Tuesday
Buy innovatively customized car wheels and rims
Hi bloggers! I am a busy software professional. Besides my professional I have lots of interest on fashionable cars. Also I am craze about modern and trendy car accessories. I will buy the new car accessories as soon they enter into the market. Every day I wish to get more updates and interesting news about car accessories from the web. And so during my leisure hours I spend some time in browsing through various car accessory websites. One day while I was doing so I came across a wonderful site namely, Carid. There I found a huge collection of car accessories including high quality tire packages, custom wheels, glittering chrome accessories, creatively designed spoilers, trendy lambo doors, long-lasting cargo liners, HID kits, advanced GPS systems, Super chips, highly impressive grill guards, dazzling body kits, innovatively designed dash kits, high efficient air intakes, exhaust systems and lot more.
To my surprise, there I found a wide range of sparkling and innovatively customized wheels and rims. The Carid had best brand products of world-class manufacturers such as Asanti, Hipnotic, Kenisis, Gianelle, Lexani, Niche, Roderick, Symbolic and so on. I got a creatively customized wheel from them and fixed it with my car. Now my car looks very gorgeous and elegant than ever before.
To my surprise, there I found a wide range of sparkling and innovatively customized wheels and rims. The Carid had best brand products of world-class manufacturers such as Asanti, Hipnotic, Kenisis, Gianelle, Lexani, Niche, Roderick, Symbolic and so on. I got a creatively customized wheel from them and fixed it with my car. Now my car looks very gorgeous and elegant than ever before.
Sunday
Tips to play online casino games
When a player starts to play online slots real money or any other casino games they should make sure that they do so in a way that gives them the most possible fun. They should also ensure that they get started with online gaming in a way that allows them to get better results. This is why players should ensure that they are following some tips in mind:
• The first thing players should make sure is that they choose the best online casino. They should be looking for stable software, great game selection, good bonuses and promotions, good customer service, exciting features and deposit methods that they can use.
• Online gamers should also ensure that they manage their money properly. It is a good idea for a player to ensure that there is an amount that he is ready to lose and he will not play more than that. Nothing can destroy it more of a player than to lose money that he could not afford to lose and take a financial squeeze.
• Online gamers should ensure that they take advantage of bonuses and promotions. It can really help them get ahead much faster. Casino games like online slots real money offers great bonus options and making use of such options will help them to bet more on Jackpot game or other high earning games. Campaigns can also give a lot of fun and really add to the enjoyment by playing at an online casino.
• Players must learn to recognize when the game is not fun for them and go away for awhile and take a break. While most people visit online casinos to try to win some money, they are also there to have fun. When they find that they become more irritable, they should take a break and return to the game when they are in a better mood.
• Players at an online casino may want to play a particular game for example online slots real money, but they should have an open mind. Trying with some other game will definitely make them enjoy. It is a good thing to take advantage of everything an online casino has to offer and to try so many online casino games as possible, since players can make something of their experiences.
• You should never start a game thinking you will win. There is always a greater chance that you will lose, and it is something you should be well prepared. This helps you to recover losses and not be overwhelmed by your changing fate easily.
• The first thing players should make sure is that they choose the best online casino. They should be looking for stable software, great game selection, good bonuses and promotions, good customer service, exciting features and deposit methods that they can use.
• Online gamers should also ensure that they manage their money properly. It is a good idea for a player to ensure that there is an amount that he is ready to lose and he will not play more than that. Nothing can destroy it more of a player than to lose money that he could not afford to lose and take a financial squeeze.
• Online gamers should ensure that they take advantage of bonuses and promotions. It can really help them get ahead much faster. Casino games like online slots real money offers great bonus options and making use of such options will help them to bet more on Jackpot game or other high earning games. Campaigns can also give a lot of fun and really add to the enjoyment by playing at an online casino.
• Players must learn to recognize when the game is not fun for them and go away for awhile and take a break. While most people visit online casinos to try to win some money, they are also there to have fun. When they find that they become more irritable, they should take a break and return to the game when they are in a better mood.
• Players at an online casino may want to play a particular game for example online slots real money, but they should have an open mind. Trying with some other game will definitely make them enjoy. It is a good thing to take advantage of everything an online casino has to offer and to try so many online casino games as possible, since players can make something of their experiences.
• You should never start a game thinking you will win. There is always a greater chance that you will lose, and it is something you should be well prepared. This helps you to recover losses and not be overwhelmed by your changing fate easily.
Drug Treatment
Modern people are getting addicted to various addictions like alcohol, improper use of drugs, cocaine addiction, crystal Meth addiction and more to follow. There are a number of treatment centers found all over the world to treat such dreadful addictions. You can find treatment for all kinds of addictions in some treatment centers and some treatment centers will be specialized in treating specific addictions for example, cocaine rehab treatment.
Addiction rescue drugs directly or indirectly affect the brain reward system by flooding it with dopamine and serotonin. It creates a sense of euphoria. This process is specific to each type of drug. We can not achieve this kind of euphoria through any type of natural reward. Several types of drugs can be used in certain stages of treatment to help patients to stop using drugs and not give this behavior again. When patients stop the consumption of a particular drug, they can experience the level of physical or psychological symptoms such as depression, anxiety, anxiety, restlessness, insomnia. There are some medicines that can help patients overcome these feelings. Other drugs are used to help the patient to continue treatment. This helps the brain to gradually adapt to the absence of drug. These drugs have a calming effect on the patient by helping him to focus on behavioral therapy. Also, there are medicines that may help the patient who has just finished treatment not to resume old habits due to stress or exposure to drugs. Methadone is the substance used in treating drug addiction. Behavioral treatments helps patients change their attitude towards drugs and offer them tools to better manage stressful situations that they will find on every day situations that might push back the drug. Moreover, behavioral therapy increases the efficiency of medical treatment and encourages people to follow the treatment for longer. Drug treatment usually lasts up to three months. My next writing will be about crystal meth rehab treatment.
Addiction rescue drugs directly or indirectly affect the brain reward system by flooding it with dopamine and serotonin. It creates a sense of euphoria. This process is specific to each type of drug. We can not achieve this kind of euphoria through any type of natural reward. Several types of drugs can be used in certain stages of treatment to help patients to stop using drugs and not give this behavior again. When patients stop the consumption of a particular drug, they can experience the level of physical or psychological symptoms such as depression, anxiety, anxiety, restlessness, insomnia. There are some medicines that can help patients overcome these feelings. Other drugs are used to help the patient to continue treatment. This helps the brain to gradually adapt to the absence of drug. These drugs have a calming effect on the patient by helping him to focus on behavioral therapy. Also, there are medicines that may help the patient who has just finished treatment not to resume old habits due to stress or exposure to drugs. Methadone is the substance used in treating drug addiction. Behavioral treatments helps patients change their attitude towards drugs and offer them tools to better manage stressful situations that they will find on every day situations that might push back the drug. Moreover, behavioral therapy increases the efficiency of medical treatment and encourages people to follow the treatment for longer. Drug treatment usually lasts up to three months. My next writing will be about crystal meth rehab treatment.
Saturday
Save using online gift certificate
Nowadays making use of gift and savings coupons are found to be the best way of saving. A number of online stores are available with free gift cards listed and I recently made use of Fandango Bucks Movie Ticket Gift Certificate and had a good time in the theaters during my last weekend.
Friday
Democrat Sanchez backs effort to extend labor protections to home care workers
For 35 years, home care workers have been exempt from the minimum wage and overtime protections granted to the rest of the nation’s workforce. This week, a House Democrat will take a step toward eliminating that discrepancy, which many in the party consider discriminatory.
Rep. Linda Sanchez will introduce legislation Wednesday to expand the wage protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to home care workers, who provide health and other domestic services to the sick and elderly. The California Democrat says the change is needed to entice more home care workers into the field in the face of an ever-increasing demand for their services.“It’s one of the worst-paid jobs in the country,” Sanchez told The Hill on Tuesday. “In this day and age,” she added, the current FLSA exemption “is shocking.”
Senior advocates agree. AARP spokesman Jordan McNerney said Tuesday that the group has yet to see the Sanchez bill but supports the concept.
“As older Americans continue to choose home and community-based care over more costly nursing homes,” he said in an e-mail, “the home health workers who care for them should be fairly compensated.”
Supporters argue that reform is long overdue. In 1974, Congress expanded the FLSA wage protections to many domestic workers, including most direct care workers, such as certified nursing assistants and home health aides.
But lawmakers also carved out an exemption for those providing simple “companionship services.”
The Department of Labor (DoL) subsequently placed home care workers into the category of companions — an interpretation upheld in a 2007 Supreme Court case.
Sanchez, whose father suffers from Alzheimer’s disease, said the distinction represents “a technical way to exclude these workers from basic protections.”
Her proposal will establish systems for collecting wage and employment data on direct care workers nationwide while also offering grants to states for recruitment, retention and training of those workers. The bill would authorize $25 million in grants each year for the next five years.
Supporters of the Sanchez bill, including the Direct Care Alliance (DCA), are quick to point out that the number of Americans needing long-term care is expected to jump to 27 million by 2050 — more than twice the number in 2000. With salaries for direct care workers averaging just $17,000 per year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there’s little incentive for new workers to enter the profession, DCA says.
“There aren’t enough workers to meet the demand,” said DCA spokesman Aaron Pickering.
The Sanchez bill is hardly the first time Democratic leaders have pushed to expand the FLSA protections. The DoL under President Clinton, for instance, had proposed last-minute rules to eliminate the home care exemption, but the George W. Bush administration was quick to withdraw the measure shortly after taking office. More recently, Sanchez spearheaded a 2009 letter to DoL Secretary Hilda Solis urging the Obama administration to make the change unilaterally. Senate leaders — including Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chairman of the labor panel — penned a similar letter.
In April, the DoL added the FLSA issue to its regulatory to-do list, but so far hasn’t taken steps to change the current rules.
The agency did not respond to requests for comment this week.
Rep. Linda Sanchez will introduce legislation Wednesday to expand the wage protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to home care workers, who provide health and other domestic services to the sick and elderly. The California Democrat says the change is needed to entice more home care workers into the field in the face of an ever-increasing demand for their services.“It’s one of the worst-paid jobs in the country,” Sanchez told The Hill on Tuesday. “In this day and age,” she added, the current FLSA exemption “is shocking.”
Senior advocates agree. AARP spokesman Jordan McNerney said Tuesday that the group has yet to see the Sanchez bill but supports the concept.
“As older Americans continue to choose home and community-based care over more costly nursing homes,” he said in an e-mail, “the home health workers who care for them should be fairly compensated.”
Supporters argue that reform is long overdue. In 1974, Congress expanded the FLSA wage protections to many domestic workers, including most direct care workers, such as certified nursing assistants and home health aides.
But lawmakers also carved out an exemption for those providing simple “companionship services.”
The Department of Labor (DoL) subsequently placed home care workers into the category of companions — an interpretation upheld in a 2007 Supreme Court case.
Sanchez, whose father suffers from Alzheimer’s disease, said the distinction represents “a technical way to exclude these workers from basic protections.”
Her proposal will establish systems for collecting wage and employment data on direct care workers nationwide while also offering grants to states for recruitment, retention and training of those workers. The bill would authorize $25 million in grants each year for the next five years.
Supporters of the Sanchez bill, including the Direct Care Alliance (DCA), are quick to point out that the number of Americans needing long-term care is expected to jump to 27 million by 2050 — more than twice the number in 2000. With salaries for direct care workers averaging just $17,000 per year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there’s little incentive for new workers to enter the profession, DCA says.
“There aren’t enough workers to meet the demand,” said DCA spokesman Aaron Pickering.
The Sanchez bill is hardly the first time Democratic leaders have pushed to expand the FLSA protections. The DoL under President Clinton, for instance, had proposed last-minute rules to eliminate the home care exemption, but the George W. Bush administration was quick to withdraw the measure shortly after taking office. More recently, Sanchez spearheaded a 2009 letter to DoL Secretary Hilda Solis urging the Obama administration to make the change unilaterally. Senate leaders — including Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chairman of the labor panel — penned a similar letter.
In April, the DoL added the FLSA issue to its regulatory to-do list, but so far hasn’t taken steps to change the current rules.
The agency did not respond to requests for comment this week.
Insurers back down on child-coverage stance
Health insurance plans across the country on Wednesday began to backtrack on their decision to pull out of the child-only coverage market after the Obama administration addressed their concerns about the potential damage to their bottom lines.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Tuesday clarified regulations mandating that insurance plans agree to cover sick children. HHS made it clear that plans are free to set up specific enrollment periods for their insurance plans if allowed under state laws. The new rules apply to plans in the individual and group markets from Sept. 23.
Health plans had raised concerns that without the enrollment periods, parents could wait until their children get sick before seeking coverage, making it impossible for insurers to stay profitable.
The insurance industry quickly applauded the new guidance. And at least one insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, announced it was “pleased to announce that it will establish a process to resume the sale of Child Only policies.”
“We think this policy will ensure that children get the comprehensive coverage they need while avoiding this unintended consequence,” Scott P. Serota, president and CEO of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, said in a statement. “This is consistent with other public and private health insurance programs.”
Karen Ignagni, president and CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans, followed suit.
“Today’s announcement will help ensure millions of children have access to affordable healthcare coverage,” she said. “For years, structured enrollment periods have been used in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, Medicare and in employer-based coverage to minimize disruption for families, seniors and small businesses. Health plans are committed to working with federal and state officials to ensure consumers are aware of all of their coverage options, including how and when they are able to sign up for coverage.”
Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, acknowledged that the administration was under pressure to avoid unintended consequences from the healthcare reform law.
State insurance commissioners last week warned that losing access to child-only policies could hurt middle-class parents because they’d have to pay family coverage rates, which can be more expensive than buying separate individual policies.
“Some state insurance commissioners expressed concern that, without an open enrollment period that was widely communicated, people might wait until their children got sick to enroll them in coverage, causing plans’ costs to increase,” DeParle said in a White House blog post. “And we were concerned when last week, some indicated that insurance companies would choose to stop offering policies for children rather than cover kids with pre-existing conditions.”
DeParle made it clear, however, that the clarification doesn’t give the insurers a free pass.
“The new [guidance] document notes that insurance companies may establish an open enrollment period for children with pre-existing conditions,” she wrote, “and makes clear that the administration will not hesitate to issue regulations if insurance companies unfairly limit access to insurance for children who need it most.”
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Tuesday clarified regulations mandating that insurance plans agree to cover sick children. HHS made it clear that plans are free to set up specific enrollment periods for their insurance plans if allowed under state laws. The new rules apply to plans in the individual and group markets from Sept. 23.
Health plans had raised concerns that without the enrollment periods, parents could wait until their children get sick before seeking coverage, making it impossible for insurers to stay profitable.
The insurance industry quickly applauded the new guidance. And at least one insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, announced it was “pleased to announce that it will establish a process to resume the sale of Child Only policies.”
“We think this policy will ensure that children get the comprehensive coverage they need while avoiding this unintended consequence,” Scott P. Serota, president and CEO of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, said in a statement. “This is consistent with other public and private health insurance programs.”
Karen Ignagni, president and CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans, followed suit.
“Today’s announcement will help ensure millions of children have access to affordable healthcare coverage,” she said. “For years, structured enrollment periods have been used in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, Medicare and in employer-based coverage to minimize disruption for families, seniors and small businesses. Health plans are committed to working with federal and state officials to ensure consumers are aware of all of their coverage options, including how and when they are able to sign up for coverage.”
Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, acknowledged that the administration was under pressure to avoid unintended consequences from the healthcare reform law.
State insurance commissioners last week warned that losing access to child-only policies could hurt middle-class parents because they’d have to pay family coverage rates, which can be more expensive than buying separate individual policies.
“Some state insurance commissioners expressed concern that, without an open enrollment period that was widely communicated, people might wait until their children got sick to enroll them in coverage, causing plans’ costs to increase,” DeParle said in a White House blog post. “And we were concerned when last week, some indicated that insurance companies would choose to stop offering policies for children rather than cover kids with pre-existing conditions.”
DeParle made it clear, however, that the clarification doesn’t give the insurers a free pass.
“The new [guidance] document notes that insurance companies may establish an open enrollment period for children with pre-existing conditions,” she wrote, “and makes clear that the administration will not hesitate to issue regulations if insurance companies unfairly limit access to insurance for children who need it most.”
How to find the lost pet
People show that much care and affection to their pets that they care with their family members. They like to take them wherever they go but there are chances for missing your pet when you are moving with them. Finding the lost pet is not at all an easy task. Even I had experienced such situation. I have a dog named Browny and I used to take her for a short walk. One day all of a sudden while walking through the road, she untied her rope and ran away. I didn’t know how to find the Lost dog. I and my friend wandered over streets by streets but we were not able to find her. Then my friend suggested me the idea to print poster revealing details about the Lost dog. With the help of petamberalert.com, I printed posters and they itself did the service of broadcasting the posters. Within two days, I caught back my Browny.
Thursday
HHS trumpets Medicare savings report
The Democrats’ healthcare reform law will save Medicare hundreds of billions of dollars and extend the life of the program more than a decade, according to a report issued Monday by the Obama administration.
The report — which mostly repackages April estimates from the chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) — marks the latest White House effort to rally seniors behind the healthcare law.
A recent survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) found that 37 percent of seniors feel “angry” about the healthcare reforms signed into law by President Obama. In contrast, just 26 percent of younger Americans in the survey said they are angry with the law.
On a conference call touting Monday’s report, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said seniors’ concerns are based on “a lot of misinformation” planted by critics of the law.
CMS says the healthcare law will save Medicare $8 billion by the end of 2011, and $575 billion over the next decade, largely by improving care quality and preventing waste and fraud. Guaranteed Medicare benefits, Sebelius noted, won’t be cut at all.
“Because we began making the changes right away, the savings add up fast,” Sebelius said.
The reforms will also extend the life of Medicare’s hospital fund by a dozen years, CMS says. In 2009, the Medicare trustees projected that Medicare’s hospital trust fund would run dry by 2017. CMS now says that fund is sustainable through 2029. This year’s trustee’s report, which was delayed due to passage of the health reform law, is expected to be released later this week.
Conservative critics immediately dismissed the CMS report as a politically motivated attempt to sell health reform to seniors.
They noted that Richard Foster, the chief CMS actuary who crunched many of the figures cited Monday, has been wary of the agency’s accounting methods. For instance, the savings the law provides to Medicare’s hospital benefit, Foster wrote in April, “cannot be simultaneously used to finance other federal outlays (such as the coverage expansions) and to extend the trust fund, despite the appearance of this result from the respective accounting conventions.”
Republicans have latched onto those comments to blast Monday’s CMS report.
“The administration’s own actuary ... [has] said over and over again that you can’t ‘double-count’ the Medicare cuts by claiming they extend the life of the Medicare program and at the same time fund a new entitlement program,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (Iowa), senior Republican on the Finance Committee, said in a statement. “That’s common sense even if the experts didn’t say it.
“It’s intellectually dishonest,” Grassley added, “to try to have it both ways.”
Administration officials defended their math Monday, with Jonathan Blum, director of CMS’s Center for Medicare Management, telling reporters that the accounting represents “consistent budget convention.”
Sebelius added that a “growing consensus” among lawmakers that healthcare costs need reining in have left White House officials “more optimistic” than Foster.
“He has a different interpretation,” she said.
Much of the partisan debate hinges on semantics. Democrats have said repeatedly that seniors wouldn’t lose any guaranteed Medicare benefits under the new reform law. Yet seniors enrolled in the Medicare Advantage (MA) program — where the government pays private insurers to cover Medicare patients — could lose benefits like dental and eye care not covered by the traditional program. Such benefits have made MA plans enormously popular among seniors, but have also cost Medicare, on average, 14 percent more per beneficiary — subsidies that come largely at the expense of seniors enrolled in the traditional Medicare program.
Another wildcard in the Medicare savings debate revolves around the so-called sustainable growth rate (SGR), the formula that updates Medicare payments to doctors each year. At the end of November, according to the SGR, doctors will begin receiving a 21 percent cut in Medicare payments — a cut that congressional leaders say they will prevent after the midterm elections.
Monday’s report assumes the 21 percent cut will take hold in December, producing more projected savings than will likely be realized.
Blum defended that calculation Monday, arguing that CMS simply based its estimates on current law.
“We’re working with Congress,” he added, “for a long-term [SGR] fix.”
The report — which mostly repackages April estimates from the chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) — marks the latest White House effort to rally seniors behind the healthcare law.
A recent survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) found that 37 percent of seniors feel “angry” about the healthcare reforms signed into law by President Obama. In contrast, just 26 percent of younger Americans in the survey said they are angry with the law.
On a conference call touting Monday’s report, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said seniors’ concerns are based on “a lot of misinformation” planted by critics of the law.
CMS says the healthcare law will save Medicare $8 billion by the end of 2011, and $575 billion over the next decade, largely by improving care quality and preventing waste and fraud. Guaranteed Medicare benefits, Sebelius noted, won’t be cut at all.
“Because we began making the changes right away, the savings add up fast,” Sebelius said.
The reforms will also extend the life of Medicare’s hospital fund by a dozen years, CMS says. In 2009, the Medicare trustees projected that Medicare’s hospital trust fund would run dry by 2017. CMS now says that fund is sustainable through 2029. This year’s trustee’s report, which was delayed due to passage of the health reform law, is expected to be released later this week.
Conservative critics immediately dismissed the CMS report as a politically motivated attempt to sell health reform to seniors.
They noted that Richard Foster, the chief CMS actuary who crunched many of the figures cited Monday, has been wary of the agency’s accounting methods. For instance, the savings the law provides to Medicare’s hospital benefit, Foster wrote in April, “cannot be simultaneously used to finance other federal outlays (such as the coverage expansions) and to extend the trust fund, despite the appearance of this result from the respective accounting conventions.”
Republicans have latched onto those comments to blast Monday’s CMS report.
“The administration’s own actuary ... [has] said over and over again that you can’t ‘double-count’ the Medicare cuts by claiming they extend the life of the Medicare program and at the same time fund a new entitlement program,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (Iowa), senior Republican on the Finance Committee, said in a statement. “That’s common sense even if the experts didn’t say it.
“It’s intellectually dishonest,” Grassley added, “to try to have it both ways.”
Administration officials defended their math Monday, with Jonathan Blum, director of CMS’s Center for Medicare Management, telling reporters that the accounting represents “consistent budget convention.”
Sebelius added that a “growing consensus” among lawmakers that healthcare costs need reining in have left White House officials “more optimistic” than Foster.
“He has a different interpretation,” she said.
Much of the partisan debate hinges on semantics. Democrats have said repeatedly that seniors wouldn’t lose any guaranteed Medicare benefits under the new reform law. Yet seniors enrolled in the Medicare Advantage (MA) program — where the government pays private insurers to cover Medicare patients — could lose benefits like dental and eye care not covered by the traditional program. Such benefits have made MA plans enormously popular among seniors, but have also cost Medicare, on average, 14 percent more per beneficiary — subsidies that come largely at the expense of seniors enrolled in the traditional Medicare program.
Another wildcard in the Medicare savings debate revolves around the so-called sustainable growth rate (SGR), the formula that updates Medicare payments to doctors each year. At the end of November, according to the SGR, doctors will begin receiving a 21 percent cut in Medicare payments — a cut that congressional leaders say they will prevent after the midterm elections.
Monday’s report assumes the 21 percent cut will take hold in December, producing more projected savings than will likely be realized.
Blum defended that calculation Monday, arguing that CMS simply based its estimates on current law.
“We’re working with Congress,” he added, “for a long-term [SGR] fix.”
Dems get pre-recess victory as Senate breaks funding impasse
After months of trying, the Senate on Wednesday voted to end debate on legislation providing states with billions of dollars in emergency Medicaid funding through the first half of 2011.
The vote lends a pre-recess legislative victory to Democratic leaders, who have struggled for months to pass the measure under threat from the nation's governors that a failure to do so would lead to layoffs and cuts to safety-net programs nationwide.
The tally was 61 to 38, with Maine GOP Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe joining every Democrat in favor of the bill.
"Many states have made tough, responsible choices — cutting important programs and [making] adjustments," Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said just before the vote. "We can't afford to kick them while they're down by denying them the [Medicaid] and teacher funding."
The two moderate Republicans were drawn to support the measure after Democratic leaders scaled back the Medicaid provision from $24 billion to $16.1 billion and provided offsets for the cost of the entire package, which includes $10 billion for education programs to prevent teacher layoffs.
The offsets didn't win the support of most Republicans, who called the package a bailout for teacher unions. "Let's not be coy about what's happening around here," Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.), senior Republican on the Budget Committee, said prior to the vote. "The education unions are the single biggest interest group represented at the Democratic National Convention."
For liberals, the offsets came at a price: Almost $12 billion of the $26.1 billion tab is covered by cutting food stamp benefits to low-income Americans beginning in 2014.
Wednesday's cloture vote sets the stage for a final passage of the bill no later than Thursday afternoon — depending on how long GOP leaders want to delay.
Congress approved $87 billion in emergency Medicaid funding to help states weather the economic downturn that's squeezed local budgets nationwide. The provision increased Medicaid's Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) — which represents Washington's share of the state-federal program — by at least 6.2 percent for all states.
That extra funding expires at the end of 2010 — halfway through the budget year of most states, prompting Democrats to push for an extension.
Their original plan to keep the 6.2 percent increase through June 2011 went nowhere in the face of Senate budget hawks. Instead, Democratic leaders adopted a plan, long-supported by Collins, to scale out the extra funding over the six months.
The measure that passed Wednesday provides a 3.2 percent FMAP bump for the first quarter of next year, and a 1.2 percent hike in the second quarter.
The House is expected to approve the measure when lawmakers return from the August recess.
The vote lends a pre-recess legislative victory to Democratic leaders, who have struggled for months to pass the measure under threat from the nation's governors that a failure to do so would lead to layoffs and cuts to safety-net programs nationwide.
The tally was 61 to 38, with Maine GOP Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe joining every Democrat in favor of the bill.
"Many states have made tough, responsible choices — cutting important programs and [making] adjustments," Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said just before the vote. "We can't afford to kick them while they're down by denying them the [Medicaid] and teacher funding."
The two moderate Republicans were drawn to support the measure after Democratic leaders scaled back the Medicaid provision from $24 billion to $16.1 billion and provided offsets for the cost of the entire package, which includes $10 billion for education programs to prevent teacher layoffs.
The offsets didn't win the support of most Republicans, who called the package a bailout for teacher unions. "Let's not be coy about what's happening around here," Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.), senior Republican on the Budget Committee, said prior to the vote. "The education unions are the single biggest interest group represented at the Democratic National Convention."
For liberals, the offsets came at a price: Almost $12 billion of the $26.1 billion tab is covered by cutting food stamp benefits to low-income Americans beginning in 2014.
Wednesday's cloture vote sets the stage for a final passage of the bill no later than Thursday afternoon — depending on how long GOP leaders want to delay.
Congress approved $87 billion in emergency Medicaid funding to help states weather the economic downturn that's squeezed local budgets nationwide. The provision increased Medicaid's Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) — which represents Washington's share of the state-federal program — by at least 6.2 percent for all states.
That extra funding expires at the end of 2010 — halfway through the budget year of most states, prompting Democrats to push for an extension.
Their original plan to keep the 6.2 percent increase through June 2011 went nowhere in the face of Senate budget hawks. Instead, Democratic leaders adopted a plan, long-supported by Collins, to scale out the extra funding over the six months.
The measure that passed Wednesday provides a 3.2 percent FMAP bump for the first quarter of next year, and a 1.2 percent hike in the second quarter.
The House is expected to approve the measure when lawmakers return from the August recess.
Wednesday
Few satisfied by administration's limits on abortion coverage
The Obama administration’s restrictions on abortion coverage in the healthcare reform law's high-risk pools have infuriated abortion-rights supporters while failing to placate the procedure’s opponents.
Planned Parenthood, a reliable Democratic ally, said it "strongly opposes" the restrictions, spelled out in a regulation issued Thursday.
The regulation limits abortion coverage in the federally-funded pools, which cover people with pre-existing conditions, to cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is in danger.
"The high-risk insurance pools are meant to provide access to health coverage for women and men with serious medical conditions, such as cancer, AIDS, and heart disease," Planned Parenthood Federation of American President Cecile Richards said in a statement. "These are the very women who are more likely to be subject to medically complicated pregnancies and in need of the full range of reproductive care, including abortion coverage."
The pools will cease to operate in 2014, when healthcare plans will no longer be allowed to deny sick people coverage.
At the other end of the spectrum, the National Right to Life Committee cautions that the regulation raises concerns about the broader healthcare reform law.
While acknowledging that the new regulation "tells states that elective abortions may not be covered in the high-risk pool program," NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson took issue with White House Office of Health Reform Director Nancy-Ann DeParle's statement that the decision “is not a precedent for other programs or policies given the unique, temporary nature" of the high-risk pools.
Anti-abortion groups want Congress to pass a bill introduced Thursday by Reps. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and Daniel Lipinski (D-Ill.) that would permanently ban federal funding for the procedure.
Before the regulation was issued, anti-abortion groups had raised concerns that language in the reform law as well as the president's executive order on abortion — which prevents federal funding for it — would still allow states to cover elective abortions in their high-risk pools. The groups charged that several states, including Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Maryland, had intended to do just that.
Rosanne Placey, spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania Department of Insurance, denied that was the case.
"We're happy to see that the rules clarify what we've said all along — which is that we never would or could cover elective abortions," Placey said. "We have the clarity that everyone seeks now, and it was always our intent to follow federal law and guidelines."
Several Republican senators wrote to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Wednesday demanding that she issue a regulation clarifying the restrictions after the Congressional Research Service said earlier guidance did not have the force of law. The senators did not raise questions with the regulation on Thursday, suggesting it may have answered their concerns.
John Hart, a spokesman for Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), one of the letter signers, told The Hill: “The senator wants to look at it more closely before giving it the all-clear. But it looks encouraging at this point.”
Planned Parenthood, a reliable Democratic ally, said it "strongly opposes" the restrictions, spelled out in a regulation issued Thursday.
The regulation limits abortion coverage in the federally-funded pools, which cover people with pre-existing conditions, to cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is in danger.
"The high-risk insurance pools are meant to provide access to health coverage for women and men with serious medical conditions, such as cancer, AIDS, and heart disease," Planned Parenthood Federation of American President Cecile Richards said in a statement. "These are the very women who are more likely to be subject to medically complicated pregnancies and in need of the full range of reproductive care, including abortion coverage."
The pools will cease to operate in 2014, when healthcare plans will no longer be allowed to deny sick people coverage.
At the other end of the spectrum, the National Right to Life Committee cautions that the regulation raises concerns about the broader healthcare reform law.
While acknowledging that the new regulation "tells states that elective abortions may not be covered in the high-risk pool program," NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson took issue with White House Office of Health Reform Director Nancy-Ann DeParle's statement that the decision “is not a precedent for other programs or policies given the unique, temporary nature" of the high-risk pools.
Anti-abortion groups want Congress to pass a bill introduced Thursday by Reps. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and Daniel Lipinski (D-Ill.) that would permanently ban federal funding for the procedure.
Before the regulation was issued, anti-abortion groups had raised concerns that language in the reform law as well as the president's executive order on abortion — which prevents federal funding for it — would still allow states to cover elective abortions in their high-risk pools. The groups charged that several states, including Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Maryland, had intended to do just that.
Rosanne Placey, spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania Department of Insurance, denied that was the case.
"We're happy to see that the rules clarify what we've said all along — which is that we never would or could cover elective abortions," Placey said. "We have the clarity that everyone seeks now, and it was always our intent to follow federal law and guidelines."
Several Republican senators wrote to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Wednesday demanding that she issue a regulation clarifying the restrictions after the Congressional Research Service said earlier guidance did not have the force of law. The senators did not raise questions with the regulation on Thursday, suggesting it may have answered their concerns.
John Hart, a spokesman for Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), one of the letter signers, told The Hill: “The senator wants to look at it more closely before giving it the all-clear. But it looks encouraging at this point.”
Trustees report finds healthcare reform to extend Medicare's life
Medicare is in much better financial shape as a result of the new healthcare reform law, which has extended the life of the nation’s largest health benefits program by 12 years, the Obama administration reported Thursday.
Democrats are pointing to the figures as vindication after a tough and partisan reform fight, but the sunny outlook comes with some asterisks: Not only have Medicare’s own analysts questioned some of the accounting, but the projections also assume that Medicare doctors will take a steep pay cut this fall — an event that would bolster Medicare’s balance sheet, but also something Congress likely won’t allow.
“As impressive as these achievements are,” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner conceded Thursday, “there is still work to be done.”
The much-anticipated report, authored by the trustees charged with gauging the solvency of Social Security and Medicare each year, projected that Medicare’s hospital trust fund will remain solvent through 2029 — 12 years longer than the group projected a year ago. The difference, the analysts said, hinges on provisions in the reform law that reduce payment updates for a number of health products and services.
Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told reporters Thursday the reform law will likely save Medicare even more than Thursday’s report indicates — the result, she said, of preventive care measures “that don’t show up in the economic projections at this point.”
The figures mirror preliminary estimates by Medicare’s chief actuary, Richard Foster, who said in April the healthcare reform law would save Medicare $575 billion over a decade and extend the hospital trust fund by a dozen years.
Still, Foster was also quick to warn that the figures rely largely on modes of accounting that create the appearance of savings where none likely exists.
For instance, the savings the law provides to Medicare’s hospital benefit, Foster wrote in April, “cannot be simultaneously used to finance other federal outlays (such as the coverage expansions) and to extend the trust fund, despite the appearance of this result from the respective accounting conventions.”
White House officials have defended their math, which Jonathan Blum, director of HHS’s Center for Medicare Management, told reporters this week represents “consistent budget convention.”
Such statements have done little to appease conservative critics of reform law, who are accusing the White House of peddling “gimmicks.”
“Simple logic says that you can’t spend and save the same dollar,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Thursday. “The trustees’ report confirms that Medicare’s future now rests on Washington Democrats’ accounting gimmicks and tricks, a risk America’s seniors are by no means eager to take.”
The report — delayed for several months with the arrival of the new healthcare law — carried a particular significance: It was the trustees’ first examination of Medicare finances since the reforms were enacted in March.
Capitol Hill Democrats were quick to trumpet the figures as indication of healthcare reform’s effectiveness. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) said the projections “show the tangible, positive results of the improvements made to Medicare by health reform.” And Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) said the report offers proof that “provisions designed to slow the growth of Medicare costs do exactly that.”
“I am pleased that the trustees’ report shows our hard work paid off,” Dingell said.
But GOP leaders aren’t so sure. They’re pointing to Foster’s comments and the Medicare doc-fix pickle as an indication the savings projected in Thursday’s report likely won’t materialize.
“Without real solutions, the critical benefits so many Americans rely on, and future generations have been promised, are at risk,” said Rep. Dave Camp (Mich.), senior Republican on the Ways and Means Committee.
Aside from hospital fund savings, the trustees say the fund covering Medicare outpatient services, including doctors’ fees, has also been bolstered by the reform law. Last year, the group estimated that Medicare Part B payments would represent 4.5 percent of the nation’s economy in 75 years. This year, they’re projecting that to be 2.5 percent.
Seniors in Medicare’s prescription drug benefit also have reason to cheer the trustees’ report, which indicates a slight drop in Part D premiums relative to last year’s projections.
Nancy LeaMond, executive vice president of AARP, said that, for seniors, the report brought “important good news.”
Still, the projections assume that doctors treating Medicare patients will take a 23 percent pay cut in December, and another 6 percent cut in January — reductions that congressional leaders have vowed to prevent.
Indeed, HHS crunched alternative estimates assuming Congress will give Medicare physicians a slight raise instead. Under that scenario, the 75-year outlook for Part B changes dramatically, from representing 2.5 percent of the economy to consuming 5 percent.
The alternative projection puts total Medicare spending at 10.7 percent of GDP in 2080, versus 6.4 percent under current law, which includes the steep doc cuts.
And fixing the doc dilemma will be expensive. Last November, the House passed a bill to fix doctors’ payments that cost more than $210 billion over 10 years.
Sebelius said Thursday that she recently launched a new panel of health policy experts to examine the so-called sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula that dictates payments to Medicare doctors.
She also vowed to work with Congress to tackle the SGR, which has evolved into a perennial (and expensive) thorn in the side of policymakers wary that steep cuts would lead doctors to drop Medicare patients.
The fix, she said, would be “fully paid.”
Democrats are pointing to the figures as vindication after a tough and partisan reform fight, but the sunny outlook comes with some asterisks: Not only have Medicare’s own analysts questioned some of the accounting, but the projections also assume that Medicare doctors will take a steep pay cut this fall — an event that would bolster Medicare’s balance sheet, but also something Congress likely won’t allow.
“As impressive as these achievements are,” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner conceded Thursday, “there is still work to be done.”
The much-anticipated report, authored by the trustees charged with gauging the solvency of Social Security and Medicare each year, projected that Medicare’s hospital trust fund will remain solvent through 2029 — 12 years longer than the group projected a year ago. The difference, the analysts said, hinges on provisions in the reform law that reduce payment updates for a number of health products and services.
Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told reporters Thursday the reform law will likely save Medicare even more than Thursday’s report indicates — the result, she said, of preventive care measures “that don’t show up in the economic projections at this point.”
The figures mirror preliminary estimates by Medicare’s chief actuary, Richard Foster, who said in April the healthcare reform law would save Medicare $575 billion over a decade and extend the hospital trust fund by a dozen years.
Still, Foster was also quick to warn that the figures rely largely on modes of accounting that create the appearance of savings where none likely exists.
For instance, the savings the law provides to Medicare’s hospital benefit, Foster wrote in April, “cannot be simultaneously used to finance other federal outlays (such as the coverage expansions) and to extend the trust fund, despite the appearance of this result from the respective accounting conventions.”
White House officials have defended their math, which Jonathan Blum, director of HHS’s Center for Medicare Management, told reporters this week represents “consistent budget convention.”
Such statements have done little to appease conservative critics of reform law, who are accusing the White House of peddling “gimmicks.”
“Simple logic says that you can’t spend and save the same dollar,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Thursday. “The trustees’ report confirms that Medicare’s future now rests on Washington Democrats’ accounting gimmicks and tricks, a risk America’s seniors are by no means eager to take.”
The report — delayed for several months with the arrival of the new healthcare law — carried a particular significance: It was the trustees’ first examination of Medicare finances since the reforms were enacted in March.
Capitol Hill Democrats were quick to trumpet the figures as indication of healthcare reform’s effectiveness. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) said the projections “show the tangible, positive results of the improvements made to Medicare by health reform.” And Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) said the report offers proof that “provisions designed to slow the growth of Medicare costs do exactly that.”
“I am pleased that the trustees’ report shows our hard work paid off,” Dingell said.
But GOP leaders aren’t so sure. They’re pointing to Foster’s comments and the Medicare doc-fix pickle as an indication the savings projected in Thursday’s report likely won’t materialize.
“Without real solutions, the critical benefits so many Americans rely on, and future generations have been promised, are at risk,” said Rep. Dave Camp (Mich.), senior Republican on the Ways and Means Committee.
Aside from hospital fund savings, the trustees say the fund covering Medicare outpatient services, including doctors’ fees, has also been bolstered by the reform law. Last year, the group estimated that Medicare Part B payments would represent 4.5 percent of the nation’s economy in 75 years. This year, they’re projecting that to be 2.5 percent.
Seniors in Medicare’s prescription drug benefit also have reason to cheer the trustees’ report, which indicates a slight drop in Part D premiums relative to last year’s projections.
Nancy LeaMond, executive vice president of AARP, said that, for seniors, the report brought “important good news.”
Still, the projections assume that doctors treating Medicare patients will take a 23 percent pay cut in December, and another 6 percent cut in January — reductions that congressional leaders have vowed to prevent.
Indeed, HHS crunched alternative estimates assuming Congress will give Medicare physicians a slight raise instead. Under that scenario, the 75-year outlook for Part B changes dramatically, from representing 2.5 percent of the economy to consuming 5 percent.
The alternative projection puts total Medicare spending at 10.7 percent of GDP in 2080, versus 6.4 percent under current law, which includes the steep doc cuts.
And fixing the doc dilemma will be expensive. Last November, the House passed a bill to fix doctors’ payments that cost more than $210 billion over 10 years.
Sebelius said Thursday that she recently launched a new panel of health policy experts to examine the so-called sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula that dictates payments to Medicare doctors.
She also vowed to work with Congress to tackle the SGR, which has evolved into a perennial (and expensive) thorn in the side of policymakers wary that steep cuts would lead doctors to drop Medicare patients.
The fix, she said, would be “fully paid.”
Modern and Contemporary Furniture for your Home
The home is a sacred environment for most folks and the kitchen in particular is one of the most significant parts of the home. It is the place where many people spend quality time after the hustle and bustle of a busy workday or with the family discussing the day. Modern furniture, particularly a table and chairs for sale combination should consist of modern tables and contemporary chairs. The type of ambience that modern coffee tables and contemporary console tables bring to a home is pretty spectacular. However, choosing the right table and chairs for sale is going to be the biggest challenge, ultimately picking something that is soothing and relaxing, to help one distress after a hard day's work.
At some point in a person’s life, changing the furniture in the home becomes a necessity. The trick is finding a great combination of table and chairs for sale that is precisely the décor of your core tastes and proper tranquility levels. The latter is actually the most difficult part. Its crazy how many people get so involved in putting their efforts in wanting the most up-to-date modern coffee tables and contemporary console tables and completely forget that it is their own comfort that is being jeopardized in the process. A good piece of advice is choosing the right combination of contemporary and modern furniture that also provides a high level of relaxation so you get the best of both worlds – style AND comfort. Please, for your family’s sanity and for yours; buy for comfort over cutting edge and if you can get the two with a ‘One-Two-Punch,’ please do!
Tuesday
Simple Bathroom Lighting Ideas
Here are some ideas for your bathroom lighting:
• The ideal color to enhance the lighting in a bathroom is white, it increases the space visually, reflects very well the light and it also serve as the sense of hygiene.
• The bright surfaces reflect more light. The bright white ceramic tiles bring a chic look to the bathroom.
• The bathroom is the room in the house that has fewer options for reform. Through simple bathroom lighting fixtures you can find a prompt and effective remedy. The replacement of artifacts allows light to renew the environment and give new life to the decor.
• If we talk about decor, vanity lighting can be an excellent ally to end the monotony of a decorative "basic". To exit the bathroom we can use classic lamps with prisms and screens, both in wall fixtures and in light of the center. These lights give a touch of sophisticated design.
• The bathroom allows one type of light more artistic, theatrical. The yellow light does not mind if the bathroom is only for visitors. However, the main bathroom which is of daily use requires bright light, preferably white halogen bulbs.
• The bathroom lighting, even being practical and functional, can be treated as an extra element of decoration.
States implement reforms of healthcare as lawsuits proceed
State governments are implementing the controversial healthcare law, even in places where elected officials are challenging its constitutionality.
Across the country, state employees are working to define new rules that health insurance companies will have to follow. They’re also applying for a wide variety of federal grants offered under the law.Government officials offer a number of reasons why states are implementing a law their governors and other elected officials oppose.
Some cash-strapped states are taking the opportunity to grab federal funds. Many governments are taking a cautious approach in making sure they comply with the new federal law — at least until the courts tell them they don’t have to.
But the most important reason, according to state officials, is to exert control over the biggest overhaul of healthcare policy since Medicare.
Lorez Meinhold, director of health reform implementation for Colorado — a state whose attorney general has joined the multi-state lawsuit against health reform — said state officials want to make sure they have a say in how the law affects their constituents.
“If the states want to have some level of control,” she said, “I think they’re looking at each piece.”
Even in Virginia, where Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has launched his own high-profile challenge to the healthcare law, state officials are cautiously cooperating.
The state’s Bureau of Insurance has set up a webpage to answer residents’ questions about the new law, linking to a federal website that critics have derided as propaganda. Virginia also created its own fact sheet on the Medicare prescription drug program, acknowledging that “the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress this year contains some important benefits for Medicare recipients.”
“This information is not intended to be an opinion, legal or otherwise, on the healthcare reform bill,” the state website cautions, “nor should it be construed as a position of the Bureau of Insurance or the Virginia State Corporation Commission on the healthcare reform bill or any of its provisions.”
Meinhold added that the lawsuits against the law are still in their infancy, and until they’re resolved, “is it really OK to be out of compliance with federal law?”
Opponents of the healthcare law have already seen they can lose control by deferring to the federal government.
Earlier this year, some governors — particularly Republicans — declined to operate their own high-risk insurance pools, in part over concerns that they were insufficiently funded by the federal government.
In the end, the Department of Health and Human Services simply ended up taking them over.
While that outcome came as no surprise — it was predetermined by the healthcare law — GOP governors will likely want to avoid the same conclusion with the much more momentous state health insurance exchanges, said health economist Len Nichols.
“I think all of them, regardless of the public rhetoric, are checking out their options,” said Nichols, formerly of the New America Foundation and now at George Mason University.
Nichols said he expects the rhetoric to cool down after the midterm elections, even if the federal government has a way to go before earning state officials’ trust.
“I think there’s an awful lot of folks trying to figure out what would make this state better that’s in this bill,” Nichols said. “I think that’s the general word of the day.”
The Obama administration says state cooperation has been exemplary.
“Part of what’s made implementation so successful so far is the close communication we’ve had with states,” said Paul Dioguardi, director of the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Dioguardi said the creation of high-risk insurance pools and HHS’s Web portal in particular required a “close partnership” with states. He pointed out that HHS met this week with state officials in Minneapolis for the first in a series of conversations on the state health insurance exchanges, and nearly every state sent a representative.
Likewise, Brian Webb, manager of health policy and legislation for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, said he’s not aware of any state declining to participate in the NAIC’s meetings. The NAIC is charged with helping define the new rules health insurance companies will have to obey, such as how much they have to spend on providing care versus overhead.
“From the NAIC’s perspective, we have not had any states, no departments, say, ‘We will not participate,’ ” said Webb, who was once a legislative aide to then-Rep. Bill Thomas (R-Calif.). “So that has not been an issue for us. Of course, departments of insurance have this attitude of ‘Legislatures pass it, you implement it.’ ”
He added that, barely two months after grants were first made available to help states improve their ability to review insurance rates, only five or six have declined to apply. The healthcare reform law set aside $250 million in state grants over five years.
States have also been taking advantage of federal grants to help them assist consumers, boost their primary care workforce or support pregnant teenagers — nine different grant opportunities, in addition to federal funding for coverage of early retirees and the high-risk pools for people with pre-existing conditions.
Some are drawing parallels with last year’s debate over the stimulus bill.
“Most states are strapped for cash right now, is the reality,” Meinhold said.
“Even states that were opposed to [the recovery act] and some of the stimulus dollars, they still applied for a lot of those grants. So states are looking at ‘When does it make sense, is it an opportunity, does it help us?’ ”
Simply applying for federal grants doesn’t necessarily mean states are following the spirit of the law, though.The California-based nonprofit Consumer Watchdog made that point in a letter sent Tuesday to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius urging her to reject Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s (R) application for a rate review grant.
The letter criticizes the governor’s application because California would use the money to hire actuaries to review rate filings without giving them the authority to reject rate requests.
“I think the intent of the grants was specifically to enhance states’ ability to thoroughly evaluate and, where it can, to approve or disapprove rates,” said Carmen Balber, the group’s Washington director.
Across the country, state employees are working to define new rules that health insurance companies will have to follow. They’re also applying for a wide variety of federal grants offered under the law.Government officials offer a number of reasons why states are implementing a law their governors and other elected officials oppose.
Some cash-strapped states are taking the opportunity to grab federal funds. Many governments are taking a cautious approach in making sure they comply with the new federal law — at least until the courts tell them they don’t have to.
But the most important reason, according to state officials, is to exert control over the biggest overhaul of healthcare policy since Medicare.
Lorez Meinhold, director of health reform implementation for Colorado — a state whose attorney general has joined the multi-state lawsuit against health reform — said state officials want to make sure they have a say in how the law affects their constituents.
“If the states want to have some level of control,” she said, “I think they’re looking at each piece.”
Even in Virginia, where Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has launched his own high-profile challenge to the healthcare law, state officials are cautiously cooperating.
The state’s Bureau of Insurance has set up a webpage to answer residents’ questions about the new law, linking to a federal website that critics have derided as propaganda. Virginia also created its own fact sheet on the Medicare prescription drug program, acknowledging that “the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress this year contains some important benefits for Medicare recipients.”
“This information is not intended to be an opinion, legal or otherwise, on the healthcare reform bill,” the state website cautions, “nor should it be construed as a position of the Bureau of Insurance or the Virginia State Corporation Commission on the healthcare reform bill or any of its provisions.”
Meinhold added that the lawsuits against the law are still in their infancy, and until they’re resolved, “is it really OK to be out of compliance with federal law?”
Opponents of the healthcare law have already seen they can lose control by deferring to the federal government.
Earlier this year, some governors — particularly Republicans — declined to operate their own high-risk insurance pools, in part over concerns that they were insufficiently funded by the federal government.
In the end, the Department of Health and Human Services simply ended up taking them over.
While that outcome came as no surprise — it was predetermined by the healthcare law — GOP governors will likely want to avoid the same conclusion with the much more momentous state health insurance exchanges, said health economist Len Nichols.
“I think all of them, regardless of the public rhetoric, are checking out their options,” said Nichols, formerly of the New America Foundation and now at George Mason University.
Nichols said he expects the rhetoric to cool down after the midterm elections, even if the federal government has a way to go before earning state officials’ trust.
“I think there’s an awful lot of folks trying to figure out what would make this state better that’s in this bill,” Nichols said. “I think that’s the general word of the day.”
The Obama administration says state cooperation has been exemplary.
“Part of what’s made implementation so successful so far is the close communication we’ve had with states,” said Paul Dioguardi, director of the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Dioguardi said the creation of high-risk insurance pools and HHS’s Web portal in particular required a “close partnership” with states. He pointed out that HHS met this week with state officials in Minneapolis for the first in a series of conversations on the state health insurance exchanges, and nearly every state sent a representative.
Likewise, Brian Webb, manager of health policy and legislation for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, said he’s not aware of any state declining to participate in the NAIC’s meetings. The NAIC is charged with helping define the new rules health insurance companies will have to obey, such as how much they have to spend on providing care versus overhead.
“From the NAIC’s perspective, we have not had any states, no departments, say, ‘We will not participate,’ ” said Webb, who was once a legislative aide to then-Rep. Bill Thomas (R-Calif.). “So that has not been an issue for us. Of course, departments of insurance have this attitude of ‘Legislatures pass it, you implement it.’ ”
He added that, barely two months after grants were first made available to help states improve their ability to review insurance rates, only five or six have declined to apply. The healthcare reform law set aside $250 million in state grants over five years.
States have also been taking advantage of federal grants to help them assist consumers, boost their primary care workforce or support pregnant teenagers — nine different grant opportunities, in addition to federal funding for coverage of early retirees and the high-risk pools for people with pre-existing conditions.
Some are drawing parallels with last year’s debate over the stimulus bill.
“Most states are strapped for cash right now, is the reality,” Meinhold said.
“Even states that were opposed to [the recovery act] and some of the stimulus dollars, they still applied for a lot of those grants. So states are looking at ‘When does it make sense, is it an opportunity, does it help us?’ ”
Simply applying for federal grants doesn’t necessarily mean states are following the spirit of the law, though.The California-based nonprofit Consumer Watchdog made that point in a letter sent Tuesday to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius urging her to reject Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s (R) application for a rate review grant.
The letter criticizes the governor’s application because California would use the money to hire actuaries to review rate filings without giving them the authority to reject rate requests.
“I think the intent of the grants was specifically to enhance states’ ability to thoroughly evaluate and, where it can, to approve or disapprove rates,” said Carmen Balber, the group’s Washington director.
Obama: Healthcare law gave Medicare 'sounder financial footing'
President Obama used his weekly radio address Saturday to tout the findings of a Medicare Trustees report that concluded the program will remain solvent through 2029, largely as a result of cost-cutting provisions included in the recently enacted healthcare law.
The president said the report clearly demonstrated that the passage of healthcare reform has put Medicare on "a sounder financial footing."
"Reform has actually added at least a dozen years to the solvency of Medicare — the single longest extension in history — while helping to preserve Medicare for generations to come," Obama said.
"We’ve made Medicare more solvent by going after waste, fraud and abuse — not by changing seniors’ guaranteed benefits," the president said. "In fact, seniors are starting to see that because of health reform, their benefits are getting better all the time."
The president also touted a $250 rebate meant to aid senior citizens who fall into the so-called "doughnut hole" in Medicare prescription drug coverage. He noted that by next year seniors who fall into that coverage gap will be eligible for a 50 percent discount on needed medication.
"Already, we have put insurance companies on notice that we have the authority to review and reject unreasonable rate increases for Medicare Advantage plans," Obama said. "And we’ve made it clear to the insurers that we won’t hesitate to use this authority to protect seniors."
Still, the Trustees report hailed by Obama was filled with caveats, the biggest of which is that the projected cost savings are dependent on future cuts that even Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius suggested are doubtful.
The report's conclusion hinges on Congress agreeing to a 30 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors over the next few years, as well as cuts in funding to hospitals and other providers.
Without those cuts — both of which are politically unpalatable options and ones lawmakers are unlikely to embrace when the time comes — the financial projections are not so rosy.
What Democrats and the president hailed as "cost-saving measures," Republicans panned as "accounting gimmicks" last week.
“Simple logic says that you can’t spend and save the same dollar,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Thursday. “The trustees’ report confirms that Medicare’s future now rests on Washington Democrats’ accounting gimmicks and tricks, a risk America’s seniors are by no means eager to take.”
Meanwhile, the president's radio address made no mention of the more dour projection the report made on Social Security. It concluded the program's fiscal outlook has dimmed, in large part due to the high unemployment rate.
With more money being paid out through the program than coming in, both this year and next, the Social Security trust fund is expected to run dry by 2037.
The president said the report clearly demonstrated that the passage of healthcare reform has put Medicare on "a sounder financial footing."
"Reform has actually added at least a dozen years to the solvency of Medicare — the single longest extension in history — while helping to preserve Medicare for generations to come," Obama said.
"We’ve made Medicare more solvent by going after waste, fraud and abuse — not by changing seniors’ guaranteed benefits," the president said. "In fact, seniors are starting to see that because of health reform, their benefits are getting better all the time."
The president also touted a $250 rebate meant to aid senior citizens who fall into the so-called "doughnut hole" in Medicare prescription drug coverage. He noted that by next year seniors who fall into that coverage gap will be eligible for a 50 percent discount on needed medication.
"Already, we have put insurance companies on notice that we have the authority to review and reject unreasonable rate increases for Medicare Advantage plans," Obama said. "And we’ve made it clear to the insurers that we won’t hesitate to use this authority to protect seniors."
Still, the Trustees report hailed by Obama was filled with caveats, the biggest of which is that the projected cost savings are dependent on future cuts that even Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius suggested are doubtful.
The report's conclusion hinges on Congress agreeing to a 30 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors over the next few years, as well as cuts in funding to hospitals and other providers.
Without those cuts — both of which are politically unpalatable options and ones lawmakers are unlikely to embrace when the time comes — the financial projections are not so rosy.
What Democrats and the president hailed as "cost-saving measures," Republicans panned as "accounting gimmicks" last week.
“Simple logic says that you can’t spend and save the same dollar,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Thursday. “The trustees’ report confirms that Medicare’s future now rests on Washington Democrats’ accounting gimmicks and tricks, a risk America’s seniors are by no means eager to take.”
Meanwhile, the president's radio address made no mention of the more dour projection the report made on Social Security. It concluded the program's fiscal outlook has dimmed, in large part due to the high unemployment rate.
With more money being paid out through the program than coming in, both this year and next, the Social Security trust fund is expected to run dry by 2037.
Tips for playing online slots
Here are some tips for the strategy game of online slots.
• Choose an online casino with slot machines - Each game of slot machines is engaged with fun, but changes in the game means that every game has to offer something different which suits you most. Also, consider with how much money will you play and how you want to win. If you prefer to earn less and often play for longer period go for online slot game that offers a good range of small and medium-sized gains. These are progressive online slots, focused on a big jackpot!
• Ask a financial limit - Before you start playing slots online set up a certain limit and stick to it. If things did not go well, go to online slot game that lets you change the size of the coin.
• Choose a casino slot machine with sounds of coins - Many online casino slot games allow you to select the size of the coin. The longer you play, the greater the chance of winning. Starting with small amounts will get maximum play for money you have, which gives you more playing time. Remember that you can easily switch to higher bet when you win. The longer an individual can play slots have more chance to hit the jackpot!
• Lock Up profits - If you hit the jackpot, make sure that "stay" at a profit. Play with a small percentage of their profits. There is nothing worse than feeling that you are winners, and then return all their winnings at the casino. Take a rest after hitting the jackpot. Feel the characteristic taste of victory and enjoy!
• Always look for slot machines at a higher rate of return - Earnings can vary from game to game and from casino to casino. If you explore one or two casinos with small amounts of pay you will probably be able to find a machine that pays in the 96-98% range.
• Play with money from the original Bankroll - Do not play with all the credits you earn during the game. If you play with all the money, you're always going to get a small profit. If you can not afford to lose money in online casino, then do not play. Use cash resources for several sessions. Do not risk everything in one game session.
• Progressive slot machines offer large jackpots. The big progressive jackpot can be played by taking a percentage of all money played in the machine.
• Choose an online casino with slot machines - Each game of slot machines is engaged with fun, but changes in the game means that every game has to offer something different which suits you most. Also, consider with how much money will you play and how you want to win. If you prefer to earn less and often play for longer period go for online slot game that offers a good range of small and medium-sized gains. These are progressive online slots, focused on a big jackpot!
• Ask a financial limit - Before you start playing slots online set up a certain limit and stick to it. If things did not go well, go to online slot game that lets you change the size of the coin.
• Choose a casino slot machine with sounds of coins - Many online casino slot games allow you to select the size of the coin. The longer you play, the greater the chance of winning. Starting with small amounts will get maximum play for money you have, which gives you more playing time. Remember that you can easily switch to higher bet when you win. The longer an individual can play slots have more chance to hit the jackpot!
• Lock Up profits - If you hit the jackpot, make sure that "stay" at a profit. Play with a small percentage of their profits. There is nothing worse than feeling that you are winners, and then return all their winnings at the casino. Take a rest after hitting the jackpot. Feel the characteristic taste of victory and enjoy!
• Always look for slot machines at a higher rate of return - Earnings can vary from game to game and from casino to casino. If you explore one or two casinos with small amounts of pay you will probably be able to find a machine that pays in the 96-98% range.
• Play with money from the original Bankroll - Do not play with all the credits you earn during the game. If you play with all the money, you're always going to get a small profit. If you can not afford to lose money in online casino, then do not play. Use cash resources for several sessions. Do not risk everything in one game session.
• Progressive slot machines offer large jackpots. The big progressive jackpot can be played by taking a percentage of all money played in the machine.
Monday
Future of children's healthcare program already under debate
Though years away, the expiration of the popular Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is already getting some attention on Capitol Hill.
It was just one line at the end of a long speech praising CHIP. But Sen. Max Baucus's (D-Mont.) comment this month that the popular initiative might assume "a different role" as healthcare reform evolves has raised the eyebrows of some children's welfare advocates, who fear that shifting kids to private exchange plans will hike costs and erode services."If the exchange is as good as CHIP, then fine," said Bruce Lesley, president of First Focus, a children's welfare group. "But these plans are not going to be as strong as CHIP — there's no way."
In Baucus's comments, Lesley said, "I see flashing danger lights."
Sen. Bob Casey Jr. (D-Pa.) this week also warned of the potential dangers of eliminating CHIP.
"Children are not little adults," Casey said Friday in an e-mail. "They have their own unique health and healthcare needs. We bring children to see pediatricians because they are doctors that have the knowledge and expertise to treat children specifically; likewise, CHIP is a program built specifically for children."
It's not the first time the issue has surfaced. During the months-long debate over healthcare reform, Baucus, who chairs the Finance Committee, had initially proposed to eliminate CHIP, shifting those kids instead to either Medicaid or private plans on state-based exchanges. (CHIP, under Baucus's plan, would have remained as a secondary insurance option to cover services that exchange plans didn't.)
Meanwhile, House Democrats proposed to repeal CHIP altogether.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), at the time, estimated that the Senate proposal would push greater costs on affected families, leading some kids to lose coverage altogether.
"Some of those children," wrote CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf, "would be eligible for subsidized coverage in the exchanges but would not be enrolled in an exchange plan (owing at least in part to the higher premiums and higher out-of-pocket costs)."
The warning hasn't been tested. Instead, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) amended the Finance bill to extend CHIP's funding by two years, through 2015 — a provision that ultimately became law.
The timeline is already on Baucus's radar.
"In 2015, Congress will revisit CHIP in a new context," Baucus said last week during a speech marking the program's 13th anniversary. "CHIP has been instrumental in providing children with access to care where none existed before, but it may need to take on a different role as health reform is implemented."
A Finance aide said Friday that the remarks were not a reference to any specific proposal. Rather, "Baucus wants to ensure that as the new healthcare law is implemented, the CHIP program has the flexibility it needs to do whatever is best for the kids and families that rely on the program," the aide said in an e-mail.
"[H]e is keeping all options on the table for CHIP’s future."
Some kids' healthcare advocates support that plan. Tricia Brooks, health policy expert at Georgetown University's Center for Children and Families, said Friday that the program providing the coverage — be it Medicaid, CHIP or the exchange — is no matter as long as kids are getting the care they need.
"There are many paths to coverage," Brooks said Friday. "The important thing is that they serve kids well."
But Lesley argues that the costs and benefits of exchange plans under the reform law are already well-known — and they don't measure up to the benefits of CHIP plans.
"I don't necessarily know what people are waiting to see," Lesley said.
All sides of the debate agree that the 13-year-old CHIP program — which covers kids too wealthy to qualify for Medicaid, but not wealthy enough to afford their own health insurance — has been a boon for kids' health coverage, particularly in the recession.
Indeed, between December 2007, when the recession officially started, and December 2008, the number of uninsured adults rose by 1.5 million, while the number of uninsured kids fell by 800,000, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The difference is attributed largely to state efforts to maintain, and even expand, their CHIP programs, which currently cover more than 9 million kids and pregnant women.
"CHIP isn’t just a program that was built for children — it is a program that is working for children," Casey said Friday. The Pennsylvania Democrat had pushed a provision, passed in the health law, requiring the White House to certify which exchange plans offer pediatric coverage comparable to CHIP.
Still, supporters of repealing CHIP — a group that includes a number of liberal Democrats who once championed the program — argue the advantages of having parents and kids all covered under the same plan. They also note the inconvenience — not to mention the uncertainty — of having to renew the program every few years. Additionally, they hope to centralize control of CHIP, which is a block-grant program managed by state officials with powers to scale back coverage when budgets get tight.
"Families in the exchange or Medicaid will not have the same problems,” Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) said during the healthcare debate last year.
Other Democrats aren't so sure. Rockefeller, for instance, has made clear what he thinks about moving youngsters from CHIP to the exchange, "where they’re at the mercy," he said last year, "of people who will have them for lunch."
He was talking about private insurance companies.
"I don’t think there’s any reason," Rockefeller said, "to dismantle a program that works."
It was just one line at the end of a long speech praising CHIP. But Sen. Max Baucus's (D-Mont.) comment this month that the popular initiative might assume "a different role" as healthcare reform evolves has raised the eyebrows of some children's welfare advocates, who fear that shifting kids to private exchange plans will hike costs and erode services."If the exchange is as good as CHIP, then fine," said Bruce Lesley, president of First Focus, a children's welfare group. "But these plans are not going to be as strong as CHIP — there's no way."
In Baucus's comments, Lesley said, "I see flashing danger lights."
Sen. Bob Casey Jr. (D-Pa.) this week also warned of the potential dangers of eliminating CHIP.
"Children are not little adults," Casey said Friday in an e-mail. "They have their own unique health and healthcare needs. We bring children to see pediatricians because they are doctors that have the knowledge and expertise to treat children specifically; likewise, CHIP is a program built specifically for children."
It's not the first time the issue has surfaced. During the months-long debate over healthcare reform, Baucus, who chairs the Finance Committee, had initially proposed to eliminate CHIP, shifting those kids instead to either Medicaid or private plans on state-based exchanges. (CHIP, under Baucus's plan, would have remained as a secondary insurance option to cover services that exchange plans didn't.)
Meanwhile, House Democrats proposed to repeal CHIP altogether.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), at the time, estimated that the Senate proposal would push greater costs on affected families, leading some kids to lose coverage altogether.
"Some of those children," wrote CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf, "would be eligible for subsidized coverage in the exchanges but would not be enrolled in an exchange plan (owing at least in part to the higher premiums and higher out-of-pocket costs)."
The warning hasn't been tested. Instead, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) amended the Finance bill to extend CHIP's funding by two years, through 2015 — a provision that ultimately became law.
The timeline is already on Baucus's radar.
"In 2015, Congress will revisit CHIP in a new context," Baucus said last week during a speech marking the program's 13th anniversary. "CHIP has been instrumental in providing children with access to care where none existed before, but it may need to take on a different role as health reform is implemented."
A Finance aide said Friday that the remarks were not a reference to any specific proposal. Rather, "Baucus wants to ensure that as the new healthcare law is implemented, the CHIP program has the flexibility it needs to do whatever is best for the kids and families that rely on the program," the aide said in an e-mail.
"[H]e is keeping all options on the table for CHIP’s future."
Some kids' healthcare advocates support that plan. Tricia Brooks, health policy expert at Georgetown University's Center for Children and Families, said Friday that the program providing the coverage — be it Medicaid, CHIP or the exchange — is no matter as long as kids are getting the care they need.
"There are many paths to coverage," Brooks said Friday. "The important thing is that they serve kids well."
But Lesley argues that the costs and benefits of exchange plans under the reform law are already well-known — and they don't measure up to the benefits of CHIP plans.
"I don't necessarily know what people are waiting to see," Lesley said.
All sides of the debate agree that the 13-year-old CHIP program — which covers kids too wealthy to qualify for Medicaid, but not wealthy enough to afford their own health insurance — has been a boon for kids' health coverage, particularly in the recession.
Indeed, between December 2007, when the recession officially started, and December 2008, the number of uninsured adults rose by 1.5 million, while the number of uninsured kids fell by 800,000, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The difference is attributed largely to state efforts to maintain, and even expand, their CHIP programs, which currently cover more than 9 million kids and pregnant women.
"CHIP isn’t just a program that was built for children — it is a program that is working for children," Casey said Friday. The Pennsylvania Democrat had pushed a provision, passed in the health law, requiring the White House to certify which exchange plans offer pediatric coverage comparable to CHIP.
Still, supporters of repealing CHIP — a group that includes a number of liberal Democrats who once championed the program — argue the advantages of having parents and kids all covered under the same plan. They also note the inconvenience — not to mention the uncertainty — of having to renew the program every few years. Additionally, they hope to centralize control of CHIP, which is a block-grant program managed by state officials with powers to scale back coverage when budgets get tight.
"Families in the exchange or Medicaid will not have the same problems,” Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) said during the healthcare debate last year.
Other Democrats aren't so sure. Rockefeller, for instance, has made clear what he thinks about moving youngsters from CHIP to the exchange, "where they’re at the mercy," he said last year, "of people who will have them for lunch."
He was talking about private insurance companies.
"I don’t think there’s any reason," Rockefeller said, "to dismantle a program that works."
Resellers of FEMA trailers could face criminal prosecution
Anyone found reselling contaminated FEMA trailers for housing purposes could face criminal charges, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has clarified, responding to questions from House Democrats.
Thousands of trailers — leftovers from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's response to the 2005 Hurricane Katrina disaster — were banned as living quarters after the government found them to contain high levels of formaldehyde, a carcinogen. Still, many trailers have resurfaced amid the response to the Gulf oil spill. Reports have indicated that sellers are peddling them as housing units to Gulf cleanup workers despite explicit directions from the General Services Administration (GSA) that the units can't be sold as living quarters.
Those caught violating GSA's instructions, the FTC told Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), would not be subject to fines, but could face a number of other punitive actions, "including equitable monetary relief, cease and desist orders, bans and disclosure remedies."
But given the safety threat — not to mention the GSA's warnings — criminal prosecution might be the best option, the FTC said.
"In light of GSA's ongoing efforts to address the potential criminal violations that have occurred in connection with reported resale and reuse of these trailers, it appears that a criminal action would likely yield the strongest remedy for consumers," FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz wrote to Markey in a July 29 letter, which Markey released Friday.
That verdict drew approval from Markey, the chairman of the House Special Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, who has pushed GSA officials for answers surrounding the trailers since The New York Times reported in June that they were being marketed to oil spill workers. The Massachusetts Democrat is urging a crackdown on violators.
"Like a zombie from a bad horror film, FEMA’s toxic trailers just keep coming back to haunt the people of the Gulf coast," Markey said Friday in a statement. "We need to ensure that the appropriate law enforcement agencies are thoroughly and vigilantly looking into these sales so that no one is unwittingly and needlessly exposed to the formaldehyde in these trailers again."
Some local lawmakers are weighing in with concerns as well. Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.) warned Friday that "the fumes from toxic FEMA trailers cause serious respiratory illnesses, especially for children and seniors, and no one should be living in them."
"Federal and local law enforcement must actively investigate any reports of trailers being sold for housing, to protect Louisiana families from breathing hazardous chemicals while they sleep," Melancon added.
Built in response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the contaminated trailers quickly became a liability for the government, which was spending tens of millions of dollars to store them. In response, GSA auctioned off tens of thousands of trailers, with instructions that they couldn't be resold for housing purposes.
Despite the FTC's suggestion that criminal charges would be the most effective deterrent for potential resellers, the agency also cautioned that each case would be examined individually.
"Any definitive conclusion would require further investigation," Leibowitz wrote to Markey. "The remedy pursued would depend on the facts of the particular case."
Thousands of trailers — leftovers from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's response to the 2005 Hurricane Katrina disaster — were banned as living quarters after the government found them to contain high levels of formaldehyde, a carcinogen. Still, many trailers have resurfaced amid the response to the Gulf oil spill. Reports have indicated that sellers are peddling them as housing units to Gulf cleanup workers despite explicit directions from the General Services Administration (GSA) that the units can't be sold as living quarters.
Those caught violating GSA's instructions, the FTC told Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), would not be subject to fines, but could face a number of other punitive actions, "including equitable monetary relief, cease and desist orders, bans and disclosure remedies."
But given the safety threat — not to mention the GSA's warnings — criminal prosecution might be the best option, the FTC said.
"In light of GSA's ongoing efforts to address the potential criminal violations that have occurred in connection with reported resale and reuse of these trailers, it appears that a criminal action would likely yield the strongest remedy for consumers," FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz wrote to Markey in a July 29 letter, which Markey released Friday.
That verdict drew approval from Markey, the chairman of the House Special Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, who has pushed GSA officials for answers surrounding the trailers since The New York Times reported in June that they were being marketed to oil spill workers. The Massachusetts Democrat is urging a crackdown on violators.
"Like a zombie from a bad horror film, FEMA’s toxic trailers just keep coming back to haunt the people of the Gulf coast," Markey said Friday in a statement. "We need to ensure that the appropriate law enforcement agencies are thoroughly and vigilantly looking into these sales so that no one is unwittingly and needlessly exposed to the formaldehyde in these trailers again."
Some local lawmakers are weighing in with concerns as well. Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.) warned Friday that "the fumes from toxic FEMA trailers cause serious respiratory illnesses, especially for children and seniors, and no one should be living in them."
"Federal and local law enforcement must actively investigate any reports of trailers being sold for housing, to protect Louisiana families from breathing hazardous chemicals while they sleep," Melancon added.
Built in response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the contaminated trailers quickly became a liability for the government, which was spending tens of millions of dollars to store them. In response, GSA auctioned off tens of thousands of trailers, with instructions that they couldn't be resold for housing purposes.
Despite the FTC's suggestion that criminal charges would be the most effective deterrent for potential resellers, the agency also cautioned that each case would be examined individually.
"Any definitive conclusion would require further investigation," Leibowitz wrote to Markey. "The remedy pursued would depend on the facts of the particular case."
How to download and install online games
Before you start to play online games, make sure the reliability of the following means: a valid credit card, personal computer and a connection to the global information network. If your only have a Mac or Web TV, you, unfortunately, already on the sidelines. For a variety of entertainment, go to the preview offered to play online games. As soon as you find a virtual gaming house to taste, go to the Download option. Enter your e-mail address and press the Download button and do not forget to mention for a location to save the downloaded file on your hard drive to easily find it later. After downloading the installation file online casinos, find the file in the directory where it was saved. Double-click on the symbol file run the installation program (Setup program), through which to implement the process of installation. You will only need to respond to inquiries and choose where to save the program gambling establishment on the hard drive of your PC.
Check the box of their e-mail to confirm receipt of a key code. If the information is delivered, wait for 5-10 minutes. This key code is required for the initial opening of the program. Enter the key code received via e-mail, dedicated to the display segment of the field. If you are already imbued with the spirit of excitement and feel that luck is on your side, you can just start to play online games.
Check the box of their e-mail to confirm receipt of a key code. If the information is delivered, wait for 5-10 minutes. This key code is required for the initial opening of the program. Enter the key code received via e-mail, dedicated to the display segment of the field. If you are already imbued with the spirit of excitement and feel that luck is on your side, you can just start to play online games.