Giving Americans Control over Their Health Care

Giving Americans Control over Their Health Care: "

Monday marked the 90 day anniversary of the signing of the Affordable Care Act, the landmark new law that puts consumers, not health insurance companies, in charge of their own health care. We have hit the ground running and, in just three months, significant progress has been made.

To begin with, the new Patients’ Bill of Rights will end the worst insurance company abuses and provide the American people with the peace of mind that their insurance will be there when they need it most. After meeting with representatives of the insurance industry yesterday, President Obama announced this historic regulation that will ban rescission of coverage, discriminating against children with pre-existing conditions, and lifetime limits, as well as place restrictions on annual limits. For additional details about the Patient’s Bill of Rights, read the fact sheet or watch the webchat with Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.

Click here to see the video.

Another important step we’ve taken is to fulfill President Obama’s promise that “if you like your health plan, you can keep it.” Last week, Secretary Sebelius and Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis announced a new rule that protects the ability of individuals and businesses to keep their current plan. It outlines conditions under which current plans can be ‘grandfathered’ into the system, minimizing market disruption and putting us all on the path toward the competitive, patient-centered market of the future. By providing the stability and flexibility that families and businesses need, Americans will be able to make the choices that work best for them. Learn more about the ‘grandfather’ rule.

You may be aware that increasing the number of primary care doctors and nurses is a key challenge to improving our health care system. Expanding our health care workforce and supporting our nurses, doctors and other providers are top priorities in reforming our health care system. One of the most obvious and important benefits of a strong health care workforce is increased prevention of disease – which can often mean avoiding the costly treatment of a chronic condition. During a speech last week at the American Nurses Association conference, President Obama announced investments in a new generation of primary caregivers. These efforts include increased resources for training, new incentives to physicians for providing primary care to patients, and support for caregivers who choose to enter primary care in underserved areas.

Even if you aren’t a senior, you probably know a few – and few things are more important to their health security than Medicare. That’s why the President and Secretary Sebelius held a tele-town hall to talk directly with America’s seniors, where they addressed misinformation and answered detailed questions about Medicare. It’s important for seniors to know that their guaranteed Medicare benefits are protected -- regardless of whether they are in Original Medicare or Medicare Advantage -- and seniors who have Medicare Advantage can choose to continue to be enrolled in the plan.

In the coming years, seniors can also expect free preventive care services, including annual wellness visits and cancer screenings, and advanced patient-centered care, which will improve coordination of health care resources and ensure that they have access to support in their community. Recently, we also announced the good news that seniors will begin receiving a $250 check from Medicare when they reach the ‘donut hole’ – a term used to describe the gap in Medicare Part D prescription coverage. Until this gap is completely closed in 2020, we will continue to help seniors manage their health care costs.

Finally, everyone likes saving money and we’ve made some big progress in this area. The new legislation includes some of the strongest anti-health care fraud provisions in history and we will continue to act swiftly and aggressively to prevent fraud and take action against those who break the law. Reductions in fraud and abuse will help extend the life of the Medicare Trust Fund and provide taxpayers with cost savings. Ongoing activities include implementing tough new rules and sentences for criminals, enhancing screening and enrollment requirements, leveraging new tools and resources to prevent and fight fraud, and enhancing data-sharing among the agencies that are working to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse.

These accomplishments have brought about a number of important new benefits and each day, as we continue implementing the new law, we are working to give Americans greater control over their health care. The Affordable Care Act is laying the foundation for greater stability and giving American families and businesses the flexibility they need to make the choices that work best for them.

Stephanie Cutter is Assistant to the President for Special Projects

"

Senate Democrats push jobs tax compromise - Reuters

Since when did 60 become a majority in the 100 Seat Senate, make the Republican filibuster if they really mean it, then pass the legislation! 51 is a majority in the Senate!


Senate Democrats push jobs tax compromise - Reuters: "

Big Journalism (blog)

Senate Democrats push jobs tax compromise Reuters WASHINGTON, June 23 (Reuters) - In an effort to break a stalemate over a package of unemployment aid and business tax breaks, Senate Democrats on Wednesday offered a compromise that would pare proposed aid to ... Senate Democrats Trim Tax Bill, Set New VoteWall Street Journal GOP senators may still block more jobless benefitsThe Associated Press Unemployment: Outlook Grim For Jobs Bill Ahead Of VoteHuffington Post (blog) Politico (blog) -Seattle Times -The Hill all 240 news articles »

"

Doug Kendall: We Need to Stop Leaning into Scalia's Punches

Doug Kendall: We Need to Stop Leaning into Scalia's Punches: "

Liberals really need to stop leaning into the punches being thrown by Justice Antonin Scalia. While Scalia claims he follows the Constitution as written and adheres to the values of our founders, the most frequent come back from progressives is: 'Wait, wait, wait, judging is so much harder than that.' Rather than pointing out that Scalia and his conservative colleagues frequently twist the law and depart sharply from the Constitution's text and history, this 'judging is hard' argument just reinforces the public's misperception that conservatives follow the law and progressives make the law up. What progressives must do, instead, is respond to Scalia and his cohorts by offering a different, more inspiring and appealing account of our Nation's charter.

The latest example of this back and forth played out this week in dueling opinion pieces in Thursday's Washington Post. Conservative columnist George Will's 'The danger of a government with unlimited power' rehearses the standard conservative line of attack. Conservatives, Will argues, want to return to the limited government enshrined in the Constitution by James Madison, while progressives want a 'living, evolving document' that 'frees government from limitations' and serves as 'an emancipation proclamation for government, empowering it to regulate all human desires as needs and hence as rights.'
Meanwhile, the progressive response is found in a piece called Souter's Challenge to Scalia by columnist E.J. Dionne, running right above Will's, that says, in effect, that judging is a lot harder than Scalia and other conservatives say it is. Citing a recent Harvard commencement speech by Justice David Souter, in which the former justice is deeply critical of Justice Scalia and his 'originalsim,' Dionne rehearses the progressive argument about how difficult it is for judges to interpret the Constitution's broad and open-ended terms, and chose among competing constitutional values. Dionne suggests that Souter's speech should be' the philosophical shot heard 'round the country,' and he encourages a nationwide debate about 'which approach is more trustworthy.'

With respect to both Dionne and Justice Souter, that's a sure-fire recipe for progressives remaining in second place in a two-team battle over the future of the Supreme Court. It's not that Dionne's (and Souter's) points about the Constitution's broad and open-ended terms and competing values are wrong. They are learned and erudite. But they are not an effective rejoinder to Scalia's vision of the Constitution and the Court's role under it and they can be counterproductive in a political debate framed by the conservative attack on 'liberal judicial activism.'

What's most disappointing about Dionne's piece is that Dionne himself has been among the most influential and forceful proponents of a new and better progressive message about the Supreme Court. In a brilliant series of prior pieces, Dionne has called on progressives to have an 'honest brawl' with conservatives about the future of the Supreme Court, and show that 'the threat of judicial activism now comes from right, not the left.' 'It is conservatives, not liberals,' Dionne adds, 'who are using the courts to overturn the decisions made by democratically elected bodies in areas such as pay discrimination, school integration, antitrust laws and worker safety regulation.'
Now is the time for progressives to have that honest brawl about why the Constitution itself points in a progressive direction. The Court's monumentally wrong ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, giving corporations the right to drown out the voices of We the People in the electoral process, coupled with the fringe ramblings of Rand Paul and the Tea Party crowd, have laid bare the underbelly of the conservative legal project. We need to explain how the Constitution protects ' We the People,' not 'We the Corporations,' how it empowers the federal government to address national problems like health care and civil rights, and how the Amendments adopted by Americans over the past 220 years should be revered for making the Constitution better, not repealed or underappreciated.
We can keep complaining that Justice Scalia is being simplistic and that judging is hard in conversations in faculty lounges and law journals. But when we're fighting publicly with conservatives about the Constitution, we should be loud and firm in asserting why the document itself points to the results we seek.

I entered a photo in this contest, vote if you want to..

Vote for my entry in the 2010 Professional Photographer Magazine Cover Contest

Tax the Hell Out of Wall Street and Give it to Main Street

Tax the Hell Out of Wall Street and Give it to Main Street: "

Today was a brutal day on Wall Street. Through no fault of investors.

Today was brutal because of traders and financial engineers who trade on every piece of data . Those that work from quantitative formulas that drive trades based on data input. Not a single one of them acts like a shareholder. And that is the reality of the stock market.

The market is no longer driven by shareholders. The market is driven by formulas that drive trades.

So what should the government do ?

Tax every single share of stock that is bought and sold 25 cents per transaction. One quarter. If you buy a share of stock, your brokerage pays a 25c tax. If you sell a share, your brokerage pays a 25c tax. 1 share, 100 million shares. Its 25 cents per share.

Of course the tax will be paid for by those of us who are buying and selling stocks. So what? Here is the reality. If you are a true investor. Someone who wants to own a share of stock in a company you believe in, then its an amount that is not going to impact your investment decision making process. You bought those shares to be a shareholder.

If you dont think the company you are buying is worth at least a quarter more than what you are paying , why are you buying shares ?

If you are a professional trader or an institutional trader that trades continuously, the same type of traders that created the mess in the market today, then it may impact your decision making process, but only to the point of reducing your returns by a minimal amount. Its not going to change your inclination to trade. As everyone on Wall Street will tell you “Traders Trade”. You may trade less and make less in aggregate, but no one but you cares about that. You will find your way to make money. There is always the loop hole and inefficiency. Thats what you live for. But you won’t stop trading.

If you are a day trader, you are going to have to be right more often or actually hold on to stocks for a longer period of time. That’s ok. I know it will be rough on some of you that make a living this way. But in reality, you don’t add anything to the markets.

Whats the bigger economic impact of having the tax ?

If the NYSE, Nasdaq, Amex and OTC are trading 2 Billion shares a day or more , like today, thats $ 500 Million Dollars PER DAY. If there are 260 trading days a year. Thats about 130 Billion dollars a year. If volumes drop because of the tax. It is still 10s of Billions of dollars per year.Thats real money for the US Treasury. Thats also an annual payment towards the next time Wall Street screws up and we have a black swan event that no one planned on.Of course there has to be some fine print. You could reduce the tax per share for stocks under $5 dollars to 5cents. But i would leave it at 5cents even for stocks priced at pennies per share or less. This tax would act as a protection for investors and traders who get pitched unregulated penny stocks and who are more often than not the victims of rip off artists. It would minimize the pink sheet companies that trade billions of shares of stocks priced for pennies. Those companies that are legit, could do a reverse split to protect their investors. The others can go away. They probably shouldn’t be public anyway.

The stock market today is dominated by financial engineers and traders. Institutions who look for the loopholes and exploit them. Thats not a bad thing. There will always be loopholes, and they will always find them. But at least with the tax, when they do, we are protecting ourselves a little bit. Heck, the Treasury could join in the show and buy long and short 20pct out of the money derivatives on the market to protect us even more. This way if things go haywire like they did a couple years ago and have the past few days, the Treasury will be playing with Wall Streets’ money. I’m sure Main Street won’t mind terribly if the Treasury plays with the house’s money.

Particularly since the only given for Wall Street is that every 5 years or so there will be an extreme event. Why ? Remember the rule of Wall Street …

First there are the innovators. Then there are the imitators. Then there are the idiots. And there are tons and tons of idiots. Just look at the billions upon billions squandered in closed Hedge Funds. The idiots always find there way back into the market and the market always wipes them out taking investors down with them.

It’s time to make all those playing this game pay a tax per transaction.

And one more thing. When Wall Street talks about how a tax will hurt liquidity, ask them why, if liquidity is so essential to a market, they don’t want any transparency and aren’t trying to increase liquidity for the derivatives they sell on a custom basis ? Or why they are not trying to increase the liquidity for the corporate bond markets where bonds trade with a huge spread ?

They want minimal transparencies where the spreads are high and they can keep them that way and price their products anyway they like. Where the spreads are already low, they cry wolf about the liquidity they need to do business. Let me explain the reality of liquidity in today’s world. It won’t increase the amount of capital available to businesses. The companies that plant servers next to stock exchanges to make a few cents per trade aren’t buying IPOs, secondary offerings, or holding shares in support of valuations in a company they believe in. Every time markets crater, there is never a lack of liquidity. THere are still a billion or more shares traded. There is plenty of liquidity.

So tax the hell out of Wall Street , give it to main street. Make it tougher for the financial engineers and you will make it easier for investors to evaluate companies and hold on to shares and maybe even act like owners of those companies.

Taxing the Hell Out of Wall Street could actually increase the trust investors have in Wall Street. And it might just protect us when the next meltdown happens. And it will happen

The idiots will see to it.