Securing Retirement Security

NNU Executive Director

RoseAnn DeMoro

In the waning moments of the last Congress–and yet another battle over how much to slash federal programs that help people under the threat of another government shutdown–2014 omnibus budget bill that could have a devastating impact on countless retirees.

Called the multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014, the law, which passed without debate or public hearings, permits significant reductions in multiemployer pension plans, which are generally defined benefit plans negotiated in collective bargaining agreements between unions and two or more employers.

The bill is just the latest window into an insidious broader agenda: the assault on all retirement programs, from Social Security to employer-sponsored pension plans, that threaten to mire millions of people in poverty in their post-work years.

Language in the misnamed “Reform” Act came from recommendations by the National Coordinating Committee for multiemployer Plans, a third of whose working group comprises executives linked to the insurance industry and Wall Street. Their goal is to end all employer contributions to all workers’ pensions.

Current financial struggles faced by multiemployer pension plans, like 401(k) plans and other retirement programs, may be directly linked to those who want to cut them, especially the Wall Street bankers and other wolves who created the economic crash of 2008, prompted in large part by casino style gambling with workers’ pensions.

The result is an escalating crisis for all working people, including RNs, who have counted on pensions to supplement meager Social Security payments, earning pension benefits often at the expense of pay increases or other economic improvements to be able to look forward to being able to retire in dignity.

RNs in the private sector, even those who work for wealthy private employers, have seen repeated demands to slice their pension benefits.

Nowhere is the attack on worker pensions greater than in the public sector. Calls to slash public pensions have become standard rhetoric for governors, state legislators, mayors, and other elected officials of both major parties.

The Wall Street raid on worker-earned pensions cannot be separated from the steady offensive against Social Security, which celebrates its 80th anniversary this year, and is one of the most important reforms in U.S. history, along with its partner Medicare, whose 50th anniversary also arrives this summer.

Both reforms share a common impetus, helping to stave off crushing poverty for Americans in their retirement years. But Medicare would not exist without the path blazed by Social Security, an act that brought hope, and lifesaving support, for millions of older Americans at the height of the Great Depression in 1935.

Upon the law’s passage, Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins, the first woman to hold a Cabinet post in U.S. history and the public official who shepherded the law to life, noted it was reflective of“progress the American people have made in the social field and awareness of methods of using cooperation through government to overcome social hazards against which the individual alone is inadequate.”

Social Security is especially critical for women who tend to live longer than men, are paid less during their working life, spent more years out of the workforce than men raising families, typically have less savings than men, and are less likely to have worked in jobs that provided pensions.

Wall Street speculators, anxious to privatize Social Security, big employers, and the anti-government crowd have never ceased efforts to erode and ultimately destroy Social Security. The result is continual efforts to reduce Social Security benefits, raise the retirement age, and cut the program.

Their attack is premised on fabricating a crisis in the Social Security trust fund as a pretext to push their dreams of budget cuts and privatization, even though the trust funds at their current level are fully secure until 2033, and able to be maintained at three fourths of scheduled benefits for years after.

The campaign is given voice by a PR effort to discredit the labor of tens of millions of Americans, whose toil created the trust fund, by labelling Social Security as an “entitlement” not worthy of protection.

NNU has long made winning and defending pensions for RNs a top priority, and we have joined with other labor, seniors, and consumer advocates to stand up to the attacks on Social Security. That fight continues today.

Steps to protect Social Security are well known, particularly raising the cap on payroll taxes so that the wealthiest Americans pay more into the system.

A new welcome development is a growing push by progressive politicians, first initiated by Sen. Bernie Sanders and now joined by others, such as Sen. Sherrod Brown, to actually expand Social Security with long-needed cost-of-living increases and other updates, rather than just resisting the constant attacks. The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, which does great work on the issue, has delivered to Congress petitions from millions of Americans who oppose any cuts and want a benefit boost.

Another solution is to pass the Robin Hood Tax on the avaricious Wall Street speculators who are so anxious to gobble up our pensions. H.R. 1464 would set a small tax on transactions of stocks, bonds, and derivatives, raising hundreds of billions of dollars every year for critical needs, from jobs to healthcare to eradicating student debt, and retirement security.

In the final years of her life, Frances Perkins was able to look back on her signature accomplishment. “One thing I know,” she said in 1962, “Social Security is so firmly embedded in the American psychology today that no politician, no political party, no political group could possibly destroy this Act and still maintain our democratic system. It is safe forever, and for the everlasting benefit of the people of the United States.”

It’s up to all of us to make that so.

Ask a Travel Nurse: What documentation does a Travel Nursing company request upfront?

Share

Ask a Travel Nurse: What documentation does a Travel Nursing company request upfront?

Ask a Travel Nurse: What documentation does a Travel Nursing company request upfront?

Ask a Travel Nurse Question:

Hello David, I am new to Travel Nursing and applied recently with a certain company. They are asking me online to forward them a copy of my driver’s license, social security card, and certifications (ACLS, BLS, PALS). I haven’t been offered a job or position yet, so I’m wondering, what documentation does a Travel Nursing company request upfront?

Is it normal for a company to ask for copies of a social security card and license before I am offered a job or interviewed? Could this be a scam or someone trying to steal my identity?

Thanks! I don’t want to find my credit ruined or a false identity in my name.

Ask a Travel Nurse Answer:

While you should always verify a company’s legitimacy prior to giving them any sensitive information, it is typical for companies to want to check your credentials before offering a position. This is usually called being “on file” with a company. Basically, that means you have provided all the info, filled out all the checklists, and jumped through all the hoops necessary to take an assignment with a company.

Will every company require so much info? Maybe not, but a vast majority of them will probably want to do a background check which would likely require the documents requested.

If you still have your doubts, I do offer to refer new Travelers to the recruiters I trust with my assignments. Regardless of whether or not you take me up on this, do apply with more than one company, especially when starting out. When people in other occupations are seeking a job, they do not apply with only one company and just wait until offered a position. It should be no different with Travel Nursing.

If you’d like some help in getting started, feel free to contact me at david@travelnursesbible.com and tell me a little bit about your nursing experience, specialty, and what you would like in a travel company (larger companies possibly with more assignments or small to medium sized companies with more of a focus on personalized service).

Hope this helps.

David

david@travelnursesbible.com

Travel Nurses Need Mentors Too: Here’s How to Find One

When you work as a travel nurse and only spend a few weeks or months at a time in one place, you probably think that having a nurse mentor is impossible. After all, how can you build a solid professional relationship with someone when you barely have time to get past the “getting to know […]

The post Travel Nurses Need Mentors Too: Here’s How to Find One appeared first on The Gypsy Nurse.

Anti-Abortion Activists See Mixed Results in Texas Legislature

HOUSTON, Tex. — If you’re keeping score, anti-abortion groups were 1 for 2 during this year’s legislative session in Texas, which ended Monday. One major bill they wanted failed, but another passed.

The new law will tighten rules for girls under 18 who are asking a judge to grant an abortion — a small but politically significant fraction of those who seek the procedure. Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, has until June 21 to veto the legislation, but observers say that’s highly unlikely given his longstanding opposition to abortion.

Under current Texas law, a minor must get permission from a parent to get an abortion. But there is a built-in exception if a girl’s parents are in jail, deported or unreachable — or if she fears abuse or retribution from a parent. In those cases, she can anonymously ask a judge for permission through a process called judicial bypass.

Among other things, the new law would make it so teens would no longer receive automatic permission to get abortions if judges don’t issue timely rulings. The law also would limit the venues in which a teen could apply for permission.

Anti-abortion groups contended the process was too easy and the new law provides a much-needed revamp of the rules. Supporters say  the new rules will help rescue teens from abusive situations and motivate other teens to involve their parents if at all possible.

Emily Horne of Texas Right to Life called the previous process “too loose” because teens could use judicial bypass to avoid telling their parents about the pregnancy.

“Oftentimes the minor is very young and very scared, and may not even know all of her options, may not even know what her parents may say,” Horne said. “It’s a very big decision for a parent to be cut out of.”

State Sen. Van Taylor, a Republican representing Plano and other Dallas suburbs, co-sponsored the bill in the senate.

“On an issue as paramount as the life of an unborn child, the state should not be severing parental involvement,” he said in a statement.

Tina Hester, executive director of Jane’s Due Process, which works with pregnant teens who seek judicial bypass, said the real intent of the law is to stop abortions and score points among anti-abortionpro-life voters.

“They’ve already dismantled the clinic system. They’ve basically shut down half the clinics in Texas,” Hester said. “And until Roe v. Wade is overturned, they’re just trying to chip away.”

As for concerns about girls skirting parental involvement, Hester said “there have been no complaints that I’m aware of from judges saying that girls are abusing this situation.”

Because the the court filings in the judicial bypass cases are confidential, it’s hard know if that’s happening.

Hester said the new law will add so many barriers that getting a bypass will be almost impossible.

For example, she said, the bill would require most teens to see a local judge in their home county, even if the abortion clinic is hours away in a big city. There is an exception for counties of less than 10,000 people.

Hester says that’s not enough to protect a girl’s anonymity in small towns. Everyone at the local courthouse will easily guess what is going on, she said.

“What normal 17-year-old goes down to the courthouse by themselves and without their parents?” Hester asked.

Less than 3 percent of abortions in Texas are among girls under 18. And most of those girls do get consent from their parents – it’s estimated that only about 10percent of those under 18 seek judicial bypass.

Rita Lucido, a family law attorney in Houston who volunteers to represent teens through Jane’s Due Process, said girls using bypass are already facing difficult situations.

“[They are] kids who already have babies who are basically homeless, kids whose parents have kicked them out and they’ve sought shelter with another relative because their parents beat them.”

The parental notification law dates back to 1999 and was signed by then- Gov.George W. Bush. It included the bypass process. Later amendments required the teen to not only notify a parent, but obtain his or her consent.

The bypass process originally required a judge to hold a hearing quickly for the teenage girl, and if the judge refused to make a ruling, the girl automatically received permission to get the abortion anyway.

But the new regulations will do away with the automatic permission. Lucido fears her clients could be trapped in the pregnancy.

“If she comes across an ideologically motivated judge who refuses to schedule a hearing, the law doesn’t give her a way to force a ruling on her application. She’s in a sort of legal limbo,” Lucido explained.

Abortion rights advocates contend the new judicial bypass law could be stalled or stopped in the courts. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bellotti v. Baird that judicial bypass procedures for minors must be anonymous and expeditious, and the advocates claim the new Texas law could be unconstitutional on those grounds.

Despite passage of the new law, anti-abortion groups did not get everything they wanted from the Texas lLegislature this year.

The bypass bill originally included a controversial amendment that would have required women of all ages to show government identification before getting an abortion. The amendment did not survive.

In addition, one bill failed that would have forbidden  insurance plans sold through the Affordable Care Act exchange from covering abortion, except in emergencies. Rape and incest were not included as exceptions. The bill would have allowed enrollees to purchase a supplementary insurance rider to cover abortion.

The bill passed the full Texas Senate but stalled in the House.

Ten states restrict coverage of abortion in all private insurance plans, and another 15 states restrict abortion coverage in ACA exchange plans, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization focused on sexual and reproductive health research and public education.

This story is part of a partnership that includes Houston Public Media, NPR and Kaiser Health News.

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

New Preventive Health Services Approved For No-Cost Coverage

The list continued to grow of preventive services that people are entitled to receive without paying anything out of pocket.

In 2014, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended two new services and tweaked a handful of others that had previously been recommended. Under the health law, preventive care that receives an “A” or “B” recommendation by the nonpartisan group of medical experts must be covered by health plans without charging consumers. Only grandfathered plans are exempt from the requirement.

The new recommended services are: Hepatitis B screening for adolescents and adults at high risk for infection, and low-dose aspirin use for pregnant women who are at high risk for preeclampsia, a condition characterized by an abrupt increase in blood pressure that can lead to serious complications for the woman and baby.

In its Hepatitis B screening recommendation, the task force said there was new evidence that antiviral treatments improved outcomes in people at high risk for the liver infection, including those from countries where the infection is common, people who are HIV-positive and injection drug users.

Although it’s not a big-ticket item from an insurance-cost perspective, the March of Dimes welcomes the task force recommendation regarding low-dose aspirin use to prevent preeclampsia in high-risk women, says Dr. Siobhan Dolan, an obstetrician/gynecologist at Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, who’s a medical adviser to the March of Dimes.

“What’s exciting about this is that now we have something to offer women that’s a low-risk strategy,” says Dolan. Preeclampsia accounts for 15 percent of all pre-term births.

The task force also issued a recommendation for gestational diabetes screening after 24 weeks in asymptomatic pregnant women. That service, however, is already being offered at no cost by health plans following an Institute Of Medicine study commissioned by the Department of Health and Human Services that identified gaps in existing coverage guidelines.

In its review of screening for gestational diabetes, the task force found sufficient evidence that it reduces the risk for complications such as preeclampsia, large birth-weight babies, and shoulder dystocia, when the baby’s shoulders become stuck inside the mother’s body during delivery.

The task force recommendations take effect for the plan year that begins one year after they’re issued so for many consumers, these provisions won’t take effect until 2016.

Please contact Kaiser Health News to send comments or ideas for future topics for the Insuring Your Health column.

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.