Once again our representatives kick the dog.

Yesterday, Sen. Vitter of Louisiana offered up an amendment to permanently drop anyone ever convicted of a violent crime from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — “Food Stamps.” According to Robert Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Democrats in the Senate obliged him. The amendment is now part of the farm bill, which is currently being debated in the Senate. No one seems to be speaking up for those millions of people who will be affected by this cruel attempt to further punish people and families without any due process. They were punished by a court of law, but Vitter and his Senate colleagues want to pile on.

In other words, the Democrat controlled Senate appears to be going along with letting this amendment become part of the bill and the ultimate law of the land. Who cares and speaks for people who have paid their debt to society, and are trying to put their life together — apparently no one. There are already 34,000 laws in this country restricting convicted persons from working, voting, living in public housing, living in certain neighborhoods, or enjoying the basic benefits of being a citizen. I’m sure citizenship is next. “Let’s deport all convicted persons,” I can hear Vitter and his fellow Senators say. I’m sad to say that apparently the Democrats are in bed with him on this.

Do my fellow Democrats ever pause to think about the children who make one mistake. Do they realize that there are tens of millions of families that struggle their entire life to remove the “Mark of Cain.” First our laws deny him/her a job, housing, and if this bill becomes law — food. What about the abused child who’s in the car while the abuser robs a convenience store. First, she is likely to be locked up for years, raped by guards and fellow inmates, and upon getting out is told you must sleep on the streets, work at the most menial jobs for life, and now if this bill passes she and her children will be denied food to eat for life. Is this really the “Great Society.”

Most people who get out of prison and go through probation, violent or not, come through the process trying to turn their life around. If we continue to put more and more roadblocks in their way than this “great society” will pay the consequences. I am greatly troubled by this turn of events, and if it passes the House and the President signs it into law then we should all be ashamed.

A society is measured not by its prosperity, but by how the least of its members are treated. I hope and pray that this bill doesn’t become another nail in our legacy.

Executives have long enjoyed perks such as free health care and better health benefits for themselves and their families than the rest of their employees. Whether this is right or wrong is not the issue of this piece, what it may do is cost the executives and their companies lots of money.

Under a little noticed anti-discrimination provision in the new federal health law, such advantages will soon trigger fines of up to $500,000.

Employers “should be more concerned about this than anything else” in the law, because many are in violation, and the penalties can be stiff, said Jay Starkman, chief executive of Engage PEO in St. Petersburg, Fla., which offers human resources services and advises clients on the health law.

The provision says that employers that offer more generous benefits to highly paid workers could face fines of $100 a day for every worker who doesn’t get the perks, up to $500,000.

To make sure his own small company complies with the law, Starkman began paying $600 in premiums toward his family’s coverage last month, putting him on a par with his 60 employees. Many companies have executives pay less than staff in the way of premiums. They better think again.

For example a typical company may have about 40 employees, most of whom are paid hourly and don’t get health insurance. But if the company offers managerial workers health coverage, it might fall afoul of the discrimination rule.

It could be subject to a $2,000-per-worker penalty for not offering coverage to its hourly workers.

The anti-discrimination provision is technically in effect now, but the IRS has said it will not impose penalties until it completes regulations and issues guidance about how the provision will be enforced.

Employers are likely to have until 2014 to figure out whether they comply.

The IRS rule offers guidelines explaining who is considered a highly paid employee, and says a plan discriminates if it favors such workers in terms of eligibility or benefits. But there are differences between the IRS rule and the federal health law provision. For example, if a firm is found to violate the IRS rule, the employees getting more generous benefits could end up paying taxes on their value, while the federal health law imposes fines on the employer, most of whom are expected to be small and midsize firms. In other words the company and its executives can be double penalized.

These penalties “fall especially hard on the small-business population,” says the Small Business Coalition for Affordable Healthcare, which represents firms involved in agriculture, food service and retail, in comments submitted to the IRS.

If you are an employer again I say run to a good independent agent like Marvin Address & Assoc. in DC and ask for Sandra. It’s not going to get any less complicated.

State senator proposes 5-year waiting period for ex-felons seeking to vote

By Webb Hubbell, reprinted with permission of www.clydefitchreport.com

Last Monday the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on whether human genes may be patented. Whether the Court will address the issue head on or find a way to narrow the impact of its decision is anybody’s guess.

The scientific complexities of isolating and understanding genetic material are enough to make even a Supreme’s head spin. So the justices kicked around more understandable analogies during oral argument — chocolate-chip cookies, baseball bats and plants in the Amazon to name a few. None of them proved wholly satisfactory.

This debate represents a classic battle between encouraging businesses to engage in expensive research versus worries that allowing genes to be patented would stifle innovation and competition. On one side, scientists and research companies argue patents encourage medical innovation and investment that saves lives. On the other, patient rights groups and civil libertarians counter that patent holders are “holding hostage” the diagnostic care and access of information available to high-risk patients.

An expansive ruling could have practical ramifications that could ripple into the lives of every American — not just women at risk for rare breast cancer. The decision might also affect pharmaceuticals, vaccines and genetically modified crops, despite the fact that the patents at issue are due to expire over the next two years.

The case concerns patents held by Myriad Genetics, a Utah company, on genes that correlate with increased risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.  The central question for the justices in the case, Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, No. 12-398, is whether isolated genes are “products of nature” that may not be patented or “human-made inventions” eligible for patent protection.

In granting the patents, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed with Myriad’s claim that, by extracting the genes from the human body, the company had invented an “isolated” DNA markedly different (and thus patentable) from the native DNA. The patents were challenged by scientists and doctors who said their research and ability to help patients has been frustrated.

Last year, a divided three-judge panel of a federal appeals court in Washington ruled for Myriad. Each judge issued an opinion, and a central dispute was whether isolated genes are sufficiently different from ones in the body to allow them to be patented.

The ruling followed a unanimous Supreme Court decision last year that said medical tests relying on correlations between drug dosages and treatment are not eligible for patent protection. Natural laws, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court, may not be patented standing alone or in connection with processes that involve “well-understood, routine, conventional activity.”

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., representing the federal government, said last year’s decision, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, suggested that the correct answer in the case argued Monday was that merely isolating a gene was not sufficient for patent protection. But manipulating a gene to create something not found in nature would be.

That distinction, coupled with possible patents for particular uses of genes, seemed attractive to several justices.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor likened an isolated gene to an ingredient in a kitchen pantry.

“I can bake a chocolate-chip cookie using natural ingredients — salt, flour, eggs, butter,” she said. “And if I combust those in some new way, I can get a patent on that. But I can’t imagine getting a patent simply on the basic items of salt, flour and eggs.”

Gregory A. Castanias, lawyer for Myriad, proposed a different analogy.

“A baseball bat doesn’t exist until it’s isolated from a tree,” he said. “But that’s still the product of human invention to decide where to begin the bat and where to end the bat.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. did not appear convinced.

Justice Samuel Alito asked about “the leaves of a plant that grows in the Amazon and it’s discovered that this has tremendous medicinal purposes.”

“Let’s say,” he said, that “it treats breast cancer.”

Steven R. Hansen, the lawyer challenging the patent, said the mere discovery and extraction of the plant should not make it eligible for patent protection.

Justice Sotomayor suggested that an isolated gene was “just nature sitting there.”

This case is one of the most important and complex disputes in a generation involving the intersection of science, law, and commerce. The sharpness of the disagreement revealed in the conflicting views within the government itself. The patent office sees the patents as valid and consistent with its duty to protect and promote invention. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. and the Justice Department oppose them on grounds that what nature makes cannot be patented and Myriad’s isolation of DNA did not change it enough to alter nature and be eligible for a patent.

Come this June the Supreme Court may tell us whether a human gene is more like a chocolate chip cookie or a baseball bat. Stay tuned.

Few aspects of the Affordable Care Act are more critical to its success than affordability, but in recent weeks many experts have predicted costs for health plans will soar next year.

Now health law supporters are pushing back, noting close ties between the actuaries making the forecasts and an insurance industry that has been complaining about taxes and other factors.

“Most actuaries in this country — what percentage are employed by insurance companies?” Sen. Al Franken, a Minnesota Democrat, asked an actuary last week at a hearing of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

The committee was discussing a study published last month by the Society of Actuaries (SOA) claiming in some states costs will rise as much as 80 percent.

Society spokeswoman Kim McKeown said the project was overseen by credentialed actuaries “from a cross-section of industry organizations” and was “exposed for review and comment to the broad health care actuarial community.”

Health-act supporters complained that that the actuary society’s study predicting a double digit increases in claims didn’t account for key factors, including the potential for competition to lower prices, the subsidies people will receive to buy the coverage and the fact that next year’s plans will be more generous than this year’s.

What is amazing is that we are less than a year away from everyone having to have insurance and still no one can tell employers or individuals what it’s going to cost. Think of it – a person is told you must buy a brand new car next year (Lot’s of health insurance plans costs more than a nice car) but we can’t tell you how much its going to cost. But you will break the law if you don’t buy the car, whatever the cost. Hard to budget wouldn’t you say?

The Affordable Care Act “Play or Pay” Requirements Take Effect January 1, 2014—Are You Ready?

By Rhonda D. Orin, Esq. & Daniel J. Healy, Esq. of Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has gone from a distant deadline to an imminent reality, with the controversial “play or pay” provisions scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2014. While the media focuses on the political implications, most employers are scrambling to identify and meet the requirements — and, if possible, avoid paying. But what is really required?

Are You a Large Employer?

The trigger point for certain penalties is being a large employer, i.e., having 50 or more full-time employees. Assessing whether you qualify can be complicated, particularly if you have seasonal or part-time employees who, in combination, could constitute “full-time equivalents.” If you haven’t done so already, now is the time to analyze your payroll carefully.

Who Is Entitled to Coverage?

Large employers are obligated under the Affordable Care Act to offer compliant coverage to each full-time employee, so assessing who is full-time is important as well. The IRS has issued guidelines explaining how to answer this question, based in part on an analysis of a given employee’s work history. The guidelines, while complex, allow employers to measure, rather than guess, who is full- time. Precision is important because getting it wrong for just one full-time employee may trigger substantial penalties.

What Coverage Must Be Offered?

Compliant coverage involves providing what has been deemed to be “minimum essential coverage” for which 1) the employee is not required to pay more than 9.5% of his or her monthly household income in monthly health coverage premium, and 2) the coverage pays at least 60% of the average total allowable cost of benefits. The first requirement may be met (imperfectly) by looking at the employee’s W-2, and keeping premiums below 9.5% of that amount. The second requirement means, on a fundamental level, that if a service is covered, the coverage must represent an average of 60% of the allowed cost.

What Are the Penalties?

Penalties are triggered when a large employer fails to offer compliant coverage to at least one full-time employee, and that employee qualifies for a federal subsidy in a state insurance exchange. The penalties are at least $40,000, and can increase depending on your total employee count and the total number of employees who qualify for subsidies.

What Are the New Reporting Requirements?

Much like employment tax reporting, the Affordable Care Act requires employee reporting on a W-2 and employer reporting. The IRS and other federal and state agencies are expected to cross-check reported information in order to confirm that 1) employers are offering compliant coverage, and 2) the individual mandate is met.

While doubtful that many employers have sympathy for agencies tasked with Affordable Care Act enforcement, those agencies have been somewhat overwhelmed with the effort. The IRS has issued many rounds of evolving regulations, and continues to do so. The regulations to date, while perhaps not a model of simplicity, have softened the blow of the health care law and provided flexibility. The Departments of Labor and of Health and Human Services are actively involved in creating the state exchanges, and recently pushed back employer deadlines related to the exchanges.

Employers should watch the evolving regulations and look for Affordable Care Act provisions that may provide them added flexibility. For example, different coverage can be offered to employees depending on whether the employees are: collectively bargained vs. non-collectively bargained; salaried vs. hourly; employed by different entities; or employed in different states.

In sum, the Affordable Care Act is sweeping, and its deadline’s fast approaching. Employers need to be adjusting now, before 2014.

I was talking to a health insurance agent who has been in the trenches for years trying to help small businesses do the “right thing” and provide health insurance to their employees and their families. The agent not only fears for his future as more and more insurance companies see a way to trim costs by cutting agent’s commissions, but more importantly they face the uncertain future presented by Obamacare.

He said, “we foresee more and more companies of 50 employees or less dropping coverage, because of the uncertainties of cost caused by mandated coverages and the lack of options.” He predicts a 100% increase of premiums for 2014 with no end in sight for small businesses after that. He says, “The administration drove a nail in small business’s coffin by providing only one option for small business in its health exchange. How can I recommend to the local employer that he provide health insurance to his employees when it means so much uncertainty and the only thing that is certain – is a whopping increase. My clients say why not give my employees a raise, and let them go buy there own?” The agent laments, “I don’t have a good answer and that means my business goes in the toilet as well. I’m going to have to lay people off or stop providing insurance to my own employees.”

The agent went on to say, “The big boys got what they wanted out of health care reform, insurance companies get out of providing coverage to small groups, large business get tax breaks, politicians get to beat their chest and create an agency of government larger than the IRS, but small business and a middle class family take it  on the chin.”

Another agent whose trying to sell his practice was blunter. “If you think Wal-Mart destroyed Main Street wait till you see what the Affordable Care Act does to small business. Big business is laughing all the way to the bank, Republicans believe it will be so bad they’ll walk into the White House in 2016, and the Democrats think there will be such an outcry single-payer will become a reality. So nobody with influence is doing a damn thing.”

What’s for certain is you cannot totally overhaul one-fifth of the nation’s economy without breaking a few eggs, and regarding my agent’s prediction about small employers is already coming true. The administration has said small business will have only one option in its health care exchange at a price yet to be determined, and as the Charlotte Observer reported small business are dropping health care for its employees at alarming rates.

A new study suggests rising health care costs have taken a particularly large toll in North Carolina, where the number of residents who receive health insurance through their employers has dropped sharply over the past decade.

The proportion of nonelderly North Carolinians with employer-sponsored insurance declined from 69 percent in 2000 to 56 percent in 2011, according to the report released Thursday by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

That change left 220,000 fewer residents with health insurance. Only four states had a larger percentage drop.

Soaring health care costs and insurance premiums are largely to blame, experts say. In North Carolina, the average annual premium for family coverage more than doubled over the 11-year study period, rising to $13,974. What is going to happen if my agent is correct and next year’s premium for a family exceeds $20,000 per year?

I still ask if you are in Congress is it right for you to sit on the sidelines and simply wait until a catastrophe happens? What are you doing to help small business and its employees? My bet — absolutely nothing.

Every other day we are getting bits and pieces of news that indicate that Obamacare is going to be more expensive and cover fewer and fewer people than represented. Today’s news that the implementation of a major selling point of the legislation has been delayed is a prime example. Just because many Republicans don’t like the legislation doesn’t mean that they should forego their responsibility of oversight. The same is true for the Democratic majority in the Senate. It is time you both did your jobs and started finding out about what is happening in the greatest restructuring of the economy since Roosevelt. Many of us want universal health care, but failure to act or at least ask may lead us to chaos and be a nail in the coffin that says Congress has become irrelevant.

The NY Times published a report today saying that the administration is unable to meet deadlines in the new health care law, so Obama is delaying parts of a program intended to provide affordable health insurance to small businesses and their employees — a major selling point for the health care legislation.

The law calls for a new insurance marketplace specifically for small businesses, starting next year. But in most states, employers will not be able to get what Congress intended: the option to provide workers with a choice of health plans. They will instead be limited to a single plan and will have to pay whatever premium is set – not exactly an exciting prospect for small businesses who are already trying to decide whether to offer health insurance to their employees.

Many small businesses had counted on having options, but now must wait to find out what the cost is from the government in a true Hobson’s choice – take it and pay what is expected to be a whopping increase in premium cost, pray there is a carrier out there that will insure their employees again at what is for sure to be an exorbitant cost, or tell their employees they are on their own.

The provision aiding small business was a major selling point for several key Senators, and it looks like they have some “explaining” to do to their supporters and voters – a legitimate question being what has HHS been doing that it can’t meet the deadlines it set in the first place.

Recently, a study came out saying veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are having to wait as much as two years to get decisions on their claims for disability. It hurts me to say this since I was a strong supporter of the President, but one has to wonder if the executive branch is taking its lead from Congress and becoming a do-nothing administration when it comes to implementing its programs.

My advice call your Independent agent immediately like my friends who are experts Sandra Address and Tom Seltz at Marvin Address & Assoc. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.