Novalawcity

Understanding the New U.S. Health-care Environment, Part 2

According to an email from the Federal Depository Library Program:

"The Health Care Reform legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives is available on GPO's Federal Digital System (FDsys). To view the electronic versions of the legislation, debate and vote click here for the press release: http://www.gpo.gov/pdfs/news-media/press/10news12.pdf

"In addition, printed copies can be purchase through GPO's Online Bookstore: http://bookstore.gpo.gov/collections/health-bills-reports.jsp."

The GPO PDF is chock-full of links, so I won't repeat them here.

Understanding the New U.S. Health-care Environment

On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the House passed H.R. 4872, the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010. The Act passed by a vote of 220-211. No Republicans voted for the bill, and 34 Democrats voted against it. The New York Times has an article on the history and context of the new law.

If you, like many people, are wondering how this new law will affect the U.S. health-care system, the Atlantic magazine's Web site has a useful, short article on the insurance and tax implications of the new law. The Wall Street Journal has a news story about what is in the new law, and has more coverage of the new law, with a time-line of when the changes go into effect. For example, there has been some confusion in the press about when the Act's restrictions on denials of coverage for pre-existing conditions goes into effect. This article clarifies this. For children, coverage denials for pre-existing conditions are banned starting in 2010. For adults, coverage denials for pre-existing conditions are banned starting in 2013.

The New York Times' David Brooks thinks the new health-care bill is good. For a contrary editorial, see this piece in the Wall Street Journal.

Public Knowledge's Copyright Reform Proposal

The group Public Knowledge, "a Washington DC based public interest group working to defend your rights in the emerging digital culture," (see http://www.publicknowledge.org/about) has made a bold (but not so new) proposal for the reform of copyright law.

According to their Web site (http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/2906), their Copyright Reform Act, which has five sections, is proposing to strengthen fair use, reform the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), so that circumvention of anti-copying technology is explicitly legal for lawful purposes, update copyright law to better fit with how digital technology functions, reform the anti-takedown provisions of the DMCA, and make music licensing easier for users of that content.

Copyfighter Cory Doctorow has an essay on his Web site (http://www.internetevolution.com/document.asp?doc_id=188055) that speaks to this issue. There is a rather secretive copyright treaty, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), under development, and reform to the Copyright Act is especially important in view of this treaty. Cory's essay is a call to action about ACTA.

George Mason University Law School teaches a seminar in multinational IP, (also covering so-called "hard IP"--patents) which is located at: http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/academics/schedule/2010/spring/HOUSEL_MultinationalIP-Syllabus.pdf. The PDF of the syllabus is full of links to materials and also references primary materials.

For some information from the other side of the intellectual property debate:

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has some information about intellectual property: http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/, with links to additional material.

WIPO also has a collection of international copyright laws, at http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/, the WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook, at http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/iprm/index.html, and an e-booklet, Understanding Copyright and Related Rights, at http://www.wipo.int/freepublications/en/intproperty/909/wipo_pub_909.html#intro.

Public Corruption, Part Two: Florida Faces, Tries to Fight Public Corruption

The Federal honest-services fraud statute is being tested after a number of officials in Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties have been arrested for public corruption. Some Florida legislators--and the Broward and Palm Beach County State Attorrneys, Michael Satz and Michael McAuliffe--are advocating strengthening of Florida's public-corruption laws in ways that do not depend on the language of the Federal honest-services fraud statute. Called the "Restoring Faith in Public Office Act," the new state legislation, SB 1076 (bill information page) (bill text), would amend Florida Statutes section 838.022, "Official misconduct," to include failing, with corrupt intent, to disclose a financial interest or a direct or indirect benefit.

The bill is sponsored by Democratic state senator Dan Gelber, and supported by other Democrats. The Miami Herald ran an article about the new public-corruption legislation, and the Sun-Sentinel ran an editorial advocating the legislation. According to the Sun-Sentinel, the legislation's chances of passage are limited unless it acquires bipartisan support.

Public Corruption, Part One: Honest-Services Fraud

Public corruption and honest services fraud are an issue both in Florida and nationally. My next two blog posts will address this issue, first on the Federal level, then on the state level.

Public officials and businesspeople in the U.S. are being charged and in some cases convicted under the Federal honest services fraud statute. The statute, 18 U.S.C. §1346 (1988), is itself an addendum to 18 U.S.C. chapter 63, "Mail Fraud and Other Fraud Offenses," which includes wire fraud and bank fraud. Section 1346, which does not itself define a crime, adds to the definition of "scheme or artifice to defraud." It reads: "For the purposes of this chapter, the term 'scheme or artifice to defraud' includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."

The Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of the honest services fraud statute in three cases this term: Black v. United States, Weyhrauch v. United States, and Skilling v. United States.  (The links are to SCOTUSWiki, a companion site to SCOTUSBlog, brought to you by Akin Gump's Supreme Court and Appellate practice group.) According to the Los Angeles Times, during the arguments over Black and Weyhrauch, on December 9, 2009, the Supreme Court seemed dubious about the constitutionality of the honest-services fraud statute, with no real ideological split. The honest-services fraud statute is analyzed, and its history delved into, in this article originally published on the American Bar Association's Web site, "The Honest Services Statute: Scalpel or Axe?"  The Miami Herald ran an editorial in December 2009 about the necessity of the honest-services fraud statute.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" May Be Repealed

The White House and the U.S. military, with the support of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, are moving to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, codified at 10 U.S.C. §654 (1993). Under "don't ask, don't tell," service members are not questioned over their sexual orientation but are subject to discharge if they reveal publicly that they are gay or lesbian. Accoding to the New York Times's coverage, the Obama administration was faced with a choice: move away from the policy, or defend in court a policy which President Obama had long thought was wrong.

Here are some more links about "don't ask, don't tell":

• Google has a timeline of the debate, starting in 1993.


• Center for Military Readiness President Elaine Donnelly opposes repeal.


• The New York Times published an editorial advocating the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell.


• Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State Colin Powell now favors repeal.


• Retired Navy Capt. Joan E. Darrah, who served 29½ years as a naval intelligence officer and was chief of staff and deputy commander at the Office of Naval Intelligence, describes her experiences under "don't ask, don't tell."

Blowback from Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

In light of the January 21, 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the recent House bill proposing a large tax on corporate donations (H.R. 4431) is a nice idea.  Hey, what's not to love about a bill with the catchy short title of ‘‘Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act’’? 

The stated purpose of H.R. 4431 is to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a 500% excise tax on corporate contributions made to political committees and corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns.  Introduced by Representative Alan Grayson (FL-8) on January 13th, H.R. 4431 was referred to the Committee of Ways and Means where it is now under review.  Tune in for further developments via THOMAS.

Why Many Federal Bills Go Nowhere

Less than a percent of bills find their way into Law; the process and how to spot the winners are in this intriguing OpenCongress post.

Excellent Discussion of Network Neutrality

If you know what network neutrality is about, you should read this blog post by Carrie Lowe. It originally appeared in Save the Internet's blog, but I read it in District Dispatch blog from the Washington Office of the  American Library Association.  If you don't know what it is, you really need to read it!  In other words, everyone should read this outstanding overview of an issue which is vital to our democracy.

Department of Novel Ideas

I bet a lot of people are slapping their foreheads and wondering why they didn't think of this first.  The Sunlight Foundation, the organization whose mission it is to use the Internet to make government more transparent to the people, has started a campaign, called "Read the Bill," to urge Congress to post proposed legislation online 72 hours before debate on it begins.  The thought is that this will give Congress, and us too, the chance to actually read the legislation.  Perhaps then we will be spared the necessity of having it read out loud to us, as so many members of Congress felt compelled to do with the stimulus package.