Supreme Court Hears Argument- Should I get paid to be searched?

I was watching the news and heard about the Supreme Court Sessions. A few days later as I was surfing the internet, I saw this case.  The Supreme Court heard arguments over whether workers at an Amazon warehouse in Las Vegas must be paid for the time they spend waiting to go through a security screening at the end of the day. The workers say the process, meant to prevent theft, can take as long as 25 minutes.The case was filed by Integrity Staffing Solutions, a temporary employment agency, that hires workers for the plant.  Currently, there are 13 class-actions suits against Amazon.  The case was first dismissed by Nevada's District Court.

According the a New York Times article, the case, that was heard on October 8th, will turn on the meaning of a 1947 law, the Portal-to-Portal Act, which says that companies need not pay for “preliminary” or “postliminary” activities, meaning ones that take place before and after the workday proper. The Supreme Court interpreted the law in 1956 in Steiner v. Mitchell to require pay only for tasks that are an “integral and indispensable part of the principal activities for which covered workmen are employed.”

Stating that a security screening takes place "before and after" work is fallacious.  The employees are not allowed to leave the work place until it is completed therefore, they are still at work.  To require employees to complete additional "tasks" after they have finished their work day and not pay them for it is irresponsible.  It would be interesting to watch if this is overturned, will the security checks suddenly move much faster?  

Forbes magazine has an online post stating, "National Employment Law Project executive director Christine Owens summed up the question at the center of the case as follows: “Is this work? Or do these workers have to donate this time to their employer?”

“If the company had a random surprise screening process in the middle of the workday, they would be compensated for that,” she said.

Owens noted that the U.S. Government which also, naturally, requires many of its workers to complete out-of-hours security screenings — has already sided with Integrity Staffing Solutions on this case. The Chamber of Commerce has backed the Amazon contractor."

The links to the article also discussed paying for travel time to and from work.  This is fallacious and could cause discriminatory hiring of people that lived close proximity to the employer’s location.  I read the entire argument and certainly believe we should be paid for what our employer requires.

Supreme Court rules: Are corporations really people?

Supreme Court rules:  Are corporations really people?

I was having a discussion with my family regarding some of the Supreme Court rulings.  The Citizen’s United Organization came up and we talked about the background and even listened to a few of Steven Colbert’s monologs. I did a bunch of research including the NPR website. This topic has been in the newspaper, on television and talk radio.  

The background to the ruling was fascinating.  Back in 1886 there was a matter brought before the Supreme Court called Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company.  It dealt with the taxation of railroad properties. During the proceedings a court reporter made a headnote regarding protections to corporations as well as natural persons.  The headnote was added to the law and the constitutional protections were granted.  Essentially, this opened the door for corporations to be treated as people.  This seems fallacious. Corporations are not individual and should not be allowed the same rights.  Yet under this law they get the benefits of being individual but are exempt from punishment.   The fact that the headnote the court reporter added to the law wasn’t even part of the original bill is noteworthy. 

In 2008, 122 years later, an organization called the Citizen’s United was involved with a dispute regarding a film about Hillary Clinton.  The film was scheduled to air just prior to the primary elections.  There was a law suit filed and ultimately the decision was made allowing the Citizens United the freedom of speech.  The ruling includes corporations being allowed to  make campaign contributions.  Much like the 1886 ruling, corporations were given the same rights as individuals.  It has now become acceptable for them to funnel billions of dollars for their favorite candidate. It seems that lobbying has taken on a whole new mantra.

Corporations are allowed to spend unlimited funds on ads and other political tools.  With this birthed the political action committees or PAC’s.  Much controversy has come in their wake.  The campaign contributions have increased  dramatically, these groups spent more than $600 million in the 2012 election cycle.  There are no limits on amounts that can be spent.  In a nutshell, the high court’s 5-4 decision said that it is OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate.

Presently there is new attention to the bill related to  Citizen’s United Organization. Senator Tom Udall has introduced an amendment authorizing Congress and the states to regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.  I feel like this is also fallacious.  Instead of confining the amendment to not allow corporations to donate, the senator is asking to set limits on what the candidates can spend.  The proposed amendment grants Congress and the states the power to implement and enforce this amendment by appropriate legislation, and to distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections. This is cogent.  Distinguishing between corporations and people has needed clarification since 1886.

There are 42 Senators who don't want the amendment to pass. They claim that the increasing sums of money from big donors to finance elections is mere free speech, which means that billionaires and multinational corporations deserve more influence and access to set the political agenda than the teacher, the barista, or the hairdresser. The vast majority of Americans, 73 percent in the most recent poll, - disagree and support a constitutional amendment.

The need for free speech is cogent.  The means for politicians to be bought through campaign funds needs to be stopped.  The First Amendment is something that will be spoken about and debated for many years to come. 

Opposition Constructive- Minimum Wage Increase With Tenure

Opposition Constructive

Minimum Wage Increase with Tenure

The case stated that it would propose we raise the minimum wage based on tenure of the employee.  I don’t believe this has merit.  We should not reward an employee based solely on how long they have worked.  I have had the opportunity to manage employees for more than 15 years and I can give personal account that often my best employees, the ones deserving of an increase, are not the ones that have been with the company the longest.  I don’t think you can make a generalized statement that “all employees who work more than 2 years are good.  Therefore, based on time worked, they are worth a $1.50 more per hour.”

It also stated in the case that an increase in the minimum wage would hurt small business. According to a national scientific opinion poll conducted for Small Business Majority, small business owners widely agree our federal minimum wage should increase so that small business employees and consumers have more money in their pockets. More than two-thirds of small business owners support increasing our federal minimum wage—up from the $7.25 an hour and adjusting it yearly to keep pace with inflation.  A sweeping 85% of small business owners surveyed do not pay any of their employees the federal minimum wage of $7.25.

There is a  minimum wage exception already in place for young employees.  The case addressed age 16 stating the expectation would be to pay them the increased minimum wage. Currently, according to the Federal Department of Labor, an employer is not required to pay greater than $4.25 for the first 90 days of employment to an employee under the age of 20. This law already addresses the young employee.

It was introduced in the first constructive that 34 percent of 18-24 year old still live with their parents. Should we look at why?  A recent article in the Boston Globe quoted a study that showed 85 percent of this age group is in school or working — albeit many in low-wage jobs. Instead of the Generation Y stereotype of “The New American Idle” perhaps we should consider paying a decent wage. This will give them a better chance of being self-sufficient while getting an education. 

The case stated that about half  of the total minimum wage workforce are workers under the age of 25.  I maintain that leaves about 50 percent of the total minimum wage workforce who are folks trying to support a family.  If you annualize the current $7.25 per hour, that’s $15,080.00 per year.  That’s just not enough to live on. It would be very difficult without some type of assistance.

Last fall there was a story in Forbes Magazine about a food drive at Walmart.  The appalling fact was that the drive was for the actual employee’s themselves. There were food donation bins set up in the break room of the Canton, Ohio store.  These employees are paid so poorly that they need donations to even have Thanksgiving dinner .

 The case based a portion of the proposal on the data reported regarding the cost to replace an employee.  It stated it is about $5,505.00 based on a poll done by Sasha Corporation.  I did more research on the Chron.com link he had quoted relating to the Sasha Corporation.  There was no direct link to Sasha listed in the article.  I tried numerous times to vet this source and am not confident of the reliability.  The only site I could find had a pdf.file with the report. Also, all members of the board listed for this company are the same person. I looked for some concrete data regarding this topic.  I was unable to find a trustworthy source related specifically to the cost of training a new hire who earns minimum wage.

The case proposed that if the minimum wage were tiered it would deter employers from unethical turnover of employees.  I propose it could be just the opposite. I called a small business owner who runs a company that assists in construction.  He has had anywhere from 10-50 employees over the past 5 years depending on the rate of construction in the St. George area.  I pitched the  tiered minimum wage proposal that was pitched to us last week.  After he thought about it for a few minutes he shared a concern.  He stated that he has a myriad of jobs within his company, some that can be taught proficiently in less than a week.  These jobs are very basic and would fit the typical minimum wage criteria.  He said that if he were going to be required to increase someone by $1.50 at two years based only on longevity, he would consider firing them and hiring new employees at the lower rate.  I can see how this could be a possibility in menial jobs. This could open Pandora’s box with labor laws and employee law suits.

According to the Labor Department ,  there are Twenty-one states and D.C. that have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage of $7.25. That means that 42 percent of the States are independently managing payments higher than the  minimum wage. 

An article in  The Associated Press states, "In the 13 states that boosted their minimums at the beginning of the year, the number of jobs grew an average of 0.85 percent from January through June. The average for the other 37 states was 0.61 percent. Nine of the 13 states increased their minimum wages automatically in line with inflation: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. Four more states — Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island — approved legislation mandating the increases.” 

In conclusion, I believe the case is too generalized.  We can’t assume “longer tenured employees will help businesses to be more efficient”. We can’t increase someone’s pay based solely on longevity and not consider their performance. Most importantly, heads of household cannot sustain a family on $17,160 for two years while waiting for an increase.

Bundled Payment for Care Improvement Initiative Essay

Bundled Payment Program Essay

The United States is in great need of health care reform.  I don’t know if there is a more cogent statement in all of healthcare.  Something most involved would agree on is that we cannot sustain the current fee-for-service system.  Health care costs have risen over the last decade and are predicted to rise over 6.8% in 2015 once again out pacing inflation according to Pricecooper waterhouse’s recent survey.

Offering health care to everyone is both necessary and ‘the right thing to do.’ But some of the programs embedded in the law are fraught with missteps.  Whereas, there are many, there is one in particular.  The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative .  According to the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services, “the bundled payment program is a program where organizations will enter into payment arrangements that include financial and performance accountability for episodes of care. These models may lead to higher quality, more coordinated care at a lower cost to Medicare.” This is fallacious, note in the quote the word “may”.  Healthcare systems were interested in this new approach until after careful vetting where they could see the lack of feasibility.

The current fee-for-service program functions as payment for services rendered by each individual entity.  Essentially, this means for a fee is charged/paid for every service:  x ray, hospital stay, surgery, office visits, (even down to the last aspirin). The bundled payment program, especially core model 4 will function as one payment for the service rendered.  That means CMS will pay one payment (historically to the hospital system) that will cover the total cost of care including up to 30 days after admission for the procedure.  As of the latest publication there are 48 eligible procedures everything from insertion of a pacemaker to a joint replacement or stent surgery.   

Let me give an example:  It would be like a mechanic is contracted for X amount of dollars to replace radiators in cars, any make or model is included.  If it costs less to replace, the mechanic would keep the difference, if it cost more, he would take the loss.  After careful research the mechanic learns that a 2012 Ford Taurus has not only the cheapest replacement parts but is the easiest to repair.  It doesn't a rocket scientist to determine that  the more appealing and most lucrative repair would be the Ford.  

The Bundled Payment program has the same potential.             

The program has been incredibly unsuccessful. There are currently only 18 sites participating in the model 4 section, which is closely linked to surgical procedures. First, just like the initial health care enrollment program, we weren’t prepared for the health systems to participate administratively.  IT programs weren’t set up properly to receive this type of claims, the different entities weren’t educated properly to understand how to bill or where to get their portion of the reimbursement.

Most importantly however, the patient care is at risk of being diminished. Let me explain, If there is a patient with illness or disease that will increase the complexity of their care, the hospitals are inclined not to accept them.  This could be anything from a co-morbidity such as obesity, diabetes or heart disease, age no matter how healthy, to a co-dependency on drugs related to the very surgery the patient needs. 

Social factors come into play also. A patient whose lifestyle, living conditions, nutrition, etc. is than optimal has more potential for an unsuccessful outcome. There is the chance that they may be limited or denied care.

There is also the risk of using inferior supplies.  If item A is great and clearly the best thing for the patient and item B is OK but costs much less, the inclination could be to use the inferior product.  This could be anything from a heart stent, to medications, to a joint prosthesis, to the type/quality of skilled nursing facility and rehab.  The proposal also includes saving money by limiting re-admissions.  This is a great goal but my concern is: will be so wrapped up in cutting the costs that patients won’t be re-admitted when needed and will care be compromised?  When focusing on the data to the degree bundled payments would, outcomes become the goal not the patient.

Do we as patients need to assume more responsibility for our health and well- being? Absolutely!   We need to be healthier and more engaged in our well-being to perpetuate better outcomes. But bundling payments and potentially limiting care to the less healthy population is not the best approach.

The First Constructive- Healthcare Reform Outline

Dori Beaumont

Comm 1270

The First Constructive (Prima Facie)

Health Care Reform

Introduction – Health care reform is necessary.  Healthcare costs continue to rise.  According to Forbes magazine, in 2012 healthcare cost rose almost twice as fast as the average consumer good.  Some of the new programs included in the Affordable Care Act are lacking in reaching the goals and objectives set by the Obama administration.

Thesis Proposition - The United States is in critical need of health care reform. Offering healthcare coverage to everyone is both necessary and “the right thing to do.”  But, some of the current programs imbedded in the Affordable Care Act are fraught with missteps. Specifically, the current Bundled Payment program needs to be reconsidered.

Define key terms:  bundled payment  A single comprehensive payment made to healthcare providers—hospitals and physicians—for a group of related services, based on the expected costs for a clinically defined episode of care.

Issue A: The bundled payment plan proposed by Obamacare is laden with missteps from unprepared administration of the program to potentially compromising the care of the patient.

Claim 1: The bundled payment program is unsuccessful.

Warrant 1:  The bundled payment plan is one reimbursement/payment to one entity for all services related to that condition for a specific period of time. The payment is generally made to a hospital system and then dispersed to the individual entities including:  physicians, therapists, pharmacies, skilled nursing facilities etc. Currently, there are 48 qualifying episodes for the CMS trial.  This could be anything from pacemaker implementation, stroke, joint replacement, to artery bypass graft surgery. Patients with certain co-morbidities (diseases) who are at a greater risk of readmission after a surgical procedure will find it hard to get care.  The options become:  refusal of care, decreased reimbursement for the hospital system distributing the payment, or considering using lower cost, possibly inferior equipment, medications or facilities.

Claim 2: Bundled payment program could use substandard products or technology.

Warrant 2: The bundled payment program opens the possibility of using inferior products or services.  With cost of care being so paramount to the success of the organization, consideration of using inferior or less effective product is a possibility. The long term effects are less successful outcomes, decreased patient satisfaction or quality of live or even death.

Immediate harms include patient dissatisfaction with the care provided. Patient’s expectations for care could not be met.  The possibility of limiting access to care may be a real issue. 

For example, the CDC  states that the costs of patients with chronic illness account for 75% of US healthcare costs.   Since 2000, health insurance premiums for a typical family of four have increased by 114%.  We cannot sustain these costs and we cannot spend valuable dollars on ineffective programs. The long term harm could be waiting too long for a procedure and jeopardizing health, health care systems being financial unstable and without funding we will see a decrease in progressive technological advancements.

Underview or Conclusion:  There has to be continued health care reform.  Currently costs are predicted to rise over 6.8% in 2015 once again out pacing inflation according to Pricecooper waterhouse’s recent survey. The bundled payment program has been unsuccessful.  As with the Obama care insurance registration, the program was not prepared for roll out. IT programs were not properly set up  to receive this type of claims, the different entities weren’t educated properly to understand how to bill or where to get their portion of the reimbursement.  CMS wasn’t prepared for the appropriate negotiations with the health care systems.  Reimbursement for outcomes can cause patient care to be diminished i.e. lack of appropriate re-admission or appropriate treatment options. There is also the risk of using inferior supplies. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid have been piloting this program for almost two years and they are still finding it very difficult to get participation from various health care systems.  Currently, there are only 18 sites that are participating in the model 4 portion. Community hospitals are closing at an increased rate leaving patients without health care. We are at a critical state in the health care realm.  The Bundled Payment program of the Affordable Care Act is ineffective, too many resources have been spent trying to keep the program going with too little preparation for implementation.

Up, Up and Away

I recently returned home from a vacation on the east coast.  The destination is a little island off the coast of South Carolina and requires several airplane connections.  The worst part of traveling can be getting from one gate to the next in time to board, load your bag in the overhead compartment, fasten your seat belt and get settled in.  As I experienced that six times in less than a week, it was fresh on my mind as I read an article on flying restrictions for obese travelers. Chances are you are going to sit next to someone you don't know as most planes have a minimum of three seats across.  This is becoming more of a hot topic as more and more lawsuits are being filed.  I've read several articles online and newspapers.

The irony of flying is that the airplane seems to be getting smaller while the average American is getting larger.  Should there be weight restrictions on air planes?  If so, how would they be managed? Is that a question that should be asked at the time of booking or would we have a "mock" seat for everyone to sit in prior to boarding? The need is cogent but it seems fallacious to be able to make the assessment via a phone call or online booking. There have been several stories recently online.  One being a woman who flew to Hungary and then was unable to board to fly back.  She passed away in the 9 days it took to try to find a suitable flight.  I believe this is fallacious, the article states she was able to fly to Hungary but could not board a plane to get home.  It seems if she was able to fly out, there should have been accommodations to get her home.

There is an article in NY Daily News about a 340 pound man who was flying Southwest Airlines and was asked to leave the plane on a Chicago to Denver flight.  The reason for his removal was the "flight was overbooked".  The man was eventually allowed to return to his seat but only after a 30 minute delay.  I can't imagine how uncomfortable he must have felt boarding the plane while the other passengers watched.  The need to handle these situations better is cogent.

Southwest and Delta as do many other airlines have their own "customer of size" policy. The policy states that you can't infringe on the arm rest or the seat next to you.  As measured by what?  You don't always know until you sit down. There is even a website discussion board, like a blog, for people to try to find the best airline available for larger individuals. Air Canada has made certain concession by determining obesity as a medical condition. Ultimately, most airlines are leaving the decisions to the gate attendants whether to let the passenger board or not.  Again, this seems fallacious. This decision should be made prior to booking.

Whereas, I definitely believe the experience for the man flying from Chicago to Denver that was removed from the flight was wrong, having size restrictions is cogent. Policing it seems to be a challenge and based on some of the comments associated with these articles, consumers are not very tolerant of larger travelers.

Black Bear Killing

Recently, a 22 year old man was killed by a black bear while hiking with friends in New Jersey.  There was an article in Field and Stream that states a group of 5 hikers started to run when they noticed a bear was following them.  When the hikers reconvened, they realized one was missing.  Darsh Patel had separated from the group and was found dead 2 hours later by search and rescue 30 yards from the 299  pound bear.  I received this information via email and was intrigued by the title.  The part that was fallacious was that the article stated "a police office euthanized the animal with two shots from a shotgun."  The meaning of euthanized is to put to death humanely.   Is blasting it with a shotgun humane?  

Animal rights is a constant topic in the media, facebook and online.  There are however extremes. Currently there is a youtube video made by a woman named Kelly Atlas.  She entered a restaurant and started a monologue about how someone had "harmed her little girl."  In the end you were able to ascertain that it was actually a chicken.  She raved on and on about how she wanted to save her and her sisters.  The video went viral and has been to topic of several newscasts.  I realize people love their pets but this seems fallacious.  

As I looked further clarity in the bear attack article, there were several items that got me thinking.  The first being the fact that the body was found being circled around by the bear as if he was protecting it or protecting his food source. The bear refused to move even when search and rescue tried tactics that had been successful in past encounters.  I believe this is cogent.  I am sorry a man lost his life, but I don't believe we respected the bear's right to protect his territory and search for food.

Next, according the US News, was the fact that this season there was a limited supply of berries and acorns.  Kelcey Burguess, a black bear project leader at state Division of Fish and Wildlife, has said that a necropsy would reveal whether the bear had diseases.  He said, "the indication " was the bear saw Patel as food, perhaps because , he added, "acorns, hickory nuts, black walnuts" throughout the state have been in low supply recently. This information and caution had not been passed on to the many hikers that are frequently in the area. To assume the hikers would know there was increased danger is fallacious. 

The report in Field and Stream states that if after they complete the testing  and it proves this bear killed Patel, it will be the first bear fatality in 150 years.  Is the bear guilty without proof and the fate is punishable by death?   I am truly sorry for the loss of a young man just out doing what appeared to be enjoying nature. But, I also feel for the bear who was perhaps just trying to survive. Several articles I read stated that people who live in the area are cautious and carry the appropriate equipment like bear spray. 

After attending class on Tuesday, I am much more aware of the “trolling” comments and was appalled by several.  As I read some, I could honestly envision the exact stereotype we spoke about in class.  Could I be generalizing??

First day of school (again)