NEW LAWS FOR AMERICA presents...............
TEN NEW LAWS WE ARE SUPPORTING TODAY
Focusing on: HEALTH CARE, DEBT FORGIVENESS, AND WORKER’S RIGHTS
New law to follow #1:
Medicare You Can Opt Into Act of 2017
HR. 2045 was Introduced in April 2017 by Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH). This bill would effectively create a Medicare public option.
Medicare actuaries would first calculate a premium for younger ages. Some form of drug coverage would be added to basic Medicare.
Then, anyone who wanted Medicare – with its wide networks, low deductibles, and year-to-year reliability -- could enroll at any time of the year. There would be no underwriting, no experience rating, and no exclusions.
Here is a caution -- the actuarial premium for full Medicare will be at least $800 a month ($9,600 a year). After all, Medicare for seniors now costs over $11,000 annually.
Therefore, any version of this law will need to make full use of the ACA’s premium subsidies --and actually extend them.
As proposed In Sen, Diane Feinstein’s bill S.1307, no American should have to pay more than approximately 9% of their income for health insurance. The ugly “cliff” that now appears at 400% of poverty would disappear.
If a person made $50,000 a year, they would pay no more than $4,500 ($375 a month) for the Medicare public option. If the price of new Medicare was in fact $9,600 a year ($800 a month), then federal subsidies would cover the remaining $5,100.
Medicare will certainly appeal to persons from 55 to 65, who on the whole are treated cruelly by private insurance. There are least 2.5 million of these persons in the individual market today. Even if every single one of them took Medicare, and if the average subsidy was $5,100 each, this would only be $12.5 billion a year in new spending.
(Actually the total spending would be less, because some in this group would have received tax credits under existing ACA law. Also, the persons who take Medicare early could be required to pay more for Part B after they do turn 65.)
TEN NEW LAWS WE ARE SUPPORTING TODAY
Focusing on: HEALTH CARE, DEBT FORGIVENESS, AND WORKER’S RIGHTS
New law to follow #1:
Medicare You Can Opt Into Act of 2017
HR. 2045 was Introduced in April 2017 by Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH). This bill would effectively create a Medicare public option.
Medicare actuaries would first calculate a premium for younger ages. Some form of drug coverage would be added to basic Medicare.
Then, anyone who wanted Medicare – with its wide networks, low deductibles, and year-to-year reliability -- could enroll at any time of the year. There would be no underwriting, no experience rating, and no exclusions.
Here is a caution -- the actuarial premium for full Medicare will be at least $800 a month ($9,600 a year). After all, Medicare for seniors now costs over $11,000 annually.
Therefore, any version of this law will need to make full use of the ACA’s premium subsidies --and actually extend them.
As proposed In Sen, Diane Feinstein’s bill S.1307, no American should have to pay more than approximately 9% of their income for health insurance. The ugly “cliff” that now appears at 400% of poverty would disappear.
If a person made $50,000 a year, they would pay no more than $4,500 ($375 a month) for the Medicare public option. If the price of new Medicare was in fact $9,600 a year ($800 a month), then federal subsidies would cover the remaining $5,100.
Medicare will certainly appeal to persons from 55 to 65, who on the whole are treated cruelly by private insurance. There are least 2.5 million of these persons in the individual market today. Even if every single one of them took Medicare, and if the average subsidy was $5,100 each, this would only be $12.5 billion a year in new spending.
(Actually the total spending would be less, because some in this group would have received tax credits under existing ACA law. Also, the persons who take Medicare early could be required to pay more for Part B after they do turn 65.)
Medicare is under federal control, unlike Medicaid, and thus not subject to the financial pressures of
each state. Health care providers generally accept the Medicare fee schedules.
Medicare also has a dedicated, broad-based tax, which can be raised as needed to cover more citizens.
If Medicare attracts less healthy subscribers, the rates need not go up markedly. The government does not have to break even on premiums. Instead, the tax subsidies will go up. Private insurers will be left in the dust, which is fine with them as they have never liked the individual market.
This bill carries on the spirit of the “Public Option Act” (H.R. 4789) introduced in 2010 by Alan Grayson (D-FL).
It is similar to the Medicare at 55 Act, recently introduced by Sen Debbie Stabenow (, MI) )
In addition, Reps Joe Courtney (CT), John Larson (CT), and Brian Higgins (NY) will shortly be introducing their own Medicare Buy-in Act.)
Current Status:
Referred to committee
Contact the law’s sponsor
https://shea-porter.house.gov/contact/email
For details on the Feinstein bill:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/6/9/1670492/-Dem-Senators-OFFICIALLY-introduce-bill-to-fix- the-single-most-obvious-problem-w-the-ACA
Medicare also has a dedicated, broad-based tax, which can be raised as needed to cover more citizens.
If Medicare attracts less healthy subscribers, the rates need not go up markedly. The government does not have to break even on premiums. Instead, the tax subsidies will go up. Private insurers will be left in the dust, which is fine with them as they have never liked the individual market.
This bill carries on the spirit of the “Public Option Act” (H.R. 4789) introduced in 2010 by Alan Grayson (D-FL).
It is similar to the Medicare at 55 Act, recently introduced by Sen Debbie Stabenow (, MI) )
In addition, Reps Joe Courtney (CT), John Larson (CT), and Brian Higgins (NY) will shortly be introducing their own Medicare Buy-in Act.)
Current Status:
Referred to committee
Contact the law’s sponsor
https://shea-porter.house.gov/contact/email
For details on the Feinstein bill:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/6/9/1670492/-Dem-Senators-OFFICIALLY-introduce-bill-to-fix- the-single-most-obvious-problem-w-the-ACA
New law to follow #2:
Improving Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs Act
Senate bill S.771 was introduced in March 017 by Al Franken, D-MN), Bernie Sanders (D-VT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Bob Casey (D,PA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Amy Klobuchar (DMN), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and 6 other senators.
House bill HR.1245 was introduced in the House by Elijah Cummngs (D-MD) and Lloyd Daggett (D-TX).
The law would require Washington to produce regulations for the widespread importation of drugs from other nations – Canada at first, and any OECD country after two years.
Drugs would have to have the same active ingredient, same route of administration, and same strength as those approved in the USA.
American consumers would no longer be helpless against price-gouging by our pharma industry. Cost control will never really happen until buyers can say no, walk away, and find a near substitute.
Improving Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs Act
Senate bill S.771 was introduced in March 017 by Al Franken, D-MN), Bernie Sanders (D-VT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Bob Casey (D,PA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Amy Klobuchar (DMN), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and 6 other senators.
House bill HR.1245 was introduced in the House by Elijah Cummngs (D-MD) and Lloyd Daggett (D-TX).
The law would require Washington to produce regulations for the widespread importation of drugs from other nations – Canada at first, and any OECD country after two years.
Drugs would have to have the same active ingredient, same route of administration, and same strength as those approved in the USA.
American consumers would no longer be helpless against price-gouging by our pharma industry. Cost control will never really happen until buyers can say no, walk away, and find a near substitute.
For example:
| Medication Name | US Price for 30 days Supply | Canada Average Price | England Price | Spain Price |
| Celebrex (pain) | $330.00 | $51.00 | $112.00 | $164.00 |
| Copaxone (MS) | $3,900.00 | $1,400.00 | $862.00 | $1,191.00 |
| Cymbatta (depression) | $240.00 | $100.00 | $46.00 | $71.00 |
| Enbrel (immune) | $3,000.00 | $1,646.00 | $1,117.00 | $1,386.00 |
| Gleevec (leukemia) | $8,500.00 | $1,141.00 | $2,697.00 | $3,348.00 |
| Humira (arthritis) | $3,049.00 | $1,950.00 | $1,102.00 | $1,498.00 |
The law also contains a $2 billion prize fund for drug innovation. In order to receive prize funds,
recipients must commit to offering their products at a reasonable price.
The law also makes it illegal for brand-name manufacturers to buy off generic producers, so that affordable drugs are kept off the market.
Of course the drug companies will resist. Way back in 2005, the District of Columbia passed a bill that allowed consumers to sue every time an American drug price exceeded OECD prices by more than 30%.
In 2012, Congress authorized US Customs to destroy any drugs obtained from Canadian pharmacies.
The ostensible reason was to protect the public from dangerous counterfeit drugs. However, for the entire previous decade, during which millions of prescriptions were filled, not a single case of an
American being harmed was ever reported.
The pricing of specialty drugs is an ongoing daily outrage. The hepatitis drug Sovaldi was developed in part with grants from the National Institutes of Health. The current seller (Gilead) set the price for
Sovaldi at $100 a pill, even though the cost to manufacture 84 pills is less than $100. Gilead made back its entire initial investment in less than a year, and now is focused on reducing its U.S. taxes by
$10 billion through yet another ‘corporate inversion.’
In many cases, the Canadian or English drugs are the same pills as the ‘American-made’ drugs, produced overseas in plants that have been inspected by the FDA. The only difference is that some of those drugs are shipped to countries with lower prices, and others are sent to the United States for price gouging.
The law also makes it illegal for brand-name manufacturers to buy off generic producers, so that affordable drugs are kept off the market.
Of course the drug companies will resist. Way back in 2005, the District of Columbia passed a bill that allowed consumers to sue every time an American drug price exceeded OECD prices by more than 30%.
In 2012, Congress authorized US Customs to destroy any drugs obtained from Canadian pharmacies.
The ostensible reason was to protect the public from dangerous counterfeit drugs. However, for the entire previous decade, during which millions of prescriptions were filled, not a single case of an
American being harmed was ever reported.
The pricing of specialty drugs is an ongoing daily outrage. The hepatitis drug Sovaldi was developed in part with grants from the National Institutes of Health. The current seller (Gilead) set the price for
Sovaldi at $100 a pill, even though the cost to manufacture 84 pills is less than $100. Gilead made back its entire initial investment in less than a year, and now is focused on reducing its U.S. taxes by
$10 billion through yet another ‘corporate inversion.’
In many cases, the Canadian or English drugs are the same pills as the ‘American-made’ drugs, produced overseas in plants that have been inspected by the FDA. The only difference is that some of those drugs are shipped to countries with lower prices, and others are sent to the United States for price gouging.
Current Status: Referred to Committee
Contact the law’s sponsor: www.franken.senate.gov/?p=contact
New law to follow #3:
House Bill 2339 (Oregon) to regulate balance billing in hospitals
This law was introduced in February 2017 by Oregon’s Gov. Kate Brown.
If a patient unknowingly uses a non-network doctor in a network facility, that doctor cannot send a ‘balance bill’ for more than the insurer will pay.
Any disputed payment has to be settled between the provider and the insurer. Other progressive states are also making progress in this area.
New York and Florida protect the patient from paying more than the network charge, if they had no real choice of doctors. In New York, patients can complete an assignment form that relieves them of financial responsibility. The provider and the insurer can dispute the bill, and leave the patient alone.
Repeated violations of these rules on surprise billing would be an unfair trade practice, with grounds for the revocation of a provider’s license.
California just passed Assembly Bill 72, whereby insurance companies are required to accept patient grievances for suspected inappropriate billing, and have 30 days to resolve the problem.
California’s AB 72 has other strong points, including:
This law was introduced in February 2017 by Oregon’s Gov. Kate Brown.
If a patient unknowingly uses a non-network doctor in a network facility, that doctor cannot send a ‘balance bill’ for more than the insurer will pay.
Any disputed payment has to be settled between the provider and the insurer. Other progressive states are also making progress in this area.
New York and Florida protect the patient from paying more than the network charge, if they had no real choice of doctors. In New York, patients can complete an assignment form that relieves them of financial responsibility. The provider and the insurer can dispute the bill, and leave the patient alone.
Repeated violations of these rules on surprise billing would be an unfair trade practice, with grounds for the revocation of a provider’s license.
California just passed Assembly Bill 72, whereby insurance companies are required to accept patient grievances for suspected inappropriate billing, and have 30 days to resolve the problem.
California’s AB 72 has other strong points, including:
-
It covers non-emergency services as well as ER crises;
-
Doctors cannot send balance bills immediately to collections -- only the in-network cost sharing
amount can be demanded.
-
Doctors and hospitals must refund any balanced-billed charges they have already collected.
Similar bills are pending in Arizona, Georgia, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas and Utah.
In addition, Sen Sherrod Brown has introduced a national balance-billing law called the End Surprise Billing Act (S. 284 ); and Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives. (H.R. 817).
Oregon’s law was signed by the governor and went into effect on June 22, 2017.
Current status:
Oregon’s law was signed by the governor and went into effect on June 22, 2017
Oregon’s law was signed by the governor and went into effect on June 22, 2017
Contact sponsors of the national law:
www.brown.senate.gov/contact/
New law to follow #4:
Discharge Student Loans in Bankruptcy Act
H.R. 2366 was introduced in May 2017 by Rep John Delaney (D, MD) and Rep John Katko (NY).
This would reform federal bankruptcy law to establish parity between student loan debt and other forms of debt. Technically, the bill would strike the student loan exception from Section 523(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code.
The law would be a lifesaver for students who have large loans, but unfortunately cannot get a good job.
Were these students unwise? Did they choose the wrong major? Shouldn’t they have resisted the easy accessibility of loans?
In many cases, the answer is probably yes.
But the whole purpose of bankruptcy law to help a person get over their mistakes, instead of being crushed by them for life
(Of course, a certain President of the United States has benefited six times from declaring bankruptcy.)
Today the only way to discharge a student loan is for ‘undue hardship’ . This is a lengthy, adversarial process costing at least $20,000 to $30,000 in legal fees. (The Department of Education even supplies attorneys to challenge these requests.)
It is important to recognize, however, that powerful people will lose money if loans are forgiven in this manner.
This includes the collection companies, the Wall Street loan securitizers, and the federal Department of Education.
No sympathy is needed for the collectors and investors. They are financial parasites, fastening on the misery of a generation.
Those who create securitized student loans (SLABs) expect the state to discipline student debtors, so that they make their payments on time. Private collection agencies are eager to cash in on commissions and special collection fees. (Example: When a loan defaults, the borrower must pay an extra 16% of the balance to guarantors and servicers, just to restart regular payments.)
These collectors can be vicious: attaching Social Security benefits, disability payments, and the income of any relatives who co-signed for the loans. Many debtors are too embarrassed or humiliated even to to tell friends and family about their debts, much less join a strike or a grassroots reform effort.
The Department of Education –i.e. the federal government -- is on the hook for over $1 trillion of loan guarantees. The government will take a financial loss from easier bankruptcies.
Discharge Student Loans in Bankruptcy Act
H.R. 2366 was introduced in May 2017 by Rep John Delaney (D, MD) and Rep John Katko (NY).
This would reform federal bankruptcy law to establish parity between student loan debt and other forms of debt. Technically, the bill would strike the student loan exception from Section 523(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code.
The law would be a lifesaver for students who have large loans, but unfortunately cannot get a good job.
Were these students unwise? Did they choose the wrong major? Shouldn’t they have resisted the easy accessibility of loans?
In many cases, the answer is probably yes.
But the whole purpose of bankruptcy law to help a person get over their mistakes, instead of being crushed by them for life
(Of course, a certain President of the United States has benefited six times from declaring bankruptcy.)
Today the only way to discharge a student loan is for ‘undue hardship’ . This is a lengthy, adversarial process costing at least $20,000 to $30,000 in legal fees. (The Department of Education even supplies attorneys to challenge these requests.)
It is important to recognize, however, that powerful people will lose money if loans are forgiven in this manner.
This includes the collection companies, the Wall Street loan securitizers, and the federal Department of Education.
No sympathy is needed for the collectors and investors. They are financial parasites, fastening on the misery of a generation.
Those who create securitized student loans (SLABs) expect the state to discipline student debtors, so that they make their payments on time. Private collection agencies are eager to cash in on commissions and special collection fees. (Example: When a loan defaults, the borrower must pay an extra 16% of the balance to guarantors and servicers, just to restart regular payments.)
These collectors can be vicious: attaching Social Security benefits, disability payments, and the income of any relatives who co-signed for the loans. Many debtors are too embarrassed or humiliated even to to tell friends and family about their debts, much less join a strike or a grassroots reform effort.
The Department of Education –i.e. the federal government -- is on the hook for over $1 trillion of loan guarantees. The government will take a financial loss from easier bankruptcies.
Today there are about 8 million borrowers in default, with total guaranteed balances exceeding $137 billion.
But even if all these loans end up being cancelled, that is frankly a ‘bailout’ cost we have to accept.
(We readily paid much more than $137 billion to large banks during the 2008 financial crisis.)
We must also realize that future student loans will be harder to get if this law passes. Lenders will become reluctant to lend to students with unfashionable majors and no wealthy parents.
Therefore we must be ready to make more public colleges free, and to insist that education be funded with grants rather than loans. (see New Law #6 in this issue.)
(This bill continues the effort of the Fairness for Struggling Students Act of 2015, sponsored bu the Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, Al Franken, Richard Blumenthal, Patty Murray, Jack Reed, Elziabeth Warren, Ron Wyden, Tim Kaine, Brian Schatz, Kirsten Gillebrand, and Mazie Hirono.)
Current Status:
Referred to Committee
Contact the Sponsors
https://delaney.house.gov/contact https://katko.house.gov/contact/email
New law to follow #5
Relief for Underwater Student Borrowers Act
H.R. 5239 was introduced in July 2014 by Reps Mark Pocan (D, WI) and Frederica Wilson (D-FL). (A very similar bill -H.R. 5617- was introduced in July 2016 by the same legislators.)
Under this law, the borrowers who have their loan balances forgiven ---after diligent, consistent repayment --- would be exempt from income taxes on the amount forgiven. (no matter when they started their repayment program.)
This law would assist the millions of students who do not intend to declare bankruptcy. However, they face large taxes when they complete income-based repayment programs.
In many of these repayment programs, the actual loan balances will grow even while payments are made, especially if the student earns a modest income. The amounts forgiven after 10 or 15 years will be substantial, and so will the potential income taxes.
However, tax forgiveness is just part of accepting that student loans have been a destructive policy.
Relying on loans to pay for a public good like education is not a natural phenomenon
Public goods should be financed from the state through taxes. Germany recently made tuition free at public universities, saying that “anything less would be unjust.” We can do something close to the same.
Current Status:
Referred to Committee
Contact the law’s sponsors:
https://pocan.house.gov/contact https://wilson.house.gov/contact
New law to follow #6:
The College for All Act of 2017
Senate bill S.806 was Introduced on March 2017 by Sen Bernie Sanders. This bill provides at least $41 billion a year, mainly from a new financial transactions tax, in order to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public colleges and universities.
House bill HR. 1880 was introduced by Jayapal Primila (D, WA).
Students from any family making less than $125,000 could go to a university with no tuition.
In addition -- All students regardless of income could attend community college for free.
Pell grants would remain, but they could be used for living costs since tuition will be free.
Work ̈study programs would also be expanded, so that students are not taking loans just for living expenses.
These bills are not perfect right now. We are skeptical that $41 billion can be raised so easily from
Wall Street, or that $41 billion would be enough to make places like Berkeley free of change. We are also skeptical that all states will pay their share of funding under this bill. And frankly, we are uncomfortable with taxpayers supporting the bloated staffs and salaries at some universities.
For much less tax money, we could at least make vocational schools free. These fine institutions help many students to get good jobs, especially adults who are changing careers. We can also fund apprenticeships much more than is done today.
It is amazing that we ignore the great success of the GI Bill after World War II. This was probably the most economically productive and job-stimulating program in American history, and it certainly did not rely on loans. The recipients not only paid no tuition – they were paid a stipend to go to school, just as in Denmark today.
Current Status
Referred to committee
Contact the sponsors:
www.sanders.senate.gov/contact/
https://jayapal.house.gov/contact
New law to follow #7:
Wage and Garnishment Equity Act of 2016
HR 5664 was introduced on July 2016 by Sen Jeff Merkley ( and Rep Elijah Cummings ( It would limit the access of debt collectors to paychecks or bank accounts.
HR 5664 was introduced on July 2016 by Sen Jeff Merkley ( and Rep Elijah Cummings ( It would limit the access of debt collectors to paychecks or bank accounts.
-
Workers making less than $580 per week would be totally exempted from any garnishment.
-
For others, the maximum garnishment rate would be reduced to 15%.
-
Bank accounts would be completely protected. (Right now, debt collectors can wait until a
paycheck is deposited into a bank account, and then swoop down and confiscate the entire account.)
We would like to see this law actually expanded.
- Lawsuits for debt collection should be limited to debts with a principal over $5,000.
- Attorney fees on collector lawsuits must be limited. The kind of attorneys who sue small, poor consumers deserve no respect whatsoever.
- Also, there should be no interest charged or extra penalties on judgment amounts.
Current Status:
Referred to committee
Contact the sponsors: http://www.merkley.senate.gov/contact/ https://cummings.house.gov/contact
Referred to committee
Contact the sponsors: http://www.merkley.senate.gov/contact/ https://cummings.house.gov/contact
New law to follow #7:
Workplace Action for a Growing Economy Act
S. 2042 was introduced by Sen Patty Murray in 2015.
This law would amend the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to increase workers’ rights, as follows:
Workplace Action for a Growing Economy Act
S. 2042 was introduced by Sen Patty Murray in 2015.
This law would amend the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to increase workers’ rights, as follows:
-
Triple the back pay for workers who are fired or retaliated against because they engaged in
collective actions;
-
Provide for federal court injunctions to immediately return fired workers to their jobs
-
Ensure that the employer that actually controls wages is jointly responsible for violations caused
by their franchisees.
This law should be supplemented by a vast increase in the right of workers to sue for wage theft; plus, the re-creation of the Legal Services Corporation to assist them for free.
If we cannot have strong unions, we can at least make it much easier to harass low-road employers.
Current Status:
Contact the sponsors:
http://www.murray.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contactme
New law to follow #8:
Austin’s Better Building Program
This is not a law, but an excellent model program.
In Austin, a construction firm may get favorable treatment in any bidding for construction work if it does the following:
Austin’s Better Building Program
This is not a law, but an excellent model program.
In Austin, a construction firm may get favorable treatment in any bidding for construction work if it does the following:
-
Pays a living wage of $13.50, or the prevailing wage, if higher
-
Covers all employees with workers compensation insurance
-
Offers paid time off and health insurance
-
Affirms the right of their employees to join unions
-
Allows a monitor on site to speak with workers
Since 2014, this program has helped over 14,000 worker obtain better benefits.
It is vital that we support high road employers. One method is a series of Model Executive Orders, which give progressive firms an automatic advantage when bidding on government work of any kind.
We should also look for ways to penalize low-road employers. For example, a restaurant that commits wage theft should have their health permits revoked.
We do not make enough use of publicity against bad employers. In a recent survey, 75% of Austin residents said they would not go to a restaurant or stay in a hotel if they knew that the firm had violated labor laws.
Of course in the long run there is no substitute for unions. Governments would help the union cause immeasurably if non-union firms were barred from any federal, state, or local contracts.
If governments gave no contracts to firms that send jobs abroad; authorized that no travel dollars were spent at hotels and restaurants that exploit their workers; and funded no research in colleges that underpay their adjuncts....these would be giant steps towards improving worker’s rights.
Current Status:
It is vital that we support high road employers. One method is a series of Model Executive Orders, which give progressive firms an automatic advantage when bidding on government work of any kind.
We should also look for ways to penalize low-road employers. For example, a restaurant that commits wage theft should have their health permits revoked.
We do not make enough use of publicity against bad employers. In a recent survey, 75% of Austin residents said they would not go to a restaurant or stay in a hotel if they knew that the firm had violated labor laws.
Of course in the long run there is no substitute for unions. Governments would help the union cause immeasurably if non-union firms were barred from any federal, state, or local contracts.
If governments gave no contracts to firms that send jobs abroad; authorized that no travel dollars were spent at hotels and restaurants that exploit their workers; and funded no research in colleges that underpay their adjuncts....these would be giant steps towards improving worker’s rights.
Current Status:
Contact the sponsors:
http://www.workersdefense.org/
New Law to Follow #9
Paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance Act HR. 3087
Under an Oregon bill introduced by Reps. Jennifer Williamson and Diego Hernandez, the state would impose a very small payroll tax to pay for this benefit. Half a percent of every worker’s pay would be routed to the fund, and employers would match the amount. A worker making $40,000 a year would bring home $16.67 less per month.
Employees who go on leave would be paid over 80 per cent of their wages. For childbirth, paid leave would last up to 18 weeks.
(Canada, France, Germany, Norway, and Japan all offer family leave for six months to a year, with payments of 55 per cent to 100 per cent of salary.)
It is important that the burden of paying for this is spread across all firms and workers. In that way, employers will not need to discriminate against young mothers or those with elderly dependents.
There need be no exemptions for small businesses, any more than small businesses are exempt from paying Social Security taxes.
A number of states have offered unpaid leave, and for larger companies only, for some time.
But New York, Rhode Island, and California have already passed universal paid leave bills. This must spread further.
Paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance Act HR. 3087
Under an Oregon bill introduced by Reps. Jennifer Williamson and Diego Hernandez, the state would impose a very small payroll tax to pay for this benefit. Half a percent of every worker’s pay would be routed to the fund, and employers would match the amount. A worker making $40,000 a year would bring home $16.67 less per month.
Employees who go on leave would be paid over 80 per cent of their wages. For childbirth, paid leave would last up to 18 weeks.
(Canada, France, Germany, Norway, and Japan all offer family leave for six months to a year, with payments of 55 per cent to 100 per cent of salary.)
It is important that the burden of paying for this is spread across all firms and workers. In that way, employers will not need to discriminate against young mothers or those with elderly dependents.
There need be no exemptions for small businesses, any more than small businesses are exempt from paying Social Security taxes.
A number of states have offered unpaid leave, and for larger companies only, for some time.
But New York, Rhode Island, and California have already passed universal paid leave bills. This must spread further.
Current Status:
Contact the sponsors:
Rep.JenniferWilliamson@oregonlegislature.gov
Rep.DiegoHernandez@oregonlegislature.gov
New law to follow #10:
Ban the Box and Fair-Chance programs
These laws remove the “box” on job applications, which asks about arrest histories before any other information is provided. This discourages many employers from even considering an otherwise qualified candidate.
Currently, 27 states and 150 cities have adopted some form of ‘Ban the Box.’ Large businesses including Target, Walmart, Starbucks, and even Koch industries either ask no questions, or only inquire about recent convictions. Background checks are only ordered later in the job review process.
However, given the catastrophe of mass incarceration -- especially from the hideous War on Drugs -- more reforms are needed.
We can start with the automatic sealing of juvenile arrest records (now the standard practice in Connecticut and Pennsylvania)
We should require employers to perform a brief ‘case by case review’, for any applicant with a record. This would consider:
Ban the Box and Fair-Chance programs
These laws remove the “box” on job applications, which asks about arrest histories before any other information is provided. This discourages many employers from even considering an otherwise qualified candidate.
Currently, 27 states and 150 cities have adopted some form of ‘Ban the Box.’ Large businesses including Target, Walmart, Starbucks, and even Koch industries either ask no questions, or only inquire about recent convictions. Background checks are only ordered later in the job review process.
However, given the catastrophe of mass incarceration -- especially from the hideous War on Drugs -- more reforms are needed.
We can start with the automatic sealing of juvenile arrest records (now the standard practice in Connecticut and Pennsylvania)
We should require employers to perform a brief ‘case by case review’, for any applicant with a record. This would consider:
- The age when convicted
- The gravity of the offense
- Whether the offense is related to the position
EXTRA FEATURE......................
‘ASPIRATIONAL LAWS’
The following are statutes which do not have current sponsors – but laws like these should be promoted, drafted, and enacted.
1. Creating Specialized Health Courts
Anyone who feels they were overcharged could receive a hearing on their grievance.
The courts will be staffed by physicians and judges. All court costs will be paid by the federal government, probably about $500 million a year, and the patient will not need an attorney.
The courts will have authority to reduce or even cancel medical bills. Here are the types of bills that can be challenged:
The following are statutes which do not have current sponsors – but laws like these should be promoted, drafted, and enacted.
1. Creating Specialized Health Courts
Anyone who feels they were overcharged could receive a hearing on their grievance.
The courts will be staffed by physicians and judges. All court costs will be paid by the federal government, probably about $500 million a year, and the patient will not need an attorney.
The courts will have authority to reduce or even cancel medical bills. Here are the types of bills that can be challenged:
-
Double charges for anesthesiology (by the nurse-anesthetist and the anesthesiologist)
-
Separate hospital bills for medical supplies such as oxygen and cardiac monitors (that are part
of standard equipment in any ICU)
-
Extra billings for ‘facility fees’ (where a doctor charges extra because his office is considered part
of a hospital)
-
Padded bills for basic lab tests – i.e. $350 for a blood profile that can be purchased for $31 in
any free-standing private lab. Often the doctor’s testing machine will be paid for in less than a
year of normal usage, and everything after that is pure profit.
-
Outlandish charges for diagnostics -- i.e. $5000 for an echocardiogram that costs $350 to cash
buyers, and for which Medicare reimburses $275.
-
$50,000 in charges for an air ambulance trip that only costs $7,000.
-
$4,000 for a drug infusion that costs $750 in Italy or Britain.
-
$35,000 for an artificial knee, that costs about $700 to produce in labor and materials
Please note: A patient can go to Health Court even if they are insured.
For example, if your insurer approved $5000 for an echocardiogram, and this left you with a bill for $4000 after your deductible and coinsurance, you may still have a grievance.
The hearings in these courts will be in the public record. Hospitals and doctors will hopefully stop some of their price gouging voluntarily, just to avoid the (well-deserved) bad publicity.
2. Adopting German labor law.
This would entail a series of national, statutory protections applying to all American firms -- large and
small, union and non-union.
These new labor standards would effectively become civil rights. Germany’s labor codes state the following:
For example, if your insurer approved $5000 for an echocardiogram, and this left you with a bill for $4000 after your deductible and coinsurance, you may still have a grievance.
The hearings in these courts will be in the public record. Hospitals and doctors will hopefully stop some of their price gouging voluntarily, just to avoid the (well-deserved) bad publicity.
2. Adopting German labor law.
This would entail a series of national, statutory protections applying to all American firms -- large and
small, union and non-union.
These new labor standards would effectively become civil rights. Germany’s labor codes state the following:
-
In Germany, there is no such thing as “employment at will”. By law, German employees must have written employment contracts
that reflect the key aspects of the employment relationship
-
German labor and employment law grants a statutory claim for 20 working days’ vacation per calendar year for employees
who work a normal five-day week (i.e., four weeks’ vacation
-
German labor and employment law requires the continuation of full salary payments for a period of six weeks in case of sickness
of an employee (under certain circumstances, the employer has to continue payments for up to 12 weeks).
-
Female employees are entitled to full paid maternity leave (starting no later than six weeks before the expected due date—
depending on the mother’s and baby’s health situation and the work performed by the woman—and ending eight weeks after
childbirth). .
-
All employees, both male and female, are entitled to a maximum of three years’ parental leave per child. During this period the
employer is not obliged to make any payments to the employee. However, the employer may not terminate the employee.
-
German employment termination law is regulated by various codes and is intended to give the employee maximum protection
against unfair dismissal. The employer has to give a written notice of termination to the employee.
-
If a company engages in a mass layoff (which is deemed to occur when the employer intends to dismiss a large percentage of its
employees during a one-month period) prior approval by unions and the national employment office is required.
The insults that American workers take for granted are often prohibited in Germany.
For example: After the brewer Heineken outsourced cafeteria services, the winning contractor promptly cut wages by more than half. Local courts then prosecuted Heineken, which restored full wages and made back payments to the workers who lost the most income.
For example: The European Court of Justice recently ruled that the time spent commuting to work must count toward the paid eight-hour day.
Faced with the equivalent of German labor law, American employers would just have to adapt.
Even now, American firms conform to such labor laws all the time when they open factories in northern Europe.
The American cheap labor party –(aka the Republicans) – has predicted the onset of dire, terrible crises with the enactment of every social reform.
They predicted disaster when we ended child labor, established the eight hour day, allowed female voting, passed the Civil Rights Acts, and funded Social Security and Medicare. They have been proven wrong every time, of course.
Decent employers will make peace with new workers’ rights --maybe not cheerfully or immediately --but within a few years. As for the stingiest, most predatory employers.....we must make sure they are a tiny minority. The most exploitative industries in America-- food, retail, construction, agriculture-- will not change overnight ---but they will improve if the pressure is endless.
Workers in other nations did not get paid vacations, decent pensions, and social services because they were exceptionally productive. They demanded these benefits no matter what, and they got them.
For example: After the brewer Heineken outsourced cafeteria services, the winning contractor promptly cut wages by more than half. Local courts then prosecuted Heineken, which restored full wages and made back payments to the workers who lost the most income.
For example: The European Court of Justice recently ruled that the time spent commuting to work must count toward the paid eight-hour day.
Faced with the equivalent of German labor law, American employers would just have to adapt.
Even now, American firms conform to such labor laws all the time when they open factories in northern Europe.
The American cheap labor party –(aka the Republicans) – has predicted the onset of dire, terrible crises with the enactment of every social reform.
They predicted disaster when we ended child labor, established the eight hour day, allowed female voting, passed the Civil Rights Acts, and funded Social Security and Medicare. They have been proven wrong every time, of course.
Decent employers will make peace with new workers’ rights --maybe not cheerfully or immediately --but within a few years. As for the stingiest, most predatory employers.....we must make sure they are a tiny minority. The most exploitative industries in America-- food, retail, construction, agriculture-- will not change overnight ---but they will improve if the pressure is endless.
Workers in other nations did not get paid vacations, decent pensions, and social services because they were exceptionally productive. They demanded these benefits no matter what, and they got them.
HOW YOU CAN HELP
New Laws for America is a website that is dedicated to promoting progressive reforms. To be honest, we liberals are quite a bit behind the right wing in this regard.
Conservatives actually use three well-funded networks to promote new laws year in and year out:
You are welcome to reprint any documents or articles from New Laws for America.
Also, you may be interested in having New Laws for America as a regular column on your website or in your newsletter. Each column could highlight one or two new laws in the public sphere.
Please contact:
Bob Hertz
Bob.hertz@frontiernet.net
newlawsforamerica.blogspot.com
New Laws for America is a website that is dedicated to promoting progressive reforms. To be honest, we liberals are quite a bit behind the right wing in this regard.
Conservatives actually use three well-funded networks to promote new laws year in and year out:
-
The State Policy Network, which spews out studies on right-to-work laws, pre-emption laws,
anti-consumer laws, anti-environmental laws, et al;
- The Americans for Prosperity staffers, who run radio and TV ads and spur activists to contact legislators;
- The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which prepares model bills, offers staff help to legislators, and arranges contacts with lobbyists.
You are welcome to reprint any documents or articles from New Laws for America.
Also, you may be interested in having New Laws for America as a regular column on your website or in your newsletter. Each column could highlight one or two new laws in the public sphere.
Please contact:
Bob Hertz
Bob.hertz@frontiernet.net
newlawsforamerica.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment