Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.
Showing posts with label Rules. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rules. Show all posts
Thursday, June 20, 2013
*FDA proposes tightening rules for heart defibrillators
Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.
Friday, June 14, 2013
Ryan Rules Out Any Compromise Over New Revenues
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) said he would not support revenue increases in budget negotiations with Democrats during an appearance on Bloomberg TV Tuesday morning, explaining that the nation must reform the tax code by lowering rates and “plugging loopholes” and achieve a balanced budget with spending cuts alone.
“We propose 4.6 trillion dollars in spending cuts that are essential to preventing debt crisis,” Ryan claimed, referring to reductions in spending from the repeal of Affordable Care Act benefits and savings from Medicaid, Medicare and other social programs. Nearly two-thirds of the House GOP’s cuts come from poverty programs that aid the neediest Americans like Pell Grants, food stamps and job training.
Ryan insisted that Republicans would demand these reductions and stand united against additional revenue since, as he put it, Democrats “got their tax increases…but we have yet to get any spending cuts”:
PETER COOK (REPORTER): Isn’t that going to require Paul Ryan to consider revenue and for [Senator] Patty Murray to consider entitlement program changes that she has decided on?
RYAN: Well, I would say to the Patty Murray school of thought to the President Obama school of thought, they’ve got their tax increases. They got $1.6 trillion in tax increases that are just now starting to hit the economy. But we have yet to get the spending cuts. [...]
PETER COOK: Aren’t you going to have to offer something more on the revenue front even if you don’t want to?
RYAN: No offense Peter, I’m not interested in negotiating through the media, but to be candid, no. No. We reform the tax code, that’s what we’re proposing that means that by plugging loopholes you can raise the same amount of money for the federal government with a far more competitive, far more pro-jobs tax code than we currently got.
Past budget deals have reduced spending by $1.5 trillion, a fact Ryan himself bragged about when he urged Republicans to back the Budget Control Act in 2011 and later endorsed sequestration. “We’re actually cutting spending while we do this,” Ryan told his colleagues in 2011. “We’re getting two-thirds of the cuts we wanted in our budget.”
Indeed, spending cuts have so far outnumbered revenue by nearly 3 to 1, which is why economists believe that “the next installment of deficit reduction should reach $2 trillion and about half of it should come from higher taxes.” Ryan, meanwhile, has told voters for more than three years that he would pay for his massive tax breaks by closing tax loopholes without ever specifying which deductions or credits he plans to eliminate.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Rove, RNC and GOP bigwigs rig the rules against the right
For insider Republican bigwigs, 2013 is the year of the double deal. They pay homage to CPAC while they write rules for the 2016 presidential campaign designed to fix the game against conservatives whose issues they claim to champion. The new "blueprint" from the Republican National Committee should be read with a calculator, an abacus and a copy of Machiavelli's The Prince to understand that the real blueprint is to freeze out insurgent conservatives (does Rand Paul ring a bell?) and lock in establishment Republicans (does Bush 45 ring a bell?) at the presidential campaign level. Will we soon read a headline on Drudge revealing "GOP insider fix exposed?"
The plan is to shorten the 2016 campaign, to compress 2016 into rapid-fire battles, to end or limit caucuses that help insurgents, and to dramatically cut down the number of debates. Taken together, these actions give a great advantage to establishment candidates with better-known names and access to lots of money. Couple this with the ubiquitous Karl Rove (the power-mad insider whose recent record is worse than the defunct Intrade) who is raising the big dough for the favored friends of the bigwig elites, and we find a game that is being fixed and a deck that is being stacked.Bad news for the bigwigs — they will not trigger an insider triumph, they will trigger an all-out GOP civil war when grassroots conservatives realize they are the target of a nefarious (for them) fix.
This will lead to what the media will call, and I am coining a phrase here, "the battle of the GOP super-PACS" as the big buck Rovians battle the big bucks right (as in Adelson and Koch) for ownership of the 2016 nomination.
Will this intra-party coup d'etat from the GOP establishment work? Probably not. The GOP base will not take kindly to those who address the CPAC meeting with friendly words as Brutus once addressed Caesar. Stacked-deck primaries can backfire if an insurgent catches fire early. The money advantage for GOP insiders will mean nothing unless Messrs. Koch and Adelson et. al. buy into the fix, which is unlikely.
My guess is that the word got out too soon. The conservative base will figure out the fix and move to bring the demise of this baby before it leaves the crib, leaving chastened insiders to give speeches at next year's CPAC event wearing trench coats and gloves and saying: "don't blame me, the other guy did it".
Monday, June 10, 2013
German hospitals group Sana rules out large mergers
* Sana CEO says large deals complex, offer little synergies
* Says Sana owners would not sell
FRANKFURT, March 18 (Reuters) - A new round of attempted M&A in Germany's private hospital sector is unlikely because such deals are complex and offer limited scope for synergies, the head of one of the main four hospital groups said.
Michael Philippi, chief executive of unlisted Sana Kliniken AG, the fourth-largest private-sector hospitals operator in Germany, said transformative "leaps" were not likely in the foreseeable future.
"Changes are not to be expected for now," he told Reuters.
Last year, rival hospital group Fresenius tried and failed to fully take over Rhoen-Klinikum , after another competitor Asklepios bought a stake that blocked the deal which would have combined the industry's two largest players by sales.
The Fresenius/Rhoen-Klinikum deal attracted a lot of interest from international hedge funds, who placed bets on a renewed bid for Rhoen by Fresenius.
Prior to the Fresenius/Rhoen situation, Sana had considered merging with Rhoen but had abandoned the plans.
Philippi told Reuters large combinations in the hospitals sector were often too complex to handle.
"The question is which large mergers do really work? It's not something that just falls into place."
Synergies were limited because central administrative expenses were relatively insignificant, he said.
He also ruled out a sale of Sana, which is owned by 31 medical insurance groups including units of Allianz and Munich Re .
For them, Sana is a long-term, strategic investment that has become even more attractive amid the low interest rates of alternative low-risk investments, he said.
(Reporting by Andreas Kroener, Frank Siebelt and Ludwig Burger. Editing by Jane Merriman)
((ludwig.burger@thomsonreuters.com)(+49 69 7565 1311)(Reuters Messaging: ludwig.burger.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net))
Keywords: SANA HOSPITALS/
Monday, May 13, 2013
India rules against Bayer in cancer drug patent case
CHENNAI, March 4 (Reuters) - An Indian patent appeals board dismissed on Monday Bayer AG's petition against a government decision to allow a domestic company to sell cheap copycat versions of cancer drug Nexavar, delivering a blow to global drugmakers' monopolies on high-priced medicines.
Last year, the Indian patents office, under a mechanism called "compulsory licence", allowed Natco Pharma to sell generic Nexavar at 8,800 rupees ($160) for a month's dose -- a fraction of Bayer's price of 280,000 rupees.
Bayer challenged this decision with the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in the southern city of Chennai.
Although dismissing the petition, the board did order Natco Pharma to pay a royalty of 7 percent on sales of generic Nexavar to Bayer, an increase from the 6 percent royalty that had earlier been set.
($1 = 54.90 rupees)
(Reporting by Anupama Chandrasekaran; Editing by Alex Richardson)
((kaustubh.kulkarni@thomsonreuters.com)(+91 22 61807399)(Reuters Messaging: kaustubh.kulkarni.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net))
Keywords: INDIA BAYER/
Saturday, May 11, 2013
UPDATE 1-India board rules against Bayer in cancer drug patent case
* Bayer's appeal against licence for generic Nexavar dismissed
* Royalty payment to Bayer raised to 7 pct on Nexavar sales * Natco Pharma fined for presenting incorrect data
(Adds details, background, quotes)
By Anupama Chandrasekaran
CHENNAI, March 4 (Reuters) - An Indian patent appeals board upheld on Monday a decision to allow a domestic company to sell a generic version of Bayer AG's cancer drug Nexavar, in a blow for global drugmakers' efforts to hold on to monopolies on high-price medicines.
The ruling paves the way for the issue of more so-called compulsory licences as governments, particularly in emerging markets such as China and Thailand, battle to bring down healthcare costs and provide access to affordable drugs to treat diseases such as cancer, HIV-AIDS and hepatitis.
Bayer, Germany's largest drugmaker, said it would continue to fight to overturn the decision, which it said weakened the international patent system and endangered pharmaceutical research.
Under a global Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, countries can issue compulsory licences on certain drugs that are deemed unaffordable to a large section of their populations.
India's $13 billion drug market is seen by drugmakers as a huge opportunity, but there are concerns about the level of protection for intellectual property in the country -- where generic medicines account for more than 90 percent of drug sales -- after a series of judicial setbacks for "big pharma".
COMPULSORY LICENCE CHALLENGED
Last year, the Indian patents office allowed Natco Pharma
to sell generic Nexavar at 8,800 rupees ($160) for a month's dose -- a fraction of Bayer's price of 280,000 rupees.
Bayer challenged this decision to grant Natco a compulsory licence at the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in the southern city of Chennai.
On Monday the board dismissed the petition, although it did order Natco Pharma to pay a royalty of 7 percent on sales of generic Nexavar to Bayer, an increase from the 6 percent royalty that had earlier been set.
Also, the board fined Natco Pharma 50,000 rupees for presenting incorrect facts during the legal proceedings. The amount would be donated to a cancer treatment hospital, the board ordered.
Announcing the decision, Justice Prabha Sridevan said the kidney and liver cancer drug should be available at an affordable price to everybody.
Bayer said in a statement it "strongly disagreed" with the conclusions of the board, adding that it would seek to challenge it at the High Court in Mumbai.
"The challenges faced by the Indian healthcare system have little or nothing to do with patents on pharmaceutical products as all products on India's essential drug list are not patented," the company said.
Natco Pharma Company Secretary M. Adinarayana told reporters the board had delivered a "reasoned, detailed" decision that could be "sustained in any court of law".
LEGAL SETBACKS
In a separate case, Bayer has accused another Indian drugmaker, Cipla , of infringing its patent on Nexavar. Cipla had launched its generic version of Nexavar before Natco won the compulsory licence.
Cipla undercut Natco's price in May last year and now sells the drug at 6,840 rupees for a month's dose.
Among other setbacks for Western drug companies, India has revoked patents granted to Pfizer Inc's cancer drug Sutent, Roche Holding AG's hepatitis C drug Pegasys and Merck & Co's asthma treatment aerosol suspension formulation.
Another case involving drug patents is currently in front of the Supreme Court, with Novartis battling against an earlier decision refusing it a patent on cancer drug Glivec.
New Delhi has also taken other measures, such as controlling the prices of generic medicines and providing free medicines at government-run hospitals that cater to the country's poor.
Last week a government panel recommended a formula to curb prices of patented drugs to make them affordable for the world's second-most populous country.
($1 = 54.90 rupees)
(Additional reporting and writing by Kaustubh Kulkarni in MUMBAI; Editing by Alex Richardson)
((kaustubh.kulkarni@thomsonreuters.com)(+91 22 61807399)(Reuters Messaging: kaustubh.kulkarni.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net))
Keywords: INDIA BAYER/
India rules against Bayer in cancer drug patent case
CHENNAI, March 4 (Reuters) - An Indian patent appeals board dismissed on Monday Bayer AG's petition against a government decision to allow a domestic company to sell cheap copycat versions of cancer drug Nexavar, delivering a blow to global drugmakers' monopolies on high-priced medicines.
Last year, the Indian patents office, under a mechanism called "compulsory licence", allowed Natco Pharma to sell generic Nexavar at 8,800 rupees ($160) for a month's dose -- a fraction of Bayer's price of 280,000 rupees.
Bayer challenged this decision with the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in the southern city of Chennai.
Although dismissing the petition, the board did order Natco Pharma to pay a royalty of 7 percent on sales of generic Nexavar to Bayer, an increase from the 6 percent royalty that had earlier been set.
($1 = 54.90 rupees)
(Reporting by Anupama Chandrasekaran; Editing by Alex Richardson)
((kaustubh.kulkarni@thomsonreuters.com)(+91 22 61807399)(Reuters Messaging: kaustubh.kulkarni.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net))
Keywords: INDIA BAYER/
Friday, May 10, 2013
UPDATE 1-India board rules against Bayer in cancer drug patent case
* Bayer's appeal against licence for generic Nexavar dismissed
* Royalty payment to Bayer raised to 7 pct on Nexavar sales * Natco Pharma fined for presenting incorrect data
(Adds details, background, quotes)
By Anupama Chandrasekaran
CHENNAI, March 4 (Reuters) - An Indian patent appeals board upheld on Monday a decision to allow a domestic company to sell a generic version of Bayer AG's cancer drug Nexavar, in a blow for global drugmakers' efforts to hold on to monopolies on high-price medicines.
The ruling paves the way for the issue of more so-called compulsory licences as governments, particularly in emerging markets such as China and Thailand, battle to bring down healthcare costs and provide access to affordable drugs to treat diseases such as cancer, HIV-AIDS and hepatitis.
Bayer, Germany's largest drugmaker, said it would continue to fight to overturn the decision, which it said weakened the international patent system and endangered pharmaceutical research.
Under a global Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, countries can issue compulsory licences on certain drugs that are deemed unaffordable to a large section of their populations.
India's $13 billion drug market is seen by drugmakers as a huge opportunity, but there are concerns about the level of protection for intellectual property in the country -- where generic medicines account for more than 90 percent of drug sales -- after a series of judicial setbacks for "big pharma".
COMPULSORY LICENCE CHALLENGED
Last year, the Indian patents office allowed Natco Pharma
to sell generic Nexavar at 8,800 rupees ($160) for a month's dose -- a fraction of Bayer's price of 280,000 rupees.
Bayer challenged this decision to grant Natco a compulsory licence at the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in the southern city of Chennai.
On Monday the board dismissed the petition, although it did order Natco Pharma to pay a royalty of 7 percent on sales of generic Nexavar to Bayer, an increase from the 6 percent royalty that had earlier been set.
Also, the board fined Natco Pharma 50,000 rupees for presenting incorrect facts during the legal proceedings. The amount would be donated to a cancer treatment hospital, the board ordered.
Announcing the decision, Justice Prabha Sridevan said the kidney and liver cancer drug should be available at an affordable price to everybody.
Bayer said in a statement it "strongly disagreed" with the conclusions of the board, adding that it would seek to challenge it at the High Court in Mumbai.
"The challenges faced by the Indian healthcare system have little or nothing to do with patents on pharmaceutical products as all products on India's essential drug list are not patented," the company said.
Natco Pharma Company Secretary M. Adinarayana told reporters the board had delivered a "reasoned, detailed" decision that could be "sustained in any court of law".
LEGAL SETBACKS
In a separate case, Bayer has accused another Indian drugmaker, Cipla , of infringing its patent on Nexavar. Cipla had launched its generic version of Nexavar before Natco won the compulsory licence.
Cipla undercut Natco's price in May last year and now sells the drug at 6,840 rupees for a month's dose.
Among other setbacks for Western drug companies, India has revoked patents granted to Pfizer Inc's cancer drug Sutent, Roche Holding AG's hepatitis C drug Pegasys and Merck & Co's asthma treatment aerosol suspension formulation.
Another case involving drug patents is currently in front of the Supreme Court, with Novartis battling against an earlier decision refusing it a patent on cancer drug Glivec.
New Delhi has also taken other measures, such as controlling the prices of generic medicines and providing free medicines at government-run hospitals that cater to the country's poor.
Last week a government panel recommended a formula to curb prices of patented drugs to make them affordable for the world's second-most populous country.
($1 = 54.90 rupees)
(Additional reporting and writing by Kaustubh Kulkarni in MUMBAI; Editing by Alex Richardson)
((kaustubh.kulkarni@thomsonreuters.com)(+91 22 61807399)(Reuters Messaging: kaustubh.kulkarni.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net))
Keywords: INDIA BAYER/
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Obama Administration’s New Birth Control Rules Already Gaining Support Among Catholic Leaders
On Friday, the Obama Administration announced updated regulations for its birth control rule that requires employer-based insurance plans to offer contraceptive services without a co-pay. The new rules address concerns from both Catholic groups and women’s health organizations — clarifying that women who work for religious employers will still be able to access no-cost birth control, while those religious nonprofit groups won’t have to directly finance the cost of contraceptives they oppose.
According to the updated regulation, insurers will provide separate, individual birth control coverage for the women who work at religiously-affiliated organizations, like Catholic hospitals and universities. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued a statement to say they “welcome” the new Obamacare regulations, and plan to comment further after a more thorough review of the rules. Other Catholic groups and theologians — including the right-leaning Catholic League — have already come out in support of the compromise, celebrating the new rules as an effective balance between religious concerns about contraception and women’s preventative health care:
– Bill Donahue, President of The Catholic League: “The rules proposed today by HHS appear to go a long way toward rectifying the most problematic provisions of the mandate… The decision to expand religious exemptions, and to adopt the IRS definition of a religious institution, is a sign of goodwill by the Obama administration toward the Catholic community.”
– James Salt, Executive Director of Catholics United: “This is a victory not only for the Obama Administration, but for the Catholic Church. As Catholics United said from the very beginning, reasonable people knew it was right to be patient and hopeful that all sides could come together to solve this complex issue. The White House deserves praise in alleviating the Church’s concerns.”
– Steve Schneck, Director of the Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies at Catholic University: The proposed rules are “an important win for religious institutions.”
– Thomas Reese, Senior Fellow at Georgetown University’s Woodstock Theological Center: “HHS and the administration have gone out of their way to resolve the concerns of religious institutions that object to covering contraceptives in their insurance programs.”
– John Gehring, Catholic Program Director at Faith in Public Life: “This is a strong signal that the administration is responsive to the concerns of Catholic institutions. The values of protecting women’s health and the conscience rights of religious employers should not be in conflict. Those who demonize this president for being hostile to religion should drop the reckless rhetoric.”
Nonetheless, far-right critics of the birth control measure have shown no signs of ceasing their war against Obamacare, even though a majority of Americans — including Catholics — support eliminating the cost barriers to contraceptive coverage. Right-wing opponents have already blasted the compromise, saying “no amount of revisions will ever render the HHS mandate acceptable. “
Monday, March 4, 2013
FACT SHEET: Fixing our Broken Immigration System so Everyone Plays by the Rules
FACT SHEET: Fixing our Broken Immigration System so Everyone Plays by the Rules | The White House Skip to main content | Skip to footer site map The White House. President Barack Obama \ABS\Auto Blog Samurai\data\Obama Care\whitehouse\clear.gif)
Get Email UpdatesContact Us Go to homepage. The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts 2012: A Year in Photos
\ABS\Auto Blog Samurai\data\Obama Care\whitehouse\sftr-whgov.gif)
En español Accessibility Copyright Information Privacy Policy Contact USA.gov Developers Apply for a Job
Get Email UpdatesContact Us Go to homepage. The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts 2012: A Year in PhotosA unique view of 2012
\ABS\Auto Blog Samurai\data\Obama Care\whitehouse\wh_nav_feature_2012_photos_02.jpg)
Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Executive Orders Presidential Memoranda Proclamations Legislation Pending Legislation Signed Legislation Vetoed Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Visitor Access Records Financial Disclosures 2012 Annual Report to Congress 2011 Annual Report to Congress 2010 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff A Commitment to Transparency
Browse White House visitor logs
\ABS\Auto Blog Samurai\data\Obama Care\whitehouse\menu_visitor_records.jpg)
To do something about gun violence
\ABS\Auto Blog Samurai\data\Obama Care\whitehouse\wh_nav_featured_guns.jpg)
About the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012
\ABS\Auto Blog Samurai\data\Obama Care\whitehouse\nav_feature_taxes.jpg)
Create and Sign Petitions Now
\ABS\Auto Blog Samurai\data\Obama Care\whitehouse\featured_petitions.jpg)
Download our mobile apps
\ABS\Auto Blog Samurai\data\Obama Care\whitehouse\wh_nav_mobile.jpg)
A unique view of 2012
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release January 29, 2013 FACT SHEET: Fixing our Broken Immigration System so Everyone Plays by the RulesAmerica’s immigration system is broken. Too many employers game the system by hiring undocumented workers and there are 11 million people living in the shadows. Neither is good for the economy or the country.
It is time to act to fix the broken immigration system in a way that requires responsibility from everyone —both from the workers here illegally and those who hire them—and guarantees that everyone is playing by the same rules. President Obama’s commonsense immigration reform proposal has four parts. First, continue to strengthen our borders. Second, crack down on companies that hire undocumented workers. Third, hold undocumented immigrants accountable before they can earn their citizenship; this means requiring undocumented workers to pay their taxes and a penalty, move to the back of the line, learn English, and pass background checks. Fourth, streamline the legal immigration system for families, workers, and employers. Together we can build a fair, effective and commonsense immigration system that lives up to our heritage as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. The key principles the President believes should be included in commonsense immigration reform are:Continuing to Strengthen Border Security: President Obama has doubled the number of Border Patrol agents since 2004 and today border security is stronger than it has ever been. But there is more work to do. The President’s proposal gives law enforcement the tools they need to make our communities safer from crime. And by enhancing our infrastructure and technology, the President’s proposal continues to strengthen our ability to remove criminals and apprehend and prosecute national security threats.
Cracking Down on Employers Hiring Undocumented Workers: Our businesses should only employ people legally authorized to work in the United States. Businesses that knowingly employ undocumented workers are exploiting the system to gain an advantage over businesses that play by the rules. The President’s proposal is designed to stop these unfair hiring practices and hold these companies accountable. At the same time, this proposal gives employers who want to play by the rules a reliable way to verify that their employees are here legally.
Earned Citizenship: It is just not practical to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants living within our borders. The President’s proposal provides undocumented immigrants a legal way to earn citizenship that will encourage them to come out of the shadows so they can pay their taxes and play by the same rules as everyone else. Immigrants living here illegally must be held responsible for their actions by passing national security and criminal background checks, paying taxes and a penalty, going to the back of the line, and learning English before they can earn their citizenship. There will be no uncertainty about their ability to become U.S. citizens if they meet these eligibility criteria. The proposal will also stop punishing innocent young people brought to the country through no fault of their own by their parents and give them a chance to earn their citizenship more quickly if they serve in the military or pursue higher education.
Streamlining Legal Immigration: Our immigration system should reward anyone who is willing to work hard and play by the rules. For the sake of our economy and our security, legal immigration should be simple and efficient. The President’s proposal attracts the best minds to America by providing visas to foreign entrepreneurs looking to start businesses here and helping the most promising foreign graduate students in science and math stay in this country after graduation, rather than take their skills to other countries. The President’s proposal will also reunify families in a timely and humane manner.
Continuing to Strengthen Border Security
Strengthen border security and infrastructure. The President’s proposal strengthens and improves infrastructure at ports of entry, facilitates public-private partnerships aimed at increasing investment in foreign visitor processing, and continues supporting the use of technologies that help to secure the land and maritime borders of the United States.
Combat transnational crime. The President’s proposal creates new criminal penalties dedicated to combating transnational criminal organizations that traffic in drugs, weapons, and money, and that smuggle people across the borders. It also expands the scope of current law to allow for the forfeiture of these organizations’ criminal tools and proceeds. Through this approach, we will bolster our efforts to deprive criminal enterprises, including those operating along the Southwest border, of their infrastructure and profits.
Improve partnerships with border communities and law enforcement. The President’s proposal expands our ability to work with our cross-border law enforcement partners. Community trust and cooperation are keys to effective law enforcement. To this end, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will establish border community liaisons along the Southern and Northern borders to improve communication and collaboration with border communities, boost funding to tribal government partners to reduce illegal activity on tribal lands, and strengthen training on civil rights and civil liberties for DHS immigration officers.
Crack down on criminal networks engaging in passport and visa fraud and human smuggling. The President’s proposal creates tough criminal penalties for trafficking in passports and immigration documents and schemes to defraud, including those who prey on vulnerable immigrants through notario fraud. It also strengthens penalties to combat human smuggling rings.
Deporting Criminals. The President’s proposal expands smart enforcement efforts that target convicted criminals in federal or state correctional facilities, allowing us to remove them from the United States at the end of their sentences without re-entering our communities. At the same time, it protects those with a credible fear of returning to their home countries.
Streamline removal of nonimmigrant national security and public safety threats. The President’s proposal creates a streamlined administrative removal process for people who overstay their visas and have been determined to be threats to national security and public safety.
Improve our nation’s immigration courts. The President’s proposal invests in our immigration courts. By increasing the number of immigration judges and their staff, investing in training for court personnel, and improving access to legal information for immigrants, these reforms will improve court efficiency. It allows DHS to better focus its detention resources on public safety and national security threats by expanding alternatives to detention and reducing overall detention costs. It also provides greater protections for those least able to represent themselves.
Cracking Down on Employers Who Hire Undocumented Workers
Mandatory, phased-in electronic employment verification. The President’s proposal provides tools for employers to ensure a legal workforce by using federal government databases to verify that the people they hire are eligible to work in the United States. Penalties for hiring undocumented workers are significantly increased, and new penalties are established for committing fraud and identity theft. The new mandatory program ensures the privacy and confidentiality of all workers’ personal information and includes important procedural protections. Mandatory electronic employment verification would be phased in over five years with exemptions for certain small businesses.
Combat fraud and identity theft. The proposal also mandates a fraud-resistant, tamper-resistant Social Security card and requires workers to use fraud-and tamper-resistant documents to prove authorization to work in the United States. The proposal also seeks to establish a voluntary pilot program to evaluate new methods to authenticate identity and combat identity theft.
Protections for all workers. The President’s proposal protects workers against retaliation for exercising their labor rights. It increases the penalties for employers who hire undocumented workers to skirt the workplace standards that protect all workers. And it creates a “labor law enforcement fund” to help ensure that industries that employ significant numbers of immigrant workers comply with labor laws.
Pathway to Earned Citizenship
Create a provisional legal status. Undocumented immigrants must come forward and register, submit biometric data, pass criminal background and national security checks, and pay fees and penalties before they will be eligible for a provisional legal status. Agricultural workers and those who entered the United States as children would be eligible for the same program. Individuals must wait until the existing legal immigration backlogs are cleared before getting in line to apply for lawful permanent residency (i.e. a “green card”), and ultimately United States citizenship. Consistent with current law, people with provisional legal status will not be eligible for welfare or other federal benefits, including subsidies or tax credits under the new health care law.
Create strict requirements to qualify for lawful permanent resident status. Those applying for green cards must pay their taxes, pass additional criminal background and national security checks, register for Selective Service (where applicable), pay additional fees and penalties, and learn English and U.S. civics. As under current law, five years after receiving a green card, individuals will be eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship like every other legal permanent resident.
Earned citizenship for DREAMers. Children brought here illegally through no fault of their own by their parents will be eligible for earned citizenship. By going to college or serving honorably in the Armed Forces for at least two years, these children should be given an expedited opportunity to earn their citizenship. The President’s proposal brings these undocumented immigrants out of the shadows.
Create administrative and judicial review. An individual whose provisional lawful status has been revoked or denied, or whose application for adjustment has been denied, will have the opportunity to seek administrative and judicial review of those decisions.
Provide new resources to combat fraud. The President’s proposal authorizes funding to enable DHS, the Department of State, and other relevant federal agencies to establish fraud prevention programs that will provide training for adjudicators, allow regular audits of applications to identify patterns of fraud and abuse, and incorporate other proven fraud prevention measures.
Streamlining Legal Immigration
Keep Families Together. The proposal seeks to eliminate existing backlogs in the family-sponsored immigration system by recapturing unused visas and temporarily increasing annual visa numbers. The proposal also raises existing annual country caps from 7 percent to 15 percent for the family-sponsored immigration system. It also treats same-sex families as families by giving U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents the ability to seek a visa on the basis of a permanent relationship with a same-sex partner. The proposal also revises current unlawful presence bars and provides broader discretion to waive bars in cases of hardship.
Cut Red Tape for Employers. The proposal also eliminates the backlog for employment-sponsored immigration by eliminating annual country caps and adding additional visas to the system. Outdated legal immigration programs are reformed to meet current and future demands by exempting certain categories from annual visa limitations.Enhance travel and tourism. The Administration is committed to increasing U.S. travel and tourism by facilitating legitimate travel while maintaining our nation’s security. Consistent with the President’s Executive Order on travel and tourism, the President’s proposal securely streamlines visa and foreign visitor processing. It also strengthens law enforcement cooperation while maintaining the program’s robust counterterrorism and criminal information sharing initiatives. It facilitates more efficient travel by allowing greater flexibility to designate countries for participation in the Visa Waiver Program, which allows citizens of designated countries to visit the United States without obtaining a visa. And finally it permits the State Department to waive interview requirements for certain very low-risk visa applicants, permitting resources to be focused on higher risk applicants and creates a pilot for premium visa processing.
“Staple” green cards to advanced STEM diplomas. The proposal encourages foreign graduate students educated in the United States to stay here and contribute to our economy by “stapling” a green card to the diplomas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) PhD and Master’s Degree graduates from qualified U.S. universities who have found employment in the United States. It also requires employers to pay a fee that will support education and training to grow the next generation of American workers in STEM careers.
Create a “startup visa” for job-creating entrepreneurs. The proposal allows foreign entrepreneurs who attract financing from U.S. investors or revenue from U.S. customers to start and grow their businesses in the United States, and to remain permanently if their companies grow further, create jobs for American workers, and strengthen our economy.
Expand opportunities for investor visas and U.S. economic development. The proposal permanently authorizes immigrant visa opportunities for regional center (pooled investment) programs; provides incentives for visa requestors to invest in programs that support national priorities, including economic development in rural and economically depressed regions ; adds new measures to combat fraud and national security threats; includes data collection on economic impact; and creates a pilot program for state and local government officials to promote economic development.
Create a new visa category for employees of federal national security science and technology laboratories. The proposal creates a new visa category for a limited number of highly-skilled and specialized immigrants to work in federal science and technology laboratories on critical national security needs after being in the United States. for two years and passing rigorous national security and criminal background checks.
Better addresses humanitarian concerns. The proposal streamlines immigration law to better protect vulnerable immigrants, including those who are victims of crime and domestic violence. It also better protects those fleeing persecution by eliminating the existing limitations that prevent qualified individuals from applying for asylum.
Encourage integration. The proposal promotes earned citizenship and efforts to integrate immigrants into their new American communities linguistically, civically, and economically.
On Thursday, January 31 at 1:00 p.m. ET, Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council Cecilia Muñoz will join the latest "Fireside Hangout" for a conversation about immigration reform.
January 29, 2013 2:30 PM ESTPresident Obama's Four Part Plan for Comprehensive Immigration ReformPresident Obama speak from Las Vegas about creating a fair and effective immigration system that lives up to our heritage as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.
January 29, 2013 9:09 AM ESTPresident Obama Announces Additional Humanitarian Aid for the Syrian PeoplePresident Obama announced today that he has approved a new round of humanitarian assistance, an additional $155 million to provide for the urgent and pressing needs of civilians in Syria and refugees forced to flee the violence of the Assad regime. This brings America’s contribution to date to $365 million, making the United States the largest single donor of humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people.
view all related blog posts ul.related-content li.views-row img {float: left; padding: 5px 10px 0 0;}ul.related-content li.view-all {padding-bottom: 3em;} Stay ConnectedFacebookTwitterFlickrGoogle+YouTubeVimeoiTunesLinkedIn Home The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Issues Civil Rights Defense Disabilities Economy Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Taxes Rural Urban Policy Veterans Technology Seniors & Social Security Service Snapshots Women Violence Prevention The Administration President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet White House Staff Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House Inside the White House Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows White House Internships Tours & Events Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources En español Accessibility Copyright Information Privacy Policy Contact USA.gov Developers Apply for a Job Sunday, February 24, 2013
Less Than Half Of Wall Street Reform Rules Are Finalized
President Obama yesterday nominated prosecutor Mary Jo White to become the next head of the Securities and Exchange Commission. An important part of her task will be implementing the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, which is slowly grinding through the rule-making process.
According to a new report from the Government Accountability Office, there is still quite a bit of work to do, as 52 percent of the law is not yet in place, and no rulemaking at all has occurred for nearly one-quarter of its provisions:
Overall, GAO identified 236 provisions of the act that require regulators to issue rulemakings across nine key areas. As of December 2012, regulators had issued final rules for about 48 percent of these provisions; however, in some cases the dates by which affected entities had to comply with the rules had yet to be reached. Of the remaining provisions, regulators had proposed rules for about 29 percent, and rulemakings had not occurred for about 23 percent.
Banks have already managed to win delays on key regulations, and successfully convinced international regulators to water down other new rules. Further delay on the part of regulators will just extend the amount of time that taxpayers are on the hook for the financial system’s failures.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Navigating the ObamaCare Rules
By Greg Scandlen Filed under Health Insurance on January 16, 2013 with 10 comments
Okay, I admit it. I am completely baffled. Maybe one of you smart folks can help me out here.
I am reading a new Kaiser Family Foundation issue brief on “Implementing New Private Health Insurance Market Rules,” and scratching my head. Is it the summation from KFF that is the problem? The rules themselves? Or have I just grown a lot dumber in my dodderage? (I’m perfectly willing to fess up to the latter if that’s what it is.)
In either case, this doesn’t make any sense to me. Where to begin –
First, it seems the new rules effectively do away with association plans. Employers in such associations will now be subject to all the same regulations and choices as other independent employers. This is puzzling because I thought small business associations had worked to get a so-called “SHOP” provision in the law to encourage the efficiency such associations provide.
Next, while health plans are now guaranteed issue, individual coverage may be subject to an open enrollment period while employer coverage is not, and the minimum contribution and participation rules for small employers may still apply. It isn’t clear what, if any, limits will be placed on these provisions.
Carriers will have to have a single risk pool for all its individual market plans for rating purposes. So, if an insurer offers a plan that is highly efficient (say an HSA program or an HMO), the enrollees of that plan will not be allowed to benefit from their economizing behavior. This is puzzling because I thought one of the purposes of this law was to encourage cost containment. This does precisely the opposite.
Premiums will be “modified community rated,” which means no consideration of health status, gender, or occupation, but geography, age, and tobacco use are still allowed. Age rating may vary by 300%, but must be set at one-year bands from age 21 to 64 (unless a state bans age rating altogether.) This should be interesting for small employers like restaurants with very high turnover. Every month the age profile of their employees could vary substantially, and so would their premium payment. Annual budgeting for company expenses may become a thing of the past.
The tobacco adjustment gets even more interesting. The overall adjustment is limited to a factor of 1.5, but it may vary according to age. KFF writes -
…insurers could apply a lower tobacco premium surcharge for younger individuals and a higher one for older individuals. Using the example in the proposed rule, a younger smoker might pay a few dollars more each month while the older smoker could be charged hundreds of dollars more each month.
Now, the regulation does not define tobacco usage, or explain how a carrier is to find out about it.
But even more curiously, KFF comments that lower-income people are more likely to use tobacco, but the law says that, “people who would have to pay more than 8 percent of family income for coverage are excused from the requirement to have health insurance because the cost is deemed unaffordable.” It doesn’t explain 8% of what? Gross income? Net income? AGI? But 8% of $100,000 is only $8,000. Good luck finding a family policy for $8,000 under this law.
Plus, deductibles may not exceed $2,000 per individual and total out-of-pocket for in-network services is limited to $6,500 for an individual and $13,000 for a family, after which the plan must cover expenses at 100%.
But the real puzzlement kicks in in the discussion of “essential health benefits (EHBs).”
The law lays out 10 categories of services that must be covered –
Ambulatory patient servicesEmergency servicesHospitalizationMaternity and newborn careMental health and substance use disorder services including behavioral health treatmentPrescription drugsRehabilitative and habilitative services and devicesPreventive and wellness services and chronic disease managementPediatric services, including vision and dental careNever mind that individual (nongroup) coverage doesn’t typically cover some of these things today (such as Rx, dental, and maternity), so such an expansion will substantially raise costs. That isn’t a puzzle.
More enigmatic is how these things will be defined within these categories. The regulations require each state to identify a “benchmark” plan from its existing private health plans. KFF writes –
Once the benchmark is established, issuers in a state must offer benefits that are substantially equal to the EHB benchmark plan. However, issuers have some flexibility to modify the EHB benchmark plan benefits. Under the proposed rule, within a category of EHB, issuers could substitute benefits or sets of benefits that are actuarially equivalent to those being replaced. Issuers that make such substitutions would be required to submit evidence of actuarial equivalence to the substituted benefits, to the state.
Separate rules apply to coverage for prescription drugs. For each therapeutic category or class of prescription drugs (for example, as defined by the United States Pharmacopeia or USP), health plans must cover the greater of one drug per class or category, or the same number of drugs per class or category as covered by the benchmark plan. Drugs in a class or category must be therapeutically distinct (for example, different doses of the same drug are counted as one drug, as are brand drugs and their generic equivalents.)
Okay, got it? Well, not so fast. KFF continues –
Some areas of ambiguity remain regarding how essential benefit rules will work in practice. For example, the proposed rule does not specify how services in the benchmark plan should be assigned to categories, within which insurers can modify and substitute benefits on an actuarially equivalent basis. Certain categories ? such as “maternity and newborn care” ? are quite specific and self- explanatory. However, others ? such as ambulatory care ? are broad and not well defined, leaving questions about which services are included. For instance, would home health or durable medical equipment best be categorized as ambulatory services or rehabilitative services? What category would apply to organ transplants? Also, some plans today cover expensive injectable drugs (such as chemotherapy drugs) as a medical service, not under their drug benefit.
But the fun is just beginning. KFF goes on to explain, “plans must not design covered benefits in ways that discriminate against individuals based on age, health status or related factors.”
Hoo, boy! That opens up a whole lot of work for the trial bar. Any denial of anything could be seen as discriminatory.
Okay, I don’t want to belabor this. What we’ve written so far is just the beginning. We never even got to the section on “Wellness Benefits.” (Speaking of discriminatory ? spending money on health club memberships sounds like it is discriminating against people who are too feeble to make use of a gym.)
There is a more immediate observation I want to make.
What about Medicare?
All of these rules (and many more) apply to private health insurance. None of them, not one, apply to the government’s own program ? Medicare.
Medicare doesn’t cover dental and vision.Medicare doesn’t have limits on out-of-pocket spending.Medicare doesn’t limit its deductible to $2,000.Medicare doesn’t vary premiums based on age and tobacco use.Medicare has higher premiums for people who delay enrolling.I find it more than a little curious that all the rules the federal government has established for the private sector do not apply to the federal government’s own favorite program.
Welcome to the world of Animal Farm, where the pigs are a little more equal than the rest of us.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
What The Consumer Protection Bureau’s New Mortgage Rules Will And Won’t Do
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rolled out new rules today to clean up the mortgage servicing industry, which has been at the root of several scandals, including the use of the now-infamous “robo-signers.” The new rules will provide important protections for homeowners, no longer leaving them subject to the most pernicious mortgage servicing practices. Here’s what the rules will do:
– End dual tracking. This practice involves banks starting foreclosure proceedings on a homeowner at the same time that the homeowner is being evaluated for a mortgage modification. The end result is many homeowners lose their homes when they think they are receiving a modification. Under the rule, “Servicers cannot start a foreclosure proceeding if a borrower has already submitted a complete application for a loan modification or other alternative to foreclosure, and that application is still pending review.”
– Force balance transparency. The new rules call for clearer monthly mortgage statements and more advance warnings of changes like interest rate hikes. Servicers must also “promptly” credit payments that homeowners make.
– Limit “forced place” insurance. “Forced place” insurance is the insurance that lenders purchase on behalf of borrowers if they think there has been a lapse in coverage. The policies are often far more expensive than standard home insurance, and servicers receive a cut of the payments. Abuse of forced place insurance became a big industry during and after the buildup of the housing bubble: “From 2006 to 2011, direct earned premiums for lender-placed insurance more than tripled, to $3.1 billion from $954 million.” As the New York Times noted, “the cost [of forced place insurance] more or less ensures foreclosure for a household on the brink; it can also hurt a borrower’s chances for a loan modification.” Under the new rules, servicers must warn borrowers that a forced place purchase will occur and “If servicers buy the insurance but receive evidence that it was not needed, they must terminate it within fifteen days and refund the premiums.”
However, the new rules do not create a single point of contact for borrowers (who often get the runaround at banks by being passed off between different bank employees). The California Homeowner’s Bill of Rights includes a mandatory point of contact, as does a new bill Minnesota Democrats are trying to enact. The rules will not be implemented for another year, leading one housing advocate to say that the CFPB is just “providing mortgage servicers advance notice to do their dirty work.”
Monday, January 28, 2013
European Court Rules Religion Does Not Justify Anti-Gay Discrimination
Lilian Ladele, who refused to officiate same-sex civil partnership ceremonies.The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against two British Christians who claimed their religious beliefs entitled them to discriminate against gays and lesbians. In one case, Lilian Ladele was a city registrar who refused to officiate civil partnership ceremonies between same-sex couples as part of her duties. In another, Gary McFarlane was a counselor for a confidential sex therapy and relationship counseling organization who refused to provide support for same-sex couples. In both cases they were removed from their positions, so both brought complaints that their religious beliefs had been violated.
In its ruling against them, the Court argued that their beliefs did not justify the discrimination against same-sex couples:
The Court considered that the most important factor to be taken into account was that the policies of the applicants’ employers – to promote equal opportunities and to require employees to act in a way which did not discriminate against others – had the legitimate aim of securing the rights of others, such as same-sex couples, which were also protected under the [European Convention on Human Rights]. In particular, in previous cases the Court had held that differences in treatment based on sexual orientation required particularly serious justification and that same-sex couples were in a relevantly similar situation to different-sex couples as regards their need for legal recognition and protection of their relationship.
The authorities therefore had wide discretion when it came to striking a balance between the employer’s right to secure the rights of others and the applicants’ right to manifest their religion. The Court decided that the right balance had been struck.
This judgment represents a significant blow to conservatives’ argument that their religious beliefs entitle them to discriminate against the LGBT community. Indeed, they are entitled to hold their anti-LGBT beliefs, but not to infringe on others’ rights.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Obama NLRB’s Ambush Election Rules Smacked Down By Circuit Court…For Now
On Monday, in a nice victory for America’s union-free workplace, Barack Obama’s pro-union appointees at the National Labor Relations Board had their recently-imposed rules allowing for so-called “ambush” (or “quickie”) union elections overturned by the District Court for the District of Columbia.
In December, the Obama NLRB promulgated new rules (which went into effect on April 30th) that eviscerated an employer’s right to challenge a union’s petition to hold an election on unionizing select groups of employees (called units). This evisceration opened the door for union elections to take place in as little as 17 days from petition filing—down considerably from the NLRB’s median time frame of 38 days.
In its Monday ruling, the District Court cited Woody Allen as it ruled that the NLRB’s December promulgation did not have the required quorum:
According to Woody Allen, eighty percent of life is just showing up. When it comes to satisfying a quorum requirement, though, showing up is even more important than that. Indeed, it is the only thing that matters – even when the quorum is constituted electronically. In this case, because no quorum ever existed for the pivotal vote in question, the Court must hold that the challenged rule is invalid.
The challenge to the rule was brought by the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace and its litigation partners at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
In a statement, CDW chairman Geoffrey Burr stated:
“Employers are greatly gratified that the Court has overturned a rule that would have been bad for employees and employers and especially hard on small business owners who would have been left with mere days to navigate an often-arcane NLRB process.”
While the Court’s ruling is certainly welcome news for union-free employers and employees alike, it does not mean the issue is dead.
Since the Court’s overturning of the NLRB’s rules were based on the fact that the Board did not have a quorum, the question now becomes: Will the constitutionally-questionable recess appointments Barack Obama made to the NLRB in January have the legal standing to simply re-impose the ambush election rules?
As the attorneys at Labor Relations Today wrote yesterday:
This decision foreshadows the coming showdown over President Obama’s January 2012 “recess” appointments. Judge Boasberg’s decision strongly suggests that if there is an interest in a fully functional National Labor Relations Board, there must be a fully seated Board — or at least a full quorum of three like-minded Members who will participate in actions.
Renowned labor attorney Michael J. Lotito of the law firm Littler Mendelson summarized the Monday ruling this way: ”This is not over by a long shot but this was a nice win.”
Related: NLRB Can Revive Speedy Union Vote Rule Judge Threw Out
_____________
“Truth isn’t mean. It’s truth.”
Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)
Cross-posted on LaborUnionReport.com
Follow on Twitter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)