A look at the court cases against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Benjamin Judge, NCL Public Policy Intern

Ever since President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law, there have been several challenges to key portions of the act in district courts across the country. Some of these challenges include, but are not limited to, the individual mandate for each American to have a minimum amount of health insurance, federal funding going towards abortion, and according to one case, allowing soldiers to be quartered in our homes.

Challenges to the law

There have been two major cases in which judges have ruled that the individual mandate is unconstitutional.  In the case of Commonwealth ofVirginia vs. Sebelius, Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled that the mandate was unconstitutional on the grounds that Congress was exceeding its power under the Commerce Clause. Virginia argues that requiring people to buy health insurance is not regulating commerce, but rather, forcing commerce on consumers. The federal government is currently appealing this case and there was a hearing on May 10, 2011 in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The other case in which the individual mandate was deemed unconstitutional was State ofFlorida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, where Judge Roger Vinson deemed that the mandate is unconstitutional, and since it cannot be separated from the law, then the entire law is void.  The ruling served as an injunction of the laws implementation.  Judge Vinson went on to say that the case should move on to the Supreme Court where a final decision on the law will be made.  The government appealed and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing for the case on June 8, 2011.

Dubious claims

There have also been some court cases that have made very interesting claims. In U.S. Citizens Association v. Obama the plaintiffs claim that, besides the individual mandate being unconstitutional, they are argue that the law violates the third (yes, the amendment regarding quartering of soldiers), fourth, fifth, and ninth amendment by forcing people to divulge private medical information. Although there has not yet been a ruling on this case, the most recent development is that the government’s Motion to Dismiss was denied on November 23, 2010.

Another interesting court case is Independent American Party of Nevada et al v. Obama et al. In this class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs want an injunction against the reform.  The plaintiffs claim that the law violates almost every privacy clause of the Constitution, for example due process and free exercise of religion (a full list can be found here on page three). The plaintiffs also claim that the healthcare law breaks the Thirteenth amendment because “it involuntarily creates a debt and coerces Plaintiffs herein to work off the debt by threat of legal sanction (Source).” The case is currently stalled because the government has not responded to the complaint of the Plaintiffs.

There is a very good chance that some of these cases will spend several more years in the lower courts before eventually going to Supreme Court.  All of the information on the court cases comes from https://www.healthcarelawsuits.org, there are also additional cases if you are interested in reading about more cases.


Reporting from Brussels: TACD bridging Atlantic on consumer issues – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

I recently spent three days with colleagues in Brussels attending a meeting of the Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD), forum formed a dozen years ago by consumer advocates in America and Europe. The forum is intended to bring together US and EU consumer organizations to provide a consumer perspective and input to government officials on issues as diverse as product safety, privacy, food safety, financial services, and intellectual property. There’s a Trans Atlantic Business Dialogue that has a powerful voice at the European Union meetings – the TACD provides a critical counterweight to that as well.

We met with the US Ambassador to Brussels William Kennard and Commissioner Dalli from the European Union for health and safety – they shared their agenda, and we shared ours. But equally important is the cross-fertilization of ideas that comes from hearing what our European colleagues are working on – their successes, their failures (yes, those are important too!), and what work we can do together.

Last night over a glass of Jupiler, the Belgian Budweiser, a German colleague and I discussed the possibility of taking NCL’s work on table saw safety to Germany and perhaps Denmark. The German consumer groups work closely with the trade unions, many of whose members use table saws as they build homes or office buildings in Germany’s booming economy.

The consumer voice is critical – we represent the interests of many millions of consumers in the United States and Europe. We owe a debt of gratitude to American colleagues like Rhoda Karpatkin, the visionary former head of Consumers Union, and Jamie Love, whose work on intellectual property is legendary. They took this idea of having consumers on either side of the Atlantic meet and collaborate and built it into a thriving TACD.

Credit protection plans costing cardholders – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Michael Finch, Roosevelt Summer Academy Fellow at NCL

Michael Finch, a Roosevelt Summer Academy fellow at NCL this summer, is a rising senior at Middle Tennessee State University, where he is majoring in Political Science with a concentration in Public Administration and a minor in History. At MTSU, Michael is the Assistant Editor for the student newspaper, Sidelines, and is in the process of co-founding a chapter of the fraternity Sigma Phi Beta.

Mary (not her real name) had a Capital One credit card, and was making timely payments, often above the required minimum. Her balance varied between about $700 and $800, and she was slowly chipping away at it. One month though, she received her statement and saw that her balance had somehow risen to $1000.

Without realizing it, she’d been signed up for the Capital One Payment Protection Plan, which is for cardholders who worry they may become unemployed or disabled in the future and won’t be able to make payments. If they activate Payment Protection, it pays their minimum balance for a predetermined period of time.

The unwanted charges for the plan, along with charges for other services such as CreditInform, had driven Mary over the limit, causing even more fees and explaining her skyrocketing balance. This, unfortunately, is a common situation among cardholders.

How does this happen?

Capital One’s payment protection plan, like many others, costs the cardholder 99 cents for every $100 of balance at the end of the payment period. This means that, over the course of a year, Mary ended up paying Capital One almost $120 in extra fees just for this one service (which she hadn’t knowingly agreed to).

Many consumers, like Mary, are auto-enrolled in payment protection and other services when they open a credit card, or aren’t informed that these services are optional.

After Mary realized she’d been signed up for a plan she wasn’t informed about, she found it difficult to get it canceled. She was told the plan was handled through a third-party company, which proved difficult to get in touch with.

Consumers who were misled or pressured into signing up often have an even harder time getting the plan canceled, because even though unfair practices were used to get them to enroll, credit card companies argue that they were, in fact, informed.

What can be been done?

In January of 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against Capital One, arguing that the restrictions of its payment protection plan weren’t sufficiently explained before cardholders were enrolled, and that if consumers did choose to activate it, the benefits were too difficult to actually receive. Capital One agreed on a settlement, but the payouts ranged from a meager $15 to $63 per consumer. For cardholders who paid hundreds of dollars in fees they didn’t consent to, or who tried to activate payment protection benefits and were denied on a technicality, these amounts obviously aren’t enough.

Despite lawsuits being filed against Capital One and other credit card companies for the unfair practices that victimized Mary and many like her, they continue.

What needs to change?

One pressing issue is the lack of regulation. Payment protection plans are incredibly similar to “credit insurance” plans. The main difference is that credit insurance plans have far more regulations in place to protect consumers.

Insurance companies are required to pay out 40 percent to 70 percent of the premiums they take in. Because credit card companies disguise their credit insurance as “payment protection plans,” they aren’t obligated under this regulation. According to a July 2003 study by the Center for Economic Justice, payment protection plans only paid out about 5 percent of the premiums they collected. Despite this relatively low payout, payment protection plans are 25 percent more expensive, on average, than credit insurance.

Consumers must be educated about the risks of these payment protection plans, but the responsibility isn’t entirely on them. Credit card companies like Capital One are taking advantage of consumers by using deceptive practices, and this must stop.

Hotel guests beware unauthorized charges – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

On two occasions over the past two weeks, when I or friends of mine have stayed at hotels, we’ve noticed charges racked up on the bill for goods or services we didn’t use. In my friend’s, case the hotel added an undeserved $300; in mine it was a more modest $30.

I was charged for eating items from the minibar – I didn’t! In fact, I never do since they are scandalously overpriced. How did I get charged for soft drinks or chips when I didn’t touch them? And the bill comes slipped under your door in the early morning – automatic checkout – so if you don’t scrutinize it carefully, you could end up paying for things you didn’t use.

I am suspicious that this practice isn’t simply an innocent mistake by hotel staff. I suspect that hotels pile charges on in hopes that the traveler will simply fold the bill in her pocketbook and never notice the overages. My friend’s bill was really outrageous: she had to get the hotel to take off all kinds of unauthorized charges. She told me she couldn’t for the life of her figure out how they got there. All of which means “caveat emptor”. Consumers, be sure to look carefully over your hotel bill before you check out. And I wish some consumer protection agency would launch an investigation about hotel billing practices. I could be paranoid, but it seems to me this happens too frequently for it to be totally accidental.

After the 5-4 decision, building a new case against Wal-Mart – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Alex Schneider, NCL Public Policy Intern

In a landmark decision that is sure to have long-lasting implications, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that evidence of alleged gender discrimination as presented in the case of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v Dukes was not sufficient to allow for a class action lawsuit to continue.  Justice Antonin Scalia, who handed down the majority opinion, agreed with a lower court judge’s opinion that the 1.6 million women who filed the lawsuit “have little in common but their sex and this lawsuit.”

According to the majority, the major fault of the plaintiffs was the inability to show that Wal-Mart headquarters was communicating ‘common direction[s]’ to managers that gender discrimination and bias in promotions was justified.  (The entire decision is available from the website of the Supreme Court.)

But in her dissenting opinion, Ruth Bader Ginsberg rejected the idea that Wal-Mart headquarters was blameless.  Based on available evidence, she wrote, “gender bias suffused Wal-Mart’s corporate culture.”

According to the plaintiffs, of the few male cashiers at Wal-Mart, most were better paid than female cashiers.  And in departmental assignments, which determine pay, women were tasked with selling baby clothes while men worked in the better paid electronics or sports departments.  The Impact Fund representing some of the plaintiffs said that women held only 14% of management positions in 2001.  As Ginsberg cited, one manager reportedly told an employee that “[m]en are here to make a career and women aren’t.”

A controversial outcome

For the National Consumers League and other consumer and worker rights groups that have advocated against gender discrimination, this verdict proves disheartening.

In a blog post written some months back, NCL Executive Director Sally Greenberg explored the implication of the case: “The Wal-Mart case gives the issue of “wage disparity” a woman’s face and in so doing, helps other women, particularly low-wage women earners, to see that positive results can come from their struggle to achieve equal rights in the workplace. This case is a critical bellwether for women in workplaces all over the nation.”

Liz Featherstone emphasizes many of the same themes in a post on NPR’s website, telling of “women like Betty Dukes, the lead plaintiff, a pastor in her Pittsburg, California church who has been telling her “David and Goliath” story to her congregation for years, hoping to inspire them to stand up to injustice in their own lives.”  As Featherstone puts it, “Women — whether or not we work at Wal-Mart — are furious about this Supreme Court ruling.”

Moving forward, a decade later

Since 2001, the plaintiffs have tried to bring this case before a jury, only to have their hopes of success shattered ten years later even before a hearing on the merits of the case.  As noted in the Wall Street Journal, Wal-Mart persevered in the end, having chosen not to follow the advice of its lawyers to settle the case.

The verdict of the Supreme Court in the case is final, and while views of the decision differ widely, forward thinking is necessary.

Wal-Mart has not faced its final test.  While the ruling makes legal proceedings difficult especially given the costs to individuals of filing lawsuits as well as the difficulty of proving wrong-doing after so many years, lawsuits will move forward and Wal-Mart may still be found guilty.  With 1.6 million workers affected and a potential $1,000 loss per worker (according to the New York Times), successful lawsuits could result in over $1 billion in payouts.

But in the end, the final verdict lies with consumers.  After ten years, Wal-Mart claims to have cleaned up its operation and to have increased the representation of women at all levels of management. That’s a good start.  But Wal-Mart should make amends, settle claims, and ensure that those who acted in a discriminatory fashion no longer have a place at the company.

Making amends isn’t easy, and it isn’t cheap.  But it is the right thing to do.  Until then, consumers who are angry with Wal-Mart can show they aren’t willing to give in to its policy of denying that discrimination existed at its stores.  There are ‘low prices’ to be found elsewhere, and consumers don’t have to give Wal-Mart their business.

NCL statement on Supreme Court decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes et al – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

June 20, 2011

Contact: NCL Communications, (202) 835-3323, media@nclnet.org

The following statement is attributable to National Consumers League Executive Director Sally Greenberg:

The Supreme Court today continued its disappointing assault on the interests of consumers and workers. As in its previous decisions in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion and AT&T v. Hulteen, a divided Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes et al found that the rights of consumers and workers matter less than those of the nation’s largest corporations.

NCL condemns this decision. Workers must have access to the courts to collectively pursue redress of grievances. We concur with Justice Ginsburg’s dissent, where she noted that this decision “leads the court to train its attention on what distinguishes individual class members, rather than on what unites them.”

The courts are the ultimate protector of consumer and worker rights against the excesses of big business. In this role, the highest court in the country today failed. We call on the Congress to seek a legislative remedy to this decision, restore workers’ protections from discrimination and allow for easier collective access to the court system.

###

About the National Consumers League

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit www.nclnet.org.

American public: Young farmworkers deserve equal protection of child labor laws – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

June 16, 2011

Contact: NCL Communications, (202) 835-3323, media@nclnet.org

Washington, DC – The vast majority of American consumers do not believe that 12- and 13-year-old children should be allowed to perform arduous agricultural work for long hours in the fields, and would not allow their own children to do commercial farm work at the young ages the government currently allows, according to a survey released today. The survey (questionnaire | tabular data | methodology), commissioned by the National Consumers League (NCL), the organization largely responsible for passing many of the nation’s first child labor laws in the early 19th century , reveals that 81 percent of consumers—four out of five—agree that child labor laws should protect children equally, regardless of the industry they work in. Two in three survey respondents “strongly agreed” that protections should be equal. Only 1 in 7 favored lesser protections for children working in agriculture.

According to the survey of 1,011 adults fielded June 3-6, 2011 by ORC International, only 3 percent of those with children in the house would let their own children under the age of 14 work more than 40 hours a week in the fields. Yet, federal law currently allows farmworker children to work an unlimited number of hours in the fields (outside of school hours), and many farmworker children report working as many as 60 or 70 hours a week.

Many migrant farmworker children work long hours in the fields alongside their parents, harvesting fruits and vegetables. The children often begin working at the age of 12 because of exemptions in U.S. child labor law that excludes the agriculture industry from many labor protections.

The vast majority surveyed—83 percent—agreed that it is “not okay” for children as young as 12 and 13 to work long hours in the fields. Only 1 in 8 surveyed—and only 1 in 10 female respondents—said that the practice is okay. When asked what age they would let their own children work in the fields after school and during weekends, only 13 percent—or 1 in 8 respondents—said that they would allow a child under the age of 14 to work—a common practice in the agriculture industry today.

When it comes to working more than 40 hours in the fields, the majority of those with children in (64 percent) said that they would only let their children work if they were over 18.

“These survey results demonstrate that the public feels strongly that young children should not be toiling in the fields,” said Sally Greenberg, the Executive Director of NCL and a Co-chair of the NCL-coordinated Child Labor Coalition. “Legislation that would provide much needed protections for farmworker kids has languished for more than a decade. Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard has tirelessly tried to remedy this tragic problem through the Children’s Act for Responsible Employment (CARE), which would remove the exemptions that threaten the health, safety, and education of these children. The passage of the CARE Act is long overdue.”

The survey also confirmed that Americans seem concerned that the food they purchase is not tainted by child labor. Nearly 6 in 10 survey respondents—59 percent—disagreed that “it is acceptable for a child under 14 to work for wages in the fields, harvesting produce to be sold in grocery stores.” An even larger percentage—67 percent—said that the United States should not import products made or harvested by children under the age of 14.

Americans expressed their desire that adult farmworkers earn a livable wage—87 percent agreed that the men and women who harvest fruits and vegetables should receive a sustainable wage. Despite this finding, government data suggests that most farmworker families get by on $17,000 a year—about one-third of the living wage calculated for a family of four in typical farmworker community (data based on Eagle Pass, Texas).

“If Americans knew what truly dangerous workplaces farms are, they would be even more outraged by this form of child labor,” said Reid Maki, Coordinator of the CLC and NCL’s Director of Social Responsibility and Fair Labor Standards. “One of our main concerns is the impact pesticides might be having on these kids who work long hours in treated fields, often with little or no protection.”

For several years, NCL has listed “harvesting work in agriculture” as one of the five most dangerous jobs for teen workers in an annual report on teen occupational safety. Currently, U.S. law allows children as young as 12 years old to legally work in commercial agriculture, while children of the same age are prohibited from working in nearly all other industries (with only a few exceptions such as delivering newspapers). An estimated 400,000 children work in America’s fields, often working 8-, 9-, and 10-hour backbreaking shifts in intense heat, often exposed to pesticide application, runoff, and drift. While only about eight percent of youth are employed in agriculture, the industry comprises 40 percent of child worker fatalities.

NCL, which coordinates the 28-member CLC, commissioned the national random-sample telephone survey to gain an understanding of consumers’ views on child labor in American commercial agriculture. The margin of error of the phone survey sample of 1,011 adults is plus or minus 3 percent. Smaller subgroups have larger error margins.

For additional information regarding the survey results, visit www.nclnet.org.

###

About the National Consumers League

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit www.nclnet.org.

NCL statement on introduction of ‘Location Privacy Protection Act of 2011’ – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

June 15, 2011

Contact: NCL Communications, (202) 835-3323, media@nclnet.org

The following statement is attributable to Sally Greenberg, National Consumers League Executive Director:

“Requiring consumer notification of location-based tracking is a common-sense response to the explosive growth of this technology.  The millions of smartphones in consumers’ pockets are incredibly powerful devices when used properly.  However, the potential for misuse of location information and the potential harm to consumers requires prudent rules of the road.  At a minimum, consumers should be made aware that their location is being tracked and given more control over how that information is used.  We are pleased to see this bill introduced and applaud Senators Franken and Blumenthal for their efforts to protect consumers in the digital age.”

###

About the National Consumers League

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit www.nclnet.org.

Staying safe in the summer sun – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Benjamin Judge, NCL Public Policy Intern

With school out and summer in full swing, weekends are filling up with BBQs, swimming pools, lawn games, and other fun outdoor activities. But all that time outside in the hot sun can have serious health consequences, and the beginning of summer is a great time to remind ourselves of the importance of sun protection. We all want to have fun in the sun, but we need to make sure to take in the summer rays as safely as possible. Luckily, the FDA recently made some regulation changes that will provide consumers with more information regarding the effectiveness of different sunscreens.

A few changes

The FDA recently announced new rules, which specify which lotions work the best while debunking the idea that sunscreens are truly “waterproof.” The FDA will ban sunscreen manufactures from saying their products are sweatproof or waterproof, and will instead allow them to list the amount of time (in minutes) that their lotion is water-resistant. The FDA will also require that sunscreens protect equally from both UVA and UVB radiation before earning “broad spectrum protection” label.

For the full list of FDA regulation changes, which will go into effect next year, visit their site *here.

Dangers to prolonged exposure to the sun.

I’m sure everyone reading this has been sunburned at one time or another. However, there are many other serious sun health risks beyond the ubiquitous sunburn. Most people have heard of the dangers caused by UV-rays, but it’s important to distinguish between UVA and UVB rays. UVB rays are the radiation that causes sunburns and does not penetrate the upper layer of skin (epidermis).  However UVA rays are much more dangerous because they can penetrate the upper layer and be absorbed in the middle layer of the skin (dermis), causing skin damage and the possibility of skin cancer. According to the Melanoma Education Foundation one blistering sunburn before the age of 20 doubles your lifetime risk of melanoma.  The foundation also says “skin damage from UV exposure is cumulative throughout your lifetime and cannot be reversed.” So it’s important to choose the sun protection that will most likely mitigate these unwanted problems.

How to stay safe

Staying safe is simple if you follow a few basic tips:

  • Apply sunscreen before exposing yourself to the sun.
  • Wear protective clothing like a hat and sunglasses.
  • When spending long amount of time in the sun, don’t forget to reapply sunscreen every two hours, even more often when sweating or swimming.
  • Use sunscreen that has at least SPF 15 in order to protect against sunburns, skin damage, and skin cancer.

Now get out there and enjoy the great summer weather!

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f80iPEfwE80&feature=player_embedded]

*Links are no longer active as the original sources have removed the content, sometimes due to federal website changes or restructurings.

Avoid Fake Check Scams: Five things you should know – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

You’ve won millions in a lottery, or you’ve been offered a job as a “mystery shopper.” Great news, right? All you have to do is deposit the checks or money orders you’ll receive and send the money somewhere, minus your “pay.” Is this your lucky day? NO! It’s a fake check scam that will cost you thousands unless you know the danger signs.The letter says that you’ve won millions in a sweepstakes or lottery, and there is a check or money order enclosed as part of your winnings. All you need to do to get the rest is send money to pay the taxes. Or someone offers you a job working at home as a “mystery shopper” or accounts manager.  It’s easy – you deposit the checks or money orders you’ll receive and send the money somewhere, minus your “pay.” Is this your lucky day? NO! It’s a fake check scam that will cost you thousands unless you know the danger signs.

If someone gives you a check or money order and asks you to send money somewhere in return, it’s a scam. That is not how legitimate sweepstakes operators or other companies operate. If you have really won, you will pay taxes directly to the government. Legitimate mystery shopper or account manager jobs don’t involve using money transfer services to send money.

A familiar name doesn’t guarantee that it’s legitimate. Crooks often pretend to be from well-known companies to gain people’s trust. Find the company’s contact information independently, online or through directory assistance, and contact it yourself to verify the information.

The check or money order may be fake even if your bank or credit union lets you have the cash. You have the right to get the cash quickly, usually within 1-2 days, but your bank or credit union can’t tell if there is a problem with the check or money order until it has gone through the system to the person or company that supposedly issued it. That can take weeks. By the time the fraud is discovered, the crook has pocketed the cash.

When the check or money order bounces, you will have to pay the money back to your bank or credit union. You are responsible because you are in the best position to know if the person who gave it to you is trustworthy. If you don’t pay the money back, your account could be frozen or closed, and you could be sued. Some victims are even charged with fraud.

Sending money using a money transfer service is like sending cash – once the crook picks it up you can’t get it back from the service. It’s not like a check that you can stop after you’ve given it to someone or a credit card charge that you can dispute. But if the money has not been picked up yet, you may be able to stop the transaction. Contact the money transfer service immediately if you think you’ve been scammed.

Want to learn more? Go to www.consumerfed.org/fakecheckscams to read CFA’s Don’t Become a Target brochure, watch the funny videos about sweepstakes/lottery and work-at-home fake check scams, and check out the other materials on the Web site. Visit NCL’s www.fakechecks.org, where you can take a quiz to see how well you can spot this fraud, send an ecard to warn other people, and find information to help you and people you care about avoid losing money to fake check scams.