Senate Democrats have ceded two key components of President Obama’s health care reform proposals: The proposed Medicare buy-in for those ages 55-64 and a public option.
Democrats had wanted to see Medicare expanded so that people aged 55 and over can buy in to the government-run plan, which currently covers senior citizens aged 65 or older. A public insurance option would have offered competition to high priced private insurers and allowed citizens to purchase low-cost policies through government markets.
These components of the bill were apparently dropped in a cave-in to Republicans, centrist Democrats, and Joe Lieberman (I-CT). Sen. Lieberman, a crucial vote if the bill is to garner 60 votes, threatened to join Republicans in a filibuster of the bill if it includes either the Medicare buy-in or a public option. On CBS’s Face the Nation, Lieberman said that in order to get 60 votes in the Senate, “You got to take out the Medicare buy-in. You got to forget about the public option. You probably have to take out the Class Act.” According to The New York Times, “Mr. Lieberman is also insisting that he will not vote for a fallback public option that would create a government-run program if the legislation otherwise fails to accomplish its goals. The Class Act is a reference to a proposed long-term care insurance program that was included in the bill.” Lieberman’s other condition is eliminating a government insurance program focused on home health care for the disabled.
According to Reuters, when asked whether Democrats had truly dropped both the Medicare buy-in and the public option provisions, Senator Max Baucus (D-) said, “It’s looking like that’s the case.”
Some Senate Democrats attempted to rationalize the concessions by suggesting that the passage of any bill is better than no bill at all. According to Bloomberg News, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) said, “The general consensus was that…we shouldn’t make the perfect the enemy of the good and in order to get all the insurance reforms accomplished and a number of other good things in the bill.” Dropping the Medicare expansion “would be necessary to get the 60 votes.”
“This bill, without public option, without Medicare buy-in, is a giant step forward toward transforming American health care,” said Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA). “That’s reality, there is enough good stuff in that bill that we should move ahead with it.” Harkin, currently replacing Sen. Ted Kennedy as chairman of the Senate Health, Education and Labor Committee, had once been one of the public option’s most staunch defenders.
“At some point you have to switch from the sentiment, the emotion of the words, to the facts,” said Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) . “And then you’ve got to decide, ‘If I didn’t get what I want, in the form that I wanted it, am I willing to cashier 31 million Americans? I want a bill.’”
Even Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL), who threatened to filibuster any bill that does not include a public option, appeared to cave-in. “I know how difficult it has been to get this far. My colleagues may have forged a compromise bill that can achieve the 60 votes that will be needed for its passage but until this bill addresses cost, competition and accountability in a meaningful way, it will not win my vote,” he said, according to The Hill.
In lieu of a public option, the bill would have the Office of Public Management (OPM) oversee private insurers who accept clients under federal subsidies. Jacob S. Hacker, a professor of political science at Yale University and an expert on U.S. health and social policy, claims that a robust public option is essential for any meaningful health care reform. In The New Republic he writes:
Offering one or a few national plans under the auspices of the OPM won’t provide what a public plan can–the choice of a broad, transparent, accountable, and affordable plan that doesn’t deny needed care, restrains the growth of premiums over time, and serves as a benchmark for private plans. Indeed, because Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) is the most likely national non-profit to take advantage of this new opening, and because the Blues dominate most states, the plan perversely amounts to trying to increase competition and choice by encouraging Blue Cross and Blue Shield to compete against, you guessed it, Blue Cross and Blue Shield. That’s competition?
It is unclear exactly what Democrats are referring to that will remain in the bill constituting significant health care reform besides a ban of insurance companies denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions. The bill would include mandatory private sector insurance, which would be a profit windfall for big insurance and pharmaceutical companies on the backs of millions of the poorest Americans who currently cannot afford coverage.
Any bill that might pass Congress at this point will be a flawed compromise, one that will deeply disappoint the Democratic base and one that will leave unaddressed major flaws in the health system. Perhaps no bill at all may be a better choice at this point.
Written on November 19th, 2009 by redwaterlily3 shouts
While she has not yet “officially” announced that she is running for Senate, she has been on WGMD repeatedly to talk about it and said that she would officially kick of her campaign once she reaches 10K in donations. I think it is fun to keep her around for the entertainment value – sort of like Mike Protack – just another perennial candidate that makes us laugh out a lot (or shake our heads in disbelief).
ANYWAY – my favorite comment of hers during the last radio interview was that she said it was the SOCIALIST AGENDA that caused the recommendations by the United States Preventive Services Task Force to begin breast cancer screening for women at age 50 rather then 401, as is the case right now.
According to her, Socialists would change the age for screening because they do not care about the individual but they would change the age because screening at a younger age is not beneficial to the people at large. It’s that tired old argument that socialists only do what benefits the greater good rather then any individual.
No Ms. O’Donnell – it’s not the SOCIALISTS that would change the age for screening, but the CAPITALISTS that want to remove one more procedure from the list of items health insurances have to cover and pay for. The New York Times writes:
The guidelines are not expected to have an immediate effect on insurance coverage but should make health plans less likely to aggressively prompt women in their 40s to have mammograms and older women to have the test annually.
And I believe they are right – that is EXACTLY what will happen – health insurances will see a way to save money and act upon that, because…
Congress requires Medicare to pay for annual mammograms. Medicare can change its rules to pay for less frequent tests if federal officials direct it to.
Private insurers are required by law in every state except Utah to pay for mammograms for women in their 40s.
So the major benefit of changing the age for mamograms is the cost saving – does that sound like a socialist agenda item to you?
Oh yeah, and I don’t consider myself a SOCIALIST but a SOCIAL DEMOCRAT. Though, I doubt Ms. O’Donnell would know the difference between the two.
Sidenote: Having lived in a country with universal health care, I can not say that the individual is not cared for. To give a few examples of my history with health care in Germany.
I rarely ever made appointments with my primary care doctor, most of my appointments where walk in with a wait of less then 30 minutes.
Dental care is part of the regular health insurance and not separate. This was especially important to me when an accident at age 13 knocked out my two upper front teeth and required me to have first a partial and later a bridge to cover the gap. I walked into my dentists office without an appointment as soon as possible after the accident and left that same day (many hours later) with a partial denture to cover the gap (I was too young for a bridge at that time).
A school accident left me with a moderate concussion at age 16. I walked into the Emergency room and, within an hour, was admitted into the hospital. 10 days and several brain scans later I was released with almost no residual effects of the concussion. The reason they kept me rather then sent me home was that they know children do not lay still at home and because this was a moderate concussion that left me with no memory of the 2 hours following the event, they felt it was necessary to monitor me. The concussion was so severe that I did not go to the hospital the day it happened but rather then next morning – when my parents thought I was on my way to school, I walked myself to the hospital 45 minutes away — I have no idea why I did that – I don’t remember much of the hours after I passed out (I passed out and hit my head on a sink).
When I was pregnant with my son I had some minor complications (very low blood pressure) and could see my doctor any time needed to address this. Unfortunately I had to have a c-section; however, since German’s consider this a type of major abdominal surgery, they like to keep you in the hospital. I left the hospital with my son 9 days after he was born – drains, bandages, stitches – everything had been removed. Again – they like to do this to make sure you are OK and that there aren’t any complications.
I don’t know about you – but I personally felt that I as an individual mattered and was cared for.
As for the mammograms, I had my first one shortly after my 38th birthday and a second shortly thereafter because of “issues” – and it was emotionally very stressful and I worried a lot. Luckily the second one came back fine. I believe they should not change the age for mammograms but maybe have them a bit less frequently before age 50 – say every two years or three years until age 50.
Written on November 7th, 2009 by redwaterlilyno shouts
WASHINGTON, D.C. (AP) –1 The House has opened debate on President Barack Obama’s landmark health care overhaul that would extend insurance to tens of millions of Americans and enact dramatic changes to the country’s medical system.
Unfortunatly not dramatic enough. I am sure there will be lots of add-on that will weaken the bill even more.
President Barack Obama is traveling to Capitol Hill on Saturday to try to close the sale on his signature health care overhaul, facing a make-or-break vote in the House certain to be seen as a test of his presidency.
Everything is seen as a “test of his presidency” – the guy can’t take a breath without it being called a test of his presidency and without it making people question his ability to get the job done.
Obama scheduled a late-morning visit with House Democrats convening a rare Saturday session on legislation to remake the U.S. health care system, extending coverage to tens of millions now uninsured and banning insurance company practices such as denial of coverage based on pre-existing medical problems.
The pre-existing condition thing has always been the most stupid think I have ever seen – you allow companies to deny those who need the care more then anybody else, iven if the pre-existing conditions aren’t as expesnive to treat or if they are birth defects that the person and his/her family had no choice over.That’s where the German in me comes out kicking and screaming. Children, Pregnant women, people with disabilities, and the elderly should ALWAYS be covered – and so should ever person that is working or seeking employment .
Late Friday, House Democrats cleared an abortion-related impasse blocking a vote and officials expressed optimism they had finally lined up the support needed to pass Obama’s signature issue.
Under the arrangement, Democratic Reps. Bart Stupak of Michigan, Brad Ellsworth of Indiana and other abortion opponents were promised an opportunity to insert tougher restrictions into the legislation during debate on the House floor.
Written on September 18th, 2009 by redwaterlilyno shouts
The Chairman‘s Mark would establish Federal rating, issue, renewability, and pre-existing condition rules for the individual market. Issuers in the individual market could vary premiums based only on the following characteristics: tobacco use, age, and family composition. Specifically, premiums could vary no more than the ratio specified for each characteristic:
Tobacco use – 1.5:1 (meaning 1.5 dollars for every dollar spent by another person – a 150% variance)
Age – 5:1 (500%)
Family composition:
Single – 1:1 (100%)
Adult with child – 1.8:1 (180%)
Two adults – 2:1 (200%)
Family – 3:1 (300%)
Taking together all permissible risk factors, premiums within a family category could not vary by more than a 7.5:1 composite ratio.
So let’s see – a 20-ish year old person would have to pay – oh, let’s say $200. If that person smoked, he/she would have to pay $300.
If that person – for some reason – was say 70 years old instead of 20, he/she would have to pay up to $1,000 for the same coverage and up to $1,500 if he or she smokes.
Someone better find that “fountain of youth” quickly.
Also, premiums “within a family category” could vary by 750%!!!! Meaning, a family of non-smokers that has two kids and the parents are in their twenties or early thirties may pay $600, while a family where the parents are a bit older may pay as much as $7,500 for that same coverage. Of course, since the age variance doens’t specify age limits – would some insurers go up the 500% for someone as young as 45, becuase they deem them as old, or someone has to be 63 or 55 or 95 or what?
Written on September 16th, 2009 by redwaterlilyno shouts
“caps would be placed on patients’ yearly health care costs”
So once that “cap” is in place and a patient’s health care bill goes up and above the cap – will they just tell the cancer to dissapear? What will happen with people that have serious illnesses that go above that cap? I think what is meant is a cap on out-of pocket expenses- but I will need to check on that – until then – forget it for now.
UPDATE – OK, here it is:
All plans must provide preventive and primary care, emergency services, hospitalization, physician services, outpatient services, day surgery and related anesthesia, diagnostic imaging and screenings (including x-rays), maternity and newborn care, pediatric services (including dental and vision), medical/surgical care, prescription drugs, radiation and chemotherapy, and mental health and substance abuse services that at least meet minimum standards set by Federal and state laws. In addition, plans could charge no cost-sharing (e.g., deductibles, copayments) for preventive care services, except in cases where value-based insurance design
is used. Plans could also not include lifetime limits on coverage or annual limits on any benefits. Any insurer that rates on tobacco use must also provide coverage for comprehensive tobacco cessation programs including counseling and pharmacotherapy (prescription and non-prescription). The provisions in this paragraph would all be within the actuarial value of the appropriate benefit level.
Ok, I understand that. I am a bit shaky on this one here:
Definition of Levels.
For those between 100-200 percent of FPL, the benefit will include an out-of-pocket limit equal to one-third of the HSA current law limit. For those between 200-300 percent of FPL, the benefit will include an out-of-pocket limit equal to one-half of the HSA current law limit.
The bronze benefit package, which would represent minimum creditable coverage (MCC), would be equal to the actuarial value of 65 percent with an out-of-pocket limit up to the Health Savings Account (HSA) current law limit ($5,950 for individuals and $11,900 for families in 2010) indexed to the per capita growth in premiums for the insured market as determined by the Secretary of HHS. The silver benefit package would have an actuarial value of 70 percent with the out-of-pocket limits for MCC. The gold benefit package would have an actuarial value of 80 percent with the out-of-pocket limits for MCC. The platinum benefit package would have an actuarial value of 90 percent with the out-of-pocket limits for MCC. A separate ―young invincible‖ policy would be available for those 25 years or younger. This plan would be a catastrophic only policy in which the catastrophic coverage level would be set at the HSA current law limit, but prevention benefits would be exempt from the deductible.
Care to explain? My German brain just isn’t making sense of it.
Just FYI —
Some info I found on the web:
bone-marrow transplants cost around $260000
average cost of one round of chemotherapy is $150,000
$2,187 average monthly health care cost for prostatecancer
$7,616 average monthly health care cost for pancreatic cancer
$41,000 health care costs per premature born child during their first year of life
a minimum of $5000 cleft lip surgery and/or cleft palate repair
$39,891 average cost to Medicaid for INITIAL lung cancer treatment
$41,134 average cost to Medicaid for INITIAL prostate cancer treatment
$20,964 average cost to Medicaid for INITIAL breast cancer treatment
Avastin for the treatment of recurrent breast cancer costs about $55,000 a year for a Medicare patient
minimum estimated cost for a regular delivery in a hospital $7800
$4306 median annual medical cost for children with ADD/ADHD
average heart bypass-procedure cost $20673 not nclkuding follow up treatment, medication, etc.
caring for an individual with autism can cost more than $3 million in their lifetime
$13243 average annual healthcare cost for a person with diabetes
$28436 average annual healthcare cost for chronically homeless individuals
$33007 average annual healthcare cost for someone older than 65 with Alzheimer’s Disease or another form of dementia
Written on September 16th, 2009 by redwaterlilyno shouts
It was scheduled for noon from what I read, but this just in from the Washington Post:
Baucus Proposes 10-Year, $856 Billion Health-Care Bill
He must have just started – that’s all the news they have. It was epected to happen today – curious what’s all in there. The Wall Street Journal wrote about him not getting any support for his bill but he is still unveiling it. ABC writes that nobody likes the bill more then Baucus himself.
requiring all individuals to purchase health care or pay a fine
prohibiting insurance company practices like charging more to people with more serious health problems
Consumers would be able to shop for and compare insurance plans in a new purchasing exchange.
Medicaid would be expanded, and caps would be placed on patients’ yearly health care costs.
The bill fails to fulfill President Barack Obama’s aim of creating a new government-run insurance plan — or option — to compete with the private market. It proposes instead a system of nonprofit member owned cooperatives, somewhat akin to electric co-ops that exist in many places around the country
Written on September 2nd, 2009 by redwaterlilyno shouts
I get angry when I hear conservatives say we don’t need a health care reform and we don’t need universal health care/health insurance. Those statements are usually followed up with something were they say how they pay for all their bills out of pocket or pay their insurance premium on their own.
Of course, these are also people normally speaking up that can afford to do that – maybe they aren’t rich, but they still are able to get the money somehow. They don’t think of the people in part-time jobs and lower paying jobs that don’t have benefits – to them these people just don’t work hard enough. However, without the people in these low-paying jobs, we’d all be lost. They are the cashiers, waitresses, shelf stockers, couriers, receptionists, etc. And even if they work 2 or 3 jobs – at minimum wage that still isn’t enough to pay rent, raise kids, etc.
I wish there was a way for all American’s without health insurance (or those who are in Medicaid because they just don’t make enough money) to stop working for a day so people see just how many of them there are and how important they are in people’s day-to-day lives — and show just what would happen if they weren’t there.
I am very supportive of the legislation and it was a good start – the best we could get this year with the budget the way it is, $170 per child plus administrative costs will probably get it up to $200. It’’s still a lot of money but better then paying the bills when you don’t have insurance and your child needs meds and care above and beyond an annual check up.
This is for children in families that are above 200% of the poverty level. Don’t know if your income is within or above?
Written on August 25th, 2009 by redwaterlily5 shouts
Truth? Lies? Or Partial Truths? I am opting for the third. The Ceasar Rodney Institute obviously doesn’t. I do believe that police officers as well as Correctional Officers at times use extensive force; however, I also believe that prisoners are capable of embellishing the circumstances just to get attention, get officers in trouble, and report injuries received during prison fights as injuries received from COs. Do I believe all of them do that? No! But there are always a few that makes things look worse then they are and that strive on ruining other people’s lives. And there are always a few COs that are not professional and that do not treat inmates correctly. I have trouble believing that it is the majority of COs.
What really bothers me about the accusations is the fact that some of the parties involved are currently involved in civil suits and now they are trying to try this case in the newspapers (so far the News Journal does not seem to have picked it up yet). Where is CRI when the Department of Corrections’ budget gets cut even though they need to do something about being understaffed but do not get to hire more Correctional Officers? DOC says that is it currently fully staffed or has only a few vacancies – but what fails to make the media is the fact that they are only a few people short of MINIMUM STAFFING – meaning staffing that covers the bare minimum and still causes officer’s to be told they can’t go home at the end of their shift but they have to work overtime — 8 HOURS OF OVERTIME – just to finally go home for 8 hours and then go to work again, leaving them with not enough time to eat and sleep considering travel time. MINIMUM staffing puts everybody at risk – the officers AND the inmates. People tend to forget that COs, just like prisoners, stay locked up in prison all day and go through some of the same stresses even though they do get to go home — eventually. The suicide rate among COs is extremely high for a reason.
Ahh. I can just hear some of my readers now say that they chose to be COs – it’s not a job they have to do. No, they don’t have to do it, but are you willing to? If yes, why haven’t you applied? If not them – then who? Of course, we could also turn DOC into a private FOR PROFIT institution – then you will really get to see prisoner abuse and inadequate health care for prisoners.
I loved the Cesar Rodney Institute’s statement on their website: “An Open Letter To Carl Danberg poses 32 questions it had hoped the Correction Commissioner would answer. Danberg refused to comment for this series.” — Can I be honest? I would refuse too, because CRI already made up its mind and NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING that Carl Danberg could say would do any good. He does not owe CRI anything, but he does have to answer to the people of the State of Delaware and I hope that, in time, he will.
Also, I wonder why CRI didn’t mention what Sudler, the diabetic that will need to have his last remaining leg amputated, is in prison for – probably because that would make him less the recipient of sympathy. Is it the same Sudler as mentioned here?:
Wilmington- On Sunday, May 11, 2008, at approximately 2:02 p.m., Troopers were called to the 3800 block of North Market Street to investigate the rape of a 8-Year-Old girl. In this case, it had been alleged that Mr. Benjamin Sudler, 55, of the aforementioned address, had been sexually assaulting the 8-year-old girl (–SNIPPED TO REMOVE IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ABOUT THE VICTIM–). The assaults apparently began in November of 2007. A computer check revealed Sudler was wanted by several courts in Delaware and authorities took him into custody. He was transported back to Troop 2 where the investigation into the rape continued. Detectives successfully implicated him in the sexual assault and charged him with the following offenses: four counts of Rape 1st and Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child. He was arraigned and committed to the Howard Young Correctional Institute in lieu of $230,000.00 Cash Only Bond.
He STILL does not deserve to be treated badly and he still deserves to receive treatment for his diabetes – but can DOC really be responsible for monitoring what each inmate buys and eats – had he not bought these items, he could have traded for them somehow else – there really isn’t much that can be done other then locking up inmates 24/7 in their cells – and everybody would scream about that as well – rightfully so.
I believe the accusations need to be investigated and I believe there are truths to the accusations as well as some embellishments — but the way I see it, the media already has made up its mind and found DOC guilty – can there really be such thing as a fair investigation?
Again, let me make this clear — I am AGAINST prisoner abuse and FOR adequate medical care for prisoners. I am all for investigating reports of prisoner abuse. HOWEVER, I refuse to take CRIs report for granted, because it is aimed at making prisoners look good and DOC look bad and talks about hand picked inmates and releases only information about those prisoners that is aimed, again, at getting sympathy for them. The report mentions Sudler being a family man but forgets to mention he raped an 8 year-old girl. Give ALL the info or non – don’t pick through it and only give out the information that gives you the reaction that you desire to get.
Oh yes, and did I forget to mention that my partner is a CO – and she has a much higher chance of getting abused by prisoners and then discarded by the media then there is a chance of her abusing them? We all remember the rape of the Counselor, right?
REP. ANTHONY WEINER: Name a single thing a private insurance company does to make anyone healthier, to save anyone money. Health insurance companies operate like they’re supposed to. They’re businesses. They operate to make profits. How do you make profits? By giving away as little, and collecting as much. It’s the opposite of the imperative that we have as the representatives of the people.
But this is so utterly predictable because you didn’t vote for Medicare. Your party didn’t vote for Social Security. You had control of the House, the Senate, the Judiciary, the presidency for eight years and you didn’t do anything.
No, I shouldn’t say that. You passed Medicare Part D, which said, let’s see if we give them enough money if they’ll do the right thing. Donut hole, anyone?
You know, this is like Jabberwocky, which was the language spoken in Alice in Wonderland, isn’t that right Mrs. Baldwin? Through the Looking Glass. You know, if you say these words enough, sooner or later they take on a little life of their own. Well, you can feel free to do that, but the American people know you’re standing in defense of a system that everyone knows is broken, everyone knows is too expensive, everyone knows doesn’t work, and we were elected to change that.
To see what’s on the ready list just go to www.delaware.gov and click on the upper right on GENERAL ASSEMBLY. on that page you will see links to the “Ready List” for both the House and the Senate. ready list means these bills are waiting to be put on the calendar for discussion/vote.
Senate Bill # 41
Long Title: AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 14 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO FOSTER CARE AND THE SEED PROGRAM.
Synopsis: This Act would allow children who are leaving foster care to have access to the SEED scholarship, without the condition that they begin their higher education immediately after high school. This Act also allows them to attend school part-time. These exceptions are necessary because children aging out of foster care have the unique responsibility to support themselves and may not be able to follow the traditional timetable that children with the support of a more traditional family are able to follow.
I really like this bill. Kids that are aging out of Foster Care have a tough enough time to make ends meet – helping them be able to attend college is a step in the right direction.
House Bill # 18
Long Title: AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 7, TITLE 19 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO THE DOCTRINE OF EMPLOYMENT AT WILL AND PROTECTION FROM WRONGFUL TERMINATION.
Synopsis: This act is based on the Model Employment Termination Act promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1991. The basic philosophy of this act is one of compromise and balancing the competing interests of employers and employees. Thus, although covered employees are granted an expanded substantive right to “good cause” protections against termination, available remedies are limited to reinstatement, with or without backpay, and severance pay when reinstatement is unfeasible. Compensatory and punitive damages are eliminated, except in cases where an employer retaliates against an individual for filing a complaint, giving testimony or otherwise participating in proceedings under this Subchapter.
Pursuant to this act, employees who have worked for an employer for more than one year may only be fired for “good cause.” Part-time employees working less than 20 hours per week are not covered by the act. As to covered employees, this act extinguishes all common law rights and remedies against an employer. This act, however, does not displace or extinguish any rights granted to an employee under any Federal or Delaware statutes, administrative rules or regulations having the force of law. Similarly, this act does not displace or extinguish any rights granted to an employee under a collective-bargaining agreement or an express oral or written agreement relating to employment. Employees not covered by the provisions of this act retain all common law rights and remedies.
This act does not apply to the State or its subdivisions or agencies, municipal corporations or private employers with less than five employees. “Good cause” for a termination is defined as: (i) a “reasonable basis” related to an individual employee in view of factors such as conduct on the job, job performance and employment record; or (ii) the exercise of business judgment in good faith by the employer. The requirement of good cause for a termination does not apply to a termination which occurs at the expiration of express term of employment or upon completion of the specified task or project to which the employment related.
The provisions of this act cannot be waived except by an express written agreement of the employer and employee providing for severance pay in the event the employee is terminated without good cause. Any covered employee whose employment is terminated may file a complaint and demand for arbitration with the Department of Labor within 180 days of the effective date of the termination. An employer seeking a declaration that good cause exists for a termination may also file a complaint and request for arbitration. Arbitration pursuant to this act shall be governed by Delaware’s Uniform Arbitration Act. Either party to an arbitration proceeding may appeal the arbitrator’s award to the Superior Court of the County in which the termination occurred.
The act will take effect 180 days after enactment to allow the Department of Labor to promulgate regulations implementing this act.
This whole AT WILL employment thing has bugged me forever. I believe this bill is also a step in the right direction, although I can hear all the business owners already screaming that not only will they have to employ gays and lesbians (the anti-discrimination bill) and treat them respectfully but now they also can’t fire whomever they want. I don’t think it is right to be able to fire someone without telling them why or what they did wrong – It’s OK for a employers to use and abuse and chew up and spit out their workers at will and the workers have no recourse — this bill would give workers at least a bit more recourse, especially if they have worked at a place for more then a year.
House Bill # 64
Long Title: AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 29 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO HEALTH CARE INSURANCE.
Synopsis: This bill enables small businesses in the State, such as school bus contracting businesses, to participate in the State Group Health Insurance Program at no cost to the State, effective July 1, 2009.
Again, the more people we can cover by health insurance, the better. Delaware has a lot of small businesses that cannot buy health insurance for their employees at group rates – this bill would cover a lot of employees at those small businesses.
All in all, the above bills are all good for the people of Delaware, especially for the working population. They are all aimed at increasing the Quality of Life for Delaware’s workers – not having to worry about being fired for no good reason after working somewhere for a year or more, knowing your kids are covered by health insurance and being able to take them to the doctor as needed, and knowing that you yourself can go to the doctor rather then having to abuse the ER as your primary care doctor and having huge bills to pay off – these bills are all good and I am all for them.
Written on March 30th, 2009 by redwaterlilyno shouts
(note – I had to remove the video, it kept making IE hang up)
The website in the above video and the stories below came to my attention through a discussion on OutQ radio, a GLBT Satellite radio station on Sirius. The fact is that all these anti-abortion people that fight for the right of fetuses are taking away a women’s right to choose how and when and where to give birth. In some cases, as the one described below, it even rates the life of the fetus higher then that of the mother. I am outraged by these stories and even though they are a few years old, this stuff still happens.
In 1987, Angela Carder was twenty-five weeks pregnant, and cancer had metastasized to her lung.
Administrators of George Washington University Hospital – who were also the liability risk managers feared a lawsuit by pro-life activists.
They convened a court hearing at the hospital
Angela’s family and her husband as well as her physician opposed a c-section because it was very unlikely that she would survive such procedure.
Despite medical testimony that such a procedure would most likely Angela’s life, an order was issued forcing her to have an emergency c-section.
Neither Angela Carder nor her baby survived.
And then there is this one
Laura Pemberton had given birth via c-section before. When she became pregnant again, no hospital would let her give natural birth.
She decided to give birth to her child at home in Florida.
While she was in labor, a Sheriff came to her house
Doctors were in the process of getting a court order to force her to have a c-section because of a less then 5 percent chance of ruptures during delivery.
The sheriff took her into custody during active labor, they strapped her legs together and forced her to undergo a c-section at the hospital.
During a later lawsuit she was told that fetal rights outweighed hers.
She gave later birth to three more children — naturally
Or this one
Melissa Ann Rowland was charged with murder after she gave birth to twins, one of them stillborn.
Melissa was told by doctors that she should have a c-section, but she refused to, because she had been through the procedure and had been cut a lot
Melissa did finally have a c-section, but, according to prosecutors, not soon enough.
They theorized that the second baby may have survived an earlier c-section.
Written on December 1st, 2008 by redwaterlilyno shouts
December 1 is World AIDS Day. For a time-line of HIV/AIDS go here.
Every year I go to Rehoboth Beach to participate in their remembrance ceremony. However, I am not sure if I will be able to go this year. It is important to me to take part in the AIDS Walk and the World AIDS Day remembrance ceremonies, because the fight for a cure still has a long way to go. Unfortunately, AIDS and HIV have been mostly off the front pages of the news papers. The celebrities that used to wear red ribbon pins are now wearing pink ribbons instead. While I am very supportive of the fight against breast cancer. I believe HIV and AIDS still demand a lot of our attention – but they are just not getting it. Why?
In 2007 —
2.0 million deaths worldwide due to AIDS
1.4 million deaths worldwide due to lung cancer
866,000 deaths worldwide due to stomach cancer
653,000 deaths worldwide due to liver cancer
677,000 deaths worldwide due to colon cancer
548,000 deaths worldwide due to breast cancer
Maybe saving boobs is more important then saving drug users, gays, and people in Africa (after all, isn’t that who most people think is most at risk of contracting HIV?), or people who have cancer in body parts other then their boobs?!?!
Worldwide
33.0 million people worldwide are living with HIV
30.8 million adults
15.5 million women
2.0 million children under 15
In 2007
2.7 million total new cases of HIV infection
2.3 million adults
370,000 children under 15
North America
1.2 million adults and children living with HIV
54,000 adults and children newly infected with HIV
0.6% adult prevalence
23,000 adult and child deaths due to AIDS
Delaware
Delaware consistently ranks in the top six states for HIV infection rates per capita in the country
Don’t say that there is nothing you can do – you can help
Take part in the World AIDS Day vigil in Rehoboth Beach
4:00-5:50 pm Reception for World AIDS Day Student Art Exhibit & HIV+ Artists Niccolo Cataldi & Greg Mitchell at the CAMP Rehoboth Community Center.
5:45-6 pm Gather at State Road in Rehoboth Beach to join the Rehoboth Beach Christmas Parade lineup (look for the World AIDS Day banners). Candles will be provided.
6:30 pm Candlelight Walk of Hope begins as a part of the Rehoboth Beach Christmas Parade
7:30 pm Service of Remembrance and Hope at All Saints’ Episcopal Church 18 Olive Avenue
8:30 pm (or when the service ends) Light supper at All Saints’ Church after the service of Remembrance and Hope
.
Recent Comments