By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - It sounds like a silver lining. Even if the Supreme Court overturns President Barack Obama's health care law, employers can keep offering popular coverage for the young adult children of their workers.
But here's the catch: The parents' taxes would go up.
That's only one of the messy potential ripple effects when the Supreme Court delivers its verdict on the Affordable Care Act this month. The law affects most major components of the U.S. health care system in its effort to extend coverage to millions of uninsured people.
Because the legislation is so complicated, an orderly unwinding would prove difficult if it were overturned entirely or in part.
Better Medicare prescription benefits, currently saving hundreds of dollars for older people with high drug costs, would be suspended. Ditto for preventive care with no co-payments, now available to retirees and working families alike.
Partially overturning the law could leave hospitals, insurers and other service providers on the hook for tax increases and spending cuts without the law's promise of more paying customers to offset losses.
If the law is upheld, other kinds of complications could result.
The nation is so divided that states led by Republicans are largely unprepared to carry out critical requirements such as creating insurance markets. Things may not settle down.
"At the end of the day, I don't think any of the major players in the health insurance industry or the provider community really wants to see the whole thing overturned," said Christine Ferguson, a health policy expert who was commissioner of public health in Massachusetts when Mitt Romney was governor.
"Even though this is not the most ideal solution, at least it is moving us forward, and it does infuse some money into the system for coverage," said Ferguson, now at George Washington University. As the GOP presidential candidate, Romney has pledged to wipe Obama's law off the books. But he defends his Massachusetts law that served as a prototype for Obama's.
While it's unclear how the justices will rule, oral arguments did not go well for the Obama administration. The central issue is whether the government can require individuals to have health insurance and fine them if they don't.
That mandate takes effect in 2014, at the same time that the law would prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage to people with existing health problems. Most experts say the coverage guarantee would balloon costs unless virtually all people joined the insurance pool.
Opponents say Congress overstepped its constitutional authority by issuing the insurance mandate. The administration says the requirement is permissible because it serves to regulate interstate commerce. Most people already are insured. The law provides subsidies to help uninsured middle-class households pay premiums and expands Medicaid to pick up more low-income people.
The coverage for young adults up to age 26 on a parent's health insurance is a popular provision that no one's arguing about. A report last week from the Commonwealth Fund estimated that 6.6 million young adults have taken advantage of the benefit, while a new Gallup survey showed the uninsured rate for people age 18-25 continues to decline, down to 23 percent from 28 percent when the law took effect.
Families will be watching to see if their 20-somethings transitioning to the work world will get to keep that newfound security.
Because the benefit is a winner with consumers, experts say many employers and insurers would look for ways to keep offering it even if there's no legal requirement to do so. On Monday, UnitedHealth Group Inc., the nation's largest insurer, is announcing that it will continue to offer coverage to young adults even if the health care law is struck down.
But economist Paul Fronstin of the Employee Benefit Research Institute says many parents would pay higher taxes as a result because they would have to pay for the young adult's coverage with after-tax dollars. Under the health care law, that coverage now comes out of pre-tax dollars.
Fronstin says there's no way to tell exactly how much that tax increase might be, but a couple of hundred dollars a year or more is a reasonable ballpark estimate. Upper-income taxpayers would have a greater liability.
"Adult children aren't necessarily dependents for tax purposes, but an employer can allow anyone to be on a plan, just like they now allow domestic partners," said Fronstin. "If your employer said, 'I'm going to let you keep this,' it would become a taxable benefit for certain people."
Advocates for the elderly are also worried about untoward ripple effects.
If the entire law is overturned, seniors with high prescription costs in Medicare's "donut hole" coverage gap could lose annual discounts averaging about $600. AARP policy director David Certner says he would hope the discounts could remain in place at least through the end of this year.
Yet that might not be possible. Lacking legal authority, Medicare would have to take away the discounts. Drugmakers, now bearing the cost, could decide they want to keep offering discounts voluntarily. But then they'd risk running afoul of other federal rules that bar medical providers from offering financial inducements to Medicare recipients.
"I don't think anyone has any idea," said Certner.
A mixed verdict from the high court would be the most confusing outcome. Some parts of the law would be struck down while others lurch ahead.
That kind of result would seem to call for Congress to step in and smooth any necessary adjustments. Yet partisan divisions on Capitol Hill are so intense that hardly anyone sees a chance that would happen this year.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Source: www.msnbc.msn.com
Libel law reform could aid websites - The Guardian
Major reforms of the libel laws will see a duty placed on internet service providers to try to identify those posting defamatory messages without victims needing to resort to costly legal action.
The Defamation Bill, which will be debated in the Commons, will also see would-be claimants having to show they have suffered serious harm to their reputations, or are likely to do so, before they can take a defamation case forward.
Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke said: "As the law stands, individuals can be the subject of scurrilous rumour and allegation on the web with little meaningful remedy against the person responsible. Website operators are in principle liable as publishers for everything that appears on their sites, even though the content is often determined by users.
"But most operators are not in a position to know whether the material posted is defamatory or not and very often - faced with a complaint - they will immediately remove material. Our proposed approach will mean that website operators have a defence against libel as long as they comply with a procedure to help identify the authors of allegedly defamatory material."
He went on: "The Government wants a libel regime for the internet that makes it possible for people to protect their reputations effectively but also ensures that information online can't be easily censored by casual threats of litigation against website operators. It will be very important to ensure that these measures do not inadvertently expose genuine whistleblowers, and we are committed to getting the detail right to minimise this risk."
It comes after an internet troll who sent a threatening email to a Conservative MP was banned last week from contacting a host of celebrities. Frank Zimmerman narrowly escaped jail when a district judge suspended a 26-week prison sentence for two years after he sent an offensive email to Corby MP Louise Mensch.
The Bill will also introduce a single-publication rule, so that the one-year limitation period in which a libel action can be brought would run from the date of the first publication of material, even if the same article is subsequently published on a website on a later date.
The reform is intended to end the current situation by which material in online archives is regarded as being republished every time it is downloaded which, in effect, leaves the archive operator with a limitless risk of being sued.
The Bill will also replace the common law defences of justification and honest comment with new statutory defences of truth and honest opinion. The so-called Reynolds defence of responsible journalism published in the public interest also gets statutory recognition, as responsible publication on a matter of public interest.
Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2012, All Rights Reserved.
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Essex County rugby team wins state title - Newburyport Daily News
Rugby
Mass. Rugby Organization
The Essex County Bulldogs Rugby Football Club claimed the Massachusetts Rugby Organization's state championship with a 14-13 win over the defending champion Berkshire United Rugby Football Club Saturday in Pittsfield.
In 2008 the Bulldogs had just 22 kids playing flag rugby against each other. By 2010, they fielded a U19 team and began competing against other programs across Massachusetts.
Last season the Bulldogs lost their first match of the season to Berkshire by more than 40 points. That season, they improved enough to earn a berth in last year's state tournament, advancing to the finals versus Berkshire. The Essex County club was within 20 seconds of claiming last year's state championship. Berkshire scored in the final minute, winning the title 17-12.
Earlier this year, both teams met up again at Amesbury Sports Park in a regular-season match that ended in a 20-20 tie. After that match, the Bulldogs were perfect, scoring over 170 points against Seacoast RFC, Portland Maine and Arlington Catholic High School. Meanwhile, Berkshire did equally well.
Going into the state finals last weekend, the Bulldogs and Berkshire were ranked number one and two, respectively.
Led by coaches Dave Hill, Chip Lynch, Joe Stanley and Dennis Donnovan, the Bulldogs scored five times, including one successful try each from Amesbury's Matt Bell and Masconomet's MacKenzie Cashin, topping Worcester RFC in the semifinal by a score of 29-11.
On the opposite field, the speedy Berkshire club ran past the Springfield Rifles RFC, posting a 29-0 shutout, leading to a rematch of last year's championship.
In the final, Berkshire jumped out to a 5-0 lead on the first drive of the match, before Amesbury's Connor Norton pushed the ball in for the Bulldogs. Masco's Andrew Swimm gave the Bulldogs the 7-5 lead with the two-point goal kick after the try. Late in the first half, Berkshire's speedy backfield outran the Bulldog defenders for another try, and then added another three points with a goal kick to close the half.
The second half became a defensive grind with neither team giving much ground until the Bulldogs pushed the ball down the field in the final minute of the match. With 22 seconds left, Norton got his second try of the match, and Swimm nailed a tough goal kick to give Essex County a one-point lead. A frantic push by Berkshire was defended by the Bulldogs, giving them the championship.
Post 150 Junior Legion Baseball
Newburyport 5, Gloucester 4
Evan Habib pitched four innings, allowing six hits for Newburyport. He had six strikeouts. Tim Englehart pitched the final three innings, allowing one run on two hits. He had three strikeouts. Justin Snyder was 2 for 2 with a home run. Leighton Paradis was 1 for 3 with two RBIs.
Source: www.newburyportnews.com
Essex: Police to star in documentary - essexcountystandard.co.uk
Essex: Police to star in documentary
8:00am Tuesday 12th June 2012 in Countywide news
A new television series following Essex Police as they combat crime around the county is currently being filmed.
Police enforcers is a six part Channel 5 documentary focusing on the county’s strategic operations unit as they respond to emergencies.
It will be presented by former detective and BBC Crimewatch star Ray Wilding.
Chris Lane, spokesman for the force, said: “We want to show the county’s taxpayers they are getting value for money from a police force which is active and effective.
“To show we respond to intelligence from the public which we are totally reliant on and show officers put themselves on the line.
“Police in Essex are involved at the cutting edge and have to take risks and face danger.
“We want to show we do this professionally and appropriately using a range of resources and are happy to take the lead for the benefit of residents.”
The show will first air on July 9 at 8pm and run weekly.
The specialist team are called to incidents where extra officers are needed.
It may be to help on raids, executing warrants or stopping drug supply. It can involve traffic related problems, organised crime and a whole host of other duties involving putting officers on the line.
Filming is expected to last for another six weeks.
Source: www.essexcountystandard.co.uk
Comment now! Register or sign in below.
Or