Sunday, March 29, 2009
Single-payer health care
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Costs of having a poor health care delivery system
In addition to causing loss of productivity our current system by forcing our uninsured into emergency rooms without full compensation to the hospitals for the cost increases the insurance cost to the insured. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Assuming the uninsured could afford insurance, but chose not to and gambling that they would not get sick, passes the losing side of that bet to the prudent ones who secured health insurance. If you are wondering why your health premiums are going up, paying for the health care to the uninsured is a major reason. This is insane. Once we make the decision that we are not going to let the uninsured die in the street, then we must decide what is the most effectively provide treatment and how to pay for it. Emergency rooms are not a cost effective way to provide medical care except in an emergency. Forcing the insured to pay for treatment of the uninsured does not strike me as fair. For responsible businesses to pay for treatment of the uninsured causes our industries to be at a competitive disadvantage to industries in other countries who are not saddled with this costs.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Medicaid Subrogation
"In any event, the aspersions cast upon Ahlborn are entirely unsupported; all the record reveals is that ADHS neither asked to be nor was involved in the settlement negotiations. Whatever the bounds of the duty to cooperate, there is no evidence that it was breached here. Although more colorable, the alternative argument that a rule of full reimbursement is needed generally to avoid the risk of settlement manipulation also fails. The risk that parties to a tort suit will allocate away the State’s interest can be avoided either by obtaining the State’s advance agreement to an allocation or, if necessary, by submitting the matter to a court for decision. Pp. 17–19."
Monday, March 9, 2009
Daylite ? Time
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Tip pooling doesn't meet minimum wage.
U.S. District Court in Texas rules class certified for bartender 'tip pooling' claims
|
A bartender is entitled to proceed with a class action claiming the "tip pool" at various bars where he worked violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, a U.S. District Court in Texas has ruled in granting a motion for conditional class certification.
The bartender alleged that the bars where he worked implemented policies requiring bartenders to contribute 5 percent of their tips to their manager, despite paying bartenders only $2.13 per hour and taking a "tip credit" against their minimum wage obligations available under the Act. They were also required to pay cash to cleaning crews.
He claimed that the Act only permits tip sharing for distribution to "customarily tipped employees," which excludes managers and cleaning crews.
The bars argued that the plaintiff class should not be certified because there was more than one defendant and the other proposed plaintiffs were not "similarly situated."
But the court disagreed.
"The language of the statute is clear. An employer is obliged to comply with the prerequisites of announcing its intention to take the tip credit and allowing employees to keep all tips they earn except what is pooled for the benefit of customarily tipped employees. 'These prerequisites are strictly construed,' ...
"In the present case, [the bartender] contends that [the bars] did not comply with one of these prerequisites. Being that the prerequisites are strictly construed, [the bartender's] pleadings are sufficient to allege a violation of the [Act]," the court reasoned.
Further, "[d]efendants' argument that certification is inappropriate because they are separate entities [is] unconvincing. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow joinder of defendants when a cause arises out of the same series of transactions and 'any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.' The court concludes that joinder of [d]efendants is proper and does not preclude conditional certification of the class."
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Bernal v. Vankar Enterprises, Inc., No. SA-07-CA-695. March 24, 2008. Lawyers USA No. 9939548.
Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.
- MLA
- Chicago
- APA
"U.S. District Court in Texas rules class certified for bartender 'tip pooling' claims." Lawyers USA. Dolan Media Company MN. 2008. HighBeam Research. 8 Mar. 2009 <http://www.highbeam.com>.