People we can NOT let up to 20,000,000 Illegal Immigrants And more coming in with unemployment at what it is and climbing ! The city's and states are going broke! With unemployment climbing there maybe no social security, because there won't be enough payed in to it for all retires ! So people you better think! The war is costing to much, we do not have the money to fight the war any longer.We have got to think about our citizens before any ONE ELSE !
Check my total blogs on my web site www.alsbargainplace.com

Wed Jul 1, 2009 10:29am EDT

By Jim Christie

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California's lawmakers failed to agree on a balanced budget by the start of its new fiscal year on Wednesday morning, clearing the way to suspend payments owed to the state's vendors and local agencies, who instead will get "IOU" notes promising payment.

The notes will mark the first time in 17 years the most populous U.S. state's government will have to resort to the unusual and dramatic measure.

Democrats who control the legislature could not convince Republicans late on Tuesday night to back their plans to tackle a $24.3 billion budget shortfall or a stopgap effort to ward off the IOUs. The two sides agree on the need for spending cuts but are split over whether to raise taxes.

Democrats have pushed for new revenues while Republican lawmakers and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, also a Republican, have ruled out tax increases. They instead see deep spending cuts as the solution to balancing the budget, but Democrats say that would slash the state's safety net for the needy to the bone.

Tempers flared in the state Senate as the midnight start of the new fiscal year neared.

"There is no excuse to hold this whole state hostage," state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg told Republicans during a floor debate.

Senate Republican Leader Dennis Hollingsworth countered that major cuts are urgently needed. Otherwise, "There will be entire programs that will have to be lopped off," he said.

CASH CRISIS LOOMS

California lawmakers struggle with budget deadlines practically every year, but this year's budget fight is taking place amid the state's worst drop in revenues from personal income taxes since the Great Depression as recession and rising unemployment pile on to the damage done to the state's economy from its long housing slump.

Because of its steep revenue decline, California risks running out of cash later this month to pay all of its bills unless its books are balanced quickly.

To conserve cash, State Controller John Chiang plans to issue IOUs by Thursday to the state's vendors, local agencies overseeing health programs and various recipients of state aid -- including the elderly and disabled and college students.

He plans to send $3.36 billion in IOUs this month to help maintain $10.9 billion in other payments, including money owed to investors holding California's general obligation debt.

"The general obligation bonds will be paid," Chiang told Reuters on Tuesday. "California has never defaulted on its debt obligation and we don't plan to do so."

California aims to reassure investors because Wall Street's concerns about the state's finances are growing and because state officials see the need to sell $7 billion to $9 billion in short-term debt for cash-flow purposes once there is a budget agreement.

Standard & Poor's Ratings Services and Moody's Investors Service have also warned of possible downgrades to California's general obligation debt. Moody's has said the state could see a multi-notch downgrade of its A2 rating. S&P rates $57 billion of the state's outstanding general obligation bonds A.

(Additional reporting by Marianne Russ in Sacramento, California; Editing by Eric Walsh

Check my web site for more important information www.alsbargainplace.com

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON — Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer, joined hands with a major labor union Tuesday to endorse the idea of requiring large companies to provide health insurance to their workers, a move that gives a boost to President Obama as he is pushing for health legislation on Capitol Hill.

“Not every business can make the same contribution, but everyone must make some contribution,” Wal-Mart’s chief executive, Michael T. Duke, wrote in a letter to White House and Congressional officials, adding that he favored “an employer mandate which is fair and broad in its coverage.”

The letter was issued jointly with Andrew W. Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, which represents two million workers, many of them in the health care industry, and John D. Podesta, who ran Mr. Obama’s transition to the presidency and leads the Center for American Progress, a Democratic policy organization here.

But Wal-Mart’s embrace of the employer mandate may come at a price. In its letter, the company says that if Congress imposes a requirement that employers offer insurance, it must also offer a guarantee to business that health care costs will in fact be contained, perhaps through a so-called trigger mechanism that would impose reductions if certain spending targets were not met.

“We’re for an employer mandate, but we believe that it has to be accompanied by these measures that are really going to deliver on the savings,” said Leslie A. Dach, Wal-Mart’s top lobbyist, who met with Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, on Tuesday afternoon to discuss the proposal. “If any business is going to be asked to take on an employer mandate, to face changes in the tax laws, there should be some sense that the promise of the bill to reduce health costs will actually occur.”

The employer mandate is central to Mr. Obama’s plan for expanding health coverage to the nation’s 46 million uninsured, but many companies, including Wal-Mart, have long resisted the idea. But as health legislation moves through Congress, representatives of industry are becoming increasingly convinced that they must join forces with the administration to have a seat at the negotiating table.

The trade group representing pharmaceutical companies recently promised to cut the cost of prescription drugs by $80 billion over 10 years, and Democratic officials said hospitals were close to reaching a similar agreement on cost-cutting with the Obama administration. Mr. Emanuel said Tuesday afternoon that chief executives of other companies — he did not specify which — had also expressed interest in embracing an employer mandate.

“Everybody is now trying to get their seat on the train,” Mr. Emanuel said.

With 1.4 million employees, Wal-Mart employs more people than any other private company in the United States. Slightly more than half of Wal-Mart’s employees, 53 percent, are insured by the company, although Mr. Dach said the company estimated that 94 percent of its workers had some form of insurance, either through spouses, parents or — in the case of 36,000 Wal-Mart employees — Medicaid, the government insurance plan for the poor, Mr. Dach said.

Mr. Dach said the company had concluded that the plans it offered met the standards that Congress was laying out for “the threshold of a good plan.”

Still, Wal-Mart’s action is surprising for a company that has often fought with unions and has had a reputation as being stingy with benefits. As Mr. Podesta said, “The big news is they’re for an employer mandate, which is significant.”
Check my web site for other information www.alsbargainplace.com

Teens younger than 18 are prohibited from using any telecommunications device while driving, according to a law that takes effect today.

The new law passed by the General Assembly during the regular session also imposes a driving curfew.

However, exemptions are provided as long as the driver is accompanied by a licensed driver at least 25 years old or is driving to or back to certain functions, including a school-sanctioned or religious event.

During the 180 days after receiving their probationary license, young drivers are not allowed to drive between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m.

After the 180-day period, the curfew schedule adjusts with fewer restrictions.

The ban does not apply to cell phone usage for 911 emergency calls.

And during the first six months after teens receive their probationary license, they are restricted from having passengers other than their immediate family members.

State Rep. Shelli VanDenburgh, D-Crown Point, thinks the law should apply to everyone regardless of age, a view several other state legislators argued on the statehouse floor.

"It really should be across the board," she said. "I thought it was a shame that it was the starting point."

Nick Byrd, owner and operator of Certified Driving School in Crown Point, is glad for the "tremendous law" and says targeting the less experienced age group is appropriate.

"Kids are multitasking in the car. And multitasking takes them away from concentrating on driving," said Byrd, who notes that vehicular crashes are the leading cause of death for teens.

"For some (who are older), it's talking on the phone," he said.

But for teens, "it's more texting that they're doing in the car."

The school, which has branches in Merrillville and Highland, teaches 2,000 to 2,500 students a year.

He and other driving instructors have been talking to students about the ban for almost a year as the legislation moved through the chambers, he said.

Safe driving is something people should already be doing on their own without government legislation, VanDenburgh said.

But at least the law will help reduce driving hazards, she added, likening it to the current seat belt law.

Other noteworthy laws that take effect today include:

* An animal protection measure that sets higher standards for reasonable care of dogs in breeding operations as well as higher penalties for animal abuse.

* The maximum penalty for feticide, destruction of a fetus, goes from imprisonment of eight years to 20 years.

* Teachers will be subject to greater criminal background checks when they apply to renew their teaching license.

* At the same time, they will have civil immunity from lawsuits challenging attempts to set class discipline.

Contact Jane Huh at 477-6019 or jhuh@post-trib.com

Check out my web site for more inportant information www.alsbargainplace.com

By REED ABELSON

Health insurance is supposed to offer protection — both medically and financially. But as it turns out, an estimated three-quarters of people who are pushed into personal bankruptcy by medical problems actually had insurance when they got sick or were injured.

And so, even as Washington tries to cover the tens of millions of Americans without medical insurance, many health policy experts say simply giving everyone an insurance card will not be enough to fix what is wrong with the system.

Too many other people already have coverage so meager that a medical crisis means financial calamity.

One of them is Lawrence Yurdin, a 64-year-old computer security specialist. Although the brochure on his Aetna policy seemed to indicate it covered up to $150,000 a year in hospital care, the fine print excluded nearly all of the treatment he received at an Austin, Tex., hospital.

He and his wife, Claire, filed for bankruptcy last December, as his unpaid medical bills approached $200,000.

In the House and Senate, lawmakers are grappling with the details of legislation that would set minimum standards for insurance coverage and place caps on out-of-pocket expenses. And fear of the high price tag could prompt lawmakers to settle for less than comprehensive coverage for some Americans.

But patient advocates argue it is crucial for the final legislation to guarantee a base level of coverage, if people like Mr. Yurdin are to be protected from financial ruin. They also call for a new layer of federal rules to correct the current state-by-state regulatory patchwork that allows some insurance companies to sell relatively worthless policies.

“Underinsurance is the great hidden risk of the American health care system,” said Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor who has analyzed medical bankruptcies. “People do not realize they are one diagnosis away from financial collapse.”

Last week, a former Cigna executive warned at a Senate hearing on health insurance that lawmakers should be careful about the role they gave private insurers in any new system, saying the companies were too prone to “confuse their customers and dump the sick.”

“The number of uninsured people has increased as more have fallen victim to deceptive marketing practices and bought what essentially is fake insurance,” Wendell Potter, the former Cigna executive, testified.

Mr. Yurdin learned the hard way.

At St. David’s Medical Center in Austin, where he went for two separate heart procedures last year, the hospital’s admitting office looked at Mr. Yurdin’s coverage and talked to Aetna. St. David’s estimated that his share of the payments would be only a few thousand dollars per procedure.

He and the hospital say they were surprised to eventually learn that the $150,000 hospital coverage in the Aetna policy was mainly for room and board. Coverage was capped at $10,000 for “other hospital services,” which turned out to include nearly all routine hospital care — the expenses incurred in the operating room, for example, and the cost of any medication he received.

In other words, Aetna would have paid for Mr. Yurdin to stay in the hospital for more than five months — as long as he did not need an operation or any lab tests or drugs while he was there.

Aetna contends that it repeatedly informed Mr. Yurdin and the hospital of the restrictions in policy, which is known in the industry as a limited-benefit plan.

The company says such policies offer value by covering some hospital expenses, like surgeons’ fees or a stay in the intensive care unit. Aetna also says all of its policyholders receive significant discounts on the overall cost of hospital care. But Aetna also acknowledges that a limited-benefit plan was inappropriate in Mr. Yurdin’s case because his age and condition — an irregular heartbeat — made him likely to require more comprehensive coverage.

“Limited benefits aren’t right for everyone, and it clearly wasn’t right for Mr. Yurdin,” said Cynthia B. Michener, an Aetna spokeswoman.

Charles E. Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, which is taking a lead on health legislation, says Congress needs to make “meaningful” insurance coverage more affordable and accessible. But “until that happens,” he said, “any presentation of limited-benefit plans ought to be completely straightforward, and not misleading in any way.”Insurers like Aetna generally defend limited-benefit policies as a byproduct of the nation’s flawed health care system, which they say makes it too expensive to adequately insure someone like Mr. Yurdin.

If everyone in the country were required to have insurance, the industry says — a mandate that Congress is contemplating — the costs and risks of insurance would be spread over a large enough pool of people to let insurers provide full, affordable coverage even to people with pre-existing medical conditions.

Mr. Yurdin worked at TEKsystems, which employs people for short periods as contractors for other companies. TEKsystems says it does not pay for the contract workers’ health benefits, but it does enable them to purchase individual policies with limited benefits so they have at least some coverage.

“There’s no way we make this sound like regular coverage,” said Neil Mann, an executive vice president at Allegis Group, which owns TEKsystems. Check My Web Site For More Information you Should Know At www.alsbargainplace.com

Although Mr. Mann acknowledged that the plan Mr. Yurdin purchased excluded routine hospital care, he said he thought it still provided value to employees who wanted “peace of mind.”

True peace of mind, however, comes with a much higher price tag. When Mr. Yurdin no longer qualified for the Aetna coverage after he left TEKsystems and his eligibility eventually ended, his only option was a special state plan in Texas for people who are at high risk for expensive medical care. He has been paying more than $1,000 a month for comprehensive coverage, compared with the roughly $250 a month he was paying for the Aetna plan.

But as of Wednesday, his future insurance problems are largely solved: he qualifies for Medicare because he turns 65.

Many insurers, as part of the Congressional overhaul of their business, say they expect the demand for limited-benefit policies to fall. “Until the nation achieves the universal coverage that we strongly support, some individuals will want to be able to choose limited indemnity products, but with comprehensive health reform we think that need should diminish,” said Simon Stevens, an executive at UnitedHealth.

UnitedHealth drew criticism last year for selling policies with sharply limited coverage through AARP, the advocacy group for older people. One of the plans capped reimbursement for an operation at $5,000, for example, although many procedures cost at least several times that amount. After Senator Grassley began investigating its sales practices, UnitedHealth agreed to stop offering the limited AARP plans.

Mr. Yurdin and his wife say it was not clear that he was liable for tens of thousands of dollars in hospital bills until after he had the first two of what would eventually be four operations. St. David’s says it tried to persuade them to apply for charity care, under which the hospital would absorb much, or all, of the unpaid bills.

But the couple says a lawyer advised them to turn to bankruptcy as the way to be certain they would not be left with too much debt. “I knew we were getting way, way over our heads,” Mrs. Yurdin said.

While Aetna disputes the Yurdins’ and the hospital’s version of events, it also says it has tried to clarify the language it uses to describe the coverage. In its most recent brochure, the fine print describing the limits to “other” hospital services now defines what they are in a footnote on the same page and warns that the excluded expenses could be “significant.”

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, who is also on the Finance Committee, has introduced legislation that would require insurers to be more clear about what they do — and do not — cover. He says he advocates such a change, even if Congress cannot agree to a more sweeping overhaul of the health insurance industry.

But advocates for broad changes to the health care system say Congress can succeed only by making sure health reform goes beyond giving every American a buyer-beware insurance card. One such person is Len Nichols, a health economist for the New America Foundation.

“Conceptually,” he said, “insurance means normal people should not go bankrupt from serious medical conditions.”