Membership Department
P.O. Box 96832 Washington, DC 20090-6832 For Correspondence: AAHCmember@si.edu
|
Daily Archives: 12/14/2010
Help Us Protect Against New Attacks on HCR – Your Gift Matched
![]() |
|
You have to wonder — which part of the landmark health care law do they want to repeal? Is it the part that ends the practice of charging women higher health insurance premiums than men? Or perhaps it’s the part that bans the practice of denying coverage to rape victims because insurers consider rape and domestic violence to be “pre-existing conditions?” This year’s landmark law was an urgent and long-overdue step forward. And we’re not going to let it fall victim to partisan politics. With your help, we can defend our gains — and make new progress — for women and families in 2011. Last year, Congress considered ways to fix our broken health care system, and the Center went to work. We sought to stop insurers from charging women higher premiums than men. We sought to require insurers to provide insurance to 32 million Americans who had none. And we sought to end the trauma of women being denied coverage by insurance companies that consider Cesareans, domestic violence and rape to be “pre-existing conditions.” We researched and documented the discrimination women face. We put women’s health needs front and center through our attention-grabbing “Being a Woman Is Not a Pre-existing Condition” campaign. We provided expert testimony on Capitol Hill documenting the inequities and discrimination that women faced every day as they sought quality health care for themselves and their families. And with the help of so many people like you, we won. The health care law was the culmination of years of work by the Center and its allies — documenting the abuses by insurance companies, organizing policy advocates, activating supporters, and building Congressional support Member by Member. With your help, we will carry on the fight for women and families in America — in the workplace, in the classroom, on the soccer field, and in the doctor’s office. On behalf of women and families everywhere, thank you for your generous help. Sincerely, |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Dear Senators: Patty Murray,Maria Cantwell and Rep.McDermott
Dear Senate Democratic members of Congress you say you are on our side…
“…a vexing question that we’ve got to address.”
Of the more than 15 million Americans out of work, 1.5 million have exhausted all four
tiers of state and Federal unemployment insurance benefits. These men and women are
called the 99ers, and the President’s Council of Economic Advisers estimates that their
ranks will grow by an additional four million by the end of next year.
The job creation engines that power America’s economy are running idle. This chart shows
the unprecedented gap between the number of people looking for work, and the number
of job openings across the country.
In a recent interview, Austan Goolsbee, chairman of the CEA, referred to the problem of
the 99ers as “a vexing question that we’ve got to address.”
Unfortunately, the recent framework deal struck between President Obama and Senate
Republicans does not address the question. While it does fund a temporary extension of
unemployment insurance, it limits recipients to 99 weeks of benefits.
We’re asking you, our members of Congress, to address this vexing question.
We’re asking you to extend a lifeline to the men and women of this country who have been
left destitute in the wake of this recession.
We’re asking you to prevent four million workers and their families from joining the ranks
of the 99ers.
Please eliminate the 99 week restriction
on unemployment benefits.
Our nation’s job crisis didn’t just disappear after 99 weeks. The lifeline that could keep
millions of people out of poverty can’t just disappear after 99 weeks, either
ENVIRONMENT Climate Consensus In Cancun
In the early hours of Saturday morning, the nations of the world rediscovered consensus on addressing global warming pollution at the international climate convention in Cancun, Mexico. The top challenge for negotiators has been to figure out a successor framework to the Kyoto Protocol, which failed to set limits on the pollution of the United States (because the Senate refused to ratify the treaty) and nations like China and India (as developing countries, they are exempt from Kyoto‘s binding targets). As a result, the Kyoto Protocol now restricts less than 30 percent of global warming pollution. In Copenhagen, nearly all the nations tried to forge a new framework for cleaning their economies, but w ere not able to achieve global consensus because of the objections of five countries. As hosts of the 2010 conference, the Mexican government had to not only bring parties together to come to agreement on policy, but also to restore trust in global governance — the concept that the world’s nations can work together as one on the problems that face all of humanity. With a roar of applause overwhelming Bolivia’s sole dissenting voice, they strongly endorsed the Cancun Agreements, a series of building blocks that will allow the United States and China — the world’s top economies and top polluters — to join the fight against global warming.
CLIMATE DESTRUCTION: A new report from humanitarian organization Dara projects that there will be a million climate deaths per year by 2030, nearly all of them in the least developed nations. The deaths are preventable if a sufficient international adaptation effort is funded. The destruction from a polluted climate is already here, as can be seen from the global events during the two weeks of the Cancun conference. High-temperature records were broken in California, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada and Arizona; heavy rainfall set “records across the Pacific Northwest,” and Arctic winds “brought intense cold to the Midwest and eastern United States.” The worst wildfires in Israel’s history, fueled by record warmth and drought, “have destroyed large sections of Israel’s northern area” and killed 41 people. Floods hit Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia after “three weeks of torrential rains,” forcing the evacuation of tens of thousands of people. Nearly 30 people froze to death in Poland, and thirty more were killed in the rest of Europe. “The death toll from the incessant rains in Venezuela has risen to 34,” with “more than 70,000 people who have been affected” by the catastrophic floods. In India, “more than 150 people have died following heavy rains in the coastal districts of Tamil Nadu over the past few days.” Devastating flooding in Colombia that “left at least 176 people dead and 225 injured, as well as 1.5 million people homeless nationwide” forced Colombia’s president, Juan Manuel Santos, to cancel his scheduled trip to the talks. A “massive wildfire in Tibet‘s Sichuan province killed 22 people.” In a demonstration of solidarity in the climate crisis, Palestinian firefighters were some of the first to help Israel fight the unprecedented wildfires in the divided nation. Speaking at the funeral of a wildfire victim, Israeli President Shimon Peres said the wildfire “disaster taught us that all of us, Jews, Arabs, Druze, and other peoples, share the same fate.”
CLIMATE AGREEMENTS: The Cancun Agreements are the first real step toward building an international system that involves all global warming pollution — not just that produced by the rich nations governed by the Kyoto Protocol. One agreement allows for the future development of the Kyoto Protocol system. The other establishes an international Green Climate Fund, and enacts mechanisms to fight deforestation and deploy clean technology in the developing world. The agreements & quot;established a temperature target for mitigation, a system of MRV [measurement, reporting, and verification], an agreement on forestry and land use, technology transfer, adaptation, and the architecture for a climate fund that apply to all parties and not just developed countries,” summarizes Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Andrew Light. “A lot is left unanswered, most critically the gap between the national pledges for reductions in carbon pollution under the Copenhagen Accord and the now-confirmed 2ºC target in the Cancun Agreements.” The agreements require the parties to take up this issue at their next meeting in Durban, South Africa in 2011. “Looking forward, countries now have to deliver on the commitments to the systems they’ve designed,” writes Center for American Progress expert Richard Caperton. “With the structure of a climate fund decided, the next step is figuring out how the fund will operate, and where its money will come from. With the rules for monitoring carbon emissions reductions in place, the next step is to move forward with deciding how much emissions need to be reduced to make the world safe for future generations.”
CLIMATE EXTREMISTS: Bolivian President Evo Morales used the conference as a stage to solidify his position with the populist left in Latin America. On Thursday, Morales came to Cancun and rallied with representatives of the world’s indigenous peoples and the peasant movement Via Campesina, a global coalition representing 150 million small farmers, who fear the United Nations’ market-based approach to solving global warming. Bolivia’s posturing against international consensus included a passionate defense of small island states and African nations, who are most threatened by global warming — even though those nations unanimously supp orted the Cancun Agreements. Bolivia’s position that no progress is better than insufficient progress rang false to those who had the most at stake. Back in the United States, oil-funded conservatives attacked the climate negotiations, using similarly extreme arguments to appeal to the right. “I know for a fact that global warming, climate change, whatever term they attach to it,” declaimed Rush Limbaugh, “is nothing more than an attempt to create socialist nations as far around the world as they can and to separate us from our money.” Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) led a group of Republican senators attacking the scientific basis for protecting the most vulnerable people in the world from global warming. Fox News, owned by billionaire Rupert Murdoch and Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal, ran multiple segments arguing the United Nations wants to destroy free-market capitalism in the name of climate change. The Koch Industries tea-party group Americans For Prosperity claimed climate scientists “never met a regulation on mankind they didn’t like.”
toxic Tuesday & some News
The rain combined with the wind has put the hammer down on the 206 – The thunder was rolling the lightening close and noisy so anyone out there having difficulty today and it is still Fall …you are not alone.
I am feeling less and less confident that legislation we need done before the New Congress gets into place after hearing comments from various Democratic members of the House on various cables and or radios. The House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer says that they will do their best to get a vote and pass the Tax Deal but if I heard him correctly, he stated with some Amendments added this thing would pass. I have to say if any changes made to the tax agreement that would be great but the deal was a take it or leave it situation. Therefore, any comment by Hoyer just proves folks do not listen to each other or refuse to see that time is of the essence and there just is not a lot of it left. I feel given the fact that bills that pass in the Senate need to be sent to the House to be passed and vice versa so adding amendments will not only increase the time it will take for it to pass. I am worried that the process by which the House is willing to put the TAX Cut deal through sounds and makes it almost impossible to pass before January.
In other News that is upsetting and so, obviously unfair and unbalanced is that not only did A.G. Cuccinelli file a suit against HCR, who has said some awful things about President Obama on numerous occasions should make anyone uncomfortable and see how the outcome any decision might side with the Republican Tea Party. The fact that Judge Henry E Hudson who is a Bushy was the one who received this suit first of all and was not able to see the conflict on interest so obviously right in his face. Anyway, below you will find part of an AP story by Larry O’Dell, for the full story go to the AP site -“Judge Strikes down federal health care law”. It is obvious this guy should recuse himself from the case but hey, that is just me…
Hudson sided with Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, who argued the mandate overstepped the bounds of the Constitution.
“The ruling is extremely positive for anyone who believes in the system of Federalism created by our founding fathers,” Cuccinelli said. “It underscores that the Constitution’s limitations on federal power really do mean something.”
Cuccinelli, a Republican, filed the lawsuit to defend a new state law passed in reaction to the federal overhaul that prohibits the government from forcing state residents to buy health insurance.
He argued that while the government can regulate economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce, the decision not to buy insurance amounts to economic inactivity that is beyond the government’s reach.
“This lawsuit is not about health insurance, not about health care, it’s about liberty,” he said.
Hudson, a Republican appointed by President George W. Bush, sounded sympathetic to the state’s case when he heard oral arguments in October, and the White House expected to lose this round.
Administration officials told reporters last week that a negative ruling would have virtually no impact on the law’s implementation, noting that its two major provisions — the coverage mandate and the creation of new insurance markets — don’t take effect until 2014.
Dear Cuccinelli and Judge Hudson:
definition of CONFLICT of INTEREST … The Free Dictionary -by farlex
A term used to describe the situation in which a public official or fiduciary who, contrary to the obligation and absolute duty to act for the benefit of the public or a designated individual, exploits the relationship for personal benefit, typically pecuniary.
In certain relationships, individuals or the general public place their trust and confidence in someone to act in their best interests. When an individual has the responsibility to represent another person—whether as administrator, attorney, executor, government official, or trustee—a clash between professional obligations and personal interests arises if the individual tries to perform that duty while at the same time trying to achieve personal gain. The appearance of a conflict of interest is present if there is a potential for the personal interests of an individual to clash with fiduciary duties, such as when a client has his or her attorney commence an action against a company in which the attorney is the majority stockholder.
Incompatibility of professional duties and personal interests has led Congress and many state legislatures to enact statutes defining conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest and specifying the sanctions for violations. A member of a profession who has been involved in a conflict of interest might be subject to disciplinary proceedings before the body that granted permission to practice that profession.
and if that wasn’t enough…
conflict of interest n. a situation in which a person has a duty to more than one person or organization, but cannot do justice to the actual or potentially adverse interests of both parties. This includes when an individual’s personal interests or concerns are inconsistent with the best for a customer, or when a public official’s personal interests are contrary to his/her loyalty to public business. An attorney, an accountant, a business adviser or realtor cannot represent two parties in a dispute and must avoid even the appearance of conflict. He/she may not join with a client in business without making full disclosure of his/her potential conflicts, he/she must avoid commingling funds with the client, and never, never take a position adverse to the customer.






You must be logged in to post a comment.