Wed. 23June_25Jul 2010 RESUBMIT TO HON. Kahtleen.Sebelius:
Sun 25JUl10 To the Hon. Kathleen Sebelius et al re: ObamaCare http://www.hhs.gov/secretary/ Issues: Obama Care Pro_Con Candidate for Repub.MNAG_ Sharon Anderson may write a Brief as Client of Medicare Insurance. Please clarify the Bill re: Commerce Clause. 1. Medicare Premiums of Insurance used to DENY Food to Applicant a. Please clarify the 2010 Federal Poverty Guidelines 4 the State of MN and to http://www.2ndharvest.org/ % used. b. Affiant Sharon Anderson SSD: xxx-36-x396 $1,186.50 deductions 140 Medicare Ins $14.40 Pres NO Tax = $1,032 c. http://www.2harvest.org/ uses 2009 Poverty with 130% = $1,174 i. The 12 dollar differential is Bizzare ii Have the Guidelines increased, to enable Affiant a Box of Food? 2. Affiant Sharon Anderson is Republican Candidate for MNAG http://www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com/ The DFL AG Lori Swanson supports Obama Care Sharons opponent Chris Barden does not. d. http://www.texastribune.org/texas-state-agencies/attorney-generals-office/texas-12-other-states-sue-feds-over-health-care/ 3. Questions to the Hon. Sec. Please clarify to the Citizenery of MN if in fact the Commerce Clause is implemented: and to What 2010 Federal Poverty Guideline's and or Does the Obama Care include Dental,Glasses,Hearing Aids?
This morning, President Barack Obama signed the health care reform bill into law. As promised, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott joined 12 other attorneys general in promptly filing a lawsuit challenging the law's constitutionality.
Here's a list of the attorneys general involved and the states they represent:
dismissal of Virginia health care suit Dwyer Arce at 3:03 PM ET
[JURIST] The Obama administration on Monday filed a brief [text, PDF] urging the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by the state of Virginia challenging the constitutionality of the recently enacted health care reform law [HR 3590 text; JURIST news archive]. The suit [complaint, PDF] filed by Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli [official website] challenges the constitutionality of the individual mandate provision of the health care bill, which would require most Americans to purchase some form of health insurance by 2014 and directly contradicts a state law [text, PDF; JURIST report] purporting to prevent the enforcement of a federal mandate. In the brief, attorneys representing Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius [official website] argued that the state lacks standing to challenge the provision because it "alleges no actual or imminent injury to its own interests as a state," and went on to argue:
Wed. 23June_25Jul 2010 RESUBMIT TO HON. Kahtleen.Sebelius:
To the above named: CEO Rob Zeaske et al
Please trigger investigation into the
Predatory Practices of www.2harvest.org to deny Seniors FOOD, employee Barb Downs, using Illegal Methods of Medicare,Humana,Prescriptions Expenses, Barb Downs states Insurance Programs are INCOME.
contrary to their Title 26 501(c)3 IRS Mission Statements.
501. Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc. ..... (26) Any membership organization if— ... (iii) such organization operates as a non-profit organization by— .... For purposes of subsection (c)(3) of this section and sections 170 (c)(2), 2055 (a)(2), and 2522 (a)(2), the term “educational purposes” ...
www.law.cornell.edu/.../26/usc_sec_26_00000501----000-.html - Cached - Similar
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View Jan 23, 2009 ... In accordance with section 1012 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2010, the poverty guidelines published on ...
https://www.cms.gov/MedicaidEligibility/.../POV10Combo.pdf - Similar
From: bdowns@2harvest.org
To: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
Sent: 6/1/2010 9:36:59 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: RE: Sharon Anderson Recertification NAPs_SNAPS
Dear Ms. Anderson,
Per income guidelines provided by the Minnesota Department of Health we use 130% of the Federal Poverty Guideline. Below are the current guidelines. We have not received communication about a change in the guidelines, but we know that they are in effect at least through May 31, 2010. When I hear about a change in the guidelines, I will let you know.
NAPS
MN residents who are men and women aged 60+ years old.
These seniors are those who need to prepare their own meals and are not in a facility that provides meals.
Disability status is not an eligibility factor for the NAPS program.
NAPS Income Guidelines
Effective April 1, 2009 to May 31, 2010
Household Size
Annually
Monthly
Weekly
1
$14,079
$1,174
$271
2
$18,941
$1,579
$365
3
$23,803
$1,984
$458
4
$28,665
$2,389
$552
Barb
In a message dated 7/16/2010 5:55:52 P.M. Central Daylight Time, Kathleen.Sebelius@hhs.gov writes:
While we will respond to the specific issues you raise as soon as we can, I wanted to let you know that your message has been received and that I appreciate your taking the time to write.
The mission of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is to protect the nation’s health and provide essential human services, and, as part of that mission, we are at the forefront of the federal government’s efforts to address a wide range of critical issues and challenges. I wanted to take this opportunity to update you on our work.
First, on March 23, after more than a year of extensive debate, the President signed into law health reform legislation that brings down health care costs for American families and small businesses, expands coverage to millions of Americans and ends the worst practices of insurance companies. As a result of the new law, Americans will begin to see significant benefits take effect this year, with other important reforms following shortly after. In the weeks, months, and years ahead, our department will be responsible for implementing many of these reforms. You can be assured that we are firmly committed to explaining these changes to the American people clearly, and to enacting them carefully and effectively. For more information on our efforts, I would encourage you to visit www.healthreform.gov.
Meanwhile, the public health threat of the 2009 H1N1 influenza continues to spread nationally. The Department, acting in concert with Congress, the President, and other federal agencies and departments, has worked since the very beginning of the outbreak to protect the health of our citizens. HHS and its partners have developed a National Framework for Response, which outlines the four pillars of the Administration’s overall flu preparedness strategy: medical surveillance; mitigation; vaccination; and communications. You can read more about our efforts and the steps you can take to protect yourself and your family at www.flu.gov.
In addition, it is a core responsibility of HHS, through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to ensure the food we eat is safe. Toward that end, I am firmly committed to working with my colleagues at the Department of Agriculture to achieve the President’s goal of upgrading and strengthening our food safety system; restoring trust in the FDA as the leading science-based regulatory agency in the world; and fulfilling our obligation to the American people to ensure that the food they purchase and serve to their families is safe to eat. For more information, please visit www.foodsafety.gov.
Finally, HHS plays a vital role in getting our children ready to learn and thrive in school, helping low-income working families struggling to make ends meet in this difficult economy, and meeting the basic needs of vulnerable populations, such as abused and neglected children, refugees, and individuals with disabilities. As the Administration works to turn around our economy, we recognize that the recession will have its greatest impact on the most vulnerable among us – low-income families with children. Through child care, child support, energy assistance, and other efforts, the Department helps low-income parents and their communities weather this economic storm. We will continue to work hard to improve these programs through evidence-based approaches that make a difference for these families and children.
Federal judge blocks Arizona law denying benefits to domestic partners Erin Bock at 5:30 PM ET
[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the District of Arizona [official website] on Friday granted a preliminary injunction [opinion text] against an amendment to an Arizona law [ARS § 38-651 text] regarding health benefits for the families of state employees. The amendment, added as subsection O, would remove language from the law allowing interdependent domestic partners to receive health benefits by changing the definition of "dependent" to include only married couples and their children, effective October 1, 2010. The state employees argue that the amendment violates their rights to equal protection and substantive due process and that the amendment has no rational relationship to a legitimate state interest. In his order, Judge John Sedwick granted the preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs met their burden of showing that their case would be likely to succeed on the merits and that they would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction. He also found the state's arguments that the amendment served the state interest of cost savings and administrative efficiency to be "speculative at best and discriminatory at worst." Lambda Legal [official website], the organization representing the state workers, praised the judge's decision [press release]:
This injunction removes the sword that's been hanging over the heads of hundreds of state workers and their families. We're pleased Judge Sedwick has recognized that this is a matter of equal pay for equal work, and that eliminating benefits for Arizona's gay and lesbian state employees would hurt real families.
The order also denied the state's motion to dismiss the workers' equal protection claim and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer's claim of immunity. The order granted the state's motion to dismiss the workers' substantive due process claim. The injunction is set to go into effect within 10 days.
Arizona is also facing a federal lawsuit regarding its controversial new immigration law. The US Department of Justice [official website] filed suit earlier this month [JURIST report] arguing that the law violates the Supremacy Clause [text] of the US Constitution. The law criminalizes illegal immigration and allows police officers to question individuals based on "reasonable suspicion" that they are in the country illegally. The law is already being contested in a class-action lawsuit [JURIST report] led by the American Civil Liberties Union [advocacy website]. Brewer signed the legislation into law in April and the law is set to go into effect on July 29.
