A few months ago I wrote my house rep about a bill that is going to be voted on. The bill would insure that disabled employees would get paid the Federal minimum wage for work that they do. Mr. Bishop wrote me back to say that he could not support the bill because it would limit a company's ability to train disabled employees. So what he is saying is that in order to train disabled people so that they can one day earn minimum wage, companies must first benefit from their slave labor. He claimed that businesses would not be able to "help" the disabled if they had to pay them a fair wage. He claims that this 'unintended" consequence is the reason he cannot support raising wages for a fifth of the population. What he doesn't seem to understand is that ending this so called flexibility that companies have is the entire intent of the bill.
For Rob Bishop to defend the rights of a company to pay people a sub standard wage rather than defend the rights of one in five persons to get paid the minimum wage is upsetting to say the least.
I urge all who read this to contact your house rep in support of workers rights. The bill is HB 3086 As long as companies are allowed to use the disabled as slave labor more of us will never find a way out of poverty.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Gun control avoidance
Like almost everyone I was horror stricken when I heard about the mass shooting in Colorado. When something like this happens the media asks a lot of questions, but one that they didn't ask right away was this; why does any person who is sane and reasonable need an assault riffle? I want someone to tell me when a gun that can spray hundreds of bullets before needing to be reloaded would be needed by anyone in a private home. I want someone to tell me why any person would defend the right to own such guns.
Now, I know the canned answer. That tired line "guns don't kill people." Okay, but a lot more people die as a result of guns in America than in any other developed nation. It seems to me that the NRA wont be happy until we are like Africa, bands of armed people roaming the streets.
Instead of talking about the merits of the assault weapons ban, the media seems to be asking all the wrong questions. Looking for any thing else to blame so that they don't have to look at the terrorist type weapons and accessories that this shooter had.
To be clear, I am not anti guns. I am pro smart ownership and rules that make sense.
Look it up, and you will find that no civilian has used an assault rifle to save a life.
I am not talking about ill thought out reactionary regulations, but does that mean that we as a people are not allowed to talk about gun control at all.
James Madison said that a right is only a right until it infringe's on someone else s rights. Asking gun owners to act in a manor that allows everyone around them to feel safe, and that just might cut down on how many people are shot when something horrible like this happens, is not only fair it is responsible.
These things will still happen until we as a nation address the core causes, but taking away easy access to massive amounts of ammo can't hurt.
Now, I know the canned answer. That tired line "guns don't kill people." Okay, but a lot more people die as a result of guns in America than in any other developed nation. It seems to me that the NRA wont be happy until we are like Africa, bands of armed people roaming the streets.
Instead of talking about the merits of the assault weapons ban, the media seems to be asking all the wrong questions. Looking for any thing else to blame so that they don't have to look at the terrorist type weapons and accessories that this shooter had.
To be clear, I am not anti guns. I am pro smart ownership and rules that make sense.
Look it up, and you will find that no civilian has used an assault rifle to save a life.
I am not talking about ill thought out reactionary regulations, but does that mean that we as a people are not allowed to talk about gun control at all.
James Madison said that a right is only a right until it infringe's on someone else s rights. Asking gun owners to act in a manor that allows everyone around them to feel safe, and that just might cut down on how many people are shot when something horrible like this happens, is not only fair it is responsible.
These things will still happen until we as a nation address the core causes, but taking away easy access to massive amounts of ammo can't hurt.
Sunday, July 1, 2012
The affordable care act upheld
Like all other supporters of health care reform I was more than just pleased when the PPACA was upheld. There is a lot of talk about the impact of this law on business growth, and this talk is important. In France companies stay small so that they will not have to abide by that nations many regulations, the thought is that companies in the U.S will do the same.
That is a concern that should not be ignored, but the intended consequences of this landmark legislation should not be lost among fears of what companies will or will not do.
Children are allowed to remain on their parents insurance.
Children with pre existing conditions cannot be denied insurance. Adults will no longer be denied in 1214.
Medicaid expansion will bring back lost coverage for millions. The caveat to that is this: states are allowed to refuse to participate in expanded Medicaid. This seems bad, but in states like Utah that are going to refuse this program, they will not lose Medicaid funding for not doing so. The way the law was originally written states who refused expanded Medicaid would have lost federal funding. Utah had already made it clear that they were willing to steal insurance from thousands of citizens rather than participate in the PPACA. So now if Utah still refuses at least people will not lose any insurance, for now. There are groups fiercely fighting to make sure that Utah accepts these expanded funds.
The Supreme Court decision is not the end. Orin Hatch is still fighting a provision that would allow disabled people who need assistance with daily tasks to stay at home using Hospice care instead of living in expensive nursing homes.
The decision of the high court does make provisions inn the Health Care law legitimate, so opponents like Hatch will have a harder time fighting against it. That is, if people write him and express their feelings.
This is not the end, but it is a bright spot in a dark year.
That is a concern that should not be ignored, but the intended consequences of this landmark legislation should not be lost among fears of what companies will or will not do.
Children are allowed to remain on their parents insurance.
Children with pre existing conditions cannot be denied insurance. Adults will no longer be denied in 1214.
Medicaid expansion will bring back lost coverage for millions. The caveat to that is this: states are allowed to refuse to participate in expanded Medicaid. This seems bad, but in states like Utah that are going to refuse this program, they will not lose Medicaid funding for not doing so. The way the law was originally written states who refused expanded Medicaid would have lost federal funding. Utah had already made it clear that they were willing to steal insurance from thousands of citizens rather than participate in the PPACA. So now if Utah still refuses at least people will not lose any insurance, for now. There are groups fiercely fighting to make sure that Utah accepts these expanded funds.
The Supreme Court decision is not the end. Orin Hatch is still fighting a provision that would allow disabled people who need assistance with daily tasks to stay at home using Hospice care instead of living in expensive nursing homes.
The decision of the high court does make provisions inn the Health Care law legitimate, so opponents like Hatch will have a harder time fighting against it. That is, if people write him and express their feelings.
This is not the end, but it is a bright spot in a dark year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)