Following the tragic events behind the young Emmitt Till's murder, the majority of 1950's U.S.A. became aware of its nation's brutal racial secret: the Jim Crow Laws. Under this archaic and inhuman jurisprudence, it took the sacrafice of the young Emmitt Till to startle a nation into realizing its own inadequesy. The social division, especially in the Southern United States, in which different worlds were created. Till's sacrafice would be a symbol for the youth who would boldy march on Birminghamg during the summer of 1963. Sacrificing their adolescent mind and bodies to the onslaught of fire hoses and angry canine, all for Civil Rights. For a chance to sit at the table of government and commerce and have their fare share. Then too, the sacrafise of the child was heard around the county to awaken our hearts and minds to the need for progressive legislation.
The need for the community and government to act by setting new standards of how we treat each other as United States citizens. With the murder of Trayvon Martin, the nation should once again turn a caring eye towards its democratic bodies, in an effort to root out its antiquated laws. Specifically in addressing the lax gun control laws and the national anti drug campaign that have lost its social relevance. The death of Trayvon Martin bares a similar burden to the sacrafice of the youth during the epoch of the Civil Rights Movement. It was the Jim Crowe laws that fostered the atmosphere of intolerance and created the world of impunity which allowed violent white perpetrators to commit attrocious acts. These racist mandates created a vast seperation within the American social matrix, alienating millions. With the Trayvon Martin murder, note two distinct lapses within the Florida judicial system, in which a minor was sacraficed for the sake of convenient justice. Within our modern twenty first century America, we have a War on Drugs that is decimating our middle and lower class families. Coincidently, this wild west, good guys and bad guys approach to narcotics and drug consumption has created a major illicit guns trade that the ballistics industry has profited handsomely from. Few in the media today discuss the fact that Mr. Martin was suspended from school under a Zero Tolerance durg policy. Tragically it was this omission of justice that would send Martin from his mothers house in Miami to his fathers house outside of Orlando in Sanford. Martin was suspended for a trace amount of marijuanna found on his person, under a zero tolerance drug policy. The fact that marijuanna, an openly marketed and semi legal herb, is still treated as a narcotic, is a sign of a legal system unwilling to change with the progressive nature of its human inhabitants. The medical and social benefits of the drug have been highlighted by advocates in the mainstream media for over fifty year. The actuall outcome of the War on Drugs has been an adict riddled nation, where pharmacutical companies absorb billions of dollars, while law enforcement selectively regulates and enforces the social consumptive habits of various ethnic and socio economic groups. The tragedy we note today is the out of place death of a young man, who instead of having a second spring break in Orlando, should have been receiving a quality public education.
Most who discuss this tragedy note the failure of the Stand Your Ground Law to assist in the order of civility within Sanford, Florida on that horrific night. This case will forever ingrain itself in Florida and United States jurisprudence in its relation to the governments legal obligations towards limiting the use of dangerous weapons. Once the Supreme Court makes its decision on any legal manuvering in the prosecution of the shooter and the subsequent changes to the gun control mandates Federally and locally, the nation will then begin to digest the true impact of this crime. And yet the very law on the books today, which we say will assist society in defending innoscence from the intrusion of the dreaded OTHER, has allowed the perpetrator of a violant act to remain free. Trayvon Martin will receive no justice in the traditional sense. The man who took his life will not be tried in state or federal court for murder. A civil suit will certainly be pursued and at most, the federal government will be able to prosecute to its limits under Civil Rights legislation. At most, Zimmerman could serve a few years in prison for his alleged act of "homeland security".
The lesson from this crime should be a sharp reminder, not that racism still exists, or that society is plagued by violence. The lesson, in Trayvon's honor, must be a personal burden upon the entire American nation. Every citizen who refuses to vote. Everyone who votes for their own self interest, their own families and their own churches. Every politician who takes financial support from gun, pharmaceutical, and anti-narcotic lobbyists and superPAC's. Every one who has made it this far into this essay. Me. We all should acquire a degree of guilt from this incident. In taking this burden upon our souls, we all may change the current system which continues to sacrafice our nations youth for profit and false morality.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Monday, March 26, 2012
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release March 23, 2012
New Report: Affordable Care Act Gives Americans More Security, Better Benefits
The White House today released a new report highlighting the benefits of the Affordable Care Act. The report discusses how the Affordable Care Act has improved the health care system for millions of Americans and includes stories of Americans who have been helped by the law.
“Today, two years after we passed health care reform, more young adults have insurance, more seniors are saving money on their prescription drugs, and more Americans can rest easy knowing they won’t be dropped from their insurance plans if they get sick,” said President Obama. “The law has made a difference for millions of Americans, and over time, it will help give even more working and middle-class families the security they deserve.”
Thanks to the Affordable Care Act:
• 2.5 million more young adults have health insurance on their parent’s plan.
• 5.1 million people with Medicare saved an average of $635 on the cost of their prescription drugs. And everyone on Medicare can get preventive services like mammograms for free.
• Insurance companies must spend at least 80 percent of your premium dollars on health care and not overhead and cannot raise your premiums by 10 percent or more with no accountability.
• It is illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage to children because of a pre-existing condition. And in 2014, discriminating against anyone with a pre-existing condition will be illegal.
The report spotlights examples of Americans from across the country who have benefitted from the law including:
• Devon Grochowski graduated from Pennsylvania State University in May of 2010 but she doesn’t get benefits, including health insurance, at work. Without the provision in the Affordable Care Act that allows her to stay on her parent’s plan until she is 26, Devon would have had to consider leaving her job to get one that offers benefits, even if that meant leaving the field where she’s hoping to build her career.
• Michael and Margaret Novak own a grocery store in a small rural town in Montana. They were able to receive a small business tax credit worth $10,500 to help them continue to offer health insurance to their more than two dozen employees.
• Amy Ward of West Des Moines, Iowa came down with a rare infection that nearly cost her life. Without the Affordable Care Act, Amy and her husband may not have been able to afford all the care she needed to recover. Before the new health care law, Amy's health insurance policy had a lifetime dollar limit.
The report released today also discusses how the new law is investing in public health and improving the quality of health care for all Americans. New health policies that cut red tape will save providers and health plans an estimated $12 billion. Additionally, investments in public health will expand the number of health care providers in underserved areas by supporting the National Health Service Corps and strengthening community health centers.
For additional information on your State and stories from Americans already benefitting from the law, visit www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform.
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release March 23, 2012
New Report: Affordable Care Act Gives Americans More Security, Better Benefits
The White House today released a new report highlighting the benefits of the Affordable Care Act. The report discusses how the Affordable Care Act has improved the health care system for millions of Americans and includes stories of Americans who have been helped by the law.
“Today, two years after we passed health care reform, more young adults have insurance, more seniors are saving money on their prescription drugs, and more Americans can rest easy knowing they won’t be dropped from their insurance plans if they get sick,” said President Obama. “The law has made a difference for millions of Americans, and over time, it will help give even more working and middle-class families the security they deserve.”
Thanks to the Affordable Care Act:
• 2.5 million more young adults have health insurance on their parent’s plan.
• 5.1 million people with Medicare saved an average of $635 on the cost of their prescription drugs. And everyone on Medicare can get preventive services like mammograms for free.
• Insurance companies must spend at least 80 percent of your premium dollars on health care and not overhead and cannot raise your premiums by 10 percent or more with no accountability.
• It is illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage to children because of a pre-existing condition. And in 2014, discriminating against anyone with a pre-existing condition will be illegal.
The report spotlights examples of Americans from across the country who have benefitted from the law including:
• Devon Grochowski graduated from Pennsylvania State University in May of 2010 but she doesn’t get benefits, including health insurance, at work. Without the provision in the Affordable Care Act that allows her to stay on her parent’s plan until she is 26, Devon would have had to consider leaving her job to get one that offers benefits, even if that meant leaving the field where she’s hoping to build her career.
• Michael and Margaret Novak own a grocery store in a small rural town in Montana. They were able to receive a small business tax credit worth $10,500 to help them continue to offer health insurance to their more than two dozen employees.
• Amy Ward of West Des Moines, Iowa came down with a rare infection that nearly cost her life. Without the Affordable Care Act, Amy and her husband may not have been able to afford all the care she needed to recover. Before the new health care law, Amy's health insurance policy had a lifetime dollar limit.
The report released today also discusses how the new law is investing in public health and improving the quality of health care for all Americans. New health policies that cut red tape will save providers and health plans an estimated $12 billion. Additionally, investments in public health will expand the number of health care providers in underserved areas by supporting the National Health Service Corps and strengthening community health centers.
For additional information on your State and stories from Americans already benefitting from the law, visit www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform.
How health care case will unfold before the court
By JESSE J. HOLLAND Associated Press News Fuze
Posted: MercuryNews.com
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments on Monday over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, derisively labeled "Obamacare" by its opponents. A look at how the case will unfold before the court in question-and-answer form: Q: What's this all about?
A: The Supreme Court is hearing a challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is Obama's signature domestic achievement. Passed by Congress in 2010, its aim is to provide health insurance to more than 30 million previously uninsured Americans, while trying to restrain costs and prevent disruptions to the majority already with coverage. Opponents say the law is unconstitutional; their chief argument is that Congress does not have the power to force unwilling Americans to buy health insurance or pay a fine.
Q: When will the court get started?
A: Justices will begin hearing arguments shortly after 10 a.m. EDT Monday, March 26. They will hear six hours of arguments on several different issues on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.
Q: Which issues on which days?
A: Monday's 90-minute argument is about whether court action is premature because no one yet has paid a fine for not having health insurance. Tuesday's two-hour argument will cover the central issue of whether Congress overstepped its authority by requiring Americans to purchase health insurance starting in 2014 or pay a penalty. Wednesday's arguments will be split into two parts: Justices will hear 90 minutes of debate in the morning over whether the rest of the law can take effect even if the health insurance mandate is unconstitutional and another hour Wednesday afternoon over whether the law goes too far in coercing states to expand the federal-state Medicaid program for low-income people by threatening to cut off federal aid to states that don't comply.
Q: When will the justices rule?
A: The court could decide any time, but complex cases argued in the spring normally produce decisions near the end of the court's session, scheduled for late June.
Q: Is it possible that the justices won't decide whether the law is constitutional or not?
A: It is possible. The first issue the court is discussing is whether an obscure tax law makes it too early for the Supreme Court to get involved. If they decide that the issue is premature, then the case will be dismissed without a binding ruling from the justices.
Q: What did lower federal courts say?
A: The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta ruled that Congress overstepped its authority when lawmakers passed the insurance mandate, the only appeals court to come to that conclusion. The 6th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati upheld the entire law, as did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Washington, D.C. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., ruled that the question was premature and the law can't be challenged in court until after 2015, when the first penalties for not having insurance would be paid.
Q: Who are the justices on the Supreme Court?
A: The chief justice is John Roberts, who joined the court in 2005 after being nominated by President George W. Bush. In order of seniority, the other justices are Antonin Scalia (confirmed in 1986 after being nominated by President Ronald Reagan), Anthony Kennedy (1988 by Reagan), Clarence Thomas (1991 by President George H.W. Bush), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1993 by President Bill Clinton), Stephen Breyer (1994 by Clinton), Samuel Alito (2006 by President George W. Bush), Sonia Sotomayor (2009 by Obama) and Elena Kagan (2010 by Obama.)
Q: Who will be arguing for the law?
A: Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. will argue for the government on Monday and Tuesday. Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler will present part of the government's case on Wednesday, and Verrilli will do the rest. Information about Verrilli and the solicitor general's office can be found here: http://www.justice.gov/osg/index.html. A court-appointed lawyer, H. Bartow Farr III, will also argue that if government cannot require people to buy health insurance, all other provisions of the law can go into effect. Another court-appointed lawyer, Robert Long, will also argue that the lawsuits challenging the insurance purchase requirement are premature because the penalty has yet to be imposed.
Q: Who will be arguing against the law?
A: Representing Florida on Monday will be Washington appellate lawyer Gregory G. Katsas. Former Solicitor General Paul Clement, now in private practice, will represent Florida on Tuesday and Wednesday. Former Justice Department attorney Michael A. Carvin will represent the National Federation of Independent Businesses.
Q: Can I go watch the arguments, and if I can't make it to Washington, can I watch on television or online?
A: The Supreme Court does not allow live television or radio broadcasts from inside its building, so the only way Americans can actually see or hear the arguments live is to be inside the courtroom while lawyers and justices debate. There are seats reserved inside the courtroom for members of the public on a first-come, first-served basis, with some people allowed to stay for the entire argument while others have to leave the courtroom and give their seats to the next people in line after 3-5 minutes. The Supreme Court will also make the audio recording of the arguments available later the same day on its website: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral—arguments/argument—audio.aspx.
Q: What type of health care do the justices get, and will they be affected by their ruling?
A: The justices participate in the same health care plan as members of Congress and other federal workers. As participants in an employee-sponsored health care plan, it is unlikely that whatever decision the Supreme Court makes will substantially affect their personal health care insurance.
Q: I've heard people say that Justices Elena Kagan and Clarence Thomas should take no part in this case? What's that about?
A: Opponents of the law wanted Kagan to disqualify herself because she served as solicitor general under Obama when the health care overhaul law was conceived and passed. She has said she did not participate in crafting a legal defense for the law, but her detractors doubt her statement. Thomas' detractors insist that he should have disqualified himself because his wife, Ginni, worked with groups that opposed the new law.
Decisions to stay out of a case are the responsibility of each individual justice, and neither Kagan nor Thomas justice stepped aside.
Roberts said in his 2011 year-end report that he has "complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to determine when recusal is warranted. They are jurists of exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness have been examined through a rigorous appointment and confirmation process. I know that they each give careful consideration to any recusal questions that arise in the course of their judicial duties."
By JESSE J. HOLLAND Associated Press News Fuze
Posted: MercuryNews.com
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments on Monday over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, derisively labeled "Obamacare" by its opponents. A look at how the case will unfold before the court in question-and-answer form: Q: What's this all about?
A: The Supreme Court is hearing a challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is Obama's signature domestic achievement. Passed by Congress in 2010, its aim is to provide health insurance to more than 30 million previously uninsured Americans, while trying to restrain costs and prevent disruptions to the majority already with coverage. Opponents say the law is unconstitutional; their chief argument is that Congress does not have the power to force unwilling Americans to buy health insurance or pay a fine.
Q: When will the court get started?
A: Justices will begin hearing arguments shortly after 10 a.m. EDT Monday, March 26. They will hear six hours of arguments on several different issues on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.
Q: Which issues on which days?
A: Monday's 90-minute argument is about whether court action is premature because no one yet has paid a fine for not having health insurance. Tuesday's two-hour argument will cover the central issue of whether Congress overstepped its authority by requiring Americans to purchase health insurance starting in 2014 or pay a penalty. Wednesday's arguments will be split into two parts: Justices will hear 90 minutes of debate in the morning over whether the rest of the law can take effect even if the health insurance mandate is unconstitutional and another hour Wednesday afternoon over whether the law goes too far in coercing states to expand the federal-state Medicaid program for low-income people by threatening to cut off federal aid to states that don't comply.
Q: When will the justices rule?
A: The court could decide any time, but complex cases argued in the spring normally produce decisions near the end of the court's session, scheduled for late June.
Q: Is it possible that the justices won't decide whether the law is constitutional or not?
A: It is possible. The first issue the court is discussing is whether an obscure tax law makes it too early for the Supreme Court to get involved. If they decide that the issue is premature, then the case will be dismissed without a binding ruling from the justices.
Q: What did lower federal courts say?
A: The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta ruled that Congress overstepped its authority when lawmakers passed the insurance mandate, the only appeals court to come to that conclusion. The 6th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati upheld the entire law, as did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Washington, D.C. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., ruled that the question was premature and the law can't be challenged in court until after 2015, when the first penalties for not having insurance would be paid.
Q: Who are the justices on the Supreme Court?
A: The chief justice is John Roberts, who joined the court in 2005 after being nominated by President George W. Bush. In order of seniority, the other justices are Antonin Scalia (confirmed in 1986 after being nominated by President Ronald Reagan), Anthony Kennedy (1988 by Reagan), Clarence Thomas (1991 by President George H.W. Bush), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1993 by President Bill Clinton), Stephen Breyer (1994 by Clinton), Samuel Alito (2006 by President George W. Bush), Sonia Sotomayor (2009 by Obama) and Elena Kagan (2010 by Obama.)
Q: Who will be arguing for the law?
A: Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. will argue for the government on Monday and Tuesday. Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler will present part of the government's case on Wednesday, and Verrilli will do the rest. Information about Verrilli and the solicitor general's office can be found here: http://www.justice.gov/osg/index.html. A court-appointed lawyer, H. Bartow Farr III, will also argue that if government cannot require people to buy health insurance, all other provisions of the law can go into effect. Another court-appointed lawyer, Robert Long, will also argue that the lawsuits challenging the insurance purchase requirement are premature because the penalty has yet to be imposed.
Q: Who will be arguing against the law?
A: Representing Florida on Monday will be Washington appellate lawyer Gregory G. Katsas. Former Solicitor General Paul Clement, now in private practice, will represent Florida on Tuesday and Wednesday. Former Justice Department attorney Michael A. Carvin will represent the National Federation of Independent Businesses.
Q: Can I go watch the arguments, and if I can't make it to Washington, can I watch on television or online?
A: The Supreme Court does not allow live television or radio broadcasts from inside its building, so the only way Americans can actually see or hear the arguments live is to be inside the courtroom while lawyers and justices debate. There are seats reserved inside the courtroom for members of the public on a first-come, first-served basis, with some people allowed to stay for the entire argument while others have to leave the courtroom and give their seats to the next people in line after 3-5 minutes. The Supreme Court will also make the audio recording of the arguments available later the same day on its website: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral—arguments/argument—audio.aspx.
Q: What type of health care do the justices get, and will they be affected by their ruling?
A: The justices participate in the same health care plan as members of Congress and other federal workers. As participants in an employee-sponsored health care plan, it is unlikely that whatever decision the Supreme Court makes will substantially affect their personal health care insurance.
Q: I've heard people say that Justices Elena Kagan and Clarence Thomas should take no part in this case? What's that about?
A: Opponents of the law wanted Kagan to disqualify herself because she served as solicitor general under Obama when the health care overhaul law was conceived and passed. She has said she did not participate in crafting a legal defense for the law, but her detractors doubt her statement. Thomas' detractors insist that he should have disqualified himself because his wife, Ginni, worked with groups that opposed the new law.
Decisions to stay out of a case are the responsibility of each individual justice, and neither Kagan nor Thomas justice stepped aside.
Roberts said in his 2011 year-end report that he has "complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to determine when recusal is warranted. They are jurists of exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness have been examined through a rigorous appointment and confirmation process. I know that they each give careful consideration to any recusal questions that arise in the course of their judicial duties."
10 lesser known effects of health care reform law - CNN.com
By Madison Park and Elizabeth Landau , CNN
2012-03-26T11:54:15Z CNN.com
(CNN) -- On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court takes on a political, social, economic and medical hot potato: the health care reform law that was signed into law two years ago.
For six hours during each of the next three days, attorneys will argue and justices will consider legal questions about the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate and issues surrounding federal versus state powers.
Many of the law's major aspects have been the topic of much discussion. But are you aware that deep within the sweeping law's 2,700 pages are many lesser known changes that could affect your life in unexpected ways?
Here are 10 examples:
1. How many goodies your doctors get
Is your doctor prescribing you certain drugs because those are the best for your condition or because of a pharmaceutical company's influence? Here's one way you can find out.
The Physician Payment Sunshine Act under health care reform requires drug, device or medical supply companies to report annually certain payments or things of value that they've given physicians and teaching hospitals. This could be speaking fees, consulting fees, meals and travel. So, you can find out which and how much companies pay doctors or health care workers. The companies are obligated to report annually about physician ownership and their financial investments.
All this would be available on a public website.
Effective date: Final rule is expected December 2014.
2. More breastfeeding rooms and breaks
Many working mothers now get a more appropriate place for expressing breast milk than they had before. Employers must provide "a place, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from co-workers and the public, which may be used by an employee to express breast milk."
Nursing mothers also can take "reasonable" breaks during the workday to express milk, as frequently as the mother needs. The exception is companies with fewer than 50 employees, which can claim it's an undue hardship.
Effective date: March 23, 2010.
3. Caloric reality at every major chain restaurants
Under the law, you would walk into a place like McDonald's and see calories listed under every menu item -- Big Mac (540 calories), McNuggets (10 pieces- 470 calories) and medium fries (380 calories).
The law requires restaurants with 20 or more locations to list calorie content information for standard menu items on menus and drive-through menus. Other fun facts like fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, total carbohydrates, sugars, fiber and total protein would have to be made available in writing upon request.
So far, there is mixed evidence about whether calorie postings sway nutritional choices.
The rule also extends to vending machine operators who own or operate 20 or more vending machines. The FDA issued a report in April 2011, and left out movie theaters among those establishments required to post calories. So, if implemented, you can tell how many calories your sandwich has at Subway, but you won't be able to tell how many calories your buckets of popcorn have at the movie theater.
Effective date: The FDA has not yet issued a final rule, so there is no time line on its implementation.
4. Abstinence-only education
The health care legislation renews $50 million per year for five years for abstinence-only education. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, "programs that receive this funding must teach that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems." And they also have to teach that sex before marriage is "likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects." For every four federal dollars a state receives, it must match $3 (75% of the federal money, in other words).
5. Flexible spending accounts stiffen
Flexible spending accounts previously could be used to buy over-the-counter drugs and vitamins. As of 2011, the accounts became restricted to prescription drugs, although in some cases a doctor can "prescribe" over-the-counter medicines to make them count. Health care related purchases that still qualify include condoms, contact lens solution, home diagnostic tests and bandages.
But note that in 2013, your contribution amount to these accounts will have an annual limit of $2,500; previously there was no limit.
Effective date: January 1, 2011, for the medication provision; January 1, 2013, for the contribution limit.
6. Tanning will cost you
You've been paying a 10% tax every time you've visited the tanning booth, thanks to health care reform.
The UV-emitting tanning devices have been classified as "carcinogenic to humans" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the World Health Organization. Indoor tanning has also been banned for minors in California because of the potential for skin cancer.
Effective date: July 1, 2010.
7. Support for wellness programs at work
Face it, staying healthy in a stressful workplace with the tempting soda machine in the break room can be tough. But the health care reform law gives companies incentives to start wellness initiatives.
Small business got incentives in 2011, when companies with fewer than 100 employees working at least 25 hours per week became eligible for wellness program grants. The law sets up a $200 million grant program from 2011 to 2015.
As of 2014, participants in wellness programs generally can get discounts or rewards from their employers of up to 30% of the cost of their health care premiums (currently, the maximum discount is 20%). That reward can go up to 50% if the secretaries of Labor, Health and Human Services and the Treasury deem it appropriate.
Effective date: January 1, 2011, for the small business and January 1, 2014, for the potential discount raise.
8. Free preventive care
Mammograms, physical exams, colonoscopies, vaccinations -- these are among the preventive care services that will be fully covered by insurance companies.
This requirement kicked in for new health insurance plans that began on or after September 2010. Examples of preventive care include screenings for cholesterol, diabetes, HIV and sexually transmitted diseases, which are covered without a co-pay.
For women, this would also cover genetic counseling for the BRCA gene for women at higher risk of breast cancer, mammograms every one or two years for women over age 40 and HPV DNA testing every three years for women. For kids, the services include autism, vision, developmental and lead screenings. The complete list is available here.
Effective date: All health insurance plans must comply by 2018.
9. Home visits to expecting families
The law also includes funding support for early childhood home visitation for people expecting children and families who have young children. Professionals come to the home to provide information and support. The aim is to reduce child abuse and neglect, promote the health of mothers and their children and prioritize high-risk populations. Research supports such positive outcomes. The health care law provides $1.5 billion for related state-based initiatives over five years.
Effective date: Began in 2010 with $100 million for fiscal year.
10. Health plans you can read
Have you ever been confused by the language in health insurance plans?
The health reform law requires health insurers and health plans to provide concise and understandable information about the plan and its benefits. According to the Health and Human Services press release, "The new rules will also make it easier for people and employers to directly compare one plan to another."
Patients have a right to two key documents to understand and compare their health insurance choices: a comprehensible summary of benefits (which is standardized similar to nutrition facts on packaged foods) and a glossary of terms of health insurance coverage.
Effective date: September 23, 2012.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
By Madison Park and Elizabeth Landau , CNN
2012-03-26T11:54:15Z CNN.com
(CNN) -- On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court takes on a political, social, economic and medical hot potato: the health care reform law that was signed into law two years ago.
For six hours during each of the next three days, attorneys will argue and justices will consider legal questions about the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate and issues surrounding federal versus state powers.
Many of the law's major aspects have been the topic of much discussion. But are you aware that deep within the sweeping law's 2,700 pages are many lesser known changes that could affect your life in unexpected ways?
Here are 10 examples:
1. How many goodies your doctors get
Is your doctor prescribing you certain drugs because those are the best for your condition or because of a pharmaceutical company's influence? Here's one way you can find out.
The Physician Payment Sunshine Act under health care reform requires drug, device or medical supply companies to report annually certain payments or things of value that they've given physicians and teaching hospitals. This could be speaking fees, consulting fees, meals and travel. So, you can find out which and how much companies pay doctors or health care workers. The companies are obligated to report annually about physician ownership and their financial investments.
All this would be available on a public website.
Effective date: Final rule is expected December 2014.
2. More breastfeeding rooms and breaks
Many working mothers now get a more appropriate place for expressing breast milk than they had before. Employers must provide "a place, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from co-workers and the public, which may be used by an employee to express breast milk."
Nursing mothers also can take "reasonable" breaks during the workday to express milk, as frequently as the mother needs. The exception is companies with fewer than 50 employees, which can claim it's an undue hardship.
Effective date: March 23, 2010.
3. Caloric reality at every major chain restaurants
Under the law, you would walk into a place like McDonald's and see calories listed under every menu item -- Big Mac (540 calories), McNuggets (10 pieces- 470 calories) and medium fries (380 calories).
The law requires restaurants with 20 or more locations to list calorie content information for standard menu items on menus and drive-through menus. Other fun facts like fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, total carbohydrates, sugars, fiber and total protein would have to be made available in writing upon request.
So far, there is mixed evidence about whether calorie postings sway nutritional choices.
The rule also extends to vending machine operators who own or operate 20 or more vending machines. The FDA issued a report in April 2011, and left out movie theaters among those establishments required to post calories. So, if implemented, you can tell how many calories your sandwich has at Subway, but you won't be able to tell how many calories your buckets of popcorn have at the movie theater.
Effective date: The FDA has not yet issued a final rule, so there is no time line on its implementation.
4. Abstinence-only education
The health care legislation renews $50 million per year for five years for abstinence-only education. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, "programs that receive this funding must teach that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems." And they also have to teach that sex before marriage is "likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects." For every four federal dollars a state receives, it must match $3 (75% of the federal money, in other words).
5. Flexible spending accounts stiffen
Flexible spending accounts previously could be used to buy over-the-counter drugs and vitamins. As of 2011, the accounts became restricted to prescription drugs, although in some cases a doctor can "prescribe" over-the-counter medicines to make them count. Health care related purchases that still qualify include condoms, contact lens solution, home diagnostic tests and bandages.
But note that in 2013, your contribution amount to these accounts will have an annual limit of $2,500; previously there was no limit.
Effective date: January 1, 2011, for the medication provision; January 1, 2013, for the contribution limit.
6. Tanning will cost you
You've been paying a 10% tax every time you've visited the tanning booth, thanks to health care reform.
The UV-emitting tanning devices have been classified as "carcinogenic to humans" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the World Health Organization. Indoor tanning has also been banned for minors in California because of the potential for skin cancer.
Effective date: July 1, 2010.
7. Support for wellness programs at work
Face it, staying healthy in a stressful workplace with the tempting soda machine in the break room can be tough. But the health care reform law gives companies incentives to start wellness initiatives.
Small business got incentives in 2011, when companies with fewer than 100 employees working at least 25 hours per week became eligible for wellness program grants. The law sets up a $200 million grant program from 2011 to 2015.
As of 2014, participants in wellness programs generally can get discounts or rewards from their employers of up to 30% of the cost of their health care premiums (currently, the maximum discount is 20%). That reward can go up to 50% if the secretaries of Labor, Health and Human Services and the Treasury deem it appropriate.
Effective date: January 1, 2011, for the small business and January 1, 2014, for the potential discount raise.
8. Free preventive care
Mammograms, physical exams, colonoscopies, vaccinations -- these are among the preventive care services that will be fully covered by insurance companies.
This requirement kicked in for new health insurance plans that began on or after September 2010. Examples of preventive care include screenings for cholesterol, diabetes, HIV and sexually transmitted diseases, which are covered without a co-pay.
For women, this would also cover genetic counseling for the BRCA gene for women at higher risk of breast cancer, mammograms every one or two years for women over age 40 and HPV DNA testing every three years for women. For kids, the services include autism, vision, developmental and lead screenings. The complete list is available here.
Effective date: All health insurance plans must comply by 2018.
9. Home visits to expecting families
The law also includes funding support for early childhood home visitation for people expecting children and families who have young children. Professionals come to the home to provide information and support. The aim is to reduce child abuse and neglect, promote the health of mothers and their children and prioritize high-risk populations. Research supports such positive outcomes. The health care law provides $1.5 billion for related state-based initiatives over five years.
Effective date: Began in 2010 with $100 million for fiscal year.
10. Health plans you can read
Have you ever been confused by the language in health insurance plans?
The health reform law requires health insurers and health plans to provide concise and understandable information about the plan and its benefits. According to the Health and Human Services press release, "The new rules will also make it easier for people and employers to directly compare one plan to another."
Patients have a right to two key documents to understand and compare their health insurance choices: a comprehensible summary of benefits (which is standardized similar to nutrition facts on packaged foods) and a glossary of terms of health insurance coverage.
Effective date: September 23, 2012.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
How Many Would Repeal ‘Obamacare’?
Posted on March 23, 2012
factcheck.org
Mitt Romney says “most Americans want to get rid of” President Obama’s two-year-old health care law. Is he right? That depends on which poll-taker is asking the question, and how it’s worded.
Romney made the assertion at a rally in Louisiana on March 23, marking the second anniversary of the president signing the law. He’s not alone — we’ve heard others make the same statement. But some polls show otherwise.
For example, a Bloomberg News national poll of 1,002 adults taken March 8 through March 11 asked the question this way: “Turning to the health care law passed last year, what is your opinion of the law?” The poll gave three choices, with the following results:
■37 percent agreed with the statement, “It should be repealed.”
■46 percent agreed, “It may need small modifications, but we should see how it works.”
■11 percent said, “It should be left alone.”
■6 percent were not sure.
An earlier Gallup Poll of 1,040 adults, conducted Feb. 20-21, asked the question this way: “If a Republican is elected president in this November’s election, would you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose him repealing the healthcare law when he takes office?” Gallup reported these results:
■26 percent “strongly favor.”
■21 percent “favor.”
■24 percent “oppose.”
■20 percent “strongly oppose.”
That makes 47 percent of respondents who said they favor repeal to some degree — not “most.” That’s more than the 44 percent who oppose repeal (with 9 percent presumably unsure or declining to answer). But a plurality isn’t a majority, and based on this poll, it’s not accurate to say “most” favor repeal.
On the other hand, there are polls showing majorities in favor of repeal.
A survey of 1,000 “likely voters” was conducted March 17-18 by Rasmussen Reports, for example. Rasmussen reported that 56 percent “at least somewhat favor” repeal, including 46 percent “who strongly favor it.”
Not all adults tell poll-takers they are likely to vote, however. So the Rasmussen poll doesn’t cover all adults. And Rasmussen’s polling in the 2010 elections tended to show Republicans doing several points better than they actually did on Election Day.
Nevertheless, the Rasmussen results are in line with a poll by Quinnipiac University, whose 2010 polling much more accurately predicted the election outcomes that year.
During Feb. 14-20, that poll asked 2,605 registered voters the question, “Do you think Congress should try to repeal the health care law, or should they let it stand?” And it reported these results:
■52 percent said “should repeal it.”
■39 percent said “should let it stand.”
■10 percent were listed as saying “don’t know” or giving no answer.
(The total adds up to 101 percent, but that’s due to rounding each figure to the nearest whole number.)
So, Romney and others would be correct to say that some polls show most Americans — or at least most voters — favor repeal. But not all polls.
— Brooks Jackson
Posted by Brooks Jackson on Friday, March 23, 2012 at 4:18 pm Filed under The FactCheck Wire.
Posted on March 23, 2012
factcheck.org
Mitt Romney says “most Americans want to get rid of” President Obama’s two-year-old health care law. Is he right? That depends on which poll-taker is asking the question, and how it’s worded.
Romney made the assertion at a rally in Louisiana on March 23, marking the second anniversary of the president signing the law. He’s not alone — we’ve heard others make the same statement. But some polls show otherwise.
For example, a Bloomberg News national poll of 1,002 adults taken March 8 through March 11 asked the question this way: “Turning to the health care law passed last year, what is your opinion of the law?” The poll gave three choices, with the following results:
■37 percent agreed with the statement, “It should be repealed.”
■46 percent agreed, “It may need small modifications, but we should see how it works.”
■11 percent said, “It should be left alone.”
■6 percent were not sure.
An earlier Gallup Poll of 1,040 adults, conducted Feb. 20-21, asked the question this way: “If a Republican is elected president in this November’s election, would you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose him repealing the healthcare law when he takes office?” Gallup reported these results:
■26 percent “strongly favor.”
■21 percent “favor.”
■24 percent “oppose.”
■20 percent “strongly oppose.”
That makes 47 percent of respondents who said they favor repeal to some degree — not “most.” That’s more than the 44 percent who oppose repeal (with 9 percent presumably unsure or declining to answer). But a plurality isn’t a majority, and based on this poll, it’s not accurate to say “most” favor repeal.
On the other hand, there are polls showing majorities in favor of repeal.
A survey of 1,000 “likely voters” was conducted March 17-18 by Rasmussen Reports, for example. Rasmussen reported that 56 percent “at least somewhat favor” repeal, including 46 percent “who strongly favor it.”
Not all adults tell poll-takers they are likely to vote, however. So the Rasmussen poll doesn’t cover all adults. And Rasmussen’s polling in the 2010 elections tended to show Republicans doing several points better than they actually did on Election Day.
Nevertheless, the Rasmussen results are in line with a poll by Quinnipiac University, whose 2010 polling much more accurately predicted the election outcomes that year.
During Feb. 14-20, that poll asked 2,605 registered voters the question, “Do you think Congress should try to repeal the health care law, or should they let it stand?” And it reported these results:
■52 percent said “should repeal it.”
■39 percent said “should let it stand.”
■10 percent were listed as saying “don’t know” or giving no answer.
(The total adds up to 101 percent, but that’s due to rounding each figure to the nearest whole number.)
So, Romney and others would be correct to say that some polls show most Americans — or at least most voters — favor repeal. But not all polls.
— Brooks Jackson
Posted by Brooks Jackson on Friday, March 23, 2012 at 4:18 pm Filed under The FactCheck Wire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)