Thursday, December 24, 2009

The United States Senate has approved a hard-fought measure to overhaul the health care system. The vote will be followed by the difficult process of reconciling the Senate-passed bill with one approved by the House of Representatives, in order to get a final measure to President Barack Obama.

“The yeas are 60, the nays are 39. H.R. 3590 as amended, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is passed,” Vice President Joe Biden announced. Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky did not show up for the vote leading to the 39 nays. Mike Reynard, a spokesman for Bunning, said in an e-mail that “The senator had family commitments.”

The vice president presided over the Senate at the time of the vote in his role as President of the United States Senate.

As expected, Republicans voted against the bill while all Democrats and two Independents, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, voted for it.

At an estimated $87 billion, the measure would expand health insurance coverage to about 30 million more Americans currently without it, and create new private insurance marketplaces, or exchanges, to expand choice.

And, like the slightly more expensive measure passed by the House of Representatives, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, it would end a practice by private insurance companies of denying coverage to individuals with existing health problems.

Both the Senate and House measures would require nearly all Americans to purchase some form of insurance, while lower-income Americans would receive help from federal government subsidies.

In remarks before the vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat from Nevada, said opponents had done everything they could to prevent the vote from taking place.

Speaking to reporters, Reid and others hailed the vote as a victory and a major step toward providing millions more Americans with access to health care. “This is a victory because we have affirmed that the ability to live a healthy life in our great country is a right and not merely a privilege for the select few,” Reid said.

Reid and others including Robert Byrd, the 92-year-old Democrat from West Virginia, paid tribute to Senator Edward Kennedy, who died this past August after spending decades of his career in the Senate pursuing health care reform.

When casting his vote Byrd said, “Mr. President, this is for my friend Ted Kennedy. Aye.”

Victoria Reggie Kennedy, the widow of Senator Kennedy, watched the proceedings from the Senate visitor’s gallery, as did Representative John Dingell, Democrat from Michigan, who has been a long time advocate of health care reform and who sponsored and introduced the House version of the health care reform bill.

In the final hours of debate on the Senate bill, Republicans asserted it would be ineffective and add sharply to the U.S. budget deficit.

Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican from Alabama said of the bill, “This legislation may have a great vision, it may have a great idea about trying to make the system work better. But it does not. These are huge costs [and] it’s not financially sound.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell vowed to defeat the bill when the Senate reconvenes in January saying, “This fight is not over. This fight is long from over. My colleagues and I will work to stop this bill from becoming law.”

Senator Olympia Snowe, a moderate Republican from Maine who helped approved the Senate Finance Committee’s version of health care reform, the America’s Healthy Future Act, earlier in the year and who remarked she may not vote on the final bill, said, “I was extremely disappointed,” noting that when the Democrats reached their needed 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, “there was zero opportunity to amend the bill or modify it, and Democrats had no incentive to reach across the aisle.”

Ahead are difficult negotiations with the House of Representatives to craft a final bill President Obama would sign into law. These talks, which will formally get under way early in the new year, will take place amid anger among many liberal House Democrats the Senate bill failed to contain a government-run public health insurance option.

Members of the House Progressive Caucus have vowed to fight to keep this public option in any final legislation that emerges, along with other provisions they say are needed to protect lower and middle-income Americans and hold insurance companies accountable.

In a statement, the Democratic chairmen of three key House committees said while there are clear differences between House and Senate bills, both will bring fundamental health care coverage to millions who are currently uninsured.

Obama administration officials have been quoted as saying they anticipate negotiations on a final bill would not be complete until after the President’s State of the Union Address in January, and could slip even later into the new year.

President Obama issued a statement to the press in the State Dining Room in the White House saying that the vote is “legislation that brings us toward the end of a nearly century-long struggle to reform America’s health care system.”

He also pointed out the bill’s strengths, noting, “The reform bill that passed the Senate this morning, like the House bill, includes the toughest measures ever taken to hold the insurance industry accountable. Insurance companies will no longer be able to deny you coverage on the basis of a preexisting condition. They will no longer be able to drop your coverage when you get sick. No longer will you have to pay unlimited amounts out of your own pocket for the treatments you need. And you’ll be able to appeal unfair decisions by insurance companies to an independent party.”

He also noted how historic the bill is, saying, “If passed, this will be the most important piece of social policy since the Social Security Act in the 1930s, and the most important reform of our health care system since Medicare passed in the 1960s.”

Obama noted the potential social impact, saying, “It’s the impact reform will have on Americans who no longer have to go without a checkup or prescriptions that they need because they can’t afford them; on families who no longer have to worry that a single illness will send them into financial ruin; and on businesses that will no longer face exorbitant insurance rates that hamper their competitiveness.”

Obama afterwards made phone calls to various Senators and other people, including Victoria Kennedy and David Turner of Little Rock, Arkansas. Mr. Turner had his health insurance rescinded in January of last year, after his insurance company went back into his record and alleged that he failed to disclose his full medical record at the time he applied for coverage. Turner was First Lady Michelle Obama’s guest during her husband’s speech to a joint session of Congress on health care reform back in September.

Friday, July 23, 2010

Five people were killed early Thursday morning in a three-alarm fire in the New York City borough of Staten Island. The fire destroyed most of the home in the Port Richmond neighborhood. The five killed are 33-year-old Leisha Jones and her four children.

Neighbors said that the fire began at approximately 4 a.m. local time (0800 UTC). Two New York Police Department officers noticed the fire and radioed for assistance at 4:10 a.m. Rescue workers attempted to enter the building although they were deterred by heavy flames and smoke. Once flames were doused with water, Fire Lieutenant Robert Strafer entered the building and found the youngest child, two-year-old Jermaine Sinclair. Upon further inspection, officers found the other four victims.

Witnesses reported hearing a loud popping sound before the building burst into flames. The cause of the fire is currently unknown, although it is not considered suspicious. The apartment which Jones and her children were living in did not have a smoke detector, as required by city law.

Jones’s mother, Martha Anderson, told the New York Daily News, “She was such a nice person and she was a really good mother,” adding, “She loved her kids … and I loved her.”

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Ernest Krajniak from Chilton, Wisconsin in the United States has been charged with arson after a lit cigarette ignited gasoline soaked clothes, setting his apartment ablaze.

On Friday April 3, Krajniak, 47, cleaned his entire apartment with about five gallons of gasoline, wiping everything down with the soaked clothes. After he was finished, he piled the soaked clothes in the center of his bedroom, lit a cigarette and then threw what was left of the still lit cigarette, into the pile.

Krajniak never called the fire department and never pulled the alarm. Instead he yelled ‘fire’ a few times then walked to the police station where an ambulance took him to a local hospital for the treatment of minor burns. The fire department later arrived to put out the blaze and his apartment was extensively smoke damaged. 11 other apartments were also damaged, leaving the occupants without a place to stay for at least a week.

“I should have never used that,” said Krajniak during a court appearance on Monday. He admitted to knowing that gasoline was highly flammable. He was arrested and his bond has been set a US$2,500. Krajniak’s next court appearance is scheduled for Monday, April 13. According to WISinfo.com, Krajniak has no prior criminal record.

The careless smoking of cigarettes has been blamed for thousands of fires across the U.S. In January 2008, an unnamed elderly woman in Buffalo, New York was receiving oxygen for medical problems in her home and lit a cigarette and began to smoke it. The oxygen coming from her mask then facilitated the ignition of her clothing, setting her on fire.

In the U.S. in 2002, only 4% of all residential fires were reportedly caused by smoking materials. These fires, however, were responsible for 19% of residential fire fatalities and 9% of injuries. The fatality rate due to smoking is nearly four times higher than the overall residential fire rate; injuries are more than twice as likely. Forty percent of all smoking fires start in the bedroom or living room/family room; in 35% of these fires, bedding or upholstered furniture are the items first ignited.

Thursday, March 30, 2006

Australian Federal Police officers reportedly raided the home in Argenton, West of Newcastle, New South Wales of a man suspected of distibuting software to enable unauthorised access to pay TV services Foxtel and Austar.

A spokesperson for the Australian Federal Police said that officers seized computer equipment, including an “external hardware drive”. The spokesperson said police were assisted by Foxtel’s fraud invesigators and computer forensic experts from Ferrier Hodgson.

Debra Richards, Executive Director of the Australian Subscription Television Association, the organisation which represents the interests of Australian pay TV service providers, said, “Industry members are working cooperatively through ASTRA to address a problem that results in lost revenue and resources that would otherwise be used to grow the Australian television and production industries.”

“The real victims here are the consumers who are being hoodwinked into being involved in a criminal activity, often paying more than they would otherwise for a legitimate service,” she said.

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Dale Ogden, a 2010 California gubernatorial candidate, talks with Wikinews reporter Mike Morales about his platform.

Ogden is a member of the United States’ Libertarian Party.

Friday, September 22, 2006

A complaint made against Internet service provider (ISP) iHug by M. McNatty has been upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). McNatty complained that he was not told of the special conditions of banner adverts he saw on the iHug website.

McNatty said: “I signed up [to iHug] but discovered I had shot over my limit and iHUG had reduced my download speed from 100 to 64kps. I rang iHUG and they explained that I had gone over my 1 GB traffic allotment by 230%. I explained I was on the 3 GB plan and they went on to tell me that 2 of the 3GB can only be used between the hours of 2 a.m. and 10 a.m.” He then went on to talk to the manager of iHug but was told there was nothing he could do so he asked to be upgraded to the more expensive option of the 15 GB plan.

iHug replied to the complaint by saying: “It appears that M. McNatty has briefly looked at the front page of our broadband section without either reading down the page to the what you get section or clicking on the info or join now links on our website. If he had, he would have found information about the peak and off-peak split of data allowances. He has then rung the iHug call centre, where our call centre personnel have been instructed to inform customers of the details of data allowances because many customers don’t understand how much data they will need. If the customer service representative has failed to explain how the data allowances work then that is a mistake on our part, for which I am sincerely apologetic. iHug has taken steps to resolve this by stressing to Customer Service Managers that they must remind their teams to fully explain data allowances during the sign up call.”

iHug then went on to apologize to McNatty if felt he had been misled but said: “I think it is unreasonable for M. McNatty to expect all information pertaining to a broadband application to be contained in detail on a small banner advert which is clearly design to capture interest only and lead the customer to further information.”

The ASA complaint board then reviewed the advertisement and noted that the advertisement clearly identified that information related to the offer was available on other pages and that a customer would most likely know that plans varied and would ask for clarification before subscribing.

But then said, referring to the 3 GB plan advertisement; “However, nowhere in the main offer or the immediate conditions headed, “ihug broadband – what you get”, did it inform the consumer that 2 of the 3 GB could only be used between the hours of 2 a.m. and 10 a.m., one third being peak user time, two thirds being off-peak user time. This, in the Complaints Board’s view, significantly diminished the offer of ‘3 GB data’, to the extent that the offer could be considered to be ‘exaggerated’. As such the Complaints Board said that it would be likely to mislead the consumer.”

They also noted that the wording “generous peak download allowance” was a hyperbole and overstated the product offered, which amounted to misleading the customer.

The Complaints Board said: “A website advertisement was not limited by a time constraint such as a television advertisement, or restricted by space available, and thereby there was no apparent reason why this paramount condition could not be more obvious in relation to the offer.”

The complaints board then said that if special condition reduced the offer in value then those conditions need to be obvious. They noted that the ad does say conditions do apply. “However, as the condition in this instance diminished the offer in a major way, the Complaints Board was unanimously of the view, that it should have been disclosed in an obvious manner, as part of the initial offer or in close proximity to it,” said the complaints board.

The board then noted that the advertisement was in violation of the second rule in the Code of Ethics which states “Truthful Presentation – Advertisements should not contain any statement or visual presentation or create an overall impression which directly or by implication, omission, ambiguity or exaggerated claim is misleading or deceptive, is likely to deceive or mislead the consumer, makes false and misleading representation, abuses the trust of the consumer or exploits his/her lack of experience or knowledge. (Obvious hyperbole, identifiable as such, is not considered to be misleading).” The board did uphold the complaint.

Sunday, December 3, 2006

Former Chilean President Augusto Pinochet, 91, has suffered a heart attack early this morning. His son, Marco Antonio, declared that his father had received his last rites from a Catholic priest and that “he is in the hands of God and the doctors”. Pinochet underwent a bypass surgery in the Hospital Militar in Santiago and his condition is reported to be critical but stable. Doctors have reported he is also suffering from pulmonary edema.

Pinochet came to power in 1973 when the Chilean armed forces led a coup which deposed the left-wing president Salvador Allende. Allende’s rule had seen a growing polarization of Chilean society, economic crisis, and terrorist activity from far-left groups. Pinochet set about exterminating his opposition, mainly socalists and communists, and suspended the constiution. His neoliberal economic policies, carried out by the “Chicago Boys“, a group of Chilean economists influenced by Milton Friedman, were able to reduce the rampant hyperinflation and stabilize the economy. In 1981, a plebiscite approved a new constitution drafted by Pinochet’s government. As the new constitution decreed, another plebiscite took place in 1988 to determine whether Pinochet should remain in power. The “No” option won and Pinochet stepped down. He remained as head of the army and senator until 1998, when he relinquished these positions. He was arrested that year in London for human rights violations, but was able to return to Chile. He is currently under investigation by Chilean officials over tax evasion and human rights violatons. He had recently accepted “responsibility” for “everything that was done” during his government, “which had no other goal than making Chile greater and avoiding its disintegration”.

Sunday, August 20, 2006

The government of Victoria has announced plans to build what it says will be Australia’s “most powerful wind farm.” Planning Minister Rob Hulls has given the go ahead to a new $380 million wind farm at Mount Gellibrand in the state’s south-west.

“I’m pleased to announce that I have approved Australia’s most powerful and Victoria’s largest wind farm to date,” Mr Hulls said. “This project is expected to create anywhere between 110 and 120 jobs during construction and up to 25 full time positions during the life of the wind farm,” he said.

The massive wind farm will be located 120 km west of Melbourne, close to the regional centre of Colac. The wind farm comprises 116 turbines of the 2 MW class – with an overall capacity of 232 MW. The wind farm will produce over 700,000 MWh annually of clean energy which is enough to supply approximately 132,000 Victorian households. German company Pro Ventum International is undertaking the project

Minister Hulls said only nine objections had been lodged against the project. Local landowner Tim Gore, who plans to have 32 turbines on his property, said he was not concerned about potential noise from the turbines. Pro Ventum International say they will commence work on an Environmental Management report the next few weeks.

Wind farm critic Tim Le Roy said there was no environmental benefit from the project at all and the Victorian government would better spend its money on geo-thermal energy.

The turbines, each 125 metres tall, will be visible from the Princes Highway between Geelong and Colac, sited at the foot of Mount Gellibrand.

In October last year, Colac Otway council’s chief executive officer, Tracey Slatter, said the proposal would benefit the shire: “…we’re looking at reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and with the demand of energy set to increase it is important that we do consider these renewable energy sources,” she said.