Group items tagged

Three studies--two by the Lewin Group and one by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (a federal body)--conclude that various congressional plans would increase health spending. The estimates vary but range from $114 billion to $750 billion over the next decade. Given its structure, there is no reason to believe the "new" Reid bill will be much different.

There is good reason to think that these reforms would pour gasoline on the fire of health inflation: Though details differ, both the House and Senate bills would offer subsidies to millions, insist on first-dollar coverage for certain services and expand entitlements.

ChicagoThe federal stimulus money for education is prompting states, much more than before, to embrace reforms promoted by the US Department of Education. In particular, states are moving to better track students' progress and to use rigorous assessment tests.These conclusions are drawn from a new study by the Center on Education Policy (CEP) in Washington.

The Department of Education has outlined four priority areas for states receiving stimulus money, with particularly stringent requirements for those applying for a Race to the Top grant:•Establishing data systems that track students' progress from preschool through college. •Developing and using rigorous standards and assessments.•Improving teacher effectiveness and the distribution of high-quality teachers.•Turning around the lowest-performing schools.

The priorities around teachers and school turnarounds seem to be getting less action, says Mr. Jennings, perhaps because they involve more players and are often undertaken at the district level. They're also more nebulous.

The Senate vote marks the beginning of the end for the long march of healthcare reform through the US legislative system. The Senate bill must now be merged with the House version of healthcare reform, approved in November. Substantial differences between the two approaches remain, particularly in regard to antiabortion language, methods of financing, and a governmnt-run public option insurance plan.A conference committee of members from both chambers will struggle over this harmonization. In its own way, that task could be almost as difficult as the Senate debate, as lawmakers struggle to keep intact the language passed on their side of Capitol Hill. The Senate bill, like its House counterpart, would prevent the insurance industry from denying benefits to people with pre-existing health conditions. It provides subsidies to help low- and middle-income residents purchase that insurance. And it establishes state marketplaces, called "exchanges," whereby individuals without employer-provided insurance, and some small businessess, could buy coverage.

The partisan divide is such that Democrats now own healthcare reform. If it succeeds in coming years, they may benefit politically. If it struggles, it may drag them down.Republicans, similarly, own the opposite side of this issue. If the debt skyrockets and the economy struggles, they could look prescient. If the programs succeed, then the Christmas Eve vote could become something analogous to the GOP's opposition to the creation of Medicare – something with which Democrats can assail them at every electoral opportunity.

U.S. manufacturing firms spend almost three times as much per worker per hour for healthcare as our most important foreign competitors--$2.38 versus $0.96. Healthcare costs drive employers to move jobs overseas, grow jobs outside of the United States, and limit the ability of firms to invest to improve productivity [and] compete more effectively in the future.

Analysis also shows that the U.S. economy loses as much as $207 billion annually because of the lost productivity stemming from the poor health and shorter lifespan of the uninsured. Employers notice the workplace productivity loss, which for a full-time worker equals four days a month in lost work time.

On the budget front, the House bill would reduce deficits by $138 billion over the next decade and the Senate measure would reduce deficits by $130 billion over that period, says the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which predicts the two measures would continue to reduce deficits for at least a decade thereafter. The bills would achieve this goal through a combination of spending cuts (largely in Medicare) and tax increases that, together, exceed the costs of bringing health insurance coverage to about 95 percent of all legal residents. The House and Senate bills deserve much more credit for cost control than they have received. They [address] almost all areas that experts have identified as promising areas for reducing the growth of healthcare spending. Most important, both would create a health insurance exchange to promote competition among private health insurance plans based on price and quality, reduce administrative costs, and provide a platform for systemic change across the healthcare system.

The "nays" have an edge over the "yeas" in the most recent Gallup poll on the issue, for instance. Forty-eight percent of respondents in the Dec. 16 survey said they would tell their member of Congress to vote against the healthcare bill as it now stands. Forty-six percent said they would advise their lawmaker to vote for it.

The bill must now go to a conference committee to resolve significant differences between the House and Senate versions. And history shows that agreement is far from guaranteed. In fact, just last year, a bill reforming the Indian Health Service died when the conference committee couldn't overcome its differences on abortion. Similarly, in 2007, bills dealing with issues as varied as campaign-finance reform, corporate pensions and closing tax loopholes passed both chambers but never became law. .author_pub2 a { float:right; margin: 10px 0 8px 8px; display:block; height: 142px; width: 110px; background: url(/people/pub_photos/tanner.jpg) no-repeat -110px 0; } .author_pub2a a { float:right; margin: 10px 0 8px 8px; display:block; height: 142px; width: 110px; background: url(/people/pub_photos/tanner.jpg) no-repeat 0 0; }

It's important to remember that the House bill passed with just three votes to spare and the Senate bill received exactly the 60 votes needed for passage. Democratic leaders have little room to maneuver as they try to resolve such issues as:

The Public Option: The Senate rejected the concept of a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurance. Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) made it clear that inclusion of the so-called public option would cause them to join a Republican filibuster. They are justifiably concerned that a taxpayer-subsidized government plan would drive private insurance out of the market and lead to a single-payer government-run system. But the House did include a public option -- and retaining it has become the top priority for the Dems' liberal wing. Public-option advocates seemed willing to go along with a proposed Medicare "buy-in" for those 55 to 64, but even that compromise was dropped from the final Senate bill. Now Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Brooklyn), among others, has made it clear his vote is in doubt if the final bill does not include some form of public option. And such liberal activist groups as Moveon.org have promised to spend the holiday vacation pressuring their allies to fight for the public option.

At heart, the House and Senate versions of healthcare reform legislation are very much the same. Both require virtually all Americans to have health insurance, while offering low- and middle-income people subsidies to make that mandate more affordable. Both would establish new marketplaces, called "exchanges," where individuals who don't get insurance from employers could buy coverage. Both would cost about $1 trillion over 10 years and pay for themselves via cuts in projected Medicare spending and tax and fee increases. Both would ban insurance firms from denying anyone coverage due to pre-existing health conditions.

Cuba's communist government currently controls almost all aspects of the country's economy and employs about 85% of the official workforce, which is put at 5.1 million people. As many as one-in-five of all workers could lose their jobs.

To create jobs for the redundant workers, strict rules limiting private enterprise will be relaxed and many more licenses will be issued for people to become self-employed. Private businesses will be allowed to employ staff for the first time.

They will also have to pay tax on their profits and for each person they employ, something which could dramatically boost the government's income.

And while most Americans understand this system to be badly broken already, the US Supreme Court this year ruled, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, to permit unlimited spending by corporations and unions to influence elections. Indeed, early figures show that vastly more money is being spent to influence the outcome of our elections this fall – $4.2 billion in political ad spending alone compared with just $2.1 billion in 2008, according to Borrell Associates. Less than a third of organizations spending money on the fall elections thus far are disclosing their sources of funds, thereby denying citizens any knowledge of who is trying to influence the election.

As an important first step in reclaiming our elections and curbing the undue influence of special interests on our candidates, it is high time that Congress passed the Fair Elections Now Act, introduced in the House by my former colleagues Democrat John Larson of Connecticut and Republican Walter Jones of North Carolina. Modeled after successful Fair Elections programs in eight states, the proposed law would require that participating candidates turn down special interest money and accept only $100-or-less donations from their constituents. Candidates who reach a qualifying threshold of 1,500 in-state donations would then be eligible to receive sufficient matching funds to run a serious campaign. This would dramatically reduce the influence of special interests, including unions and corporations. And Fair Elections would open the election process to many more Americans who currently have no opportunity to seek public office for lack of funds.

The high court also upheld a more sweeping disclosure requirement. Any corporation spending more than $10,000 a year on electioneering efforts must publicly disclose the names of individual contributors.

The Supreme Court did not jettison all campaign finance restrictions. Corporations and unions are still prohibited from making direct contributions to federal candidates. Such contributions must be made either by individuals or through regulated political action committees.In addition, although corporations may now spend money to make a political point during election season, the high court has strongly endorsed – by an 8-to-1 vote – disclaimer and disclosure requirements within the federal campaign finance law.That means that when corporations place a political ad on television or radio within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election, it must include the disclaimer: "______ is responsible for the content of this advertising."This disclaimer requirement may deter many corporations from engaging in the kind of vicious political attack ads that some analysts suggest will now become commonplace.

The Obama administration has an opportunity to break the current logjam in the Middle East by focusing away from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — and pushing for renewed Syrian-Israeli negotiations. The Syrian-Israeli track can move faster than Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, where the two sides are still far apart on the central issues: Israeli settlements, the fate of Palestinian refugees and the final status of Jerusalem. By contrast, the Syrians and Israelis mainly need to negotiate over the return of the Golan Heights, and related security guarantees and water access issues.

Unlike the weak Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, Syrian President Bashar Assad can actually deliver on a peace deal. Such an agreement is possible during Obama's presidency, but it will not happen without the deep involvement of his administration. The United States has much to gain strategically from renewed Syrian-Israeli dialogue: Damascus could be pressed to play a more constructive role in the region, instead of being a spoiler. If there are serious negotiations, the United States can demand that Assad's regime stop interfering in Iraq, carry out domestic reforms, respect human rights and drop Syrian support for Hamas and other Palestinian groups that reject peace with Israel. To achieve peace, the United States must strongly push Israel back to negotiations and be willing to dispatch U.S. personnel as monitors of any final agreement.

The California initiative comes amidst a flurry of activity nationally in the past two months after nearly two-decades of inactivity, according to Bruce Mirken, director of communications for the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington D. C., which advocates legalization of marijuana. California has a legislative bill in the offing, he says, as does Washington State while New Hampshire has recently introduced a bill and Rhode Island has adopted a commission to study ideas.“There are signs all over the place that this has reached critical mass,” says Mirken, citing the photograph of Olympic superstar Michael Phelps last summer. He also says that law enforcement agencies have begun to realize the high cost of arresting, trying, and incarcerating marijuana users – money that could be better spent elsewhere. [Editor's note: The original version of this story mischaracterized the situation involving Mr. Phelps.]

Hall points out that for the last 20 years, nearly two-thirds of all first-time marijuana users have been below the age of 18. Statistics also show that the younger a person begins marijuana use, the greater the risk of substance abuse later in life, he says. Therefore, it’s important to ask a host of questions: Who is going to determine or regulate how marijuana is produced and distributed? Who will it be distributed by? How is the state going to collect the taxes? Will it really have an impact on the illicit trafficking and production of marijuana? Will this lead to proposals to legalize other drugs?

Dan Newman, spokesman for the proposed Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act, counters that the initiative does includes significant safeguards and controls. For example, it will increase the penalty for providing marijuana to a minor, expressly prohibit the consumption of marijuana in public, forbids smoking marijuana while minors are present, and bans possession on school grounds.He also says that studies by state tax experts – the Board of Equalization and the Legislative Analyst Office – show that the initiative will generate billions of dollars in revenue to fund schools, public safety, and other critical needs at a time when the state is desperate for resources.

But after the country's contested presidential elections in June, the majority of Iran's parliament formally endorsed Ahmadinejad's victory. In late October, lawmakers cemented their support by backing legislation to phase out by March 2014 subsidies for fuel, water, flour, bread, wheat, rice, oil, milk, sugar, and postal and transportation services.

Critics say Ahmadinejad's lavish spending on housing projects, infrastructure, cash handouts, and subsidized loans since his election in 2005 has spurred inflation and reduced currency reserves to a precariously low level

The subsidies, which the president argues benefit the wealthy more than the poor, are to be replaced with cash handouts to the lower-income half of Iran's population, with compensation currently estimated to be worth 170,000 rials ($17) a person