will survive and which will not. The original plan placed all authority in the hands of this one man, and this is why I say it was DOA -- dead on arrival -- at the Congress. We must assure that controls are in place to watch taxpayer dollars and make sure they are well-spent fixing the problem, and that oversight by a governance committee and the Banking Committees are strong, and that they give the best opportunity for the American people to recover their investment and, yes, even eventually make a profit from that investment. That can be done and it has been done in the past.

I believe that frequent reporting to Congress is critical. Transparency, sunlight on this, is critical. So Congress should receive regular, timely briefings, perhaps weekly for the first quarter, on a program of this magnitude. A proposal should mandate frequent reporting and the public should be ensured of transparency to the maximum extent possible.

I also believe that within the first quarter -- and this, to me, is key -- a comprehensive legislative proposal for reform must be put forward. We must reform those speculative practices that impact price function of markets. We must deal with the unregulated practices that have furthered this crisis. Look. I represent a State that was cost $40 billion in the Enron episode during 1999 and 2000 by speculation, by manipulation, and by fraud. There still is inadequate regulation of energy commodities sold on the futures market. And that is just one point in all of this. We must prevent these things from happening. The only way to do it is to improve the transparency of all markets. No hidden deals. Swaps, in my view, should be ended. The London loophole should be ended.

We have to outline rules for increasing regulation of the mortgage-backed securities market, along with comprehensive oversight of the mortgage industry and lending practices for both prime and subprime lending.

Senator Martinez of Florida and I had a part in the earlier housing bill, which included our legislation entitled the SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act. We found that the market was rife with fraud. We found there was one company that hired hairdressers and others who sold mortgages in their spare time. We found there were unscrupulous mortgage brokers out there unlicensed, preying upon people, walking off with tens of thousands of dollars of cash. This has to end. It has to be controlled. It has to be regulated.

So I believe the crisis of 2008 stems from the failure of Federal regulators to rein in this Wild West mentality of those Wall Street executives who led those firms and who thought that nothing was out of bounds. Every quick scheme was worth the time, and worth a try. Congress cannot ignore this as the root cause of the crisis. It was inherent in the subprime marketplace, and it has now spread to the prime mortgage marketplace.

It is also critical that accurate assessments of the value of these illiquid mortgage-related assets be performed to limit the taxpayers' exposure to risk and structure purchases to ensure the greatest possible return on investment.

Taxpayer money must be shielded at all costs from risk to the greatest extent possible.

Reciprocity is not a bad concept if you can carry it out. The Government must not simply act as a repository for risky investments that have gone bad. An economic rescue effort that serves taxpayers well must allow them to benefit from the potential profits of rescued entities. So a model -- and it may well be in these new principles -- must be developed to ensure the taxpayers are not only the first paid back but have an opportunity to share in future profits through warrants and/or stocks.

As to executive compensation limits, simply put, Californians are frosted by the absence of controls on executive compensation. Virtually all of the 50,000 phone calls and letters mentioned this one way or another. There must be limits. I am told that the reason the Treasury Secretary does not want limits on executive compensation is because he believes that an executive then will not bring his company in to partake in any program that is set up. Here is my response to that: We can put that executive on his boat, take that boat out in the ocean, and set it on fire. If that is how he feels, that is what should happen, or his company doesn't come in. But to say that the Federal Government is going to be responsible for tens of millions of dollars of executive salaries, golden parachutes, whether they are a matter of contract right or not, is not acceptable to the average person whose taxpayer dollars are used in this bailout. That is just fact.

The one proposal that was made by one of the Presidential candidates that I agree with is that there should be a limit of $400,000 on executive compensation. If they don't like it, too bad, don't participate in the program. As I have talked with people on Wall Street and otherwise, they don't believe it is true that an executive, if his pay is tailored down, will not bring a company in that needs help. I hope that is true. I believe there should be precise limits set on executive pay.

Finally, as to tangible benefits for Main Street in the form of mortgage relief, there have been more than 500,000 foreclosures in my home State of California so far this year. In the second quarter of this year, foreclosures were up 300 percent over the second quarter of 2007. More than 800,000 are predicted before this year is over.

I have a city in California where one out of every 25 homes is in foreclosure. This is new housing in subdivisions. As you look at it, you will see garage doors kicked in. You will see houses vandalized. You will see the grass and grounds dry. You will see the street sprinkled with "For Sale" signs, and nobody buys because the market has become so depressed.

This crisis has roots in the subprime housing boom that went bust, and it would be unconscionable for us to simply bailout Wall Street while leaving these homeowners to fend for themselves.

Everything I have been told, and I have talked to people in this business, here is what they tell me: It is more cost-effective to renegotiate a subprime loan and keep a family in a house than it is to foreclose and run the risks of what happens to that home on a depressed market as credit is drying up, as vandals loot it, as landscaping dries up, as more homes in the area become foreclosed upon; the way to go is to renegotiate these mortgages with the exiting homeowner wherever possible. I feel very strongly that should be the case.

I don't know what I or any of us will do if we authorize this kind of expenditure and we find down the pike in my State that the rest of the year, 800,000 to 1 million Americans are being thrown out of their homes despite this form of rescue effort. Think of what it means, Mr. President, in your State. You vote for this, any other Senator votes for it, and these foreclosures continue to take place and individual families continue to be thrown out of their homes. It is not a tenable situation.

I hope, if anybody is listening at all, that in the negotiating team, they will make a real effort to mandate in some way that subprime foreclosures be renegotiated, that families, wherever possible, who have an ability to pay, have that ability to pay met with a renegotiated loan. I have done this now in cases with families who were taken advantage of. We called the CEO of the bank, and the bank has seen that the loan was renegotiated, in one case in Los Angeles down to 2 percent. That is better than foreclosing and running the uncertainty of the sale of the asset in a very depressed housing market.

These are my thoughts. Again, it is easy to come to the floor and give your thoughts. It is much more difficult to sit at that negotiating table.

I once again thank those Senators on both sides of the aisle who really understand the nature of this crisis -- that it isn't only Wall Street, that it does involve Main Street, and if there is a serious crash, it will hurt tens of millions of Americans, many of them in irreparable ways. So we must do what we must do, and we must do it prudently and carefully.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of quorum."

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the Nation are available at my website http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/.  You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list at http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ENewsletterSignup.Signup .
 

From: senator@feinstein.senate.gov  
To: sabri@sabri.org
Subject: U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein responding to your message
Date: Feb 11, 2010 11:20 AM

Dear Dr. Bebawi:

I have received a copy of your letter to our nation's financial institutions expressing your concerns with their lending practices. I agree that some of these practices contributed in part to the economic downturn, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to your suggestions to address this issue going forward. 

In his State of the Union Address and fiscal year 2011 budget, President Obama called for imposing a "Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee," which he estimates would generate $90 billion over the next ten years to help offset losses incurred by the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The proposed fee would target large financial institutions with assets of more than $50 billion and would be based on a firm's liabilities. 

On December 11, 2009, the House of Representatives passed its version of financial market reform legislation, known as the "Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act" (H.R. 4173). Additionally, Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT) released draft regulatory reform legislation on November 10, 2009. Although these regulatory reform proposals differ in a number of respects, both of them include provisions to establish a Consumer Financial Protection Agency to regulate mortgages, credit cards, and other financial products. 

The proposed Fiscal Crisis Responsibility Fee is a positive step toward the goal of recouping TARP funds used to support large financial institutions. Many firms that accepted this Federal assistance tightened credit at a time when consumers and small businesses needed it most, and I agree that these funds should be returned in full. I also appreciate hearing your belief that the Consumer Financial Protection Agency would improve oversight and accountability in our financial markets. Please know that I will keep your support for these proposals in mind should they come before the full Senate. 

Once again, thank you for writing. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.

Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the Nation are available at my website http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/. You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list at http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ENewsletterSignup.Signup .

Fight Medical Insurance Companies

Anthem Blue Cross Abuses its Members

April 26, 2010

The Honorable President Barack Obama
The Honorable Senator Barbara Boxer
The Honorable Senator Dianne Feinstein

From: Dr. Sabri g. Bebawi
301 Bay Shore, Unit I
Long Beach, CA 90803
+1.562.242.4575

Dear Mr. President
Dear Senators

First, thank you for the great work you are all doing in trying to protect us, the American people, from corrupt corporations and from irregular and immoral practices. I wish most of us, Americans, were as brave, honest and patriotic as you are.

This is not the first time I write to you. I had written before bringing your attention to the improper practices, which should embarrass any concerned citizen, of the Homeland Security Personnel at Los Angeles Airport. This time, I am writing about an issue of great concern, not only to me, but to all Americans, health insurance companies’ inhumane practice. The purpose here is to bring the matter to your attention and to Congress; these abuses of the American people have to stop and abusive American Corporations have to be put on notice that their immoral practices must cease. 

Despite my neurological disorders, autoimmune system disorder, cancer and other medical issues, my medical insurance, Anthem Blue Cross, has repeatedly attempted to deprive me from my rights as insured. The latest of their scheme is their challenge to three reputable specialists: Dr. David Rosenberg, Neurologist; Dr. Nancy Godfrey, Rheumatologist; and Dr. Linda Kaplan, Neurologist. Please read their decision to deny me a very important treatment that all three named doctors and my brother, who is a doctor practicing abroad, have deemed necessary. 

Honorable Mr. President and Senators, I have always been proud of being an American; however, when such immoral activities by American Corporations are either ignored or confirmed and upheld by our government, one cannot help but feel dismayed and depressed. One feels betrayed by one’s own family and countrymen – a terrible feeling, I must add.

Respectfully

Sabri Bebawi

 

Dear Dr. Bebawi: Thank you for writing to me with your concerns about an increase in your health insurance premiums. I appreciate you bringing this issue to my attention, and I welcome this opportunity to explain what I am doing on this issue. Like you, I am concerned about the rising costs of health insurance. On February 26, 2010, I introduced legislation that would prevent insurance companies from enacting unfair health premium rate increases. My bill would create a national Health Insurance Rate Authority to prevent unreasonable premium rate increases. The increase recently announced by Anthem Blue Cross of California, which will raise certain medical insurance premiums by up to 39 percent, is unconscionable. It places a huge burden on people who are already struggling in these tough economic times, including the estimated 700,000 Anthem Blue Cross policyholders in California affected by this increase. Specifically, my bill will require companies to justify potentially unreasonable premium increases, using a process to be established by the Health and Human Services Secretary, and give the Secretary authority to deny or modify health insurance rate increases that are found to be unjustified. To advise the Secretary, it would also establish a Health Insurance Rate Authority with seven members -- two consumer representatives, one insurance industry representative, one physician, and three additional experts.  After a public outcry over the plan to increase premiums, Anthem Blue Cross has announced that it will delay the rate increases for two months to allow the State Department of Insurance to review their justification for these increases. I will be monitoring the Department of Insurance's investigation. Again, thank you for contacting me. If you should have any further comments or questions, please feel free to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards. Sincerely yours, Dianne Feinstein United States Senator Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the Nation are available at my website http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/ . You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list at http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ENewsletterSignup.Signup . Feel free to checkout my YouTube page http://www.youtube.com/Senatorfeinstein

From: senator@feinstein.senate.gov [senator@feinstein.senate.gov]  Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 12:23 PM To: Bebawi, Sabri Subject: U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein responding to your message Dear Dr. Bebawi: Thank you for your letter expressing concern about Congress' recent consideration of a plan to meet our Nation's credit crisis with financial help from the Federal Government. This is a difficult situation for which there are no perfect solutions, and I would like to share my thoughts and concerns with you. Please find attached two statements that I have given on the Senate floor detailing my reasons for supporting the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-343), which the President signed into law on October 3, 2008. Once again, thank you for writing. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards. Statement of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein In Support of the Economic Rescue Package October 1, 2008 "Mr. President, I rise today to support the bipartisan economic rescue legislation. It has been said that Senators have six-year terms for a reason. And that reason is to be able to take tough votes because it's right for the nation, and take tough votes when at times they may be adverse to the beliefs of your constituency. This today is indeed a tough vote. I want to thank the Banking Committee, particularly its chairman, Chris Dodd, and members on both sides of the aisle for their work on this. So let me quickly begin. This bill is not the bill that was put forward by Secretary Paulson on September 20th. His bill was essentially a non-starter - startling in its unbridled allocation of power to one man: the Secretary of Treasury whom we know now, and to a Secretary of Treasury after January whom we do not know. It placed this man above the law, above administrative oversight and above Congressional action and essentially gave him $700 billion to do with what he thought best. This bill didn't fly with virtually anyone who looked at it, particularly constituents, who have called in the tens of thousands all across this land. My office has received over 91,000 calls and emails with over 86,000 opposed. The bill before us is not Paulson's three-page proposal. Rather, it is a bipartisan effort that adds oversight, accountability, assistance to homeowners, executive compensation limits and other measures to protect taxpayers. But there still is a lot of misinformation on this bill. This is not a $700 billion gift for Wall Street. Rather, the federal government will buy equity in certain assets - both good and bad - to pump liquidity into the marketplace and unfreeze credit which is increasingly freezing and unavailable. Over time, these assets will be sold and the federal government will be the first paid back on the investment. The belief is that by doing this the federal government will clear much of the bad debt on the books of certain strategic financial institutions, restoring stability, adding liquidity and unfreezing credit. Recently, we have seen major U.S. institutions fail: Bear Stearns Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Lehman Brothers Merrill Lynch AIG And, two retail banks - not investment banks: Washington Mutual, and Wachovia If we do nothing, more institutions will fail. Now, you may say: what does this mean to me? I work hard, I pay my bills, I pay cash. Here's what it will mean to you: it will be harder for most Americans to get any credit. Therefore, jobs will be lost. And we may well face a deep recession. California has 3.75 million small businesses with an average of 5.6 employees. That adds up to over 20 million jobs. Some of these businesses are funded with cash, but most are funded with credit. When credit freezes, payrolls cannot be met. And when payrolls cannot be met, pink slips are sent out. And this will happen to retailers, grocery stores, restaurants, electrical and plumbing contractors, apparel manufacturers, computer and electronics stores, and auto dealerships. Sales at auto dealerships have fallen dramatically in the past year. Ford sales are down 34 percent, Chrysler sales are down 33 percent, Toyota sales are down 29 percent, and GM sales are down 16 percent. The list will go on and on. Importantly, there have now been several improvements to this bill. First, The FDIC insurance rate covering bank deposits has been increased from $100,000 to $250,000. Americans will know that their deposits are secure up to $250,000. The legislation will provide tax relief to working families. One example: the Alternative Minimum tax is a real problem. It was meant to apply only to 200 wealthy people, but it was never adjusted for inflation and it has crept down the income scale to the point where more than 25 million taxpayers today may well have to pay an Alternative Minimum Tax. In California, 700,000 people paid this tax last year. But 4 million Californians will pay that tax this year unless we take action. This bill takes that action. For one year it will prevent this tax increase. The Congressional Budget Office has reviewed this bill and concluded that the net cost to taxpayers is "likely to be substantially less than $700 billion." Again, these investments are first in line to be paid back. It must be remembered that there was a great deal of criticism when the U.S. government bailed out Mexico in 1996 with $20 billion. The fact is, the money was paid back ahead of time and $600 million in profit was made Let me give you the following points. This bill mandates that the government provide loan modifications for the subprime mortgages it acquires. This will help keep families in homes rather than foreclosing and putting the house on a deteriorating housing market where property values drop and homes are looted. The bill limits executive compensation. It provides strong oversight and accountability, including a financial stability oversight board, a five-member Congressional oversight panel, an Inspector General, and a constant presence at Treasury by the Government Accountability Office. This is the only choice Congress can make. One can rail against it and vote no on it, but that's not going to solve the problem. We have one chance, and one chance only, to solve the problem, and it is this bill. I wish I could write it differently. Others wish they could write it differently, but the fact is that we are faced with this. Again, there is no question this is a tough vote. But there's no question that this is a vote that I believe has to be made." U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein Floor Statement on the Economic Rescue Proposal September 26, 2008 "Mr. President, to date I have received from Californians more than 50,000 calls and letters, the great bulk of them in opposition to any form of meeting this crisis with financial help from the Federal Government. I wanted to come to the floor to very simply state how I see this and some of the principles that I hope will be forthcoming in this draft. Before I do so, I wish to pay particular commendation to Senator Dodd, Senator Schumer, Senator Bennett, and others who have been working so hard on this issue. I have tried to keep in touch -- I am not a negotiator; I am not on the committee -- but California is the biggest State, the largest economic engine, and people are really concerned. We face the most significant economic crisis in 75 years right now. Swift and comprehensive action is crucial to the overall health of our economy. None of us wants to be in this position, and there are no good options here. Nobody likes the idea of spending massive sums of Government money to rescue major corporations from their bad financial decisions. But no one also should be fooled into thinking this problem only belongs to the banks and that it is a good idea to let them fail. The pain felt by Wall Street one day is felt there, and then 2,3,4 weeks down the pike, it is felt on Main Street. The turbulence in our financial sector has already resulted in thousands of layoffs in the banking and finance sectors, and that number will skyrocket if there is a full collapse. The shock waves of failure will extend far beyond the banking and finance sectors. A shrinking pool of credit would affect the home loans, credit card limits, auto loans, and insurance policies of average Americans. I am receiving calls from people who tell me they want to buy a house, but they can't get the credit or the mortgage to do so. Why? Because that market of credit is drying up more rapidly one day after the other. It would have a major impact on State and local governments which would lose tens of millions of dollars, if not hundreds of millions of dollars. Hurricane Ike shut down refineries on the gulf coast 2 weeks ago, and now, today, people are waiting hours in lines for gasoline in the South. Similarly, the collapse of the financial sector would have severe consequences for Americans all across the economic spectrum: for the person who owns the grocery store, the laundry, the bank, the insurance company. Then, if the worst happens, layoffs. And even more than that, somebody shows up for work and finds their business has closed because the owner of that business can't get credit to buy the goods he hopes to sell that week or that month. Wages and employment rates have already fallen even as the cost of basic necessities has skyrocketed. Our Nation is facing the highest unemployment rate in 5 years, at 6.1 percent. Over 605,000 jobs have been lost nationwide this year. My own State of California, a state of 38 million people, has the third highest unemployment rate in the Nation at 7.7 percent. That is 1.4 million people out of work today. One and a half million people -- that is bigger than some States. We have 1.5 million people out of work, and one-half million have had their unemployment insurance expire and have nothing today. Congress is faced with a situation where we have to act and we have to do two things. We have to provide some reform in the system of regulation and oversight that is supposed to protect our economy. We also have to find a permanent and effective solution to keep liquidity and credit functioning so that markets can recover and make profit. The situation, I believe, is grave, and timely, prudent action is needed. Just last night, the sixth largest bank in America -- Washington Mutual-- was seized by government regulators and most of its assets will be sold to JPMorgan Chase. This follows on the heels of bankruptcies and takeovers of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. If nothing is done, the crisis will continue to spread and one by one the dominos will fall. Now, this isn't just about Wall Street. Because we are this credit society, the financial troubles facing major economic institutions will ricochet throughout this Nation and affect everyone. So I believe the need for action is clear. But that doesn't mean Congress should simply be a rubberstamp for an unprecedented and unbridled program. My constituents by the thousands have made their views clear. I believe they are responding to the original 3-page proposal by the Secretary of the Treasury. It is clear by now that that 3-page proposal is a nonstarter. It is dead on arrival and that is good. Secretary Paulson's proposal asked Congress to write a $700 billion check to an economic czar who would have been empowered to spend it without any administrative oversight, legal requirements, or legislative review. Decisions made by the Treasury Secretary would be nonreviewable by any court or agency, and the fate of our entire economy would be committed to the sole discretion of one man alone -- the man we know today, and the man whom we don't know after January. Additionally, the lack of governance or oversight in this plan was matched by the lack of a requirement for regular reports to Congress. This proposal stipulated that the economic czar, newly created, would report to Congress after the first three months with reports once every 6 months after that. This was untenable. Six months is an eternity when you are spending billions a week. The Treasury Secretary asked Congress to approve this massive program without delay or interference. It is hard to think of any other time in our history when Congress has been asked for so much money and so much power to be concentrated in the hands of one person. It is a nonstarter. Yesterday, shortly before we met for the Democratic Policy Committee lunch, we were told there had been a bipartisan agreement on principles of a possible solution, and many of us rejoiced. We know that our Members, both Republican and Democrat, have been working hard to try to produce something that was positive. Then, all of a sudden, it changed. One Presidential candidate parachuted into town which proved to be enormously destructive to the process. Now, negotiations are back on the table, and as I say, we have just received a draft bill of certain principles. I would like to outline quickly those principles that I think are important. First is a phase-in. No one wants to put $700 billion immediately at the discretion of one person or even a group of a very few people, no matter how bright, how skilled, how informed they might be on banking or finance principles. The funding should come in phases and Congress should have the opportunity to make its voice heard if the program isn't working or needs to be adjusted. The second point: Oversight, accountability, and governance. The Treasury Secretary should not and must not have unbridled authority to determine winners and losers, essentially choosing which struggling financial institution will survive and which will not. The original plan placed all authority in the hands of this one man, and this is why I say it was DOA -- dead on arrival -- at the Congress. We must assure that controls are in place to watch taxpayer dollars and make sure they are well-spent fixing the problem, and that oversight by a governance committee and the Banking Committees are strong, and that they give the best opportunity for the American people to recover their investment and, yes, even eventually make a profit from that investment. That can be done and it has been done in the past. I believe that frequent reporting to Congress is critical. Transparency, sunlight on this, is critical. So Congress should receive regular, timely briefings, perhaps weekly for the first quarter, on a program of this magnitude. A proposal should mandate frequent reporting and the public should be ensured of transparency to the maximum extent possible. I also believe that within the first quarter -- and this, to me, is key -- a comprehensive legislative proposal for reform must be put forward. We must reform those speculative practices that impact price function of markets. We must deal with the unregulated practices that have furthered this crisis. Look. I represent a State that was cost $40 billion in the Enron episode during 1999 and 2000 by speculation, by manipulation, and by fraud. There still is inadequate regulation of energy commodities sold on the futures market. And that is just one point in all of this. We must prevent these things from happening. The only way to do it is to improve the transparency of all markets. No hidden deals. Swaps, in my view, should be ended. The London loophole should be ended. We have to outline rules for increasing regulation of the mortgage-backed securities market, along with comprehensive oversight of the mortgage industry and lending practices for both prime and subprime lending. Senator Martinez of Florida and I had a part in the earlier housing bill, which included our legislation entitled the SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act. We found that the market was rife with fraud. We found there was one company that hired hairdressers and others who sold mortgages in their spare time. We found there were unscrupulous mortgage brokers out there unlicensed, preying upon people, walking off with tens of thousands of dollars of cash. This has to end. It has to be controlled. It has to be regulated. So I believe the crisis of 2008 stems from the failure of Federal regulators to rein in this Wild West mentality of those Wall Street executives who led those firms and who thought that nothing was out of bounds. Every quick scheme was worth the time, and worth a try. Congress cannot ignore this as the root cause of the crisis. It was inherent in the subprime marketplace, and it has now spread to the prime mortgage marketplace. It is also critical that accurate assessments of the value of these illiquid mortgage-related assets be performed to limit the taxpayers' exposure to risk and structure purchases to ensure the greatest possible return on investment. Taxpayer money must be shielded at all costs from risk to the greatest extent possible. Reciprocity is not a bad concept if you can carry it out. The Government must not simply act as a repository for risky investments that have gone bad. An economic rescue effort that serves taxpayers well must allow them to benefit from the potential profits of rescued entities. So a model -- and it may well be in these new principles -- must be developed to ensure the taxpayers are not only the first paid back but have an opportunity to share in future profits through warrants and/or stocks. As to executive compensation limits, simply put, Californians are frosted by the absence of controls on executive compensation. Virtually all of the 50,000 phone calls and letters mentioned this one way or another. There must be limits. I am told that the reason the Treasury Secretary does not want limits on executive compensation is because he believes that an executive then will not bring his company in to partake in any program that is set up. Here is my response to that: We can put that executive on his boat, take that boat out in the ocean, and set it on fire. If that is how he feels, that is what should happen, or his company doesn't come in. But to say that the Federal Government is going to be responsible for tens of millions of dollars of executive salaries, golden parachutes, whether they are a matter of contract right or not, is not acceptable to the average person whose taxpayer dollars are used in this bailout. That is just fact. The one proposal that was made by one of the Presidential candidates that I agree with is that there should be a limit of $400,000 on executive compensation. If they don't like it, too bad, don't participate in the program. As I have talked with people on Wall Street and otherwise, they don't believe it is true that an executive, if his pay is tailored down, will not bring a company in that needs help. I hope that is true. I believe there should be precise limits set on executive pay. Finally, as to tangible benefits for Main Street in the form of mortgage relief, there have been more than 500,000 foreclosures in my home State of California so far this year. In the second quarter of this year, foreclosures were up 300 percent over the second quarter of 2007. More than 800,000 are predicted before this year is over. I have a city in California where one out of every 25 homes is in foreclosure. This is new housing in subdivisions. As you look at it, you will see garage doors kicked in. You will see houses vandalized. You will see the grass and grounds dry. You will see the street sprinkled with "For Sale" signs, and nobody buys because the market has become so depressed. This crisis has roots in the subprime housing boom that went bust, and it would be unconscionable for us to simply bailout Wall Street while leaving these homeowners to fend for themselves. Everything I have been told, and I have talked to people in this business, here is what they tell me: It is more cost-effective to renegotiate a subprime loan and keep a family in a house than it is to foreclose and run the risks of what happens to that home on a depressed market as credit is drying up, as vandals loot it, as landscaping dries up, as more homes in the area become foreclosed upon; the way to go is to renegotiate these mortgages with the exiting homeowner wherever possible. I feel very strongly that should be the case. I don't know what I or any of us will do if we authorize this kind of expenditure and we find down the pike in my State that the rest of the year, 800,000 to 1 million Americans are being thrown out of their homes despite this form of rescue effort. Think of what it means, Mr. President, in your State. You vote for this, any other Senator votes for it, and these foreclosures continue to take place and individual families continue to be thrown out of their homes. It is not a tenable situation. I hope, if anybody is listening at all, that in the negotiating team, they will make a real effort to mandate in some way that subprime foreclosures be renegotiated, that families, wherever possible, who have an ability to pay, have that ability to pay met with a renegotiated loan. I have done this now in cases with families who were taken advantage of. We called the CEO of the bank, and the bank has seen that the loan was renegotiated, in one case in Los Angeles down to 2 percent. That is better than foreclosing and running the uncertainty of the sale of the asset in a very depressed housing market. These are my thoughts. Again, it is easy to come to the floor and give your thoughts. It is much more difficult to sit at that negotiating table. I once again thank those Senators on both sides of the aisle who really understand the nature of this crisis -- that it isn't only Wall Street, that it does involve Main Street, and if there is a serious crash, it will hurt tens of millions of Americans, many of them in irreparable ways. So we must do what we must do, and we must do it prudently and carefully. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of quorum." Sincerely yours, Dianne Feinstein United States Senator From: senator@feinstein.senate.gov [Add to Address Book] To: sabri@sabri.org Subject: U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein responding to your message Date: Feb 11, 2010 11:20 AM Dear Dr. Bebawi: I have received a copy of your letter to our nation's financial institutions expressing your concerns with their lending practices. I agree that some of these practices contributed in part to the economic downturn, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to your suggestions to address this issue going forward.  In his State of the Union Address and fiscal year 2011 budget, President Obama called for imposing a "Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee," which he estimates would generate $90 billion over the next ten years to help offset losses incurred by the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The proposed fee would target large financial institutions with assets of more than $50 billion and would be based on a firm's liabilities.  On December 11, 2009, the House of Representatives passed its version of financial market reform legislation, known as the "Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act" (H.R. 4173). Additionally, Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT) released draft regulatory reform legislation on November 10, 2009. Although these regulatory reform proposals differ in a number of respects, both of them include provisions to establish a Consumer Financial Protection Agency to regulate mortgages, credit cards, and other financial products.  The proposed Fiscal Crisis Responsibility Fee is a positive step toward the goal of recouping TARP funds used to support large financial institutions. Many firms that accepted this Federal assistance tightened credit at a time when consumers and small businesses needed it most, and I agree that these funds should be returned in full. I also appreciate hearing your belief that the Consumer Financial Protection Agency would improve oversight and accountability in our financial markets. Please know that I will keep your support for these proposals in mind should they come before the full Senate.  Once again, thank you for writing. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards. Sincerely yours, Dianne Feinstein United States Senator