The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: federal
Many Latinos Shun Obamacare For Fear Of Getting Relatives Deported

Many Latinos Shun Obamacare For Fear Of Getting Relatives Deported

By Soumya Karlamangla and Chad Terhune, Los Angeles Times

LOS ANGELES — Lilian Saldana turned down Obamacare coverage once, and she might do it again.

With sign-ups set to resume Saturday, the 23-year-old Covina resident and her younger sister are hesitant to enroll because their parents are immigrants who are not citizens and therefore ineligible for benefits under the Affordable Care Act.

Saldana, an after-school tutor, admits she could put the insurance to good use for a checkup, but she worries about putting her parents at risk or creating a rift at home.

“We’ve always done things together as a family,” she said.

The Saldana sisters are among roughly 600,000 Latinos in California who remain uninsured — despite qualifying for subsidized coverage under the federal health law. Latinos outnumber whites and Asians among the 1.3 million Californians who are eligible for federal aid and lack private health coverage.

California officials, sensing continued reluctance from people such as the Saldanas, are tackling the immigration fears directly for the first time in new TV ads. One commercial shows documents flying into a vault as a Latino man tells viewers their information is “confidential and private.”

This is part of $95 million the Covered California exchange will be spending on marketing and outreach in the months ahead. California accounted for 15 percent of enrollment nationwide during the initial launch, and the Obama administration is counting on the Golden State to deliver another big turnout.

Open enrollment runs from Saturday to Feb. 15.

But it will be a hard sell to many Latino families of mixed immigration status.

People living in the U.S. illegally are not eligible for coverage under the health law. For that reason, some residents are nervous about answering detailed questions about family members who aren’t applying, and they worry that turning over this information could lead to deportation for spouses, siblings or other relatives.

Those fears were heightened this year when a wave of Central American children crossing the border illegally sparked angry protests and President Barack Obama backed off immigration reform in the fall amid stiff opposition.

Despite repeated government assurances that no information is shared with immigration authorities, some Latinos are willing to gamble with their health rather than risk having their family torn apart.

“This is a very big deal in California,” said Catherine Teare, senior program officer for health reform at the California HealthCare Foundation. “It’s really hard for Covered California or anybody to make those concerns go away.”

Compounding the problem, the state has often fumbled its outreach to this crucial demographic. Covered California opened last fall with no application in Spanish, bland advertising and a shortage of enrollment counselors in Latino neighborhoods.

State officials say they learned from their mistakes and expect to build on a late surge of Latino enrollment last March and April. There’s little margin for error because the upcoming open enrollment lasts three months, half the time before.

“We have to address this issue of immigration status head on,” said Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California. “We need trusted voices saying it’s safe.”

Overall, about 3.4 million Californians have gained health insurance in the last year through private insurance or an expansion of Medi-Cal, the state’s low-income health plan. The percentage of Californians who are uninsured was cut in half to 11 percent by June, according to the Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation that studies health policy.

By mid-February, Covered California wants to sign up 500,000 more people to private health plans, in addition to the 1.2 million who did so during the first open enrollment.

Statewide, 62 percent of those who remain without insurance are Latino, according to a survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

About half of those people aren’t U.S. citizens or legal residents, so they can’t get insurance through the exchange or Medi-Cal. Among those who are eligible, 37 percent said they were at least somewhat worried that signing up for health insurance would draw attention to their family members’ immigration status.

Hugo Ramirez, who manages Covered California outreach for nonprofit group Vision y Compromiso, remembers a man who called a radio talk show that Ramirez was appearing on last year. The caller said he was a U.S. citizen but his wife was not.

“I’m afraid that if I give this information it’ll be used against her,” Ramirez recalls the man saying.

A Latina in Bakersfield, in a recent consumer survey, told the California HealthCare Foundation she felt Obamacare might be a trick to get undocumented immigrants to apply and identify themselves.

In March, Obama went on the Spanish-language TV network Univision to assure Latinos that information would not be turned over to immigration officials. The federal government has deported more than 2 million people since Obama took office.

During the first open enrollment, the exchange urged outreach workers to carry a letter from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement echoing Obama’s promise. But that agency letterhead merely made some people more nervous, Lee said.

This time, Lee said he’s drafting letters on immigration bearing the names of Covered California and immigrant-rights groups that are well respected in the Latino community.

Covered California had already altered its advertising to promote in-person assistance at local clinics and churches because Latinos weren’t always comfortable discussing immigration issues over the phone or online.

The exchange credited that shift in marketing for a boost in enrollment. The exchange had signed up 75,000 Latinos by the end of December, drawing criticism from state lawmakers and other health-law supporters. The state’s total grew to 367,000 by mid-April.

Bigger penalties for the uninsured might also be a motivating factor in the months ahead. The fine for going without coverage increases next year to $325 per adult or 2 percent of household income, whichever is greater.

Another challenge is enrolling Californians who have grown accustomed to living without health insurance. They may pay cash at local clinics or travel to Mexico for care.

Nearly half of the remaining uninsured in California have been without coverage for two years or more, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The Saldana family has learned to cope without insurance, said Lilian Saldana, and she recently took her mother to a neighborhood clinic for a physical. But she worries about what will happen if either of her parents suffers a serious illness.

“My family’s being held back whether I apply for it or not,” she said. “There’s nothing I can do about it.”

MCT Photo/Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times

Interested in more political news and analysis? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

Federal Judge Rules Government Violated Rights Of 13 On No-Fly List

Federal Judge Rules Government Violated Rights Of 13 On No-Fly List

By Timothy M. Phelps and Michael Muskal, Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON — An Oregon federal judge ruled Tuesday that international air travel is a “sacred” liberty protected by the U.S. Constitution and ordered the government to amend its rules governing the so-called no-fly list, which seeks to prevent suspected terrorists from boarding airlines.

In the first such ruling of its kind, U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown in Portland said “international travel is not a mere convenience or luxury in this modern world. Indeed, for many, international travel is a necessary aspect of liberties sacred to members of a free society.”

Therefore, she said, the government must change its procedures to allow U.S. citizens who find themselves on the no-fly list to challenge the designation.

She ordered the government to come up with new procedures that protect citizens’ due-process rights without jeopardizing national security. Passengers must be given notice of their inclusion on the list and a rationale for the designation and be allowed to submit evidence to challenge it, Brown said.

Justice Department spokeswoman Dena Iverson said government lawyers were reviewing the decision, and declined to comment further.

Previously the government has argued that because other modes of travel on land and sea are available, there is no right to travel by air and no need to change the no-fly list procedures.

“Such an argument ignores the numerous reasons that an individual may have for wanting or needing to travel overseas quickly, such as the birth of a child, the death of a loved one, a business opportunity or a religious obligation,” Brown wrote. “A prohibition on flying turns routine international travel into an odyssey that imposes significant logistical, economic and physical demands on travelers.”

Federal investigators currently may include someone on the no-fly list based on a “reasonable suspicion” that an individual is a known or suspected terrorist. They do not routinely tell would-be passengers they are on the list or give any factual reason for the designation. The list, established after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, includes about 20,000 names, about 500 of them U.S. citizens.

A person who is denied the right to fly can challenge such a designation with the Department of Homeland Security. If the agency determines the inclusion is appropriate, the individual may seek to overturn the decision in federal court. The court reviews the government’s rationale but does not share the information with the concerned individual.

U.S. officials say the list is necessary to prevent hijackings and terrorist attacks. But Brown ruled that the current DHS redress process had a high risk of depriving some innocent individuals of their “protected interests.”

In the lawsuit, 13 Muslim American plaintiffs, four of them veterans of the U.S. military, denied having any links to terrorism and said they learned of their no-fly status when they arrived at an airport and were blocked from boarding a plane.

The national ACLU, along with its affiliates in Oregon, California and New Mexico, filed the lawsuit in June 2010. It was dismissed by the District Court, but in July 2012, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal on jurisdictional grounds, allowing the lower court to consider the case.

One of the plaintiffs is Stephen D. Persaud of Irvine, Calif., who in 2010 was not allowed to fly home from the Virgin Islands unless he cooperated by giving information to an FBI agent. He eventually returned home by boat and train for the birth of his second child, but says he cannot fly to Saudi Arabia for the annual Hajj pilgrimage made by Muslims.

Another plaintiff is Raymond E. Knaeble IV, an army veteran from Chicago, who was barred from flying home in 2010 after flying to Bogota, Colombia, to marry his wife. He says he lost a job offer as a result. He eventually returned to the U.S. in a 12-day journey from Colombia to Panama City to California.

Sheik Mohamed Abdirahman Kariye, imam of Portland’s largest mosque, is also a plaintiff.

“Finally I will be able to challenge whatever incorrect information the government has been using to stigmatize me and keep me from flying,” Kariye said in a statement. “I have been prevented by the government from traveling to visit my family members and fulfill religious obligations for years, and it has had a devastating impact on all of us.”

Shyb via Flickr

Obama Will Let States Decide How To Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Obama Will Let States Decide How To Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions

By Sean Cockerham, McClatchy Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is about to unveil the centerpiece of his agenda to fight climate change, a much anticipated rule to slash the emissions of planet-warming gases from power plants.

The president will call for major reductions, according to sources familiar with the planning, with each state given its own greenhouse gas emissions reduction target and the power to decide how to meet it. The Environmental Protection Agency is putting the plan together, and Obama will announce it Monday.

The plan could push states to require more renewable energy use and to lower demand by investing in efficiency programs for homes and businesses. States also could use so-called “cap-and-trade” systems, in which emissions are limited and polluters buy and sell rights to release greenhouse gases, according to indications the Obama administration has given to environmental groups and others.

California already has such a cap-and-trade system, as does a coalition of Northeastern and mid-Atlantic states including New York, Massachusetts and Maryland.

The new rule could prompt other states to join in similar regional cap-and-trade ventures, or to take other measures to cut down on coal burning.

“This is going to make a big difference for people’s health and our kids’ future,” said David Doniger, climate director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The NRDC’s proposals helped shape the Obama administration’s plan, which is scheduled to go out for public comment before becoming final next year.

Doniger said he expects the president’s plan to make “meaningful reductions,” but he said it is not clear exactly what percentage of carbon emissions reductions the president will demand. There’s been discussion of a 25 percent cut, but Doniger is skeptical that will end up as the real number. And he said it makes a huge difference whether it’s calculated as a cut from 2005 levels — which the administration has used as a baseline in other carbon goals — or from current levels.

“The EPA and the White House are holding that quite close,” Doniger said.

Power plants are responsible for some 40 percent of the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions, and coal burning accounts for three-quarters of that total, according to figures from the federal Energy Information Administration.

Major coal states such as Kentucky, West Virginia and Wyoming are likely to be impacted by the new greenhouse gas emissions rule more than other states. Coal has historically shaped the economy of Eastern Kentucky, which already has been hit hard by mine closures in which thousands have lost their jobs. Lawsuits are expected over the president’s plan, as well as a fierce political battle.

“What the president is doing is going to severely harm the domestic coal market, which is going to create more hardship across Kentucky and especially in areas like Eastern Kentucky already at ground zero for what’s happening to our industry,” said Bill Bissett, president of the Kentucky Coal Association.

Kentucky relied on coal for about 93 percent of its electrical generation last year. Bissett said the new rule is “going to have to have a tremendous economic impact on Kentucky.”

The rule is expected to demand bigger power plant emission rate cuts in states such as Kentucky and Indiana than in places like California, where the plants on average already produce far less carbon dioxide.

But the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Doniger argued it doesn’t have to be expensive for states such as Kentucky to cut emissions.

“If you’re looking at this from a point of economic efficiency, Kentucky has a cheap source of reductions that California doesn’t. Kentucky could switch to natural gas or to renewable resources, which California can’t do in the same measure because they already have,” he said.

“And Kentucky or Indiana, they haven’t focused that much on energy efficiency, while California really has. … The states that have the highest emissions and the most to do also have a lot of opportunities and cheaper opportunities than the states which have already done a lot. So this is in some way fair,” he said.

Electrical utilities are watching closely and emphasize they’ve already been moving away from coal.

Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke Energy, the largest electric power holding company in the United States, said its carbon emissions are down 20 percent from 2005 by increasing the use of natural gas and replacing old coal plants.

“Cheap natural gas has helped significantly reduce our carbon emissions and we’ve accelerated the retirements of coal units,” said Duke spokesman Tom Williams.

Other nations are watching closely as well to see how serious the Obama administration is about climate change. The president said last summer that the United States would be a leader on the issue, which would be a turnaround for a country that effectively torpedoed the 1997 Kyoto agreement to cut global emissions.

The Kentucky Coal Association’s Bissett argued that Obama is now moving the United States in a direction away from the rest of the world, as Europe and Japan as well as emerging economies such as India turn to coal. He said Obama’s action against U.S. coal plants isn’t going to have much of a climate impact when considered alongside what’s happening in the rest of the world with carbon emissions.

National Mining Association President Hal Quinn said inefficient U.S. coal plants already have been weeded out. Little more can be done to cut emissions at the remaining plants short of closing them, which he said would mean less affordable and less reliable power.

“We’re going to need a lot of flexibility from the EPA, because I can tell you that there’s not much left in the coal fleet to squeeze out in terms of carbon emissions,” Quinn said at a conference this month in Washington sponsored by the consulting firm Deloitte Energy.

But Daniel J. Weiss, the director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, said the states are going to have a lot of options for meeting the new emissions standards in a cost-effective way. Greater energy efficiency saves consumers money on their utility bills, said Weiss, whose Washington think tank was founded by influential Obama adviser John Podesta.

“Climate change isn’t a future threat, it is a current threat. That is the No. 1 conclusion from the National Climate Assessment,” Weiss said.

Photo from Flickr Commons/ Mikael Miettinen

Federal Judge Finds Police Weren’t Excessive With Occupy Philadelphia Protesters

Federal Judge Finds Police Weren’t Excessive With Occupy Philadelphia Protesters

By Jeremy Roebuck, The Philadelphia Inquirer

PHILADELPHIA — A federal judge has dismissed claims that city police used excessive force and performed unreasonable searches when dismantling an Occupy Philadelphia encampment on Dilworth Plaza in 2011.

But in the case brought by 26 of the demonstrators, U.S. District Judge Berle Schiller ruled this week that their attempts to secure damages for unlawful arrest, retaliation and other alleged civil rights violations could proceed to trial.

In a November lawsuit, the protesters contended that police, under the direction of Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey, violated their rights to free speech and assembly by arresting them without probable cause.

The Nov. 30, 2011, clash came as city officials urged the Occupy encampment to move after seven weeks of protests outside City Hall. At the time, Mayor Michael Nutter said the site needed to be cleared for an already scheduled $50 million renovation to the plaza.

The protesters contended they complied with police orders, and began marching north on Broad Street — only to be arrested anyway. They were charged with conspiracy, failure to disperse and blocking a roadway. All were later acquitted.

In his opinion Tuesday, Schiller said that the protesters had not provided detailed information in court filings to suggest officers used excessive force against them. The suit only describes threats of detainment and officers’ efforts to restrict the protesters’ movements, actions Schiller described as “routine in the course of an arrest.”

Likewise, protesters did not detail specific searches nor explain how they were improper, the judge said.

The civil suit is one of several filed in response to clashes between Occupy protesters and police across the country. The Occupy Wall Street movement began in September 2011 with demonstrations in New York City’s Zucotti Park over rising income inequality.

AFP Photo/Scott Olson