Courts may not get last word in health care fight...
    Opponents of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law are a cheering a federal court ruling that one of its core provisions is unconstitutional. They may not realize that Obama has a fallback option that also could do the job.
    Even if the Supreme Court ultimately agrees that government cannot require individuals to carry health coverage, the Obama administration could borrow a strategy that Medicare has used for decades to compel consumers to join new insurance groups.
    Medicare's coverage for doctor visits is voluntary and carries a separate premium, yet more than nine in 10 older people sign up. The reason is simple: Those who opt out when they first become eligible face a lifelong penalty that escalates the longer they wait.
    The same kind of penalty could be incorporated into the health care overhaul to replace its current mandate that all those who can afford a policy must get one. It would be a stiff nudge to enroll healthy people who are potentially reluctant. That's needed to help keep premiums affordable because the law takes away the ability of insurers to turn away sick people. Even if the approach doesn't work as well as for Medicare, it could provide a strong incentive.
    "It wouldn't be a nirvana solution," said health policy consultant Chris Jennings, but "it's better than nothing." A Democrat, Jennings served as a senior health care adviser to President Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 1990s when they unsuccessfully pushed for coverage for all. Jennings believes the law as written would cover more people for a lower cost, but says "it would be irresponsible not to try an alternative" if the courts reject it. Other prominent experts say Medicare's way could be more effective.
    That's because the fines that back up the health care law are relatively low. When the individual coverage requirement takes effect in 2014 many people might still come out ahead by ignoring it. The fines they'd face could be lower than the premiums they would have to pay. The White House says the law will be vindicated and there's no need for a fallback plan. Nonetheless, the decision by U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson, a Republican appointee in Richmond, Va., was the first successful challenge to the new law. Hudson ruled that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce by requiring individuals to obtain health insurance, whether through an employer, a government program or by purchasing their own policy.
    Hudson denied the Virginia attorney general's request to strike down the law in its entirety or block it from going into place while the administration appeals. It could take a couple of years for the case to reach the Supreme Court. Democrats were late to accept the idea of an individual health insurance requirement — one of the law's least popular provisions. Most liberals still favor a government-run plan modeled on Medicare.
    Requiring individual responsibility was the GOP alternative during the 1990s health care debate. Most Republicans have now abandoned it as big government intrusion, but Wilensky says she has no problems with the concept. "As a society, we have made a commitment not to let people die in the street because of lack of medical care," she said, noting that hospital emergency rooms have to accept the uninsured. "It's not unreasonable to say that people be required to carry some sort of coverage."
    The individual requirement got a boost when Massachusetts enacted it in 2006, after a compromise between then-Republican Gov. Mitt Romney and Democratic state legislators. The idea rests on basic economics: Insurance works best when everybody contributes to the pool. You can't get fire insurance after your house has burned down. As a presidential candidate, Obama opposed the individual requirement as too costly for the average household. He embraced it after it became the only approach that could pass both the House and Senate. The legislation also provides tax credits to make premiums more affordable.
    If Obama has to switch to Medicare's approach, there's one caveat: It may not work as well with younger people. "Sixty-five-year-olds are more risk averse than younger people," said Jennings. "If you are 65, you are not going to take the risk of being uninsured for a year. Someone who is 24, 28, or 32, would be more likely to take that risk. "Without any coverage mandate — or penalties such as the ones Medicare imposes — the new law would cover only about half the more than 30 million who'd otherwise get insurance. According to congressional budget experts, premiums would be as much as 20 percent higher because healthier people would tend to stay away.

Redistricting Looms Large in Congress...
Submitted January 1st, 2011 by,
Representative Dennis J. Kucinich
By MICHAEL COOPER and SABRINA TAVERNISE
    The political jockeying over how to draw new Congressional districts began in earnest this week after new census data showed almost a dozen seats shifting to the South and West, leaving Republicans poised to build on their gains from November’s midterm elections and forcing several northern Democratic incumbents to begin plotting to save their jobs.
    Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, a Democrat from Ohio, may lose his seat when Republicans redraw the state’s districts. The biggest immediate danger to incumbent Democrats will be in the Rust Belt, where Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio are all losing Congressional seats and Republicans now control the state governments, giving them the power to draw the new political maps. Politicians liken this process to a game of musical chairs, wondering who will be left without a seat. With Ohio losing two seats, political analysts expect the Republicans to eliminate a Democratic seat from the Cleveland area — possibly the one now held by Representative Dennis J. Kucinich.
    “My Aunt Betty called me after the news report, and she says, ‘Dennis, what are we going to do — are they putting you out of Congress?’ ” Mr. Kucinich said in an interview, explaining that he would try not to worry about it right now, since it is beyond his control. But he added that “the fundamental rule of politics is you have to have a district to run.” Republicans, meanwhile, are preparing for the more enviable task of drawing up new Congressional districts in states where they are strong. Their victories in statehouse elections gave them control of redistricting in five of the eight states that are gaining seats, including the two biggest winners, Texas, which is adding four, and Florida, which is adding two. That has made Don Gaetz, the chairman of the Florida State Senate’s Reapportionment Committee, a popular man. There was the friendly hug he got from a member of Congress, who offered that his district’s current lines were just fine, and the ambitious fellow lawmaker who sidled up to him at a meeting, saying that he had a great idea for a possible district.
    “I’m just a lowly state senator from the panhandle of Florida, but I have all sorts of new friends,” Mr. Gaetz marveled. “Members of Congress who didn’t know I existed, and people who would like to be in Congress who I didn’t know existed.” The next step comes in February, when the Census Bureau will begin releasing detailed local demographic data, allowing the actual redrawing of districts to begin. In states losing Democratic seats, this will be the moment party elders start asking veteran lawmakers if they might like to retire, and younger lawmakers if they might want to seek other offices or accept comfortable positions somewhere else. This will also be the moment that tenacious Democrats quietly commission polls to see how they might fare against their ostensible Democratic allies.
    Some of this is already beginning to play out in Massachusetts, where the all-Democratic House delegation will shrink to 9 seats from 10. Even before the demographic data, which will give officials a better idea of which districts might be merged, is in, there is talk of trying to get a member to run for the seat of Senator Scott P. Brown, a Republican. Republicans also stand to gain ground in states that are not adding or losing seats, thanks to their victories in state elections this year. When Republicans won control of both houses of the North Carolina legislature in November for the first time since Reconstruction, they also gained control of the redistricting process. By state law they will draw the maps, and the Democratic governor, Beverly Perdue, will have no veto over them. Some Republican lawmakers there believe they can draw lines that would allow them to pick up at least two seats.
   The most likely immediate impact of the coming redistricting, political analysts said, is that Republicans will be able to use their new power in the nation’s statehouses and governor’s mansions to draw new districts that will help the party strengthen its hold on the 63 seats in Congress that it picked up in November. When the new data comes in, both parties will use sophisticated

 computer software to begin carving up districts through politically creative cartography. But Republicans will have the upper hand, giving them the opportunity to add Republican voters to many districts where the party’s candidates won by narrow margins this year, making it easier for them to be re-elected. “The Republicans are going to have their hand on the computer mouse, and when you have your hand on the computer mouse, you can change a district from a D to an R,” said Kimball W. Brace, president of Election Data Services, who has worked on redistricting for state legislatures and commissions.
    Redistricting, it is often said, turns the idea of democracy on its head by allowing leaders to choose their voters, instead of the other way around. The new lines are drawn once a decade, after every census, to make sure that all Congressional districts have roughly the same number of people, to preserve the one-person, one-vote standard. But as a practical matter, both Democrats and Republicans often use it as an excuse to gerrymander districts for their own political advantage. This time, Republicans are better positioned to do it. Tim Storey, an expert on redistricting at the National Conference of State Legislatures, said that Republicans were in their strongest position to draw lines in decades. Of the districts drawn by state legislatures, he said, Republicans have the power to unilaterally draw 196, four times as many as the Democrats.
    A decade ago, he said, Democrats had the advantage. Texas will test the hopes of both parties. Democrats said that since much of the population growth was among minorities that traditionally support Democrats, they should benefit when Texas’s four new Congressional districts are drawn. Republicans, who control the process, said that much of the growth took place in Republican areas, so they will be able to draw more Republican seats. Tension lingers from the state’s redistricting in 2003, when Representative Tom DeLay, then the House majority leader, helped Republicans gain a large advantage in Texas’ House delegation.
    Martin Frost, a former Democratic congressman whose district in the Fort Worth area was split during that redistricting, said he thought the Democrats would have a good chance of getting two of the four new seats, especially given the federal Voting Rights Act, which is supposed to ensure that the new lines do not dilute the voting power of minorities. And he said that the first order of business for Republicans would likely be to consolidate the gains they have made in recent elections by strengthening the districts of the party’s incumbents.
    But Representative Joe L. Barton, a senior Republican from Texas who has been involved in redistricting for years, said that most Republican officeholders in Texas needed little help. He speculated that three of the four new seats would go to Republicans. “We, the Republicans, don’t feel we have to do anything radically partisan, primarily because the current map basically reflects the demographics of the state,” he said. “But if we’re going to have a fight, I’m glad I’ve got an R by my name.” Of the 10 states losing seats, Democrats will draw the maps in only two: Massachusetts, where a Democrat will of necessity lose a seat, and Illinois, where they will try to eliminate a Republican seat. New York is losing two Congressional seats, and since the Democrats just lost control of the State Senate, they will have to come up with a compromise plan. In the past, that has meant eliminating one seat in each party; now, some lawmakers are pushing to create an independent redistricting commission.
    Both parties also have experienced lawyers working on their redistricting efforts, since the courts will inevitably play a big role in the end. The Voting Rights Act limits how districts can be drawn in many states. Republicans have turned it to their advantage in the past, by packing so many Democratic voters into some minority districts that their power was diluted in neighboring districts. And where new lines are drawn, court challenges often follow. Political analysts said that Republicans were poised to add anywhere from a net of 3 to a net of 15 Republican-leaning seats. But they note that the impact can be short-lived. In times of upheaval, said Michael Barone, who covers redistricting exhaustively as a co-author of “The Almanac of American Politics,” it can be hard to predict how voters in some districts will behave. “When opinion changes,” he said, “it turns out some of those 53-percent districts aren’t yours anymore.”

Oregon's senior senator, Ron Wyden, made it clear that one of his top priorities for the congress of  2011 will be to reform the health care reform bill passed and signed into law last year...
    Despite voting for it in the end, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., made no secret of his unhappiness with the health care reform bill that Congress passed and President Obama signed into law less than a year ago. Remember this comment from September 2009? "Under this bill, as it is written now, more than 200 million Americans would not get choices like the president of the United States called for," Wyden said at the time. "Middle-class people certainly will pay more based on the draft we're seeing. "I want to get this bill fixed. I want to do everything in my power so at my next round of town meetings, I can look middle-class folks in the eye and say this is real health security."
    Wyden has put that desire into legislative language, joining with Republican Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts in a long-shot attempt to give states broader authority to significantly change -- or even opt out of -- portions of the controversial law. Wyden and Brown want to push up the date for states to ask for waivers that would exempt them from some of the basic elements of the health care law, such as requiring every person to purchase insurance and charging employers a penalty for not providing coverage. Under the bill written by Wyden, states could earn flexibility to experiment if they convince federal regulators that the changes would provide care of equal quality and cost to the same number of people.
    Wyden's concept was included in the law that went into effect in March but there was a catch -- states have to wait until 2017 to ask for a waiver. That's years after the basic elements of law will be in place. Wyden wants to move the date to 2014. Wyden's effort will come as lawsuits from 20 states challenging the law are argued. A Dec.13 ruling by a federal judge in Virginia struck down a requirement that every American buy health insurance. Senate aides and health care analysts, however, aren't sure how that ruling could affect Wyden's effort. One view is that helps since waivers would allow states to walk away from "universal coverage" that the judge said was unconstitutional. Others, however, say the ruling could embolden critics to push for full repeal of the law, making it harder for each side to compromise.
    The idea, Wyden says, is for states to have authority to tailor the law before some of its basic pillars go into effect in 2014. That opportunity will vanish if states have to wait, Wyden argues, because they will have already spent millions of dollars complying with the 2014 requirements. "We don't think all the good ideas have come from here," Wyden said in an interview in the Capitol. "That ought to be attractive to both conservatives and progressive folks." That remains to be seen. What is certain is that the health care debate will resume next year as the new Republican majority in the House -- fueled by members who ran against the law -- will push hard to deliver on their promise to "repeal and replace" the law.
    In that sense, the combination of Wyden and Brown frames the issue. Wyden publicly criticized the health care bill but ultimately voted for it, saying it was better than the current system. Brown, like every other Republican, opposed the bill and voted against it. "States shouldn't be forced by the federal government to adopt a one-size-fits all health care plan," Brown said. "Each state's health care needs are different. Our bill provides flexibility." Wyden hopes to win, but he acknowledges the harsh environment on any health care question. "I'm sure there will be folks who say, 'Nothing other than repealing Obamacare will be acceptable.' Then there will be folks on the liberal side saying, 'We can't have waivers! It's just a scam to get out from offering people coverage.'"
    Away from Washington, however, the attitudes are more promising as states search for ways to satisfy the law's demands while also searching for ways to ease intense strains on their budgets. Vermont's House, for example, has already passed legislation to establish a single-payer system. Oregon's incoming Gov. John Kitzhaber says he expects the Legislature to consider a range of bills in the coming year to set up insurance exchanges and other changes that will better serve Oregon residents shopping for coverage.
    "Our idea is to set up the exchange this session, make some changes in Medicaid, try to integrate long-term care and mental health and the Medicaid program," Kitzhaber said in an interview. "Then have the Oregon state exchange go live in 2013, and the next year, merge it with the federal exchange," to provide a coverage option for 850,000 Oregonians. The flexibility, Kitzhaber said, would allow Oregon to offer better coverage and lower cost. That is an attractive opportunity for a state that has a $3.5 billion budget shortfall for 2011-13.
    Like other critics on both sides of the question, Kitzhaber believes states are better equipped to tailor programs to the health care needs of the people they serve and to squeeze savings in the process. "I just don't think the feds have the capacity" to build a system that is nimble enough to work everywhere. "It was hard enough getting a bill to expand coverage," he said. "When you start talking about changing the delivery system you can't legislate that. You've got to create that and provide economic incentives to force the system to change."    
    Yet prospects for Wyden-Brown are dark. Even critics of the law who agree that states could serve as good laboratories for innovative approaches say that alone isn't enough. If you embrace Wyden's idea, says Edmund F. Haislmaier, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, you have to accept that the "basic premise of the law is sound." Most critics believe the law is fatally flawed and cannot be repaired, regardless of the creative or brilliant variation from the states. In a Nov. 4 speech on the meaning of the election, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., made clear his intentions on the health care law "We can and should propose and vote on straight repeal repeatedly."

Intel Corp openes its first chip plant in China... 
    Chip heavyweight Intel Corp opened its first chip plant in China on Tuesday in a move that said could help boost China's economy, several years after the U.S. firm first announced the $2.5 billion project. "For 25 years now, Intel has been investing and innovating in China with China and for China," Chief Executive Officer Paul Otellini said in a statement. "This manufacturing facility helps deliver on our vision to contribute to sustainable growth in China while giving us better proximity to serve our customers in Asia," said Otellini, who spoke at the official opening ceremony in Dalian.
    It has taken an unusually long time to build the plant, located in the northeastern city of Dalian, which was announced with fanfare in 2007 as Intel's first front-end semiconductor fabrication unit in Asia in a nod to the growing importance of the China market. In the three-plus years since the first announcement, rumors had repeatedly said that Intel might delay, scale back or even scrap its plans for the plant, although the company consistently denied that anything was amiss.
    China has struggled for years to build up a globally competitive semiconductor industry as it tries to move up the tech value chain, but has largely failed due to the sector's fragmented nature and less developed technology. An estimated two dozen companies have already directly invested in Dalian so they are better poised to do business with Intel, which has started doing business with more than 80 existing suppliers based in Dalian, Intel said, without identifying them. The new plant fulfills Intel's total investment commitment in China to $4.7 billion. Intel has also established an assembly and test site in Chengdu as well as R&D centers and labs in Beijing, Shanghai and elsewhere in China, it said.

   People's retirement savings are a convenient low cost source of revenue for governments:
By Jan Iwanik, Guest blogger / January 2, 2011 
    People's retirement savings are a convenient source of revenue for governments that don't want to reduce spending or make privatizations. As most pension schemes in Europe are organised by the state, European ministers of finance have a facilitated access to the savings accumulated there, and it is only logical that they try to get a hold of this money for their own ends. In recent weeks I have noted five such attempts: Three situations concern private personal savings; two others refer to national funds. European nations begin seizing private pensions in Hungary, Poland, and three other nations take over citizens' pension money to make up government budget shortfalls.
    People's retirement savings are a convenient source of revenue for governments that don't want to reduce spending or make privatizations. As most pension schemes in Europe are organised by the state, European ministers of finance have a facilitated access to the savings accumulated there, and it is only logical that they try to get a hold of this money for their own ends. In recent weeks I have noted five such attempts: Three situations concern private personal savings; two others refer to national funds. The most striking example is Hungary, where last month the government made the citizens an offer they could not refuse. They could either remit their individual retirement savings to the state, or lose the right to the basic state pension (but still have an obligation to pay contributions for it). In this extortionate way, the government wants to gain control over $14bn of individual retirement savings. The Bulgarian government has come up with a similar idea. $300m of private early retirement savings was supposed to be transferred to the state pension scheme. The government gave way after trade unions protested and finally only about 20% of the original plans were implemented.
    A slightly less drastic situation is developing in Poland. The government wants to transfer of 1/3 of future contributions from individual retirement accounts to the state-run social security system. Since this system does not back its liabilities with stocks or even bonds, the money taken away from the savers will go directly to the state treasury and savers will lose about $2.3bn a year. The Polish government is more generous than the Hungarian one, but only because it wants to seize just 1/3 of the future savings and also allows the citizens to keep the money accumulated so far.
    The fourth example is Ireland. In 2001, the National Pension Reserve Fund was brought into existence for the purpose of supporting pensions of the Irish people in the years 2025-2050. The scheme was also supposed to provide for the pensions of some public sector employees (mainly university staff). However, in March 2009, the Irish government earmarked ?4bn from this fund for rescuing banks. In November 2010, the remaining savings of ?2.5bn was seized to support the bailout of the rest of the country.
    The final example is France. In November, the French parliament decided to earmark ?33bn from the national reserve pension fund FRR to reduce the short-term pension scheme deficit. In this way, the retirement savings intended for the years 2020-2040 will be used earlier, that is in the years 2011-2024, and the government will spend the saved up resources on other purposes. It looks like although the governments are able to enforce general participation in pension schemes, they do not seem to be the best guardians of the money accumulated there.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today announced Oregon is one of 15 states that was recognized for exceeding enrollment targets...
    Oregon is one of 15 states to receive a bonus award for making significant progress in enrolling uninsured children in Medicaid. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today announced $206 million in awards to 15 states. Oregon’s award is the fourth highest at just over $15 million. “This is great news for Oregon and comes just as we’re closing in on our enrollment goals for uninsured kids,” said Cathy Kaufmann, administrator of the Office of Healthy Kids in the Oregon Health Authority.
    Funding for the “performance bonuses” was included in the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization (CHIPRA) legislation signed into law by President Obama in February 2009. The CHIPRA established two sets of performance goals that states must meet to qualify for a bonus – taking specific steps to streamline their enrollment and renewal processes to make it easier for families with eligible children to gain coverage and documenting a significant increase in the number of children enrolled in Medicaid.
    Oregon qualified for a $15,055,255 bonus this year, an increase of $13,451,919 over the state's 2009 award amount of $1,603,336. Oregon had five program features in place that aim at streamlining enrollment. Overall, Medicaid enrollment of children in Oregon increased 19 percent above the 2010 baseline (an increase of 40,373 children). Because enrollment gains exceeded 10 percent of baseline enrollment, the state qualified for a larger “Tier 2” performance bonus.
    The significant increase in Medicaid enrollment for Oregon children is part of the state’s Healthy Kids expansion. Healthy Kids, passed by the 2009 Legislature, expanded coverage to an additional 80,000 children this biennium. Thus far, Healthy Kids has enrolled a total of 70,000 more children. “We’ve worked hard to make applying for Healthy Kids easier than ever before. Getting rid of red tape and making the process easier and more efficient not only helps us enroll eligible children quickly — it also helps save administrative dollars. That’s a win for the state as well as Oregon families,” said Kaufmann.
    Families with uninsured Oregon children or teens are encouraged to apply for Healthy Kids online at the following web address at http://www.oregonhealthykids.gov or by calling this toll free phone number, 1-877-314-5678.