Copyright

(c) 2010-2025 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts

Monday, April 18, 2016

Creating a Competitive Economy: The Verizon Strike

Official photographic portrait of US President...
President Barack ObamaPhoto credit: Wikipedia
On Friday President Obama issued an Executive Order to increase competition in the markets including healthcare and broadband. Most obviously directed to the issues raised by the Verizon strike over low wages, monopolistic activity, stifling technological

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Workers’ Compensation and the Cancer Moonshot 2020

Official portrait of Vice President of the United States . (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
An exciting initiative, Cancer Moonshot 2020, is under underway establishing a coalition, of academics and insurers to work together to find a cure for cancer by the year 2020. Historically too many occupational exposures have resulted in the development of cancer. Participation by the entire workers’ compensation system in this new venture would create an exciting opportunity to advance worker health, reduce costs and strengthen the social remedial benefit program.

Friday, April 17, 2015

EEOC Issues Proposed Rule on Application of the ADA to Employer Wellness Programs

Employee wellness is a good thing for workers' compensation, especially when paying physicians baaed on an outcome than than by the hour . The proposed EEOC Rule would permit incentives, emphasize confidentiality

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) describing how Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to employer wellness programs that are part of group health plans. The NPRM is available in the Public Inspection portion of the Federal Register, and will be officially published on Monday, April 20, 2015. Members of the public have 60 days from that date (or until Friday, June 19) to submit comments.

The EEOC's proposed rule would provide much needed guidance to both employers and employees about how wellness programs offered as part of an employer's group health plan can comply with the ADA consistent with provisions governing wellness programs in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), as amended by the Affordable Care Act. In addition, the EEOC is also publishing a Fact Sheet for Small Businesses and a Question and Answer document for the general public.

Many employers that provide health insurance also offer workplace wellness programs intended to encourage healthier lifestyles or prevent disease. These programs sometimes use health risk assessments and biometric screenings to determine an employee's health risk factors, such as body weight and cholesterol, blood glucose, and blood pressure levels. Some of these programs offer financial and other incentives for employees who participate or achieve certain health outcomes.

Although the ADA limits the circumstances in which employers may ask employees about their health or require them to undergo medical examinations, it allows such inquiries and exams if they are voluntary and part of an employee health program.

The NPRM further requires that if an employee health program seeks information about employee health or medical examinations, the program must be reasonably likely to promote health or prevent disease. Employees may not be required to participate in a wellness program, and they may not be denied health coverage or disciplined if they refuse to participate

The EEOC's proposed rule makes clear that wellness programs are permitted under the ADA, but that they may not be used to discriminate based on disability. The rule explains that under the ADA, companies may offer incentives of up to 30 percent of the total cost of employee-only coverage in connection with wellness programs. These programs can include medical examinations or questions about employees' health (such as questions on a health risk assessment).

This limit is generally consistent with limits that HIPAA imposes on wellness programs. The rule also makes clear however, that the ADA provides important safeguards to employees to protect against discrimination based on disability. Accordingly, medical information collected as a part of a wellness program may be disclosed to employers only in aggregate form that does not reveal the employee's identity, and must be kept confidential in accordance with ADA requirements.

"The EEOC worked closely with the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Treasury in developing this NPRM to harmonize the ADA's requirement that medical inquiries and exams that are part of an employee health program must be voluntary, and HIPAA's goal of allowing incentives to encourage participation in wellness programs," said EEOC Chair Jenny R. Yang.

Employers also may not subject employees to interference with their ADA rights, threats, intimidation, or coercion for refusing to participate in a wellness program or for failing to achieve certain health outcomes. Finally, individuals with disabilities must be provided with reasonable accommodations that allow them to participate in wellness programs and to earn whatever incentive an employer offers.

In addition to setting a limit on incentives, the NPRM, which includes interpretive guidance that will be published along with the final rule, requires that employers provide employees a notice that describes what medical information will be collected, with whom it will be shared, how it will be used, and how it will be kept confidential. The interpretive guidance also includes an extensive discussion of both legal requirements and best practices that ensure confidentiality of employee medical information.

The Commission looks forward to receiving comments on the NPRM that will shape the final regulation. In addition, the Commission has asked a number of specific questions in the preamble to the NPRM on which it seeks comment before finalizing the rule. Methods for commenting are specified in the notice in the Federal Register.

One of the six national priorities identified by the Commission's Strategic Enforcement Plan is for the Commission to address emerging and developing issues in equal employment law, including issues involving the ADA among other possible issues.

The EEOC enforces the federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov.

Saturday, October 25, 2014

'We Suck' on Minimum Wage, U.S. Labor Chief Says; Christie Has 'Head in the Sand'

Today's post was shared by Steven Greenhouse and comes from www.bloomberg.com

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has “got his head in the sand” when it comes to the plight of minimum-wage earners in his state, U.S. Labor Secretary Tom Perez said.

“I’ve met with minimum-wage workers in New Jersey,” Perez said today at a Bloomberg News event in Washington. “I’ve met with folks who -- the only raise they got, they’re baggage handlers at Newark Airport, and the only raise they got was when the voters increased the minimum wage.”

President Barack Obama and his administration have been pushing Congress to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour from $7.25. Most Republicans in Congress and many Republican governors, including Christie, oppose the increase. The Democratic-led Senate has tried and failed repeatedly to advance the issue, and House Speaker John Boehner has said his Republican-led chamber won’t consider it.

“All the Democrats and the president want to talk about is minimum wage,” Christie, 52, told reporters today at a diner in Bordentown, New Jersey, where he was campaigning for congressional candidate Tom MacArthur, a Republican from Toms River. “The reason they want to do that is because they have not had the kind of growth in this country that we should be having in terms of wages and better jobs.”

New Jersey voters last November approved a constitutional amendment that will increase the...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Sunday, July 27, 2014

IRS prepping for Obamacare employer mandate in 2015

What will happen with the employer mandate? Will the consequences be that the workers' compensation carriers expand coverage to employer based policies that are cheaper than traditional workers' compenaation policies. Today's post is shared from Politico.com
The Obama administration signaled Thursday it’s not backing down from the controversial health law employer mandate that has been delayed twice and is the centerpiece of the House’s lawsuit against the president.
The IRS posted drafts of the forms that employers will have to fill out to comply with the Obamacare requirement that employers provide health insurance to workers.
Some business groups said the information was still too tentative and too incomplete to let them prepare for new obligations under the health law. “Our immense frustrations with the IRS continue,” Christine Pollack, vice president of Government Affairs at the Retail Industry Leaders Association, said in a statement.
An administration official said the White House is sticking to the timeline announced earlier this year. Companies with 50 to 99 employees will have another year — until 2016 — to start the coverage. Companies with 100 or more employees do have to comply next year, although they have two years to phase up so that they are covering 95 percent of their workers. Smaller businesses are exempt.
The House Republicans are planning to sue President Barack Obama, saying he overstepped his authority in...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Appeals Court Deals Major Blow to Implementation of Affordable Care Act


Today's post is shared by WSJ Law Blog and comes from blogs.wsj.com

A federal appeals court on Tuesday dealt a serious blow to the Obama administration’s implementation of its signature health-care law, striking down subsidies available to some consumers who purchase health coverage on insurance exchanges set up by the federal government.

WSJ’s Brent Kendall has more on the breaking legal development out of Washington:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, on a 2-1 vote, invalidated an Internal Revenue Service regulation that implemented a key piece of the 2010 Affordable Care Act. The regulation said subsidies for health insurance were available to qualifying middle- and low-income consumers whether they bought coverage on a state exchange or one run by the federal government.

The ruling potentially could cripple the Affordable Care Act by making subsidies unavailable in as many as 36 states where the federal government has run some or all of the insurance exchanges.

The court sided with challengers, four individuals and three employers, who argued the health law allowed subsidies only for insurance purchases made through state exchanges. The issue became an important one after the law was enacted because more than two-thirds of the states chose not to set up their own exchanges, relying on federally run exchanges instead.

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Friday, July 18, 2014

A Push to Give Steadier Shifts to Part-Timers

Today's post was shared by Steven Greenhouse and comes from www.nytimes.com



As more workers find their lives upended and their paychecks reduced by ever-changing, on-call schedules, government officials are trying to put limits on the harshest of those scheduling practices.
The actions reflect a growing national movement — fueled by women’s and labor groups — to curb practices that affect millions of families, like assigning just one or two days of work a week or requiring employees to work unpredictable hours that wreak havoc with everyday routines like college and child care.
The recent, rapid spread of on-call employment to retail and other sectors has prompted proposals that would require companies to pay employees extra for on-call work and to give two weeks’ notice of a work schedule.
Vermont and San Francisco have adopted laws giving workers the right to request flexible or predictable schedules to make it easier to take care of children or aging parents. Scott M. Stringer, the New York City comptroller, is pressing the City Council to take up such legislation. And last month, President Obama ordered federal agencies to give the “right to request” to two million federal workers.
The new laws and proposals generally require an employer to discuss a new employee’s situation and to consider scheduling requests, but they do not require companies to accommodate individual schedules. Many businesses have opposed these measures, arguing that they represent improper government intrusion into private...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Monday, December 9, 2013

Tech Giants Issue Call for Limits on Government Surveillance of Users

Surveillance of workers is a two-way sword. As companies complain about it, they employ surveillance against their own workers to deny work related compensation claims. Today's post was shared by The New York Times and comes from www.nytimes.com

Eight prominent technology companies, bruised by revelations of government spying on their customers’ data and scrambling to repair the damage to their reputations, are mounting a public campaign to urge President Obama and Congress to set new limits on government surveillance.
On Monday the companies, led by Google and Microsoft, presented a plan to regulate online spying and urged the United States to lead a worldwide effort to restrict it. They accompanied it with an open letter, in the form of full-page ads in national newspapers, including The New York Times, and a website detailing their concerns.
It is the broadest and strongest effort by the companies, often archrivals, to speak with one voice to pressure the government. The tech industry, whose billionaire founders and executives are highly sought as political donors, forms a powerful interest group that is increasingly flexing its muscle in Washington.
“It’s now in their business and economic interest to protect their users’ privacy and to aggressively push for changes,” said Trevor Timm, an activist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “The N.S.A. mass-surveillance programs exist for a simple reason: cooperation with the tech and telecom companies. If the tech companies no longer want to cooperate, they have a lot of leverage to force significant reform.”
The political push by the technology companies opens a third front in their battle against government surveillance,...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Thursday, December 5, 2013

Meet the 32 Senate Republicans Who Voted to Continue LGBT Discrimination in the Workplace

Today's post was shared by Mother Jones and comes from www.motherjones.com
Louie Palu/ZUMA, Jay Mallin/ZUMA, Jeff Cook/ZUMA, Michael Reynolds/ZUMA and Jane Kelly/Shutterstock
On Thursday afternoon, the Senate passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a landmark bill that would end decades of employment discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans. The bill moved forward with support of 54 senators who caucus with the Democrats (Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania didn't vote because he was attending to his wife's surgery) as well as votes from 10 Republicans, only a few months after the Supreme Court ruled that the government must recognize same-sex marriages. But most GOP Senators came out against it, and House Speaker John Boehner has promised to oppose the bill, which means it will likely be killed in the House.
"One party in one house of Congress should not stand in the way of millions of Americans who want to go to work each day and simply be judged by the job they do," President Barack Obama said in a statement. "I urge the House Republican leadership to bring this bill to the floor for a vote and send it to my desk so I can sign it into law."
It's already illegal for companies to discriminate against Americans on the basis of age, disability, gender, race and religion. ENDA would add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list, protecting LGBT workers from being fired or denied benefits and promotions based on their sexual identity. (An amendment pushed by Sen. Rob...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Sunday, November 24, 2013

Wages Stagnate as U.S. Manufacturers Reap Record Profits

It appears that the "great rebound" in US wages has not happened. Wages set rates of compensation benefits paid, so the lower the wages the less benefits paid. Workers' Compensation payments have become recessive and overall workers are doing worse with present workers' compensation benefit programs than in the past decades. Today's post was shared by Steven Greenhouse and comes from www.businessweek.com

Machinist Michael Pargeter reached for a reference to a TV cartoon set in the Stone Age to explain why union members were spurning a contract offer from Boeing Co. (BA:US)
Wages would be set “back to the Flintstones era” with a plan to slow future raises for new employees, Pargeter, 62, said outside a Seattle union hall last week while ballots were being counted, referring to an animated television show about prehistoric family life.
Boeing’s quest for concessions and employees’ opposition exposed a fault line in U.S. industry’s post-recession comeback: Even with hiring and output robust enough to be dubbed a manufacturing renaissance by President Barack Obama, workers are falling behind. Factory pay hasn’t kept pace with inflation and has fallen 3 percent on that basis since May 2009, while average pay for all wage earners slid only about 1 percent.
“We need to focus on how many jobs there are that give an adult a chance to earn a decent living,” said Gordon Lafer, an associate professor at the University of Oregon’s Labor Education and Research Center in Eugene. “Too much of the discussion has been about the number of jobs, and that’s obviously important, but there’s also a...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Saturday, November 23, 2013

November 22, 1963 – A Personal Reflection and Alternative History If JFK Had Lived

Today's post is shared from Jay Causey, Esq. of the Washington State Bar.


Jay’s Collection of JFK Memorabilia
     I recall only a sense of numbness during the long walk back to the main campus in New Haven, Connecticut from an outlying athletic field where the Yale-Harvard freshman football game had been going on that Friday.  It had been eerily quiet in the stands for 30 minutes or so before the final announcement, with small transistor radios pressed to the heads of many as events unfolded in Dallas.  Then, but for a random police siren with no apparent purpose, there was mostly silence as people walked slowly away.
     1963 was a dramatically different time in the perception of the general public about what government could, or should, do.  I had gone to Yale imbued with the dynamic challenge of the inaugural speech in January of 1961 – “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”  I envisioned a potential State Department career, so I loaded up with Russian language, political science, and Russian and Eastern European history in my freshman year.  It was a real and palpable sense of mission experienced by many of us in that period that I’ve never quite seen again among similar age groups in the aftermath of presidential elections, even Barack Obama’s.
I hope that in the not distant future a large cohort of 17 and 18 year-olds will get to experience the same exhilarating inspiration and sense of purpose about the governance of our country that I felt for too brief a time over fifty years ago.
     In hindsight, and with all we now know about John Kennedy’s presidency behind the scenes, it’s perhaps easy to deride the level of enthusiasm and inspiration for change and service to country that a huge number of 17 and 18 year-olds had at the time.  But for me, and I think many, November 22, 1963 was – stealing from Don McLean’s American Pie – the “day the political music died.” With the loss of what the Kennedy “magic” had inspired, I lost the drive sometime later in my freshman year, and wandered off into an American history major, and then to law school with no particular purpose in mind.  I’ve been a political junkie since I was 11, and while still engaged in politics for fifty years following JFK’s death, it’s never felt the same.
     Surfing the internet, you can find quite a number of so-called “alternative histories” – books and articles by historians and political analysts playing out what might have been the course of American history if Kennedy had not been assassinated.  Most of these focus on what would have happened with Vietnam, the civil rights movement, the rise of the counterculture, etc., with differing conclusions.  I have a longer view about how JFK’s death, in my view, likely affected the next generations right up to the current era.  Some of those who have speculated about the future, had President Kennedy not died, haven’t even lived through the entire period, as I have.  Since I’m pretty well-read on Vietnam and our history from the mid-60’s through the 70’s, I’ll take my shot.
     Many think that because Kennedy was, nominally, a “hawk” in the early period of our Vietnam intervention, he would have continued to engage our country in that misadventure — that we would have experienced involvement on a scale not much different than what occurred under President Johnson, since the same so-called “best and the brightest” of the Kennedy administration would still have been forming policy.  I conclude differently.  One core belief of Kennedy’s was that American troops would not be fighting on the ground, contrary to the sabre rattling plans of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  JFK’s people had essentially faced the Chiefs down in the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962, when they were pounding the table for invasion and nuclear strikes.  And I think with Kennedy controlling Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, in a way Johnson really couldn’t, with his prior experience holding back the Chiefs, and with his ability to evolve in his thinking on critical matters, we would have de-escalated our involvement in Vietnam in his second term. (Like Johnson did, JFK would have easily swamped Barry Goldwater in the 1964 election.)  I believe as the situation in Vietnam eroded, Kennedy would have sided with the opinion of those in his kitchen cabinet vigorously counseling against increasing American troops on the ground, and that this would have happened well before Walter Cronkite’s famous pronouncement in March of 1968, after seeing Vietnam first hand, that the best we could achieve there was a stalemate, faced with an unwinnable war. 
     So what’s the point of going through the above “alternative history?”  Without the nation being mired in Vietnam in 1968, without an incumbent president consequently withdrawing from another term, and without the disarray of the Democrats due to all of the above, Richard Nixon would not likely have made his comeback and become president.  If no Nixon, then no Watergate, and no  resulting miasma created by the implosion of the executive branch, the final degradation of which being President Ford’s unconditional pardon of Nixon for his “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
     By this point in the mid 70’s, the American public was pretty exhausted by the seeming incompetence and venality of its government and the deceits of the Vietnam debacle then coming to light, and had become largely cynical about what the Beltway-driven federal government could do.  A fairly feckless administration under President Carter — a man of enormous intellect but who would not likely have risen to national prominence as a viable “outside the Beltway” candidate if the table had not been set by the prior eight years — did not help.
     During the 70’s, as Watergate dragged the national psyche into the dumpster and we watched the final collapse of Saigon, as the last helos lifted off the U.S. embassy, there was a sense we’d lost our “mojo,” our “toughest kid on the block” status.  In this environment arose a hardened right wing arguing, as many still do, that we failed the troops by not letting them “win the war,” and that, overall, government was the problem, not the solution to any problems.  Of course, the concept of the Vietnam conflict being winnable was, and always has been, an absurdity under the lens of cogent military and historical analysis, but this thesis became a driving force in getting the U.S. military back to a supposed position of supremacy in subsequent years, and the consequential hemorrhaging of the national budget.  More importantly, the “we” that government had traditionally been seen as – spearheading huge national projects – was increasingly replaced in societal hierarchy by the “I” of the supposedly heroic, self-made man or woman, whose success was all their own and which benefitted society more than any collective effort of the people.
Fifty years ago there was consensus among even the most diametrically opposed politicians from opposing political parties that a fully functioning government was an absolute requirement for the country and our democratic processes.
     Cue the rise of Reagan, and Reaganism, which offered the comfort of a new feel-good, Hollywood-like “Morning in America” with the iconography of the mythical cowboy of the American west leading us out of our national torpor.  As Reagan intoned:  “The eight scariest words you’ll ever hear are: ‘I’m the government and I’m here to help’.”  The celebration of the “I”, and the demotion of “we the people” begins with Reagan, as does the inculcation in at least a generation of younger Americans the precept that government can’t, and shouldn’t, interfere with the unfettered functioning of the “free market” (except for the gargantuan outlay for national defense). The political philosophy Reagan, his staff and enablers embraced and the his administration’s policies jump-started the serious erosion of government controls on business and industry, the rampant growth of corporatism and financialization of the economy, and the dismantling of the middle class that continues today.  “Greed was good,” it was encouraged by policy, and made many of the “I”s rich beyond comprehension, as they produced nothing but their own wealth.
     Economists date the stagnation of the middle class beginning about the time of Reagan, when wages for working Americans flattened and are today barely above where they were then, in constant dollars.  Reagan’s firing of the air traffic controllers in 1981 emboldened a broad attack on organized labor that has continued for over thirty years.  The decline of the middle class is directly attributable to the decline of organized labor, its former bulwark, now down to 8-9% of the workforce from well over 30% when I began my practice of workers’ compensation in 1977.  The spread of “right to work” laws (for lower wages) has continued since the Reagan years.  And over the last thirty years wealth has become concentrated in a small sector of the population to an extent not seen since the era of the Robber Barons. 
     Would all of this have happened if the country had not gone through the post-JFK assassination turmoil?  Perhaps some of it was inevitable.  But I think the post-Kennedy era demonization of the role of government in a democracy with a complex market economy has had a far more profound effect on where we find ourselves today than would have happened, absent the assassination of 1963 and its aftermath.
     And what has all of that bred in today’s politics?  The rise of “leaders” on the fringes of the far right so dedicated to the proposition that government is trampling freedoms secured by the founding fathers that they will ensure it doesn’t work by any means necessary.  With galactic ignorance of our history, and spewing scripted sound bites of misinformation on any topic, they come to Washington not to govern but to dismantle government.  But while the extremes they advocate are largely unimaginable even by their political forbearers on the right, their roots are squarely in the anti-government philosophy that erupted on such a wide scale three decades ago.
     Fifty years ago there was consensus among even the most diametrically opposed politicians from opposing political parties that a fully functioning government was an absolute requirement for the country and our democratic processes.  The arguments were principally about which processes, priorities and methodologies to be used, not whether the government was going to run.  Arguments, debates, and analysis of government policies and process were largely substantive and advocated by legislators who mostly knew what they were talking about, not spouting talking points fed to them by media spinmeisters.
     Would we still have some semblance of that today with a different fifty-year history after 1963?  You decide.  I’ve personally come to believe our history, and where we find ourselves in 2013, would be different – and better. I hope that in the not distant future a large cohort of 17 and 18 year-olds will get to experience the same exhilarating inspiration and sense of purpose about the governance of our country that I felt for too brief a time over fifty years ago. 

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Why does health care cost so much in America? Ask Harvard's David Cutler

The cost of medical treatment continues to increase yearly. A major component of the Workers' Compensation benefits system is now the cost of medical care. Workers' Compensation insurance is not alone in experiencing this phenomena. Soaring medical costs pervades the entire Insurance industry and are a major concern of both Medicare and Medicaid solvency. Over the next two decades, the United States will have to reinvent the wheel I am determined what limitations on the cost of medical care must be imposed. The entire delivery system will ultimately experience change. It is more likely than not that Congress will again, "kick the can down the road, and delay implementation of significant change until after the baby boomer generation. Without a creative approach being offered now, the options will be limited, and will probably result in the universal medical care delivery system under a federal umbrella. The American health care system is structured differently from systems in other countries, making it more expensive. 

Paul Solman: Harvard's David Cutler is among the country's foremost health economists, famous for -- among other research -- a controversial paper arguing that even our exorbitant health care industry, in terms of increased productivity and life span outcomes, delivers more than what we pay for it.
Cutler, who was profiled by Roger Lowenstein in the New York Times Magazine in 2005,
healthcare
subsequently worked for President Barack Obama on health care issues, and talked to us recently for a story about cost savings. But far more of what he had to say seemed worthwhile than what we have time to air. Here is some of it.
Paul Solman: Why does health care cost so much in America?
David Cutler: Let me give you three reasons why. The first one is because the administrative costs of running our health care system are astronomical. About one quarter of health care cost is associated with administration, which is far higher than in any other country.
Paul Solman: What's the next highest?
David Cutler: About 10, 15 percent. Just to give you one example, Duke University Hospital has 900 hospital beds and 1,300 billing clerks. The typical Canadian hospital has a handful of billing clerks. Single-payer systems have fewer administrative needs. That's not to say they're better, but that's just on one dimension that they clearly cost less. What a lot of those people are...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

ObamaCare's Union Favor

Today's post was shared by Steven Greenhouse and comes from online.wsj.com

The Affordable Care Act's greatest hits keep coming, and one that hasn't received enough attention is a looming favor for President Obama's friends in Big Labor. Millions of Americans are losing their plans and paying more for health care, and doctors are being forced out of insurance networks, but a lucky few may soon get relief.
Earlier this month the Administration suggested that it may grant a waiver for some insurance plans from a tax that is supposed to capitalize a reinsurance fund for ObamaCare. The $25 billion cost of the fund, which is designed to pay out to the insurers on the exchanges if their costs are higher than expected, is socialized over every U.S. citizen with a private health plan. For 2014, the fee per head is $63.
The unions hate this reinsurance transfer because it takes from their members in the form of higher premiums and gives to people on the exchanges. But then most consumers are hurt in the same way, and the unions have little ground for complaint given that ObamaCare would not have passed in 2010 without the fervent support of the AFL-CIO, the Teamsters and the rest.
The unions ought to consider this tax a civic obligation in solidarity with the (uninsured) working folk they claim to support. Instead, they've spent most of the last year demanding that the White House give them subsidies and carve-outs unavailable to anyone else.
But don't expect ObamaCare favors unless you helped to re-elect the President. In an aside in a Federal Register...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Extension of Benefits for Jobless Is Set to End

Today's post was shared by Steven Greenhouse and comes from www.nytimes.com

WASHINGTON — Unless Congress acts, during the last week of December an estimated 1.3 million people will lose access to an emergency program providing them with additional weeks of jobless benefits. A further 850,000 will be denied benefits in the first quarter of 2014.
Congressional Democrats and the White House, pointing to the sluggish recovery and the still-high jobless rate, are pushing once again to extend the period covered by the unemployment insurance program. But with Congress still far from a budget deal and still struggling to find alternatives to the $1 trillion in long-term cuts known as sequestration, lawmakers say the chances of an extension before Congress adjourns in two weeks are slim.
As a result, one of the largest stimulus measures passed during the recession is likely to come to an end, and jobless workers in many states are likely to receive considerably fewer weeks of benefits.
In all, as many as 4.8 million people could be affected by expiring unemployment benefits through 2014, estimated Gene Sperling, President Obama’s top economic adviser.
Historically, there has not been a time where the unemployment rate has been this high where you have not extended it,” Mr. Sperling said in an interview. “Why would you not extend now, when you’re dealing with the nearly unprecedented levels of long-term unemployment coming off such a historic recession? This would be the wrong time to do it.”
Democrats are pushing...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Obama Selects Health Policy Advocate as Surgeon General

Today's post was shared by RWJF PublicHealth and comes from www.nytimes.com

President Obama nominated Dr. Vivek H. Murthy, an early supporter and grass-roots advocate for the Affordable Care Act, as surgeon general on Thursday.
Dr. Murthy, 36, is a founder and the president of Doctors for America, a group that campaigned for the health care law before Congress passed it in 2010 and that was an outgrowth of Doctors for Obama, which worked to help elect the president in 2008. He is a doctor at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and an instructor at Harvard Medical School.
At a Rose Garden event in October 2009, held as the Senate Finance Committee was set to vote on the legislation, Dr. Murthy said that Mr. Obama “understands that the current system isn’t working for patients, but it’s also not working for doctors.”
Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, said Thursday in a statement that Dr. Murthy “will be a powerful messenger” on health policy. His nomination is subject to Senate approval.
Last year, he was the co-author of an article for The New Republic responding to criticism of the health care law and citing its support among doctors, although it acknowledged qualms among them. “Doctors will support the new law to the extent that it becomes visible in their everyday lives, and make these lives better,” it said.
He also has been a leader in H.I.V. prevention and AIDS education in both the United States and India. In 1995, he helped found Visions, a nonprofit AIDS and...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Friday, November 15, 2013

White House rejects asbestos bill

Today's post was shared by Linda Reinstein and comes from www.politico.com

President Barack Obama’s administration came out against a key piece of asbestos legislation Tuesday just days after headlining a fundraiser at the homes of two of the top asbestos litigators in the country.
In a swing through Texas last week, two of the country’s top asbestos attorneys, Russell Budd and Peter Kraus, hosted fundraisers that brought in an expected $1 million-plus for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee over the course of three hours at their Dallas-area homes.
Continue Reading
On Tuesday evening the White House put out a statement opposing a piece of legislation aimed at regulating asbestos bankruptcy trusts. Budd and Kraus both sit on the boards of several of these trusts.
The White House and the Office of Management and Budget did not respond to a request for comment.
The trusts allow companies with significant liabilities to secure protection for future claims, but often have advisory committees made up of people from the same law firms that represent the asbestos clients.
The Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency (FACT) Act — backed by business interests such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — would require the trusts to disclose additional information about the claims the pay to victims, in order prevent false or inflated claims.
In a statement Tuesday evening, the White House warned that the legislation would make publicly available the personal information of individuals who had filed asbestos-related injuries. Additionally,...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]