Friday, August 30, 2013

All Men Are Created Equal... Except

Oh this is a good one. Just how does one go about proving that his or her job was outsourced overseas in order to qualify for this program? So many many times our government embarks on programs with the best of intentions, but as they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The costs just keep growing and growing and growing and growing.......

 

Unequal unemployment? Program helps certain laid-off workers

Even as fewer Americans filed for jobless benefits last month, there are still 4 million Americans who are considered to be long-term unemployed. They’ve been out of work for at least six months.
But thanks to a little-known federal program that gives some workers better benefits than others, America’s unemployed are not all treated equal.
Washington state provides a tale of two workers.
Take Mike Mullins, laid off a year ago from his tech support job at the Seattle Art Institute. He’s now in a re-training program in hopes of finding work as a ship welder. His unemployment benefits will run out before he’s certified.
Meanwhile, Kiet Nguyen, an electrician who was recently laid off at Boeing, can collect unemployment pay for two and a half years.
That's because of a special unemployment benefit status created by Congress with the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, also known as TAA. Created in 1974, it gives extra benefits to people who can prove their job was outsourced to a foreign country. The program now costs taxpayers more than a billion dollars a year.
“I think it’s a good opportunity for having something that you can fall back on,” Nguyen said. “It helps you get back on your feet.”
But Mullins, a single parent who is having trouble making ends meet now, does not think it is fair.
“To hear there are people able to get two and a half years and get more training than what I’m going to get, which is a six-month program, that’s frustrating,” Mullins said.
In 2009, during the recession, President Obama extended benefits by an additional 13 weeks and threw in compensation for travel expenses for job interviews, 90 percent of moving costs and health care. The Labor Department recently approved 800 laid off Boeing machinists to join 80,000 workers in the TAA.
“It’s not a golden parachute,” spokeswoman for the International Association of Machinists Connie Kelliher said. “Nobody wants to lose their job due to jobs going overseas. It basically is a transition program that puts them into another career.”
But critics call it an expensive giveaway, mainly to unions, that does not work.
“The average person who gets training under the TAA gets one and a half years of job training,” David Muhlhausen of the Heritage Foundation said. “And for that, they earn less than similar people, they exhaust their unemployment benefits and they’re less likely to find work.”
In 2012, the program cost taxpayers $1.4 billion. According to the Heritage Foundation study, it amounted to a net negative to society of more than $53,000 per participant. But supporters say, while not cheap, it is the least the country can do for people who have lost their job to free trade.

Obamacare in the E.R.



This is not good news for the state exchanges created under PACA. When the majors don't want to participate, who will? How limited will the choices be? Read below what happened in Maryland where the state regulators ordered Aetna to drop its rates. The powers that be simply don't want to deal with the enormous flaws in this law and we are all going to pay a price for it. I think it might have made more sense if Nancy Pelosi and her mates had read the bill before they voted for it rather than  passing the bill so that we could find out what's in it.

 

Aetna pulls out of another Obamacare health exchange


Reuters
By Caroline Humer
(Reuters) - Aetna Inc has decided not to sell insurance on New York's individual health insurance exchange, which is being created under President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law, the fifth state where it has reversed course in recent weeks.
The third-largest U.S. health insurer has said it is seeking to limit its exposure to the risks of providing health plans to America's uninsured, but did not give details about its decision to pull out of specific markets.
"We believe it is critical that our plans not only be competitive, but also financially viable, in order to meet the long-term needs of the exchanges in which we choose to participate. On New York, as a result of our analysis, we reluctantly came to the conclusion to withdraw," Aetna spokeswoman Cynthia Michener said.
The New York decision comes as states finalize the roster of health plans that will be offered to millions of uninsured Americans beginning on October 1.
Aetna and its newly acquired Coventry Health unit, a low-cost provider that caters to individuals and Medicaid beneficiaries and provides private Medicare policies, still have applications to sell coverage in 10 states, based on publicly available information.
Michener said the full list of state exchanges where Aetna will participate is still being finalized.
The new online insurance exchanges are the lynchpin of Obama's healthcare reform, representing a massive technology build-out that has run up against multiple delays and political opposition in many states. In their first year, the exchanges aim to provide coverage to 7 million uninsured Americans, many of whom will be eligible for government subsidies.
Aetna's large competitors, such as UnitedHealth Group Inc and WellPoint Inc, have also planned limited entries into the new exchanges while they wait and see whether they operate smoothly and whether enough healthy people sign on to offset the costs of sicker new members.
"We've got this period where the exchange experience, the exchange sentiment, and news headlines are probably not going to be very flattering and that's not going to have a positive impact on turnout," said Jefferies & Co analyst David Windley.
"Longer-term, those kinks will get ironed out, more people will get comfortable and in (the next few years) more people will be accessing their health insurance through an exchange of some sort," he said.
'RISK-BASED APPROACH'
Aetna signaled last month that it was considering withdrawing some applications because of its purchase of Coventry, which also had filed documents to sell insurance plans on exchanges around the country.
"We have taken a prudent risk-based approach to both our overall exposure and exposure within a given marketplace," Chief Executive Officer Mark Bertolini said on a conference call with analysts at the time.
Since then, it has withdrawn applications in Maryland, Ohio, Georgia, and Connecticut, where it is based. In Maryland, Aetna's decision came after state regulators ordered the company to lower rates dramatically from what it had proposed.
Aetna also has filed applications in Florida, Arizona and Virginia, where the federal government will operate the exchanges, and in Washington, D.C., which is running its own exchange.
Coventry filed applications to sell insurance in Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia, according to those states' insurance departments. Iowa is working with the government on its exchanges while the rest are being run entirely by the federal government.
Coventry withdrew its applications in Georgia and Maryland when Aetna bowed out but it remains in Ohio. It also withdrew earlier this month from Tennessee.
Aetna and Coventry may also have filed plans in other states that have not released any information about participants.
Insurance plans in the 33 states that have defaulted to the federal government exchanges must be approved by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and then insurers sign off on them. Earlier this week, HHS delayed the sign-off deadline to mid-September after originally aiming for early next month.
Michener said the company will continue to serve small business and large business customers in New York and will offer products to individual consumers outside of the exchanges.
Only 17,000 or so people in New York currently buy individual insurance, but the exchange is expected to bring in 1 million people during the first three years. The exchange announced insurance participants on August 20. Aetna was not on the list.
(Reporting by Caroline Humer; Editing by Michele Gershberg and Eric Walsh)

Syrian Mess

The Mickey Mouse Club is back on the air! Regardless of ones feelings towards President Obama he has to get an "F" on his amateurish handling of Syria. Now even the Brits have walked away. One must believe that the evidence that we must have shared with the highest levels of their government was not convincing. The President has placed himself in a no win situation, and the repercussions are sure to spread beyond Syria. 

The legal implications of what is happening here are beautifully spelled below by Noah Feldman of the Harvard Law School.

 

Don’t Break Global Law Just to Swipe at Assad


Bombing Syria for using chemical weapons against its own citizens would violate international law as it currently exists -- let’s get that straight. But that doesn’t answer the question of whether the U.S. should do it anyway.
Some evils are so great that righting them requires violating laws that are inadequate to the situation, such as when the U.S. broke the same international law by bombing Serbia in 1999 to stop what looked a lot like genocide in Kosovo. The real question is: Should we break international law to send the symbolic message that use of chemical weapons violates, well, international law?
Noah Feldman
The legal analysis is surprisingly simple. If the United Nations Security Council authorizes force, international law allows it. Otherwise, unless acting in self-defense, a country or a group such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has no right to attack another.
The U.K. government issued a statement to the effect that international law recognizes a right to intervene proportionately when many lives are being lost -- a version of what is sometimes called the international responsibility to protect, or R2P. The biggest trouble with this argument -- the U.K. also used it when NATO bombed Kosovo -- is that it doesn’t appear in any treaty or any definitive statement of international law.

Global Disagreement

The British lawyers might say that customary international law recognizes this right after the Kosovo bombings. But custom is supposed to become law when all or almost all states agree with it. And as we can plainly see from the Russian and Chinese opposition to bombing Syria, not everyone agrees. Even after Kosovo, the U.S. and U.K. went to the Security Council to seek authorization for bombing and then invading Iraq. The same was true of bombing Libya.
Illegality under international law shouldn’t end the discussion, however. Laws are made to be broken -- especially international laws that create the possibility of horribly immoral results under some conditions. It would be monstrous to stand by and let hundreds of thousands or millions of people die preventable deaths because, say, Russia vetoes action in the Security Council.
The bombing of Kosovo was justifiable in moral terms -- the saving of innocent lives -- even if it was (cough, cough) illegal. If genocide in Rwanda or Bosnia or Cambodia or German-occupied Europe could have been prevented by unlawful intervention, it would have been the right thing to do. What is more, doing the right thing enough times might eventually change international custom so that the law does in fact change to allow or even require protecting the vulnerable.
But violent disobedience of the law shouldn’t be undertaken lightly. International law exists because its serves the interests of states and people. Almost all the time, it deserves to be followed. Breaking it weakens respect for the rule of law itself. It makes our treaties less meaningful and our commitments less firm. Breaking it makes us all a little less secure and safe.

Limited Bombing

It would be worth violating international law to save hundreds of thousands of lives in Syria -- if we were confident we could actually do so. But that isn’t the Obama adminstration proposal. Instead, the U.S. and U.K. are talking about bombing in limited ways, with the goal of deterring further use of chemical weapons by Assad or other bad actors in the world.
It’s unclear whether the deterrent would work, of course. President Barack Obama’s warning about “red lines” obviously failed. But even assuming Assad and others might be deterred, is it worth the violation of international law to create this limited deterrence? Would enough lives be saved to justify the cost?
Numbers can’t fully answer this moral problem. Logic, however, can help. What’s wrong with weapons of mass destruction isn’t just that they kill lots of people. Assad has killed many thousands more of his citizens by conventional means. No, such weapons are particularly hateful because they violate international law. For more than a century we have realized that chemical or biological attacks are bad for everybody in war -- which is why almost all nations on earth signed treaties banning them.
So the principle behind bombing Syria would be this: Follow international law or face the consequences. How, exactly, can we send that message if the bombing itself violates the UN Charter? How can we credibly claim to deter egregious violation of international law by breaking international law ourselves?
The conclusion is painful, but I think also clear. If we can save many lives, we shouldn’t hold back from bombing Syria. But sending a symbolic message isn’t a good enough justification to deepen the precedent of violating international law when we feel like it. Especially when the symbolic message is about respecting that law in the first place.
(Noah Feldman, a law professor at Harvard University and the author of “Cool War: The Future of Global Competition,” is a Bloomberg View columnist. Follow him on Twitter at @NoahRFeldman.)
To contact the writer of this article: Noah Feldman at noah_feldman@harvard.edu.
To contact the editor responsible for this article: Tobin Harshaw at tharshaw@bloomberg.net.