Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Twin suicide car bombs in Baghdad kill 136

0 comments

Iraqi PM visits UKImage by Downing Street via Flickr

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Two able suicide car bombs blew up alfresco the Justice Ministry and burghal government offices in downtown Baghdad Sunday, killing at atomic 136 bodies in the deadliest attack in added than two years. Iraqi leaders said the attacks aimed to disrupt political advance in the months leading up to January's acute elections.

While abandon has dropped badly in the country back the height of the sectarian tensions, the latest bombings underscored the precarious attributes of the aegis gains and the insurgency's abilities to still cull off devastating attacks in the center of what is declared to be one of Baghdad's best secure areas.

The street where the blasts occurred had aloof been reopened to agent cartage six months ago. Shortly after, bang walls were repositioned to allow cartage closer to the government buildings. Such changes were touted by Iraq's prime abbot as a assurance that safety was abiding to the city.

"The perpetrators of these betraying and despicable acts are no best ambuscade their objective but to the contrary, they publicly declare that they are targeting the accompaniment ... and aiming at blocking the political process, awkward it and destroying what we accept achieved in the last six years," President Jalal Talabani said.

President Barack Obama condemned the "outrageous attacks," saying they "reveal the hateful and destructive agenda of those who would deny the Iraqi bodies the future that they deserve."

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the "savage" suicide bombings attacks will not accomplish in abrasive Iraq's advance against stability, aggressiveness and justice based on the rule of law.

There accept been no claims of responsibility so far, but massive car bombs accept been the hallmark of the Sunni insurgents seeking to abolish the country's Shiite-dominated government.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki abhorrent al-Qaida and associates of deposed administering of Saddam Hussein for the blasts aiming to "block the political action and the elections."

"The cowardly terrorist acts will not breach the will of the Iraqi bodies to continue the political process," al-Maliki said in a statement.

Black smoke billowed from the frantic scene, as emergency service cartage sped to the breadth to amusement the nearly 600 wounded. Even noncombatant cars were being commandeered to transport the blood-soaked to hospitals.

"The walls burst and we had to run out," said Yasmeen Afdhal, 24, an agent of the Baghdad provincial administration, which was targeted by one of the car bombs. "There are abounding wounded, and I saw them being taken away. They were affairs victims out of the rubble, and rushing them to ambulances."

At atomic 25 staff associates of the Baghdad Provincial Council, which runs the city, were dead in the bombing, said board affiliate Mohammed al-Rubaiey. Three American contractors were amid the wounded.

The provincial board is the burghal government, which oversees a broad ambit of burghal casework including administration of food ration cards, a holdover from Saddam-era sanctions against Iraq. The board additionally administers debris collection, electricity and the administration of ammunition for generators and is amenable for the aliment of the cities schools. It is composed of 57 anon adopted representatives.

The blasts are a blow to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has staked his reputation and re-election hopes on abiding aegis to the country.

The attacks came as Iraq was prep! aring fo r elections appointed for January. Officials accept warned that abandon by insurgents intent destabilizing the country could rise.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged "all Iraqis to affiliate in the face of these deplorable acts and to work with acute urgency to assure Iraq's political progress."

The breadth where the blasts occurred is aloof a few hundred yards from the Green Zone that houses the U.S. Embassy as able-bodied as the prime minister's offices.

The attacks occurred aloof hours before Iraq's top leadership was appointed to meet with heads of political parties on Sunday and reach a accommodation on the acknowledged acclamation law ahead of a acute parliamentary vote in January.

The explosive-laden cartage were sitting in parking garages next to the two government building, police said.

"They are targeting the government and the political action in the country," Maj. Gen. Qassim al-Mousawi, agent for the city's operations command center, told The Associated Press.

The antecedent investigation suggests that the attackers "might accept crossed some checkpoints and then detonated the bombs," al-Mussawi said.

A pickup truck that exploded abreast the Justice Ministry was accustomed 1,000 kilograms (2,204 pounds) of explosives, the antecedent investigation found. The second pickup truck that went off abreast the Provincial Council, was accustomed 700 kilograms (1,543 pounds) of explosives.

The explosives, absorbed to the cartage and hidden bellow the seats, were the alone load the suicide trucks were carrying, al-Mussawi said.

The coordinated bombings were the deadliest back a alternation of massive truck bombs in arctic Iraq dead nearly 500 villagers from the minority Yazidi camp in August 2007. In Baghdad itself, however, it is the worst attack back a alternation of! suicide bombings against Shiite neighborhoods in April 2007 dead 183 people.

Al-Maliki toured the bang sites later in the day.

Sunday's explosions additionally afflicted nearly 600 bodies who were taken to six breadth hospitals. Medical officials, speaking on action of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media, gave the death toll.

Video images captured on a cell buzz showed the second bang going off in a massive ball of flames, followed by a burst of apparatus gun fire.

"This is a political struggle, the amount of which we are paying," said provincial board affiliate al-Rubaiey. "Every politician is amenable and even the government is responsible, as able-bodied as aegis leaders."

Three American aegis contractors, working for the U.S. admiral in Baghdad were afflicted in the blasts, but no American admiral cadre were killed, said Philip Frayne, an admiral spokesman. Frayne could not immediately accommodate details about who the contractors were convoying to the site, which aggregation they formed for or, or the attributes of their injuries.

The explosions were aloof a few hundred yards from Iraq's Foreign Ministry which is still rebuilding afterwards massive bombings there in August. The bombings were a devastating blow for a country that has apparent a dramatic drop in abandon back the height of the sectarian angry in 2006 and 2007.


Saturday, October 24, 2009

New malpractice idea in health care debate

0 comments

Barack Obama Elected PresidentImage by jvoves via Flickr

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama's willingness to consider alternatives to medical malpractice lawsuits is providing a boost for taking such cases out of the courtroom and letting experts, not juries, decide their merits.

The idea of appointing neutral experts to sift malpractice facts from allegations appeals to conservatives in both political parties. They want to address medical liability as part of health care legislation that's now largely silent on the issue. Trial lawyers remain steadfastly opposed to curbs.

Nonetheless, the American Hospital Association has been shopping a new plan to lawmakers, hoping it will be considered during Senate floor debate on health care in the coming weeks.

Separately, at a Health and Human Services hearing next week, proponents of the idea will urge the administration to provide funds for a pilot program. Obama has set aside $25 million to test a range of alternatives to malpractice litigation, and the hearing is the first step in deciding how to distribute it.

"There is a progressive opportunity here to leapfrog what has been a stereotypically polarized debate in Washington," said Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist Democratic think tank. "This serves both progressive and conservative goals. You wouldn't have to have a terrible injury and attract an enterprising malpractice lawyer to have access to court. And it would reduce malpractice premiums."

Doctors have maintained for years that fear of being sued leads them to order unneeded tests that raise costs for everyone. In Obama, they've found a Democratic president who accepts that premise.

Validation has als! o come f rom the Congressional Budget Office. In a turnaround, it recently concluded that malpractice curbs would lower the federal deficit by $54 billion over 10 years, mainly because Medicare and Medicaid wouldn't have to pay as much for defensive medicine.

What Obama doesn't accept is the idea of slapping hard limits on jury awards in malpractice cases, the remedy long advocated by doctors' groups. So the search is on for alternatives.

That's what Richard Umbdenstock, president of the hospital association, says his industry has come up with. "We are trying to offer this as a constructive approach, to see if we can generate some interest," he said.

Under the plan, patients who've suffered an injury at the hands of a medical professional or institution could take their case to a local panel of experts appointed by state authorities.

The patient wouldn't have to prove negligence, only that the doctor could have avoided the problem by following established guidelines for clinical practice.

If the experts find that a patient was harmed and the injury could have been avoided, the panel would offer compensation. Payments would not be open-ended, but based on a publicly available compensation schedule.

A patient who disagrees with the local panel's ruling could appeal to a higher-level panel, and ultimately, to a court.

The hospitals' proposal is similar to an idea for "health courts" from Common Good, a nonprofit group that advocates for changes in the legal system. All patients would benefit from such a system because it would create an incentive for doctors to follow clinical best practice guidelines, said lawyer Philip Howard, the group's founder.

It would also protect doctors who adhere to the standards, getting at the root of the problem of defensive medicine.

"Defensive medicine is! the res ult of distrust by doctors in situations where they are blamed when a sick person get sicker, but they didn't do anything wrong," said Howard.

But trial lawyers say that such an approach could infringe on constitutional rights.

"We think that health courts take away the right to a jury trial," said Susan Steinman, policy director for the American Association for Justice, which represents lawyers.

It's unlikely that Congress would pass a law ordering states to adopt health courts. For one thing, trial lawyers are among the biggest contributors to Democratic candidates. But Harvard law and public health professor Michelle Mello says the federal government could encourage states to adopt such changes themselves, by offering financial grants. Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., an influential voice on health care, has advocated such an approach.

The Obama administration is keeping all its options open. A stronger medical malpractice initiative could help the health care bill get votes from moderates and conservatives. It could also alienate some liberals. The political balance is unclear.

HHS spokesman Nick Papas said any proposal that advances the president's goals of protecting patients, reducing frivolous lawsuits, fairly and quickly compensating patients who are injured, and fostering more open communication between doctors and patients will be considered for funds under the administration's $25 million pilot program.

"Medical malpractice reform is a hand extended to the Republicans," said Marshall, the Democratic centrist. "But there's no telling if they might swat it away."


Friday, October 23, 2009

Negotiators consider public option in Senate bill

0 comments

WASHINGTON - SEPTEMBER 30:  Committee Chairman...Image by Getty Images via Daylife

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senior Senate Democrats at work with White House officials on health care legislation are strongly considering a requirement for the federal government to sell insurance in direct competition with private industry, officials said Thursday, with individual states permitted to drop out of the system.

Liberals in Congress long have viewed such an approach, called a public option, as an essential ingredient of the effort to overhaul the nation's health care system, and President Barack Obama has said frequently he favors it. But he has also made clear it is not essential to the legislation he seeks, a gesture to Democratic moderates who have opposed it.

Sens. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said in separate interviews they had been told the plan was drawing interest in the private negotiations unfolding in an ornate room in the Capitol down the hall from the Senate chamber.

The final decision is up to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who led a delegation of Democrats to the White House late in the day to discuss health care with Obama.

"I'm not part of those discussions. What I'm hearing is that this is the direction of the conversation," said Conrad, who supports an alternative approach under which nonprofit co-ops would compete with private industry.

"I keep hearing there is a lot of leaning toward some sort of national public option, unfortunately, from my standpoint," Nelson said.

The White House declined to comment.

Reid's office did likewise, and the Nevada Democrat left the White House without talking with reporters.

Several officials said no fina! l decisi ons had been made about including the so-called public option into the legislation. In the extraordinarily complicated atmosphere surrounding health care, one possibility seemed to be that the idea of a public option was being given wide circulation to see whether it could attract enough support to survive on the Senate floor.

WASHINGTON - SEPTEMBER 22:  Senate Finance Com...Image by Getty Images via Daylife

If not, it surely would be jettisoned beforehand, with liberals urged to accept something less or risk defeat of health care legislation. There is little margin for error among Obama's allies in the Senate as they confront nearly unanimous Republican opposition.

Democratic moderates are skeptical of allowing the government to sell insurance, concerned that it would mark an unwarranted federal intrusion into the private marketplace. And even if they agreed, it would raise questions of payment rates for doctors, hospitals and other providers.

Conrad, for example, has said repeatedly he could not accept a plan with payments tied to Medicare, the federal health care program for the elderly, because rates in North Dakota are too low to give doctors an incentive to treat additional patients.

The public option issue has been one of the most vexing of the yearlong effort by Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress to remake the nation's health care system.

Legislation taking shape in the House is also expected to include a public option, although it is unlikely states will be allowed to opt out.

After months of struggle, both houses are expected to vote in the next few weeks on sweeping legislation that expands coverage to millions of people who lack it, ban industry practices such as denial of coverage for pre-existing medical conditions and slow the growth of medical care spending in general.

The House and Senate measures aim to expand coverage to about 95 percent of the population, and include federal sub! sidies t o help lower-income families afford coverage and permit small businesses to provide it for their employees.

The two bills differ at many points, although both are paid for through a combination of cuts in future Medicare spending and higher taxes - a levy on high-cost insurance policies in the case of the Senate and an income surcharge on very high income individuals and families in the House measure.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said at a news conference she and her leadership were entering the "final stages" of assembling a health care bill to be voted on this fall. Officials have said the measure would cost $871 billion over a decade, but that total excluded a handful of items not directly related to expanded coverage that would push the total to well over $1 trillion.

Pelosi told reporters a provision eliminating the health insurance industry's exemption from federal antitrust law would be incorporated into the House measure.

Officials said a similar move was under discussion in the Senate, part of a strong response to recent industry criticism of the legislation.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs declined to take a position on the antitrust proposal, saying it was under review.

Similarly, Christine A. Varney, the head of the Justice Department's antitrust division, testified before Congress recently that the administration "generally supports the idea of repealing antitrust exemptions. However, we take no position as to how and when Congress should address this issue."

Varney also said that repeal of current exemptions covering the industry would "allow competition to have a greater role in reforming health and medical malpractice insurance markets than would otherwise be the case."

The Senate negotiations have proceeded in unusual secrecy, attended by Reid, two Senate committee chairmen, S! en., Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and a small group of administration officials led by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

Nominally, their task is to merge bills cleared earlier in the year by two Senate committees. But in fact, they have a virtual free hand to draft legislation that Reid will then usher onto the Senate floor for one of the most widely anticipated debates in recent years.

Democrats hold a 60-40 majority in the Senate, counting two independents, precisely the number needed to overcome a threatened Republican filibuster. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, voted for the health care bill that cleared the Senate Finance Committee recently, giving Democrats one potential additional vote.

But she has long voiced opposition to a public option along the lines under consideration, as has Nelson, and other moderate Democrats have voiced skepticism. Without 60 votes, the legislation could stall even before debate began in earnest.

---

Associated Press writers Charles Babington, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Erica Werner contributed to this report.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Afghan coalition government is an option, US says

0 comments

WASHINGTON - OCTOBER 07:  Senate Foreign Relat...Image by Getty Images via Daylife

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The United States would be receptive to a power-sharing arrangement between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his election challenger if they agreed to it, Obama administration officials said Wednesday.

Karzai and former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah have settled on a Nov. 7 runoff following weeks of acrimony over Afghanistan's fraud-ridden national election. But both sides also are considering a coalition government that could either replace the runoff or follow it.

A State Department official said the U.S. would not be opposed to a power-sharing deal, depending on its legitimacy and how it was implemented. And President Barack Obama appeared to allude to the still-fluid discussions Wednesday.

"I think we're still in - finding out how this whole process in Afghanistan is going to unfold," Obama said in an interview on MSNBC.

One senior defense official said that a power-sharing deal at this point had equal odds of coming together or falling apart.

The administration is stressing that any such agreement is up to the Afghan government and the U.S. is not involved in any effort to forge or encourage it.

The U.S. wants a government that is legitimate in the eyes of Afghans and the international community, officials say, and at present that legitimacy appears clearest through the Afghan Constitution's requirement for a run-off vote.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to describe confidential discussions between the two governments.

"We don't have any view really on a power-sharing arrangement," State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters on Wednesday. "! It would depend on the manner in which it was presented and carried out."

Officials also said Wednesday that Obama's pending decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan figured in the U.S. discussions with Karzai about how to resolve the political impasse.

Several officials stressed that the looming troop plan decision was not used overtly to force Karzai to concede on the election's contested first round, but one highly placed U.S. official in Afghanistan said the United States used Obama's deliberation over troop numbers as leverage.

That official spoke on condition of anonymity because Obama has not announced whether he will agree to a U.S. military request for thousands of additional forces.

Karzai and Abdullah have largely dismissed the idea of sharing power, but there have been reports of private horsetrading discussions before and since Tuesday's announcement that the country would hold a runoff election on Nov. 7.

The most important near-term goal for the U.S. was Karzai's acceptance of election commission results and his recognition that the impasse must be resolved, the defense official said.

The outcome has been in doubt since an August election badly marred by fraud. The United Nations says much of the vote-rigging and phantom balloting was done on Karzai's behalf.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., met repeatedly with Karzai leading up to Tuesday's announcement that a runoff would be held. Kerry gave Obama his accounting at the White House on Wednesday, and afterward told reporters that in Afghanistan he "did not discuss nor did I even attempt to put on the table the concept of a coalition."

It would be inappropriate to raise that possibility and would make it seem to Afghans that the United States was calling the shots, Kerry said. "We want to avoid that, always."

However, h! e acknow ledged the issue was being discussed in Kabul, and said there may have been talks between the Karzai and Abdullah camps on it "even today."

Obama is mulling how to shift strategy in the 8-year-old Afghanistan war, and the election mess in Afghanistan has played a big role in his intensive, weeks-long discussions with his war council.

"What we've said is that it is important to make sure that we understand the landscape and the partner that we're going to be dealing with," Obama told MSNBC. "Because our strategy in Afghanistan is not just dependent on military - forces. It's also dependent on how well we're doing with our civilian development efforts, how well we're doing in stemming corruption. So, this is part of a comprehensive strategy, it always has been. And our basic attitude is that we are going to take the time to get this right."

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the decision about troops could come before the Nov. 7 runoff date.

"I don't know when the decision is going to be, so it's certainly possible," Gibbs said.

In his own interview, Obama added that even if the new strategy is formulated before the runoff "we may not announce it."

The White House has been saying that Obama's decision on troops is still weeks away. Obama leaves Nov. 11 for a long trip to Asia, and it has been expected he would make a decision before then.

A State Department official said Abdullah's camp had expressed some interest in a coalition or power-sharing deal, and that some Karzai aides, concerned about the results of a runoff, are willing to consider the idea despite the president's public repudiation of the idea.

That official said the U.S. would support any course that leads to the formation of a credible government in the eyes of the Afghan people.

That could include a c! oalition or other power-sharing arrangement that is either formed to eliminate the need for a second round or one that is created using the results of the runoff.

But there are no provisions for a coalition in the Afghan Constitution, and it is not clear how such a deal would work or remain enforceable.

Abdullah was not enthusiastic in public comments Wednesday in Kabul about a possible power-sharing arrangement, although as the second-place finisher in August he probably has the most to gain from such a deal.

"I think a coalition government is not a solution for Afghanistan's problems," Abdullah said, speaking in Dari. "The solution is to bring peace and good governance."

---

Associated Press writers Jennifer Loven, Ron Fournier and Julie Pace in Washington and Robert H. Reid in Kabul contributed to this report.


Wednesday, October 21, 2009

THE INFLUENCE GAME: Firms resist new health rules

0 comments

WASHINGTON - JANUARY 20:  A line stretches aro...Image by Getty Images via Daylife

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Despite promises by President Barack Obama, more than 70 million Americans who have health insurance through their jobs could be open to higher costs or denials of some coverage under a leading overhaul plan making its way through Congress.

That's because large employers that directly assume the cost and risk of health coverage for their workers - including Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Caterpillar Inc. and Xerox - wouldn't be subject to the same rules and restrictions that would be imposed on health insurers in the measure approved this month by the Senate Finance Committee.

Large companies that offer their workers such coverage are lobbying hard to keep the status quo and be shielded from costly new regulations and requirements in the final health measure currently being negotiated behind closed doors by Obama's top aides and leading Democrats.

Not all Democrats want to go along.

"I want to make very clear that we cannot promise the American people that the insurance reforms they have been hearing so much about will benefit everyone, when the reality is that this bill leaves out" up to 55 percent, or 73 million people covered by such arrangements, said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W. Va., when the Finance panel met recently to debate the measure. He failed to change the legislation to require those plans to obey the rules applying to insurers.

What the firms want is to be able to keep extending health insurance to their workers free of many insurance regulations, such as those governing what services must be covered by a policy and when a person can be denied coverage.

That means that despite Obama's pledges that people will no longe! r be sub ject to the most egregious aspects of today's health care system - being denied insurance because of a health condition, shouldering crippling out-of-pocket costs, or facing limits or high costs for basic services and treatments - a wide swath of workers wouldn't enjoy the same guarantees.

Several big business groups have banded together as the National Coalition on Benefits to preserve their special status, originally granted in the early 1970s for employers that take on the risks and costs associated with insuring their own workers. They've been bringing executives from companies large and small to Capitol Hill for meetings with lawmakers to drive home their slogan: "Don't erode what works to fix what's broken."

The companies say they need flexibility to continue covering workers, and provisions included in other drafts of the health overhaul that would eventually subject them to some of the same rules as insurance companies - like requiring them to offer specific benefits - would crush their ability to do so.

"The more the administrative burdens are, the more costly it becomes. These things tend to snowball and grow with time," said Martin Reiser, a lobbyist with Xerox who heads the coalition. "Our message is that the employment-based system is working, so don't try and fix us."

Wal-Mart is part of the group. So is Caterpillar, which is a member of the steering committee along with such other Fortune 100 firms as AT&T, Dow Chemical and Verizon Communications.

At issue are businesses that "self-insure" rather than purchasing coverage from an insurance company. Workers in such arrangements often believe they're covered by a health insurer since they have cards bearing the company's name, but in fact their employer shoulders the risks and pays claims, with the insurance company merely administering the plan.

The Associated Press is one of many lar! ge emplo yers that self-insures.

Firms that offer the coverage generally provide generous benefits, and they're already subject to some federal requirements. They must cover maternity care, mental health and breast cancer screening, for example, and can block someone from coverage because of a pre-existing health condition only under certain circumstances and for limited periods of time. While they're not legally required to cover everyone regardless of medical history or health status, most if not all of these employer-provided plans already do so, since their goal is to spread risk across a broad group.

Still, some lawmakers contend they should have to abide by the same strict requirements that health insurance companies would under the new system.

Rockefeller says he is worried that some "bad actors" looking to manage their costs would end up saddling their workers with more health expenses. For example, if a worker had cancer and reached his employer's coverage limit, the company could stop paying for treatment. Insurance companies, by contrast, would be barred from establishing such limits in the new system.

Employers already have been shifting more health care costs onto workers in recent years as those expenses have skyrocketed. In the current sluggish economic environment with unemployment high, some analysts expect the trend to intensify.

"An employer's ability to increase deductibles and copays and basically mess around with a source of compensation depends on the strength of the labor market," said Paul Fronstin of the Employee Benefits Research Institute. "Right now, employers have it made, because unemployment is at 10 percent - they can do whatever they want."

If companies in this category get their way in the debate over the health overhaul, employees will remain subject to such changes and reductions.

"They're already ! vulnerab le in the sense that employers decide what to cover in the benefits plan, and should somebody want something covered that's not covered, there's basically no recourse. That won't change," Fronstin said.

Organizations representing the large employers - including the Business Roundtable, the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Benefits Council - say their members aren't asking for special treatment.

"We're the group that's been doing the right thing year after year. If the end goal is to make sure that everyone has good insurance, we're the group that's doing that already," said Jeri Kubicki of the NAM.

The Self-Insurance Institute of America Inc., which represents smaller firms that provide coverage to their workers, dispatched some 300 executives to Capitol Hill for three days in the spring to try and persuade lawmakers to leave their plans alone in the push to expand coverage.

"We cut costs, the employees are happy, and this is the part of the health care system that's clearly working - you're wasting your time picking at this issue," said Cliff Roberti, the Institute's government relations director.

Roberti's group has poured more than $600,000 into lobbying Congress over the past two years, doubling its spending this year as it has intensified its push to resist new requirements. Large members of the National Coalition on Benefits have shelled out much more to influence Capitol Hill, including more than $20 million by the Business Roundtable, more than $9.5 million by the National Association of Manufacturers and $1.6 million by the American Benefits Council.


Top News

 
Floyd and Bennett - Pinky and The Brain creditosbtemplates creditos Templates by lecca 2008 .....Top