Macy Gray To Relaunch ‘Humps’ Plus Size Line

Last Updated on Monday, 29 March 2010 12:00 Written by Daisy Harley Monday, 29 March 2010 12:00

GET A FREE $250 Gas Card

Singer Macy Gray is the latest lady to jump on this season’s plus size bandwagon, WWD reports. Gray is set to relaunch her plus size line, called Humps, next year. Her first designs hit shelves in 2008 but Gray has been re-inspired. She recently performed at the new Esprit store in NYC and remarked, “I was surprised [by the clothes],” she said. “I hadn’t been to Esprit in forever.” Perhaps we’ll be surprised by her designs?

More on Fashion

GET A FREE $250 Gas Card

Article source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/29/macy-gray-to-relaunch-hum_n_517199.html

Saul Friedman: Gray Matters: John Conyers–Forgotten but Not Gone

Last Updated on Thursday, 25 March 2010 08:45 Written by Daisy Harley Thursday, 25 March 2010 08:45

Amid all the well-deserved celebrations and self-congratulations on the passage of the health insurance reform bill, I thought I heard a dog bark. I was wrong. From the very beginnings of the late great debate, this dog didn’t bark.

I speak of the one most popular alternative to provide guaranteed comprehensive and universal health care coverage-not just private insurance– for all of us-Medicare for All–was not even considered. As a state legislator, senator and candidate that was Barack Obama’s choice. But despite what he now says, he does not tell the truth when he says every idea was truly considered. In fact, he refused to allow others in his administration to consider any proposal for single-payer health coverage.

As a result, Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and most health research groups, and the main stream press boycotted and wouldn’t permit discussions of the simplest, most straight forward possibility for health care reform, Medicare for All. It was shut out of White House meetings. Not even Kaiser, or the Commonwealth Fund or AARP responded to my repeated appeals to at least give an airing to the single-payer alternative. The reason: it wasn’t going to pass, so why bother? Eventually, the process passed it by.

So it was ironic that John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat and the longest serving member of the House was given the honor of calling for the decisive vote on the reform bill. But the universal health care legislation he and his late New Dealer father championed for years was ignored. Nevertheless, Dingell gallantly praised the passage of the Obama bill and was at the signing.

But the second longest serving member of Congress, John Conyers, Jr, also from Michigan, was nowhere to be seen in the celebrations. His bill, HR 676, the U.S. National Health Care Act, Expanded and Improved Medicare for All, just 30 pages long, had nearly 100 congressional sponsors, including several blue-dog Democrats who voted against the Obama bill, plus more unions, doctors, nurses, advocacy groups and consumers than the White House was able to enlist for its proposal.

But Conyers was gracious, praising passage of “the first comprehensive set of reforms to our ailing health care system.” He noted that he “would have preferred a different approach,” but he didn’t repeat an earlier observation, that after a year of debate and compromises and deals with insurance companies and drug makers, the Obama bill passed the House by only three votes. Conyers reiterated his support for a public health option, which Obama gave away, “because I fundamentally believe in the value of public health insurance and remain an ardent supporter of universal single-payer health care,” like Medicare. And he called for a new campaign to achieve it. Now that the Health Care Activists have been awakened, they won’t easily leave the scene-especially if Americans get impatient with the slow pace of change built in to the health insurance reforms.

Obama has said he would have favored Medicare For All “if we were starting from scratch.” So let’s review what might have been and may yet be. The Conyers legislation would have established a “publicly financed, privately delivered health care system that uses the already existing Medicare program…”

It would cover, at no charge, all medically necessary services, dentistry, long term care, with patients having the right to choose their providers. And because the free care would be paid for by taxes and premiums, private health insurers would be unnecessary and would be prohibited from selling coverage that duplicates the benefits. And unlike the plan that has passed, HR 676 would eliminate the need for dozens of fragmented, wasteful programs by including the Children’s Health Insurance Program, Medicaid, and other government funded programs with the exception of the VA health program, which may eventually become part of the system. And it sets a goal of converting to a non-profit system in 15 years. Read for yourself at http://www.healthcare-now.org/hr-676/

One problem with the bill that has passed, it leaves in place all the federal, state and private insurance bureaucracies for the dozens of competing and duplicative agencies, with their complex rules that differ from state to state. Premiums for Medicare Advantage and the Part D drug benefit, for example, may differ from one county to another. While subsidies for Medicare Advantage insurers are to be eliminated over time, the current system is to remain in place, although these plans will be required to spend at least 85 percent of their revenues on the care of patients.

Indeed, to give the Obama bill its due, while it is not a health care plan it is a health insurance reform, which can be strong measure to regulate and restrict the behavior of health insurance providers. Insurance companies will be barred from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. They will be barred from excluding children for pre-existing conditions; later that will apply to adults as well. They must provide immediate access to insurance for Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition. Children will be able to remain on their parents’ health plan until age 26.

In addition, insurers cannot impose lifetime or yearly caps on benefits, and new plans are required to cover preventive services, such as mammograms, colonoscopies and immunizations without cost-sharing. That’s to become a standard Medicare benefit for all beneficiaries, who have been required to pay for co-insurance.

As expected the 40,000-member Physicians for a National Health Program, which supports HR 676, worried that the bill that has passed will take too long to implement, that it will further enrich the for-profit insurance industry by $447 billion, that costs will go higher and that the new regulations are riddled with loopholes.

All we can do is see how it works. If things don’t really change for the better and Democrats remain in the majority in Congress maybe we can come closer to the Conyers bill, and hear the sleeping dog bark.
Write to saulfriedman@comcast.net. Friedman also writes for www.timegoesby.net

Article source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/saul-friedman/gray-matters-john-conyers_b_514022.html

David Gray: A New Work Life Balance Bill

Last Updated on Thursday, 25 March 2010 09:45 Written by Daisy Harley Thursday, 25 March 2010 09:45

This morning, the White House announced a forum on Workplace Flexibility scheduled for March 31. For those who have worked on work life balance issues, this focus on the issue by the White House is an exciting development.

Within Congress, there are current legislative efforts to expand paid and sick leave and compensatory time, as have come up for many years. There is one new bill this year, H.R. 4855, the Work-Life Balance Award Act of 2010, that deserves attention. Its a fine bill, and a good step in creating incentives for businesses to offer support to help workers balance their work and family lives.

However, I remain concerned that the bill was not bipartisan. Some of the greatest value of a bill like H.R. 4855 is in its potential to bridge the labor vs. business divide that prevents more significant action on work life balance issues. There is an unfortunate gridlock between business and labor that prevents much progress on work life issues. There is a mismatch between the needs of American families today and the structure of American workplaces. The major need is for more flexibility as a result. Policies to encourage workplace flexibility are important and H.R. 4855 is a good step. There need to be small steps towards bipartisanship in this area so that over time bridges can be built for more extensive action to expand the flexibility of work in America.

However, the bill was introduced by Rep. Lynn Woosley and has only one cosponsor, Rep. George Miller, both Democrats. This bill is the kind of small step in the right direction that’s greatest value might have been in having those two Democrats line up with say, two Republicans, to begin bipartisan action on work life issues. Its a missed opportunity for the bill to come forward without Republicans as original cosponsors.

However, there is still time for Democrats and Republicans to work together on this legislation and other ideas to expand workplace flexibility.

Article source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-gray/a-new-work-life-balance-b_b_510841.html