Category Archives: Government Intervention

04.28.13
by

Herald News: Former officer arraigned in New Bedford court; stealing prescriptions from the elderly.

Former Somerset police officer Ricardo Pavao was arraigned Wednesday in New  Bedford District Court on allegations that he unlawfully collected expired  prescription drugs from elderly residents.

Pavao, 33, of Somerset, was previously arraigned in Fall River District  Court, but his case was transferred to New Bedford, a routine move when law  enforcement officials are charged with crimes in their own jurisdiction.

Pavao, a former 10-year veteran of the Somerset Police Department, allegedly  knocked on residents’ doors at North Farm Senior Estates in Somersest, while on  duty, on Jan. 27 and collected their prescription drugs without notifying a  supervisor about his actions.

Pavao allegedly told the residents he was checking on their emergency  information and questioned some whether they possessed firearms or had a vicious  dog on the premises.

In a taped interview, Pavao allegedly admitted to soliciting emergency  information from the residents at the housing complex and collecting three  expired prescription bottles from a resident.

Pavao said he was trying to “show some initiative” because of poor work  reviews over the past few years, but said he threw the drugs in the trash at  home to avoid writing a report.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/somerset/news/x1048857516/Former-officer-arraigned-in-New-Bedford-court#axzz2Qp5SsRfz

04.28.13
by

Associated Press: Ex-officers get probation in Houston teen beating

Two fired Houston police officers accused of beating a black teenage burglary suspect during an arrest that was caught on video were each sentenced Wednesday to two years of probation as part of plea agreements.

Ex-officers Phil Bryan, 47, and Raad Hassan, 43, each entered pleas of no contest to a misdemeanor charge of official oppression. The two men had been set to go to trial on Monday. If convicted at trial, each ex-officer had faced up to a year in jail.

State District Judge Ruben Guerrero accepted the former officers’ pleas and sentenced them to two years of deferred adjudication, a form of probation. If the men complete their probations without getting into trouble, their convictions will be dismissed.

The beating of then-15-year-old Chad Holley prompted fierce public criticism of the Houston police department by community activists, who called it an example of police brutality against minorities.

Four officers were charged; one was acquitted last May and another officer’s case is still pending. Holley was convicted of burglary in juvenile court.

Defense attorneys and the special prosecutors appointed to handle the case all said the plea deal for Bryan and Hassan was fair.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://www.lompocrecord.com/news/national/ex-officers-get-probation-in-houston-teen-beating/article_3e63dd00-7d69-5070-9c7b-07d0142d8588.html

04.27.13
by

Forbes: GOP’s Dave Camp: Why Not Put All Federal Employees Onto Obamacare’s Exchanges?

WASHINGTON, DC - DECEMBER 20: U.S. Rep. Dave ...

In response to this week’s brouhaha regarding attempts by members of Congress to avoid having to enroll themselves and their staff members in Obamacare’s health insurance exchanges, Michigan Republican Dave Camp, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has offered a new proposal: Why not put all federal employees on the exchanges? It’s an attractive idea, but it has some downside: it would dismantle a popular model of market-based health reform.

“If the ObamaCare exchanges are good enough for the hardworking Americans and small businesses the law claims to help, then they should be good enough for the president, vice president, Congress, and federal employees,” said Camp’s spokeswoman in a statement.

The political principle is straightforward, but it would come at a price. Putting all federal employees on the exchanges would obliterate the most market-oriented insurance program run by the government, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, or FEHBP. Indeed, the FEHBP has long been considered a model for market-based reform of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

In the FEHBP, employees get to choose amongst a wide variety of plans offered by private insurers. The employer–the government–then subsidizes about three-fourths of the cost to the employee. The employee can choose a more generous or expensive plan if he wants, but he has to pay for a portion of the difference in price, and vice versa. As a result of this approach, FEHBP plans have organically evolved to contain the benefits and financial features that consumers want. By contrast, any minor change to Medicare requires an act of Congress.

Obamacare’s exchanges are closer in concept to FEHBP than traditional Medicare, but the exchanges heavily constrain the ability of plans to alter their design as consumers’ preferences evolve.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2013/04/26/gops-dave-camp-why-not-put-all-federal-employees-onto-obamacares-exchanges/

 

04.27.13
by

Motley Fool: These 7 States Tax Homeowners the Hardest

Paying income tax is hard enough for those struggling to make ends meet. But with property taxes, even those who have no income end up having to bear their share of the overall tax burden.

Property taxes are typically imposed and collected by local tax authorities rather than state revenue departments, but property tax revenues have a big impact on the decisions that state governments make on where to apply their financial resources. Still, you can get a sense of how much of a property tax burden state residents bear by looking at the average tax paid per person. Using figures from the most recently available data from the Tax Foundation and land and home values from the Lincoln Institute, let’s look at seven states that impose the highest average property taxes on their residents.

7. Rhode Island Property taxes in Rhode Island average $2,083 per person. With average home values of $241,000 just barely putting Rhode Island in the top third of the nation, high tax rates and a high density of urban land help push the state’s overall property tax burden higher. Moreover, with just over 1 million people, Rhode Island doesn’t have many people over which split the fixed costs of state government.

6. Vermont In Vermont, the average property tax bill is $2,166. Vermont’s land values come in just below Rhode Island’s at $239,000, and the state has a much more rural character than Rhode Island’s small size and coastal proximity. As with Rhode Island, Vermont’s small population of around 625,000 provides only a limited base on which to tax.

5. New York New York imposes an average of $2,280 in property taxes per person. Average home values come in at $316,000, putting the state in the top 10. Yet given the huge disparities in real-estate prices throughout the state, that burden is very unevenly spread. Rural tax rates in upstate New York can be relatively reasonable, but in New York City, you’ll see tax burdens that are more in line with those of neighboring states that are dominated more by the city’s metropolitan area.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://www.fool.com/how-to-invest/personal-finance/taxes/2013/04/27/these-7-states-tax-homeowners-the-hardest.aspx

04.27.13
by

Forbes: Doctors Rush To Obamacare’s Accountable Care Approach

The number of physicians participating in the emerging medical care delivery system known as “accountable care organizations” (ACOs) has tripled as the health care industry moves further away from fee-for-service medicine.

A new study from Medscape said one in four doctors, or 24 percent, “were either in an ACO or planned to be in an ACO within a year.” By comparison, only 8 percent of physicians in Medscape’s 2012 report were in or planning to be in an ACO. The report included more than 21,000 doctor respondents across 25 specialties.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2013/04/27/doctors-rush-to-obamacares-accountable-care-approach/?partner=yahootix

04.26.13
by

Michael Scheuer: The Idea That They’re Attacking Us Because Of Our Culture And Freedom Is Insane

Quote:
“We should have went to Afghanistan and won the war. We went to Afghanistan, spent 13 years and got chased out by guys with weapons from the Korean War. The Islamists started this war, they explained to us as clearly as General Giap and Ho Chi Minh explained to us why they were fighting us and we have ignored it. Mrs. Clinton has ignored it, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama. The idea that they’re attacking us because of our culture is insane. We are now waging a war against them culturally. We’re trying to impose democracy, women’s rights, parliamentary systems on a people who don’t want it. They’re going to fight that. They don’t care if we vote, why should they care about that?”

—

Well said Michael.  Click below for the direct link to the youtube clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieCCQNoiOaE&feature=youtu.be

04.26.13
by

The Wall Street Journal: Are You Ready for the New Investment Tax?

It’s time to grapple with the new 3.8% tax on investment income.

The ordeal of 2012 taxes is barely over. But it isn’t too early to understand and cushion the blow of the investment-income levy, which Congress passed in 2010 to help fund the health-care overhaul.

The tax, which took effect Jan. 1, applies to the “net investment income” of married joint filers who have more than $250,000 of income (or $200,000 for singles). Only investment income—such as dividends, interest and capital gains—above the thresholds is taxed. The rate is a flat 3.8% in addition to other taxes owed.

“Affluent investors who ignore this tax will be in for a total shock next April 15,” says David Lifson, a certified public accountant specializing in tax at Crowe Horwath in New York. Such income is typically not subject to withholding, and people won’t be factoring it into their estimated taxes. Lower-bracket taxpayers who receive a windfall large enough to owe the tax will also be in for a surprise.

The new levy is one of several tax increases taking effect this year, including higher top rates on income and capital gains, limits on deductions, and an extra 0.9% payroll tax. But the 3.8% tax will cost many Americans even more.

The reason: an odd interaction between the regular income tax and the alternative minimum tax, or AMT, a separate levy that rescinds the value of some tax benefits. This year, many affluent taxpayers will have higher income because of new limits on exemptions and deductions. But this higher income will also help lower their alternative minimum tax.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324743704578444630080409450.html?KEYWORDS=Are+You+Ready+for+the+New+Investment+Tax

04.26.13
by

US News: What Gen X Doesn’t Know About Social Security

Members of Generation X, those born between 1965 and 1976, are planning to collect Social Security at an average age of 65, according to a recent survey. But that could be a mistake. Gen Xers won’t qualify for the full Social Security payments they have earned until age 67. Those who sign up for Social Security at age 65 will get permanently lower payments for the rest of their lives.

The Social Security full retirement age at which you can claim the entire benefit you have earned is 67 for everyone born in 1960 or later. Gen Xers who sign up for Social Security at age 65, as 29 percent plan to do, will see their monthly payments reduced by about 13.3 percent.

A GfK Custom Research North America survey of 1,000 adults ages 36 to 47 commissioned by the MetLife Mature Market Institute found that 18 percent of Gen Xers plan to claim Social Security benefits as soon as they are eligible at age 62. But workers who sign up at this age will see their payments reduced by 30 percent. For example, a worker who would be eligible for $1,000 per month upon retirement at age 67 would get just $700 per month is he signs up for Social Security at age 62. Another 16 percent of people in their late 30s and early 40s simply don’t know when they will start receiving Social Security benefits.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2013/04/26/what-gen-x-doesnt-know-about-social-security

04.26.13
by

Motley Fool: Do These Obamacare Winners Look Like Losers Now?

Have the Obamacare winners become losers? When the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or PPACA, was first passed, most analysts pegged hospital systems as obvious winners from the new law. That viewpoint also held true last year as the Supreme Court upheld much of Obamacare.

The stock market clearly agreed. Immediately after the Supreme Court decision, hospital stocks surged. Community Health Systems  (NYSE: CYH  )  jumped 8%. Health Management Associates  (NYSE: HMA  )  shares rose 7%. The largest private hospital chain, HCA Holdings  (NYSE: HCA  ) , soared by 10%.

Since the high court ruling, few sectors have performed as well as hospitals have. Community Health Systems shares rose as much as 88% by late March. Likewise, HMA stock nearly doubled. HCA shares rose more than 50% during the same period. No hospital stock performed better than Tenet Healthcare  (NYSE: THC  ) , though. Tenet’s shares skyrocketed 140%.

That was then. The performance of these stocks in the month of April thus far tells a much different tale.

Spring backwards? Community Health Systems shares are down almost 13% since the beginning of April. HMA isn’t far behind, with shares falling 12%. HCA stock has dropped 7.5%. What about the biggest winner: Tenet? It’s now the biggest loser, with shares plunging more than 16% this month. Has the luster of Obamacare worn off?

Many hospitals wanted the ACA to succeed. The industry’s lobbying organization, the American Hospital Association, actively supported the legislation and even submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of the individual mandate.

The primary reason behind support for the bill stemmed from the prospects of millions of currently uninsured Americans gaining insurance. Many hospitals must write off large amounts of money when individuals with no insurance cannot pay for the care provided. If more people gain insurance under Obamacare, hospitals hope that these write-offs will decrease significantly.

However, many currently uninsured Americans could choose to pay fines rather than obtain insurance. If this scenario becomes widespread, the benefits to hospitals could be dampened.

Others suspect that the costs of the ACA could minimize the advantages for hospitals. Bob Kirby, a director with Fitch Ratings, said last year that “it is unclear if the incremental revenue generated from increased utilization and lower levels of uncompensated care will offset the potential compression in margins.”

All in the timing Obamacare’s timing could also be problematic. Even if millions of uninsured Americans buy insurance as hoped for, that scenario won’t happen until 2014. In the meantime, hospitals are dealing with some of the challenges of the ACA.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2013/04/26/what-gen-x-doesnt-know-about-social-security

04.25.13
by

Forbes: Congress Seeks to Opt Out of Participating in Obamacare’s Exchanges

As Obamacare was winding its way through the Senate in 2009, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) slipped in an amendment requiring that members of Congress, and their staff, enroll in Obamacare’s health insurance exchanges. The idea was simple: that if Congress was going to impose Obamacare upon the country, it should have to experience what it is imposing firsthand. But now, word comes that Congress is quietly seeking to rescind that provision of the law, because members fear that staffers who face higher insurance costs will leave the Hill. The news has sparked outrage from the right and left. Here’s the back story, and why this debate is crucial to the future of market-based health reform.

Sen. Grassley’s original idea was to require all federal employees to enroll in the exchanges, instead of in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, where most gain coverage today. Indeed, a previous Senate Finance Committee amendment proposed putting members and staffers on Medicaid. But “fierce opposition from federal employee unions” sank Grassley’s effort, and he had to water his amendment down to only apply to Congress and congressional staff.

Staffers grumble about being stuck on the exchanges

Ever since Obamacare became law, this has been a source of grumbling among the congressional staffers I talk to. One aspect of the Grassley amendment is that it originally appeared to exempt staffers who worked for congressional committees, and congressional leadership, because those staffers didn’t work for specific Members of Congress. (My understanding is that the Office of Personnel Management has since clarified the regulations to include all staff, including committee and leadership.)

—

It is always fascinating when politicians pass unconstitutional laws that are supposedly good enough for the people but not good enough for them.  Click below for the full article.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2013/04/25/congress-fearing-brain-drain-seeks-to-opt-out-of-participating-in-obamacares-exchanges/?partner=yahootix