/PRNewswire/ -- On Thursday the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee will mark up the Fiscal Year 2011 EPA-Interior spending bill. Today the American Chemistry Council and 23 other associations wrote to members of the Senate Appropriations Committee urging them to vote for an amendment that would postpone EPA's planned regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from stationary sources. A letter was also sent to House Appropriators. The letters are available at www.americanchemistry.com/energy.
American Chemistry Council (ACC) President and CEO Cal Dooley issued the following statement:
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's planned regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources, slated to begin on January 2, 2011, is one of the top challenges facing American business today. Already, the uncertainty and cost associated with these new regulations is having a chilling effect on investment and job creation vital to the nation's recovery. Governors across the country are baffled as to the requirements for states and how to process and pay for the coming flood of permit applications. Energy efficiency investments that could help reduce GHG emissions are among those thrown into disarray by EPA's new regulations.
"That's why a cross-section of American industry and agriculture representing millions of U.S. jobs has asked Senate Appropriators to immediately postpone the regulations. A postponement amendment will give Congress the time necessary to consider the appropriate regulatory approach for stationary sources and move forward on a national climate policy. According to EPA, as many as six million U.S. industrial facilities, power plants, hospitals, agricultural and commercial establishments eventually will be subject to these rules. Proposed steps such as a codification of the 'tailoring rule' have not resolved the confusion nor provided needed certainty and will not protect the vast majority of American businesses affected by the rules.
"Postponing stationary source regulation should be an urgent priority for Congress. We strongly urge Senate Appropriators and other lawmakers to support efforts to postpone EPA regulation of GHG emissions from all stationary sources. This essential step could be achieved through the appropriations process or legislation such as that proposed by Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Congressmen Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.)."
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Showing posts with label regulation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label regulation. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Historic Internet Gambling Regulation Bill Overwhelmingly Passes Committee with Bi-Partisan Support
/PRNewswire/ -- Today the House Committee on Financial Services took a critical step forward in passing Internet gambling legislation by voting to approve the Internet Gambling Regulation and Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2267), legislation introduced by Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA). The legislation, which passed by a 41-22 vote would regulate Internet gambling activity in the U.S. and require licensed operators to put in place safeguards to protect against underage and problem gambling.
"The Committee's bi-partisan vote to approve Chairman Frank's legislation is nothing short of historic," said Michael Waxman, spokesperson for the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative. "With Congress bitterly divided and only a handful of bi-partisan bills coming out of the Financial Services Committee, we're pleased Committee members from both sides of the aisle were able to come together to advance this important legislation."
During today's mark-up there were several amendments introduced from both sides of the aisle. Rep. John Campbell (R-CA) offered, and the Committee approved, an amendment that would further strengthen the legislation's already strict consumer protections, including a requirement for licensed operators to have each customer choose his or her loss limits before being able to play on-line. Rep. Campbell's amendment also requires licensees to protect customers by ensuring the customer privacy and security and protecting against fraud and money laundering.
Chairman Frank's legislation, introduced in May 2009, would establish a regulatory and enforcement framework for licensed gambling operators to accept bets and wagers from individuals in the U.S. Beyond an array of required consumer protections, the legislation reinforces the rights of each state to determine whether or not to allow Internet gambling activity for people accessing the Internet within the state and to apply other restrictions on the activity as determined necessary.
As a companion to Rep. Frank's bill, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act of 2010 (H.R. 4976) introduced by Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) in March 2010, would ensure the collection of license fees and taxes on regulated Internet gambling activities.
Generating significant attention are the economic benefits of online gambling regulation. According to a Joint Committee on Taxation tax revenue analysis, regulated Internet gambling is expected to generate as much as $42 billion in federal government revenue over its first 10 years. Additionally, a recent analysis by H2 Gambling Capital predicts that Internet gambling regulation would create as many as 32,000 jobs over its first five years. There would also be additional economic benefits associated with jobs creation.
"The momentum of today's vote and growing bi-partisan support for online gambling regulation demonstrates to congressional leaders in the House and Senate that this issue is a priority and should be addressed," said Waxman. "Leaving in place a failed prohibition should no longer be the government's misguided policy approach, leaving millions of Americans vulnerable as they continue to find a way to gamble online in a thriving underground marketplace."
The legislation has drawn the support of 69 bi-partisan co-sponsors. Support for the legislation was also announced last week by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Financial Services Roundtable and the National Association of Federal Credit Unions.
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
"The Committee's bi-partisan vote to approve Chairman Frank's legislation is nothing short of historic," said Michael Waxman, spokesperson for the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative. "With Congress bitterly divided and only a handful of bi-partisan bills coming out of the Financial Services Committee, we're pleased Committee members from both sides of the aisle were able to come together to advance this important legislation."
During today's mark-up there were several amendments introduced from both sides of the aisle. Rep. John Campbell (R-CA) offered, and the Committee approved, an amendment that would further strengthen the legislation's already strict consumer protections, including a requirement for licensed operators to have each customer choose his or her loss limits before being able to play on-line. Rep. Campbell's amendment also requires licensees to protect customers by ensuring the customer privacy and security and protecting against fraud and money laundering.
Chairman Frank's legislation, introduced in May 2009, would establish a regulatory and enforcement framework for licensed gambling operators to accept bets and wagers from individuals in the U.S. Beyond an array of required consumer protections, the legislation reinforces the rights of each state to determine whether or not to allow Internet gambling activity for people accessing the Internet within the state and to apply other restrictions on the activity as determined necessary.
As a companion to Rep. Frank's bill, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act of 2010 (H.R. 4976) introduced by Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) in March 2010, would ensure the collection of license fees and taxes on regulated Internet gambling activities.
Generating significant attention are the economic benefits of online gambling regulation. According to a Joint Committee on Taxation tax revenue analysis, regulated Internet gambling is expected to generate as much as $42 billion in federal government revenue over its first 10 years. Additionally, a recent analysis by H2 Gambling Capital predicts that Internet gambling regulation would create as many as 32,000 jobs over its first five years. There would also be additional economic benefits associated with jobs creation.
"The momentum of today's vote and growing bi-partisan support for online gambling regulation demonstrates to congressional leaders in the House and Senate that this issue is a priority and should be addressed," said Waxman. "Leaving in place a failed prohibition should no longer be the government's misguided policy approach, leaving millions of Americans vulnerable as they continue to find a way to gamble online in a thriving underground marketplace."
The legislation has drawn the support of 69 bi-partisan co-sponsors. Support for the legislation was also announced last week by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Financial Services Roundtable and the National Association of Federal Credit Unions.
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Friday, July 23, 2010
House Financial Services Committee Schedules Mark Up of Internet Gambling Regulation Bill
/PRNewswire/ -- Yesterday, the House Committee on Financial Services announced that the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2267), legislation introduced by Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) that would regulate gambling in the United States, will be marked up on Tuesday, July 27, 2010 at 10:00 am in Room 2128 of the Rayburn House Office Building. The mark up, which comes on the heels of Wednesday's hearing on the legislation before the full Financial Services Committee, is a critical next step for the bill to become law.
"This mark up demonstrates that Congress is serious about moving Chairman Frank's bill forward and establishing a strict regulatory framework for Internet gambling activity," said Michael Waxman, spokesperson for the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative. "The passage of this legislation would be a win-win as it will protect consumers, create an estimated 32,000 new jobs over five years and provide federal and state governments with as much as $72 billion in new revenues over ten years."
The legislation, introduced by Chairman Frank in May 2009, would establish a framework to permit licensed gambling operators to accept wagers from individuals in the U.S. In addition to mandating an array of consumer protections, the legislation reinforces the rights of each state to determine whether or not to allow Internet gambling activity for people accessing the Internet within the state and to apply other restrictions on the activity as determined necessary. Since its introduction, a bi-partisan group of 69 co-sponsors has signed onto the legislation. A recent analysis by H2 Gambling capital predicts that Internet gambling regulation would create as many as 32,000 jobs over its first five years.
In May 2010, the House Committee on Ways and Means held a hearing to discuss a companion piece of legislation to the Frank bill introduced by Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act of 2010 (H.R. 4976). This legislation would ensure the collection of license fees and taxes on regulated Internet gambling activities. According to a tax revenue analysis conducted by the Joint Committee on Taxation, regulated Internet gambling is expected to generate as much as $42 billion in federal government revenue over its first 10 years.
"During this difficult economy, the revenue and job creation potential that regulated Internet gambling provides will go a long way to help states and families alike balance their budgets," said Waxman.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
"This mark up demonstrates that Congress is serious about moving Chairman Frank's bill forward and establishing a strict regulatory framework for Internet gambling activity," said Michael Waxman, spokesperson for the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative. "The passage of this legislation would be a win-win as it will protect consumers, create an estimated 32,000 new jobs over five years and provide federal and state governments with as much as $72 billion in new revenues over ten years."
The legislation, introduced by Chairman Frank in May 2009, would establish a framework to permit licensed gambling operators to accept wagers from individuals in the U.S. In addition to mandating an array of consumer protections, the legislation reinforces the rights of each state to determine whether or not to allow Internet gambling activity for people accessing the Internet within the state and to apply other restrictions on the activity as determined necessary. Since its introduction, a bi-partisan group of 69 co-sponsors has signed onto the legislation. A recent analysis by H2 Gambling capital predicts that Internet gambling regulation would create as many as 32,000 jobs over its first five years.
In May 2010, the House Committee on Ways and Means held a hearing to discuss a companion piece of legislation to the Frank bill introduced by Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act of 2010 (H.R. 4976). This legislation would ensure the collection of license fees and taxes on regulated Internet gambling activities. According to a tax revenue analysis conducted by the Joint Committee on Taxation, regulated Internet gambling is expected to generate as much as $42 billion in federal government revenue over its first 10 years.
"During this difficult economy, the revenue and job creation potential that regulated Internet gambling provides will go a long way to help states and families alike balance their budgets," said Waxman.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Senate Fix Needed to Meet White House Promise That Financial Reform Won't Weaken State Insurance Regulation
/PRNewswire/ -- Financial reform legislation must be amended to preserve states' ability to protect insurance consumers and bring the bill in line with White House comments yesterday targeting potential industry loopholes in financial reform, said Consumer Watchdog today.
White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer blogged a list of the '10 Most Wanted Lobbyist Loopholes' in the financial reform bill yesterday. He warned against efforts to exempt the insurance industry from new information collection requirements and notes that the bill does not change states' authority to regulate insurance. However language in the legislation currently under consideration in the Senate would grant the Treasury Department broad new authority to preempt state insurance laws and regulations on behalf of foreign insurance companies.
Pfeiffer wrote: "Insurance is regulated by the states, not the federal government - and this bill doesn't change that. But this bill would give the Treasury Department the ability to collect information from insurance companies so that it can help identify emerging risks before they blow up the financial system - like AIG."
Consumer advocates point to language in the main Senate proposal that would allow federal preemption of state insurance laws and are calling for an amendment to bring the bill in line with White House position on this issue.
"The Senate bill would allow Treasury to roll back strong state insurance protections on behalf of foreign insurance firms. It must be amended to meet White House assurances that state oversight of insurance will not be harmed. Insurance deregulation should not be the end result of the Senate's financial re-regulation package," said Carmen Balber, Washington Director for Consumer Watchdog.
An amendment offered by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and supported by Consumer Watchdog would narrow the broad scope of insurance preemption in the bill to help preserve state insurance regulation and give Congress and the states more input into insurance agreements negotiated by Treasury.
The current Senate provisions would allow Treasury to negotiate new insurance policy through international agreements and behind closed doors, with no input from Congress, state regulators or insurance consumers. Treasury need not consider states' regulatory goals, potential gaps in insurance regulation, or protect insurance consumers in negotiating such agreements. Agreements could then be used to preempt state insurance protections, including capital, solvency and other prudential laws, on behalf of foreign insurers. The states would have no authority to challenge unilateral preemption decisions by Treasury on the merits. Even state laws that treat all insurance companies equally could be subject to preemption. And the current language threatens to subject state insurance laws to preemption under deregulatory constraints contained in existing trade agreements.
"A Senate fix is necessary to preserve states' ability to protect insurance consumers," said Balber.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer blogged a list of the '10 Most Wanted Lobbyist Loopholes' in the financial reform bill yesterday. He warned against efforts to exempt the insurance industry from new information collection requirements and notes that the bill does not change states' authority to regulate insurance. However language in the legislation currently under consideration in the Senate would grant the Treasury Department broad new authority to preempt state insurance laws and regulations on behalf of foreign insurance companies.
Pfeiffer wrote: "Insurance is regulated by the states, not the federal government - and this bill doesn't change that. But this bill would give the Treasury Department the ability to collect information from insurance companies so that it can help identify emerging risks before they blow up the financial system - like AIG."
Consumer advocates point to language in the main Senate proposal that would allow federal preemption of state insurance laws and are calling for an amendment to bring the bill in line with White House position on this issue.
"The Senate bill would allow Treasury to roll back strong state insurance protections on behalf of foreign insurance firms. It must be amended to meet White House assurances that state oversight of insurance will not be harmed. Insurance deregulation should not be the end result of the Senate's financial re-regulation package," said Carmen Balber, Washington Director for Consumer Watchdog.
An amendment offered by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and supported by Consumer Watchdog would narrow the broad scope of insurance preemption in the bill to help preserve state insurance regulation and give Congress and the states more input into insurance agreements negotiated by Treasury.
The current Senate provisions would allow Treasury to negotiate new insurance policy through international agreements and behind closed doors, with no input from Congress, state regulators or insurance consumers. Treasury need not consider states' regulatory goals, potential gaps in insurance regulation, or protect insurance consumers in negotiating such agreements. Agreements could then be used to preempt state insurance protections, including capital, solvency and other prudential laws, on behalf of foreign insurers. The states would have no authority to challenge unilateral preemption decisions by Treasury on the merits. Even state laws that treat all insurance companies equally could be subject to preemption. And the current language threatens to subject state insurance laws to preemption under deregulatory constraints contained in existing trade agreements.
"A Senate fix is necessary to preserve states' ability to protect insurance consumers," said Balber.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Friday, April 30, 2010
Libertarians call for more finance industry freedom
Libertarian Party Executive Director Wes Benedict issued the following statement today, regarding the financial regulation legislation in Congress:
"The Libertarian Party opposes the legislation currently in Congress. Instead of removing harmful regulations that reduce competition, create winners and losers, and stifle the choices of consumers and financial firms, this legislation merely adds to that heap of regulations.
"It is remarkable that so many people have blamed the banking and financial company failures on the 'free market.' The American finance industry is probably the most regulated industry in human history. It doesn't remotely resemble a free market, and that's been true for many decades. It would be much more accurate to blame the failures on government interference.
"The 2008 TARP bailouts were strongly supported by both Republicans and Democrats. Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain both supported them--Senator McCain even 'suspended his campaign' to rush back to Washington and help push through the massive bailouts. On the other hand, Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr firmly opposed those bailouts, and the Libertarian Party has continued to express our opposition since then.
"We're seeing the typical cycle of government regulation:
1. Add more regulations.
2. Watch the new regulations create new problems.
3. Blame the free market.
4. Go to step 1.
"The 2008 TARP bailouts were rationalized with the 'too big to fail' phantom -- the notion that if a big company goes bankrupt, then all financial activity will cease, and the world will basically end. It was one more example of government creating a 'fear of catastrophe' to get people to knuckle under to big government payouts.
"Another major problem with protective government regulation is that it gives consumers the false impression that 'everything's OK, the government will make sure you can't be hurt.' That causes consumers to stop doing their homework, and stop keeping an eye on the businesses they depend on. Then, when the government regulators fail in their job (as the SEC has repeatedly, for example), consumers get hurt much worse than they would if they had never been told the government was taking care of them.
"The problem isn't too little regulation, but too much. Banks, insurance companies, and other financial companies must be allowed to operate freely in a free market, and they must be allowed to fail. No other system will work. Heaping more regulations on top of the already enormous financial regulation pile will only lead to new problems."
Mark A. Calabria of the Cato Institute, writing in the New York Post, commented, "Far from protecting the little guy and sticking it to the fat cats, this bill keeps good, old-fashioned political patronage alive and well."
The Libertarian Party's Platform states: "We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
"The Libertarian Party opposes the legislation currently in Congress. Instead of removing harmful regulations that reduce competition, create winners and losers, and stifle the choices of consumers and financial firms, this legislation merely adds to that heap of regulations.
"It is remarkable that so many people have blamed the banking and financial company failures on the 'free market.' The American finance industry is probably the most regulated industry in human history. It doesn't remotely resemble a free market, and that's been true for many decades. It would be much more accurate to blame the failures on government interference.
"The 2008 TARP bailouts were strongly supported by both Republicans and Democrats. Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain both supported them--Senator McCain even 'suspended his campaign' to rush back to Washington and help push through the massive bailouts. On the other hand, Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr firmly opposed those bailouts, and the Libertarian Party has continued to express our opposition since then.
"We're seeing the typical cycle of government regulation:
1. Add more regulations.
2. Watch the new regulations create new problems.
3. Blame the free market.
4. Go to step 1.
"The 2008 TARP bailouts were rationalized with the 'too big to fail' phantom -- the notion that if a big company goes bankrupt, then all financial activity will cease, and the world will basically end. It was one more example of government creating a 'fear of catastrophe' to get people to knuckle under to big government payouts.
"Another major problem with protective government regulation is that it gives consumers the false impression that 'everything's OK, the government will make sure you can't be hurt.' That causes consumers to stop doing their homework, and stop keeping an eye on the businesses they depend on. Then, when the government regulators fail in their job (as the SEC has repeatedly, for example), consumers get hurt much worse than they would if they had never been told the government was taking care of them.
"The problem isn't too little regulation, but too much. Banks, insurance companies, and other financial companies must be allowed to operate freely in a free market, and they must be allowed to fail. No other system will work. Heaping more regulations on top of the already enormous financial regulation pile will only lead to new problems."
Mark A. Calabria of the Cato Institute, writing in the New York Post, commented, "Far from protecting the little guy and sticking it to the fat cats, this bill keeps good, old-fashioned political patronage alive and well."
The Libertarian Party's Platform states: "We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
The 'Big 3' Fixes for the Weakened Senate Health Reform Bill to Block Full Insurance Co. Take-Over of Health System
/PRNewswire/ -- Consumer Watchdog condemned the removal of the Medicare buy-in provision for those over 55 and the public option from the U.S. Senate health reform bill. But the group said that the Senate must still make three essential fixes to the greatly weakened bill to prevent ceding the entire health care system to the insurance industry.
Without the changes, said the consumer advocacy group, the legislation will fail even to provide basic consumer protections of cost containment, access to necessary care, and protection against bankruptcy when patients get sick and need coverage the most.
Consumer Watchdog said that it is essential that the bill be fixed now because there is a growing belief that a conference committee will be bypassed altogether, and instead the House of Representatives will be pushed to approve the Senate bill with no amendments. The three key fixes, detailed below, are:
1. Remove Provisions that Would Pre-empt More Protective State Laws
2. Bar Insurers From Placing Annual Limits on Medical Payments
3. Make Health Insurance Rate Regulation Real
"If health care reform is really about consumers and patients, then Senators must make these fixes before they pass the bill," said Jerry Flanagan, health policy director of Consumer Watchdog. "Current provisions of the Senate bill requiring Americans to buy insurance policies, while gutting state laws and ineffectively capping what insurers can charge for bare bones coverage, add up to a dream bill for insurance companies."
"Eliminating the public option, pre-empting state health benefit laws and avoiding tough rate oversight is an insurance company hat trick - the top three legislative goals of the insurance industry of the last twenty years," said Flanagan. "If health reform is going to be worth anything to consumers, Senators must fight back on these three points. Without them, health reform is little more than a scheme for health insurers to increase profits at the expense of patients and taxpayers."
The three changes that the U.S. Senate must make to HR 3590 are:
1. Remove Provisions that Would Pre-empt More Protective State Laws
For 60 years, states have been responsible for the oversight of health insurance. States have traditionally been the laboratories of innovation in health care and insurance reform. States also have a greater ability to respond quickly to local needs.
However, provisions in the current bill could replace hard-fought "Patients Bill of Rights" laws with new, weaker federal protections.
For example, section 1333 on page 219 of the Senate bill allow health insurers to avoid strong state patient protection laws under so-called "nationwide plans" and multistate "compacts." Under these provisions, health insurers that sell policies in more than one state would only be regulated by the state where the policy was "written or issued." Therefore, if an insurer "issues" all of its policies from Wyoming, then the laws of Wyoming would control policies sold to consumers in states with more protective laws like California, New York, Texas or Virginia.
Insurers would certainly elect to issue their policies from the states with the weakest laws. As a result, new federal minimum coverage requirements would become the norm. Coverage of AIDS/HIV testing, reconstructive surgery, home health care services, and child delivery and mastectomy minimum hospital stays, for instance, would likely be lost.
The Senate health reform bill should be modeled on existing federal health care laws, which provide for a federal-state partnership rather than federal pre-emption of more protective state standards. Minimum federal standards should set a floor, not a ceiling, on state health care protections. Read Consumer Watchdog's analyses of the pre-emption provisions and the group's letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at:
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=31197
Read the Los Angeles Times coverage of the pre-emption provisions:
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=31200
2. Bar Insurers From Placing Annual Limits on Medical Payments
A cornerstone of national health reform is to ensure that patients get the care their doctor prescribes when they are sick and need treatment the most. An essential element to reach that objective is to bar insurance companies from placing annual limits on how much health care a patient can receive.
Current caps mean that patients with serious illnesses, including many cancers, can be left without coverage in the midst of treatment. As a result, patients face bankruptcy even though they have insurance. In fact, a Harvard Medical School study released this year found that 62% of U.S. bankruptcies were caused by big medical bills, while 78% of those declaring bankruptcy had insurance.
A loophole in the Senate bill would allow health insurers to impose unspecified "reasonable" annual limits on the annual dollar value of benefits that patient can receive this year. This is a major departure from previous version of the Senate bill, and the House legislation, which bar any annual caps.
The Senate bill cites section 223 of the Internal Revenue Code, which regulates Health Savings Accounts. That section does not define "reasonable" annual limits. As a result, health insurers will be left to define "reasonable" as they see fit. However, for an insurance company, a "reasonable" limit on annual health care costs is one that increases shareholder profits by cutting off access to necessary care.
3. Make Health Insurance Rate Regulation Real
Requiring insurance companies to justify rate increases and seek "prior approval" for those increases are essential components to controlling skyrocketing health insurance premiums, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket costs.
Page 37, section 2794 of HR 3590 provides some additional transparency on insurance premiums and takes some first steps toward limits on insurance company gouging, but does not provide real protections for Americans by, for instance, requiring insurers to seek approval before imposing premium and rate increases.
Consumer Watchdog, which pioneered the most successful insurance premium regulation law in the nation, Proposition 103, calls on the Senate to adopt amendments reflecting key provisions of California's landmark insurance reform law, including:
-- Mandatory justification of any rate increase (including premiums,
deductibles, co-pays), not merely justifications of "unreasonable"
premium increases.
-- Mandatory prior approval, which means requiring insurers to seek
permission from government regulators, in addition to justifying rate
increases, before imposing rate increases. Since 1988, California's
Proposition 103 has saved drivers $62 billion while fostering a
competitive and profitable insurance market.
-- An intervenor system that provides consumers a forum to challenge
unnecessary or excessive rate increases. Since 2003, Consumer Watchdog
has saved the state's consumers $1.7 billion by challenging
unnecessary premium increases using the public intervention process.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Without the changes, said the consumer advocacy group, the legislation will fail even to provide basic consumer protections of cost containment, access to necessary care, and protection against bankruptcy when patients get sick and need coverage the most.
Consumer Watchdog said that it is essential that the bill be fixed now because there is a growing belief that a conference committee will be bypassed altogether, and instead the House of Representatives will be pushed to approve the Senate bill with no amendments. The three key fixes, detailed below, are:
1. Remove Provisions that Would Pre-empt More Protective State Laws
2. Bar Insurers From Placing Annual Limits on Medical Payments
3. Make Health Insurance Rate Regulation Real
"If health care reform is really about consumers and patients, then Senators must make these fixes before they pass the bill," said Jerry Flanagan, health policy director of Consumer Watchdog. "Current provisions of the Senate bill requiring Americans to buy insurance policies, while gutting state laws and ineffectively capping what insurers can charge for bare bones coverage, add up to a dream bill for insurance companies."
"Eliminating the public option, pre-empting state health benefit laws and avoiding tough rate oversight is an insurance company hat trick - the top three legislative goals of the insurance industry of the last twenty years," said Flanagan. "If health reform is going to be worth anything to consumers, Senators must fight back on these three points. Without them, health reform is little more than a scheme for health insurers to increase profits at the expense of patients and taxpayers."
The three changes that the U.S. Senate must make to HR 3590 are:
1. Remove Provisions that Would Pre-empt More Protective State Laws
For 60 years, states have been responsible for the oversight of health insurance. States have traditionally been the laboratories of innovation in health care and insurance reform. States also have a greater ability to respond quickly to local needs.
However, provisions in the current bill could replace hard-fought "Patients Bill of Rights" laws with new, weaker federal protections.
For example, section 1333 on page 219 of the Senate bill allow health insurers to avoid strong state patient protection laws under so-called "nationwide plans" and multistate "compacts." Under these provisions, health insurers that sell policies in more than one state would only be regulated by the state where the policy was "written or issued." Therefore, if an insurer "issues" all of its policies from Wyoming, then the laws of Wyoming would control policies sold to consumers in states with more protective laws like California, New York, Texas or Virginia.
Insurers would certainly elect to issue their policies from the states with the weakest laws. As a result, new federal minimum coverage requirements would become the norm. Coverage of AIDS/HIV testing, reconstructive surgery, home health care services, and child delivery and mastectomy minimum hospital stays, for instance, would likely be lost.
The Senate health reform bill should be modeled on existing federal health care laws, which provide for a federal-state partnership rather than federal pre-emption of more protective state standards. Minimum federal standards should set a floor, not a ceiling, on state health care protections. Read Consumer Watchdog's analyses of the pre-emption provisions and the group's letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at:
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=31197
Read the Los Angeles Times coverage of the pre-emption provisions:
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=31200
2. Bar Insurers From Placing Annual Limits on Medical Payments
A cornerstone of national health reform is to ensure that patients get the care their doctor prescribes when they are sick and need treatment the most. An essential element to reach that objective is to bar insurance companies from placing annual limits on how much health care a patient can receive.
Current caps mean that patients with serious illnesses, including many cancers, can be left without coverage in the midst of treatment. As a result, patients face bankruptcy even though they have insurance. In fact, a Harvard Medical School study released this year found that 62% of U.S. bankruptcies were caused by big medical bills, while 78% of those declaring bankruptcy had insurance.
A loophole in the Senate bill would allow health insurers to impose unspecified "reasonable" annual limits on the annual dollar value of benefits that patient can receive this year. This is a major departure from previous version of the Senate bill, and the House legislation, which bar any annual caps.
The Senate bill cites section 223 of the Internal Revenue Code, which regulates Health Savings Accounts. That section does not define "reasonable" annual limits. As a result, health insurers will be left to define "reasonable" as they see fit. However, for an insurance company, a "reasonable" limit on annual health care costs is one that increases shareholder profits by cutting off access to necessary care.
3. Make Health Insurance Rate Regulation Real
Requiring insurance companies to justify rate increases and seek "prior approval" for those increases are essential components to controlling skyrocketing health insurance premiums, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket costs.
Page 37, section 2794 of HR 3590 provides some additional transparency on insurance premiums and takes some first steps toward limits on insurance company gouging, but does not provide real protections for Americans by, for instance, requiring insurers to seek approval before imposing premium and rate increases.
Consumer Watchdog, which pioneered the most successful insurance premium regulation law in the nation, Proposition 103, calls on the Senate to adopt amendments reflecting key provisions of California's landmark insurance reform law, including:
-- Mandatory justification of any rate increase (including premiums,
deductibles, co-pays), not merely justifications of "unreasonable"
premium increases.
-- Mandatory prior approval, which means requiring insurers to seek
permission from government regulators, in addition to justifying rate
increases, before imposing rate increases. Since 1988, California's
Proposition 103 has saved drivers $62 billion while fostering a
competitive and profitable insurance market.
-- An intervenor system that provides consumers a forum to challenge
unnecessary or excessive rate increases. Since 2003, Consumer Watchdog
has saved the state's consumers $1.7 billion by challenging
unnecessary premium increases using the public intervention process.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Monday, September 21, 2009
Senator Proposes Use of Internet Gambling Revenue to Help Fund Health Care Reform
/PRNewswire/ -- An increased focus on the benefits of Internet gambling regulation are expected as the Senate Finance Committee considers a proposal introduced on Saturday to use Internet gambling revenue to offset the costs of health care reform. The amendment offered by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) would dedicate Internet gambling tax revenue generated through implementation of the currently pending Internet Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2267) to increase low-income subsidies provided through the America's Healthy Future Act of 2009. A PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis shows that collecting taxes on regulated Internet gambling would allow the U.S. to capture up to $62.7 billion over the next decade.
"We applaud Senator Wyden's proposal to collect and put to good use tens of billions in Internet gambling revenue that would otherwise be lost in the underground marketplace," said Michael Waxman, spokesperson for the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative. "The Senate Finance Committee should approve the resolution, finally putting to an end a failed prohibition on Internet gambling that leaves Americans unprotected and unlicensed offshore operators as the only beneficiary in a thriving marketplace."
The Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act of 2009 (H.R. 2267), introduced in May by House Committee on Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA), would establish a framework to permit licensed gambling operators to accept wagers from individuals in the U.S. The legislation mandates a number of significant consumer protections including safeguards against compulsive and underage gambling, money laundering, fraud and identify theft. Additional provisions in the legislation reinforce the rights of each state to determine whether to allow Internet gambling activity for people accessing the Internet within the state and to apply other restrictions on the activity as determined necessary.
A companion to Chairman Frank's legislation introduced by Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act (H.R. 2268), would raise revenue for the U.S. Treasury primarily through ensuring that applicable individual taxes, corporate taxes and license fees on regulated Internet gambling activities are collected. Without this legislation, this revenue will remain uncollected while millions of Americans gamble online without consumer protections.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
"We applaud Senator Wyden's proposal to collect and put to good use tens of billions in Internet gambling revenue that would otherwise be lost in the underground marketplace," said Michael Waxman, spokesperson for the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative. "The Senate Finance Committee should approve the resolution, finally putting to an end a failed prohibition on Internet gambling that leaves Americans unprotected and unlicensed offshore operators as the only beneficiary in a thriving marketplace."
The Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act of 2009 (H.R. 2267), introduced in May by House Committee on Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA), would establish a framework to permit licensed gambling operators to accept wagers from individuals in the U.S. The legislation mandates a number of significant consumer protections including safeguards against compulsive and underage gambling, money laundering, fraud and identify theft. Additional provisions in the legislation reinforce the rights of each state to determine whether to allow Internet gambling activity for people accessing the Internet within the state and to apply other restrictions on the activity as determined necessary.
A companion to Chairman Frank's legislation introduced by Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act (H.R. 2268), would raise revenue for the U.S. Treasury primarily through ensuring that applicable individual taxes, corporate taxes and license fees on regulated Internet gambling activities are collected. Without this legislation, this revenue will remain uncollected while millions of Americans gamble online without consumer protections.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Thursday, May 28, 2009
New Virginia Poll: 71 Percent of Voters Strongly Support FDA Regulation of Tobacco Products
/PRNewswire/ -- A new statewide poll of registered voters finds that 71 percent of voters support Congress passing a bill to give the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to regulate tobacco products. The U.S. Senate is expected to debate this issue next week, and Senators Webb and Warner will play a key role in determining whether Congress will finally pass this life-saving legislation.
"Senators Webb and Warner have a critical role to play in ensuring that strong FDA tobacco regulation is enacted into law," said Matthew L. Myers, President, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. "We urge Senators Webb and Warner to vote for the bill when it's on the floor this year."
Support for FDA legislation crosses party lines, with strong majorities of Republicans (66 percent), Democrats (81 percent) and independents (71 percent) favoring FDA regulation of tobacco. In addition, support for FDA legislation is strong across virtually all demographic groups, with majorities of voters in every age bracket, education level, and income level supporting FDA regulation.
The poll shows:
-- 93 percent support restricting tobacco sales to children by requiring
ID checks for younger buyers and fining retailers who sell tobacco to
minors.
-- 79 percent support requiring tobacco companies to take measures, when
scientifically possible, to make cigarettes less harmful.
-- 86 percent support preventing tobacco companies from making claims
that some products are less harmful than others unless the FDA
determines those claims are true.
-- 87 percent support restricting tobacco marketing aimed at children
such as limiting advertising in magazines with a large percentage of
readers under age 18.
-- 73 percent support requiring the reduction or removal of harmful
ingredients, including nicotine, from tobacco products.
"There is broad, bipartisan support for FDA regulation of tobacco products," said Myers. "Virginia voters agree that it's time for Congress to address the nation's number one preventable cause of death and end the deadly status quo that allows tobacco companies to target our children and mislead the public."
In April, the U.S. House of Representatives approved legislation granting the FDA authority over tobacco products with a vote of 298-112. Similar legislation was approved 15-8 by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on May 20th and sent to the full Senate for consideration.
"There are few other issues before Congress where you will find such strong consensus across regions and across party lines. The passage of this legislation to give the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco products was long overdue. I was proud to cast my vote to address the nation's number one preventable cause of death and keep tobacco products out of the hands of our children," said Representative Gerri Connolly (D-11th).
A report by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that in order for the United States to dramatically reduce tobacco use as a significant public health problem, it is essential to provide FDA authority over tobacco products. As the IOM concluded, "The time has come for Congress to exercise its acknowledged authority to regulate the production, marketing and distribution of tobacco products."
Nationwide, tobacco use kills more than 400,000 people and costs more than $96 billion in health care bills each year. Currently, 20 percent of high school students smoke and more than 1,000 kids become new regular smokers every day. In Virginia, tobacco use kills 9,200 residents and costs the state $2.08 billion in health care bills a year, and 15.5 percent of high school students smoke.
The survey of 500 likely voters in Virginia was conducted by Global Strategy Group January 27-29, 2009 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points. Detailed poll results can be found at: www.tobaccofreekids.org.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"Senators Webb and Warner have a critical role to play in ensuring that strong FDA tobacco regulation is enacted into law," said Matthew L. Myers, President, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. "We urge Senators Webb and Warner to vote for the bill when it's on the floor this year."
Support for FDA legislation crosses party lines, with strong majorities of Republicans (66 percent), Democrats (81 percent) and independents (71 percent) favoring FDA regulation of tobacco. In addition, support for FDA legislation is strong across virtually all demographic groups, with majorities of voters in every age bracket, education level, and income level supporting FDA regulation.
The poll shows:
-- 93 percent support restricting tobacco sales to children by requiring
ID checks for younger buyers and fining retailers who sell tobacco to
minors.
-- 79 percent support requiring tobacco companies to take measures, when
scientifically possible, to make cigarettes less harmful.
-- 86 percent support preventing tobacco companies from making claims
that some products are less harmful than others unless the FDA
determines those claims are true.
-- 87 percent support restricting tobacco marketing aimed at children
such as limiting advertising in magazines with a large percentage of
readers under age 18.
-- 73 percent support requiring the reduction or removal of harmful
ingredients, including nicotine, from tobacco products.
"There is broad, bipartisan support for FDA regulation of tobacco products," said Myers. "Virginia voters agree that it's time for Congress to address the nation's number one preventable cause of death and end the deadly status quo that allows tobacco companies to target our children and mislead the public."
In April, the U.S. House of Representatives approved legislation granting the FDA authority over tobacco products with a vote of 298-112. Similar legislation was approved 15-8 by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on May 20th and sent to the full Senate for consideration.
"There are few other issues before Congress where you will find such strong consensus across regions and across party lines. The passage of this legislation to give the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco products was long overdue. I was proud to cast my vote to address the nation's number one preventable cause of death and keep tobacco products out of the hands of our children," said Representative Gerri Connolly (D-11th).
A report by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that in order for the United States to dramatically reduce tobacco use as a significant public health problem, it is essential to provide FDA authority over tobacco products. As the IOM concluded, "The time has come for Congress to exercise its acknowledged authority to regulate the production, marketing and distribution of tobacco products."
Nationwide, tobacco use kills more than 400,000 people and costs more than $96 billion in health care bills each year. Currently, 20 percent of high school students smoke and more than 1,000 kids become new regular smokers every day. In Virginia, tobacco use kills 9,200 residents and costs the state $2.08 billion in health care bills a year, and 15.5 percent of high school students smoke.
The survey of 500 likely voters in Virginia was conducted by Global Strategy Group January 27-29, 2009 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points. Detailed poll results can be found at: www.tobaccofreekids.org.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)