What did Obama sign?

Too many journalists and news agencies have neglected to include, or do not provide, any reference to the name and legislative number of the healthcare reform bill signed by Obama on Monday, 3/22/10. So here it is:

H.R. 4872 - "Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010" - announced here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/pending-legislation/h.r.-4872

Read the Full text of the bill here [PDF]. CORRECTION: This is NOT the full text as the WhiteHouse.gov site states. It is simply 150 pages of the Act of Reconciliation.

INSTEAD, TRY THESE LINKS:

• House H.R.3962, "Affordable Health Care for America Act"
  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3962.pcs:
• Senate H.R.3590, "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (Amendment in Senate)
  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3590.as:
• PLUS "7 versions of Bill H.R.3590 for the 111th Congress" posted at the Library of Congress site - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3590:
• H.R. 3590, Senate bill available at CBS.com, dated 12/24/09 [PDF]:
  http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Senate_health_care_bill.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody

SO WHICH ONE DID HE SIGN? SURPRISE! It's still not quite hammered out. However, the version of H.R. 3590 passed by the Senate on 12/24/09 appears to be THE bill which the president signed this week, at least according to the Democrats.Senate.Gov site.

Read all 2,409 pages here [PDF].

Isn't this fun? Gag.

Like to be a fly on the wall? Next teleconference on government regulations...

Future Town Hall Teleconference Meeting Dates - All town hall teleconferences will be held from 1:00pm to 3:00pm EST, unless otherwise noted.

• June 9 - Liability (including Self-Insurance), No-Fault Insurance and Workers' Compensation Policy - Q&A


• July 1 - Liability (including Self-Insurances), No-Fault Insurance and Workers' Compensation Technical Support Q&A


• July 8 - GHP (Group Health Plans) NOTE: This is like the one I covered today, June 4th, 2009. This teleconference will cover questions related to employer-paid health plans.

Visit the CMS site for a complete schedule through the end of 2009.

Worried about privacy? You should be. Update on MMSEA 111 teleconference

I just finished my first live Tweet reporting of a teleconference hosted by Medicare (technically, the "Centers for Medicare and Medicaid," or CMS). It was about the new federal requirement for employers to send quarterly reports of all subscriber personal information. I will create a report of my Tweets and post them where you can read them, or feel free to browse twitter.com/WriterMom08. In the meantime, here are my impressions:

1. CMS representatives sounded supportive, asking participants with questions to send details via email so they could help them after the teleconference.

2. HOWEVER--although CMS representative Bill Decker opened the session with assurances that this new government regulation is for cross-checking Medicare beneficiaries only, questions from attendees came up about getting social security numbers of spouses or employees in other locations who were refusing to provide them, as well as dates of birth. CMS's response: "We ask you to *ask* for the SSN, it doesn't hurt to ask." Sounds like if SSNs can be obtained, then go for it.

3. The new mandatory reporting allows employers to satisfy this requirement in either of two ways:

• By submitting "Active Covered Individuals" [those eligible for Medicare: age 55, handicapped, or on kidney dialysis]
• Or by using the "Finder File" feature [collect ALL employee and dependent personal information, filter list against Medicare's list or hire an outside contractor to do this, then submit to Medicare].

However, in both cases, the employer will be asking employees for spousal and dependent SSNs and dates of birth in order to determine Medicare eligibility--or, like my husband's employer, collect the information and send it to an outside third party to do the filter for submission to CMS.

I reiterate--I DO NOT WANT my husband's employer to have my SSN, or worse, some "outside third party." The SSN was never intended to be used as a de facto identifier anyway, so I object anytime it is used in this manner. Also, giving my SSN to an employer with whom I have no other contact is creepy. Why should they be able to access any information about me (or my children)? I know they're not "supposed to," but the potential for that exists; just think of Joe the Plumber (more details here).

But perhaps most frighteningly, giving up my SSN exposes me to greater potential of identity theft, since the information will be collected and disseminated in a myriad of electronic locations beyond my control, or beyond legitimate uses by the IRS or any of my previous actual employers. All it takes is for someone to lose a hard drive or for someone to steal a laptop for my personal information--and yours--to be compromised.

Tell me what you think.

In the meantime, if your spouse's employer asks for your SSN, use this form instead provided by the same agency requiring the collection of this information.

As for the potential for turning this into a National Healthcare Database, I think you can see how easy it would be to enlarge this system beyond simply "Medicare recipients." To comply, employers are already gathering your personal information for their quarterly reports to the government, including unprecedented collection of information on spouses and children of employees. It could be used as a national database of current healthcare beneficiaries, just a step away from becoming a national healthcare database.

Secret attempt to build National Healthcare Database already underway?

ALERT: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), a branch of the Health & Human Services department of the federal government, is requiring employers under stiff penalites to gather and report all employee social security numbers, PLUS the SSNs of their SPOUSES and CHILDREN. Normally, an employer does not have the SSNs of an employee's family members as most health care benefits are paid under the employee's SSN. This "mandatory reporting" requirement began as a test mode earlier this year and is underway NOW.

There is a lot more detail about this regulation, but it is not only a violation of privacy and (possibly) SSN rules, it may be a disguised method for building the National Healthcare Databasethat the Obama administration has been talking about without allowing any national discussion or input from We The People.

Read more about the new MMSEA 111 regulation being implemented NOW, here at the CMS site.

Additionally, CMS is conducting a teleconference TODAY, June 4th, from 1pm to 3pm EST. As soon as I get the phone number, I will post it here on my blog, plus I'll announce it on Twitter and Facebook.

800-779-4354 - read the instructions HERE.*

THIS IS WRONG. We all must protest this activity NOW. I am in the process of contacting various news outlets to bring attention to this issue, but I need your help.

Here is my email I am using, and I encourage you to use this if you wish to contact your representatives and news outlets, too:

TODAY at 1pm EST, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) is conducting a teleconference call to explain to employers and insurers the NEW mandatory regs on collecting Social Security Numbers of not only covered employees in group plans, but their SPOUSES and their CHILDREN to be submitted quarterly to the CMS office through third party contractors.

I learned about this when the human resources department at my husband's employer contacted him via email requesting my SSN, although I am not an employee. I didn't want them to have my SSN nor access to my health records, so I investigated this and discovered that although this new regulation, called "MMSEA 111," is supposedly to identify group health participants who are also eligible for Medicare (I am not)--to reportedly stop Medicare fraud--but it could easily be a secret effort to set up a National Healthcare Database without public knowledge or consent.

This requires employers to throw a wide net to gather SSNs of spouses and children which they don't normally have in their records since benefits are usually paid under the employee's SSN--and as I mentioned, it shifts the burdern of verifying Medicare recipients from the public to the private sector and may be the first step toward a NATIONAL HEALTHCARE DATABASE.

NO ONE in the media is talking about this. The process started late last year and the additions to Medicare regulation was signed just a few months ago at the end of December 2008, and is being implemented RIGHT NOW.

I am not eligible for Medicare, nor does anyone in my family receive Medicare benefits, so therefore, we should NOT have to turn over our SSNs to my husband's employer nor to CMS! This is a violation of our privacy rights and our right to protect our own SSNs. My husband is upset at me now, because he fears losing his job over not giving up my SSN (top management there do not like what they perceive to be "troublemakers"). But this is wrong.

PLEASE FOLLOW UP ON THIS STORY.

Here is a direct link to this information at CMS: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MandatoryInsRep/

The next deadline for employers to comply with this new regulation is July 1st, just a few weeks away, during this initial "testing" phase in gathering and transferring all of these SSNs from employers to third party contractors who will then forward it to CMS.

Please help dig out the details of this massive collection of employee's families' private information, which includes the name, SSN, date of birth, and gender. This is gross example of a federal agency shifting the burden of verifying Medicare recipients--which is the agency's responsibility--to the private sector. But more insidiously, this may be a "behind-the-scenes" effort to build that National Healthcare Database without public discussion and voter participation.

Again, the teleconference is TODAY, June 4th, from 1pm to 3pm EST (800-779-4354).

I have a background as a human resources director and benefits specialist, so I understand the issues at stake. I welcome your questions and urge you to get this information out to the public as quickly as possible.

Sincerely,

Kimn Swenson Gollnick

* (PLEASE NOTE: If you join the teleconference, I suggest that you do so to listen only. I do not advise nor condone turning it into a protest, but to use it as a way to gather more information on this new regulation and to monitor the government's actions.)

America in danger?

• Bloomberg Report, 11/24/08: "Russian Professor Says U.S. Will Break Up After Economic Crisis"


• The Drudge Report, 11/25/08 (with more details from the interview): "Russian Analyst Predicts Decline and Breakup of USA."
And then this startling development...


• USA Today: "Venezuela's Chavez welcomes Russian warships"

So a Russian professor predicts the break-up of the U.S. into six regions as a result of the financial meltdown and cultural instability, leaving two major world powers: China and Russia. Then, on 9/11/08 no less, Russian bombers arrived in Venezuela, welcomed by President Chavez. Now Russian nuclear warships arrived at Venezuela's shores for "training exercises." Chavez said, "The Yankee hegemony is finished." Given the financial meltdown here in the U.S. and a time of transition between President Bush and President-elect Obama, this raises alarming concerns. What do you think?

Newspaper front pages for the election

To celebrate the historic presidential win of Barack Obama, enjoy browsing the front pages of America's newspapers announcing his victory, all available online through the new interactive Newseum in Washington D.C. Actually, the site contains 735 front pages from 67 countries. Look for your hometown paper here.

In honor of my two hometowns, these front pages come from the Seattle Times, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (where I worked in the business office) and The Gazette (Cedar Rapids, Iowa):

Historic Election Nov. 4th, 2008

I am very proud that America elected our first African-American president. What a monumental moment in history! We've come a long way, America.

Congratulations, Barack Obama. You have been charged with the people's trust. Please honor that trust.

In my journalism class, supporters of President-elect Obama unanimously expressed how John McCain's concession speech moved them and deserved more attention by the mainstream media. As of this posting, I haven't seen the speech, so click and watch it with me:

Why I didn't vote for Obama

Barack Obama in his own words:

On the Constitution: "When we get in a tussle, we appeal to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution's ratifiers to give direction. Some, like Justice Scalia, conclude that the original understanding must be followed and if we obey this rule, democracy is respected. Others, like Justice Breyers, insist that sometimes the original understanding can take you only so far--that on the truly big arguments, we have to take context, history, and the practical outcomes of a decision into account. I have to side with Justice Breyer's view of the Constitution--that it is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world." (The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p. 89-92, October 1, 2006)

On abortion: "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing I'd do." [FOCA is legislation sponsored by Obama and 18 other senators that would "abolish all state laws limiting or regulating abortion," including the federal ban on partial birth abortion]." (Barack Obama's speech before Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007)

On sex education for students: Voted YES to amend the Illinois School Code and Comprehensive Health Education Act (Bill No. SB0099), changing the law covering 6th-12th grade students to include all students in grades K-12; granted, the bill includes the term "age-appropriate," but although it provides a specific section defining terms such as "factual information" and "medically accurate," it fails to specify or define "age appropriate," leaving it wide open to interpretation. (January 11, 2005)

Later Obama addessed the controversy over this legislation: "I remember him [Alan Keyes] using this in a, his campaign against me saying, [mimicking Keyes] 'Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergartners.' [Laughter] And, which I didn’t know what to tell him. But it’s the right thing to do, you know, to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in the schools." (July 17, 2007)

On energy: "Let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there. I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. ...So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. ...The only thing I've said with respect to coal--I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter--as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way--we should pursue it. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them." (San Francisco Chronicle video interview, January 17, 2008)

On conservative Americans in Pennsylvania: "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." (In a speech given at the Getty fund-raiser held at Alex Mehran's mansion in San Fransisco, April 6, 2008)

On taxes: We've all heard of Joe the Plumber, but to be fair, not many of us have seen the entire conversation in context between Obama and Joe, so here it is (from ABC News, 5:47 length). UPDATE: Video was removed from YouTube. Try this link instead (5:47 length). In 2001, he also discussed how to achieve redistribution of wealth through legislation during a Chicago Public Radio interview on WBEZ-FM (4:17 length).

For more on taxes, read this.

On healthcare: "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal healthcare program. ...A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see." (Speech to the Illinois AFL-CIO, June 30, 2003) He later denied he ever held this position, in spite of this video proving it, and findings by FactCheck.org (see second bullet point).

On the war in Iraq: "I am unwavering in the belief that this has been a strategic mistake and that this war has to end." (Reuters, July 5, 2008) We all want the war to end, but we don't all agree that intervening on behalf of the Iraqi people was a mistake. See Dear Mr. Obama (1:55 length).

On national service and security: "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." (In a campaign speech given in Colorado Springs, CO on July 2, 2008)

Some believe this is out of context. See what you think.

On faith: "I am a Christian. So, I have a deep faith. So I draw from the Christian faith. On the other hand, I was born in Hawaii where obviously there are a lot of Eastern influences. I lived in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, between the ages of six and 10. My father was from Kenya, and although he was probably most accurately labeled an agnostic, his father was Muslim. And I'd say, probably, intellectually I've drawn as much from Judaism as any other faith. ...So, I'm rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people." *

Like other candidates, Obama also carries several specific "lucky charms" (White House Photo of the Day, Time.com); his include a Madonna and child along with the Hindu monkey god, Lord Hanuman (June 2, 2008).

* "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.' " (John 14:6, New International Version)

(Interview by Cathleen Falsani of the Chicago Sun-Times in 2004 with Obama on his faith and spirituality, released this month four years later and also highlighted on the Huffington Post.)

Obama's interview in "On faith" added 11/12/08.

Obama's grandmother

Barack Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, died early this morning of cancer. She also suffered from a broken hip after a fall earlier in October.

It took mainstream media about two hours to verify the news, since I noticed bloggers talking about it at 3pm CST but I couldn't find a verifiable, credible source and did not want to report rumor or gossip earlier today. But the terribly sad news IS true.

Last April, USA Today published a nice piece about Madelyn Dunham.

fall

You know it's fall when
campaign signs
litter the lawn like
leaves.

Photo by K.S. Gollnick (10/8/08), taken on the drive to school in Cedar Rapids, IA.

McCain/Palin in Cedar Rapids, IA

John McCain and Sarah Palin spoke to an enthusiastic crowd today at the PS Air hanger on the west end of the Eastern Iowa International Airport in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. I arrived late with several busloads of other attendees, delayed by the crush of traffic crawling on I-380 this morning between 9 and 10am trying to get to the airport (some who certainly missed flights and most for the rally, evidenced by the majority of vehicles turning into the wide acreage used for today's event parking).

Fortunately, candidates for local races spoke first so I didn't miss the McCain plane landing and the speeches of Sarah and John.

Sarah was confident, warm, fresh. She caught my attention in particular when she talked about our city's flood victims and acknowledged the need to expedite and coordinate help for them--this personalized her presentation. And yes, I forgave her for calling our city "Grand Rapids" instead of Cedar Rapids (they'd just flown in from Grand Rapids, Michigan).
She introduced John and he gave an equally stirring speech, including comments on the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac debacle. McCain had urged the Congress back in 2006 about the potential for their failure but the Democratically-controlled Congress refused to act on the warnings--and sure enough, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac fell, resulting in our government scrambling to rescue it earlier this month.
You can watch both of their speeches here.

Jim MacDonald after the rally.

And of course, protestors made an appearance.

I liked the ones holding signs, moving slowly alongside the lines of attendees waiting to be screened through security. I appreciated their respect for our right to be there, while also communicating their objections to certain issues and ideologies.

However, other groups erupted and disrupted the speeches. These protestors struck me as insulting and immature. Of course, it occurs to me that these displays are never really targeted toward attendees, but more likely for TV cameras and YouTube audiences.

A couple of disruptive groups interrupted Palin and then John. The worst was a couple of guys and a couple of girls protesting the Viet Nam war (say what? didn't that *end*, like, 40 years ago???)--or perhaps it was McCain's participation in the Viet Nam war? (um, he served and suffered as a P.O.W., enduring worse than the paper cuts and hurt feelings these protestors have suffered in their short, passionate lives).

Anyway, their shouts and shenanigans interrupted John's speech for two or three minutes, causing McCain supporters to drown them out shouting, "JOHN MIC-CAIN, JOHN MIC-CAIN...." Police escorted the disruptive protestors out of the area. I was relieved, because for a few moments the raised emotions signalled an edginess, as if just a moment more would push the rally into a riot. Police presence probably diffused this. Officials did not arrest the protestors but released them back into the wild.

Quite an eventful event.

Afterward, Angie, a student reporter accompanied by a student photographer, both working for "The Torch" of Kennedy High School in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, asked to interview me. I felt flattered and tried to answer her questions as interestingly as I could on the fly. (There's a reason I'm a writer--I write as a process of organizing my thoughts, in order to know what I think, if you know what I mean.) I'll try to get a copy of the issue in which she publishes the story and perhaps post a link to a PDF version.

After the rally, McCain and Palin toured the flood-damaged neighborhoods of downtown with Cedar Rapids officials, including the mayor pro-tem, Brian Fagan. This is yet another issue: Cedar Rapidians are growing impatient to the point of downright angry with Mayor Kay Halloran for her lack of visibility, which translates as indifference toward those who suffered in the catastrophic floods of June '08. I fear whether her health is a factor. More later.*

P.S. Out of fairness, I wanted to attend an Obama rally, too, but it looks like it's too late. According to his website (scroll down to "Obama Events"), his plans include Pennsylvania, Virginia, Missouri, Ohio--no more appearances scheduled in Iowa. McCain is coming through Iowa again on Saturday, Oct. 11th.

---

Cedar Rapids, IA - Mayor Kay Halloran has obstructive sleep apnea. Now that the diagnosis is public, the tone of the press has softened considerably. (I can't even find the articles from KCRG and the Gazette attacking her for not providing an interview prior to this announcement.)

However, does sleep apnea explain why she chooses to remain in the background while the mayor pro-tem, Brian Fagan, seems to serve as the city's public leader?

Or is she naturally an introvert?

It's hard not to recall the hands-on public style of Guiliani, mayor of New York, after the catastrophic morning of 9/11 when he provided visible leadership at Ground Zero, while our mayor remains invisible to the public, inaccessible to her citizens who suffered enourmously after the June floods in Cedar Rapids. It doesn't help when she's caught on-camera barking dismissively, "We didn't cause the flood."

Interestingly, both the video and the Gazette story with that quote do not appear online, and all previous articles casting her in a negative light have vanished. I objected to KCRG's daily negative coverage of Halloran (some would call them attacks) prior to her diagnosis--which included a daily countdown of her refusal to do an interview with reporters--but neither do I agree with the media's apparent "cleaning up" of news stories afterward.

Caucus Night

My first Iowa caucus! What a night. It's a downright balmy 21 degrees outside, but windy. Brr. Our precinct, 4-2, met at Oak Ridge School with four other precincts. Precinct 4-2 shared the gym with Precinct 4-3, packed with probably 250+ people. Here are the results of the votes by these two precincts:

Precinct 4-2
Huckabee 52
Romney 30
Thompson 23
McCain 15
Giuliani 11
Paul 10
Hunter 0
Keyes 0

Precinct 4-3
Romney 41
Huckabee 35
Thompson 25
McCain 17
Paul 13
Giuliani 7
Keyes 2
Hunter 0

Local news stations are reporting the following numbers right now with 78% precincts reporting (9:10pm CST):

Republican
Huckabee 34%
Romney 25%
Thompson 14%
McCain 13%
Paul 10%
Giuliani 4%
Hunter 0%
Tancredo 0%

Democrat
Obama 36%
Edwards 31%
Clinton 30%
Richardson 2%
Biden 1%
Dodd 0%
Gravel 0%
Kucinich 0%

This is shaping into a very interesting election come this fall, wouldn't you say?

Iowa caucus and the UN-"Fair Tax"

Okay, the Iowa caucuses are coming in two days and I'm going.

However, I'm alarmed--I thought I finally found a candidate I could support until I learned this week about the "Fair Tax" legislation backed by some of America's presidential candidates (and click here to see who in Congress supports it from the Fair Tax Web site).

If you haven't heard about it, the "Fair Tax" act will eliminate income and business taxes BUT replace them with a 30% national sales tax. Supporters claim it makes taxes "fair," but analysis by FactCheck.org shows it will help only those who make more than $200,000 per year. How is this fair? It's not.

Don't be fooled--just because it's called a "Fair Tax" does not make it so. We all know this is a favorite tactic in politics--to name bills the opposite of what they really are in order to fool voters.

Under the "Fair Tax," all food is taxed. We will pay 30-34% tax on gasoline on top of current taxes (these will not be repealed). If you get sick, your visit to the doctor is subject to this 30-34% tax. If you buy a new house, you will pay a 30-34% tax on the purchase price. Everyone with a mortgage, credit card, or car loan will pay a 30-34% tax on all interest. How many low- to middle-income families can afford this?

"They assume spending will remain at current levels," Russ Gollnick said. "The fact is, a 30% jump in price will affect spending. I'm concerned the impact it will have on our economy--it will cause a severe recession, even a depression."

Ah, but the "Fair Tax" proponents say salaries will go up--because they calculate their numbers by assuming salaries will go up when businesses are freed from paying social security taxes and revenue taxes. Have they learned nothing from Enron? Businesses today do not pass along increased revenue to their employees by increasing salaries! That just doesn't happen. As a former human resources director I can tell you that corporate management hires employees at the lowest salaries they can to keep costs down and profits up. Supply and demand controls salaries as much as consumer prices.

So as Sir Francis Bacon declared, "Knowledge is power." Question the assumptions of the "Fair Tax" and empower yourself. I invite your comments.