Life was really good for Bob. He finally was stable in his career, he had a descent home, vehicle’s and of course a great family. He was graced with a healthy body and skillful hands as a construction worker. Bob found himself filled with great satisfaction as he ended his days.

It’s official: Illinois is a “Judicial Hellhole.” In the 2011 rankings released by the American Tort Reform Foundation (ATRF), three Illinois counties were ranked among the nation’s eight worst “Judicial Hellholes,” a designation that will result in jobs lost in Illinois.

It's hard to believe, but Medicare's open enrollment season will end next week [Dec. 7]. And this year, as a result of the federal health reform law, seniors will have to brace for several changes.

Seniors who rely on privately administered Medicare Advantage plans for their benefits will face the biggest adjustments. That's too bad, as Medicare Advantage has a strong track record of delivering health benefits that meet or even exceed those of conventional Medicare.

I cannot sit by as the Professional Politicians ruin my country.  Both Parties refuse to control spending and each blames the other.  To ensure their power, they pit us against each other by grouping our interests to prevent us from making collective decisions against their wants.

"The middle class would not exist without organized labor."

So proclaimed Vice President Joe Biden at a recent speech in Ohio. He's right. And with unemployment stuck above 9 percent, the need for strong unions has never been greater.

I am the CEO of an international life insurance company. If you think a management perspective automatically means opposition to labor unions, think again. I am humbled to witness the impact of millions of workers' voices as they proudly affirm, "Workers matter, and we are one!"

America's middle class and workers are under systematic attack. Our failed and reckless economic policies, the Wall Street raid on Main Street, the coddling of millionaires and billionaires, and the gaming of a tax system that favors Big Corporations and offshore tax havens - taken together, all of these amount to a thinly veiled attempt to silence American workers and profit at their expense.

It isn't working. What started in Wisconsin with thousands of union members clad in red, battling to keep the rights they earned through their collective voice, has transformed into a national struggle. The stakes are towering, and there is no place for bystanders.

Havens of hope are turning up everywhere. A record number of Wisconsin voters spoke in a recent recall election. Though they fell short of reclaiming a state senate majority in favor of workers' rights, they won back two seats and reenergized the spirit of American workers, who are now readying themselves for the next round at the ballot box.

In Ohio, when the state legislature approved SB 5, a bill that gutted years of hard-won worker rights, over 1 million people joined in petitioning for a state referendum to overturn it. Once again, a sea of red is spilling into the streets.

Even if you don't believe, as I do, that organized labor is the surest path to a solid middle class and that collective bargaining creates the type of shared prosperity we need in this country, you must join the fight for fairness. This is not about union or non-union. It's about respect for American workers and the value of their labor.

The few at the top are grabbing all the gains for themselves, leaving nothing for the workers whose increased productivity has resulted in record corporate profits. CEO pay jumped 27 percent in 2010, while the pay of workers in the private sector grew little over 2 percent. This fundamental unfairness must come to an end. This battle will be fought at the worksite and at every polling place in America.

Last month, 45,000 courageous workers went on strike against Verizon, a corporation with over $22.5 billion of profits in the past four and a half years. The strike has since been put on hold while union officials negotiate a new contract with Verizon. Shockingly, Verizon wants to renege on benefits for retirees, eliminate sick days for new hires, abolish disability benefits for workers injured on the job, outsource company jobs, and stick already struggling families with over $20,000 in annual concessions.

I hope millions of America's workers see this fight for what it is - another attempt to devalue labor and silence workers. American corporations must be brought to understand that they can remain competitive, be profitable and do right by their workers.

It's important that we support American workers seeking a fundamental transformation to a fair shake for all: a fair wage while working and protection for rightfully earned benefits like Social Security and Medicare.

All people of goodwill should join our protestors clad in red, the unemployed and underemployed, and business leaders who want to do right by our workers. Their voices ask all of us, including CEOs such as myself, to do our part and pay our fair share in rebuilding our great country and our middle class.

Roger Smith is the president and CEO of American and National Income Life Insurance Companies.

Recently, both California and Florida enacted laws barring companies that do business in Iran from receiving state contracts. They follow last year's passage of sweeping sanctions at the federal level.

The logic underpinning all of these laws is straightforward: lucrative state and federal contracts funded by American taxpayer dollars should not be awarded to companies doing business with a regime that is aggressively pursuing a nuclear weapons program, training and supplying weapons to terrorists who are killing U.S. troops, and engaging in egregious human rights abuses inside its own borders.

United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) believes it is time for America's other 48 states to join California and Florida in their support of U.S. foreign policy and security interests by adopting similar legislation. Recently, UANI sent model legislation to state Governors and lawmakers, and urged them to passing laws that would force companies to end their business in Iran, and in turn economically pressure Iran's regime.

The stakes are high-the threat of Iran succeeding in its quest to acquire nuclear weapons is as destabilizing and frightening of a possibility as the world has dealt with in decades. Iran's history of funding terrorism throughout the world is also well-known, and U.S. troops on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan are increasingly being killed by high-tech Iranian weapons.

For the first time, the U.S. government has also formally detailed Iran's alliance with al-Qaeda. The Treasury Department recently reported that Iran continues to harbor senior al-Qaeda operatives and is facilitating the transfer of large amounts of cash to al-Qaeda's top leadership in Pakistan. Commenting on this insidious relationship, David Cohen, the Treasury Department's Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, said "By exposing Iran's secret deal with al-Qaeda, allowing it to funnel funds and operatives through its territory, we are illuminating yet another aspect of Iran's unmatched support for terrorism."

Americans have traditionally understood that the conduct of foreign policy is primarily the responsibility of the President and the U.S. Congress. This does not mean, however, that individual states have no role to play in foreign policy, particularly when action at the state level can bolster and reinforce the goals already supported by the president and enacted into legislation by Congress.

Clarifying the role that states can and should play in U.S. foreign policy on Iran is precisely what the U.S. Congress and President Obama have done. Section 202 of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010, passed last year with overwhelming bipartisan support, specifically grants state and local governments the authority to take action against those persons that engage in business activity in Iran. By passing debarment laws like California and Florida have, the other 48 states can now send a strong message to the Iranian regime and force companies to make a choice between Iran and the American people.

When presented with the choice of doing business with the United States or with Iran most companies will ultimately make the right decision. California passed its law earlier this summer, and has already seen numerous multinational corporations end their business activities in Iran after being warned that they would lose their state contracts. The truth is that contract debarment has proven to be incredibly effective at pressuring companies to pull out of Iran.

Companies should not need, of course, any pressure to pull out of Iran. As President Obama recently noted, "International companies are increasingly recognizing the risks of doing business with Iran and are abandoning existing business opportunities, declining to take advantage of new ones, and scaling back any existing relationships." Sadly, though, some have chosen to pursue short-term profits at the expense of U.S. national interests. While it may not be politically expedient to say, the business these companies do in Iran increasingly is tantamount to trading with the enemy.

The U.S. Congress, President Obama, and now California and Florida have taken a stand. It is time for the other 48 states to make their voices heard and stop supporting companies that support a regime with American blood on its hands. If common sense, morality, and reason will not lead companies to voluntarily end their irresponsible business dealings in Iran, then perhaps denying them lucrative contracts funded by our taxpayer dollars will make them see the light.

Mark D. Wallace is president of United Against Nuclear Iran. He served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, as representative for U.N. management and reform.

Everyone has a daily routine. For some it is reaching for an early morning cup of coffee. For others, it might be going for a daily jog. Whatever the routine is everyone has something they do to get their day started.
 
For the City of Chicago, part of the daily routine is getting a notification about a new lawsuit filed against City Hall. In the last three years, Chicago has been hit with 900 lawsuits, which means City government is sued virtually every single day.

Capitol Hill is inching closer to passing landmark regulatory reform that will help encourage investment and create jobs.

The REINS Act would require that Congress review and approve any new regulation expected to cost more than $100 million. In 2010 alone, despite the weak economy, the Obama administration issued 3,752 new rules - and 224 of them cost more than $100 million. The REINS Act would go a long way toward stemming the tide of costly and regressive regulatory policies coming from Washington.

 

Although President Obama continues to meet with top House and Senate Republicans in an effort to reach a budget agreement before the August 2nd deadline for raising the debt limit, it is unclear how far-reaching the final deal will be.

The lowest qualified bid by the most competent contestant traditionally wins the government contract. Unfortunately, the "Change" gang now wants to fiddle with this decades-old, generally reliable formula.

A mother was walking down the isle at the grocery store hurriedly shopping for the evening’s meal. As she was placing the hamburger in her cart, her cell phone rang; it was from home where she left her 15-year-old daughter to baby-sit her brothers and sisters while she shopped. The mother hears the frantic voice of her daughter nervously telling her there is a terrible storm and the wind is howling fiercely. Her mother pushes the cart quickly to the checkout counter and instructed her to take all the Safety Measures she had taught her and that she would be home soon.

Letter to the Editor
 
Although the massive gambling bill passed the Illinois General Assembly in the waning days of the Spring Session, Governor Patrick Quinn has made it clear that he is not excited about it.  In a press conference on June 1, 2011, Quinn told reporters that he thought this gambling bill was "excessive."

Quinn also said, "I'm beholden to the people of Illinois , not to legislators, not to mayors. The people of our state, all 13 million good and true, they're the ones who I get up in the morning every day and say, 'What's best for them?' "

If that is true, it is hard to see how Gov. Quinn can ignore the plethora of research that strongly suggests gambling is a blight on the social well-being of society.

Concerned citizens across the state should contact Gov. Quinn today to ask him to VETO this massive gambling bill (SB 744).  Remind him that he campaigned against the expansion of gambling in Illinois .  Respectfully tell him that creating losers is a terrible way for the state to gain a revenue source. If there is an outpouring of calls into his office, this could still get defeated.  His toll free office number is (800) 642-3112.
 
 
David E. Smith
Executive Director
Illinois Family Institute
Carol Stream, IL

I think it is time for me to take the advice of a man I respect and go back to the shop to work on old IH Scouts.

The school remodeling plan, which started out at $800,000, then went to the architects estimate of $1,300,000, was just approved at the last board meeting by a 7-0 vote with no questions asked. There was a minor problem, the cost is now $1,972,474 and no questions asked. Oh, well, it is only a $672,474 mistake and it's taxpayers money, so nothing to question here. I am sure the architectural firm is happy, since they just made an extra $67,247. Anyone see a problem here?

For men and women of any age, heart disease may be the number 1 killer. It kills more people than ALL different types of tumors grouped together. If you're black or older sixty five, your chance of a heart attack is higher, however it's an equal opportunity destroyer. Any one, everywhere, at any time may have a cardiac arrest [1].

2011 is already shaping up to be the year Obama's most vocal healthcare critics were proven right.

During last year's ferocious debate over health reform, some Republicans complained the Administration was looking to put government bureaucrats between patients and their doctors. The President and his allies insisted they weren't, and repeatedly professed to hold the doctor-patient relationship sacrosanct.

Unfortunately, the critics look like they were onto something. In recent months, federal officials have made some major moves that will likely restrict patient access to some advanced medicines. And, at least up to this point, the Administration hasn't stood in the way of so-called “fail first” and survivability policies.

As early as this month, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will release the results of its three-year, head-to-head comparison study between the biological drugs Lucentis and Avastin in the treatment of age-related, "wet" macular degeneration (AMD).

AMD, an eye disease, affects roughly 1.75 million Americans. About 15 percent of those cases are the worse "wet" form. That version of the disease causes blood to leak in the back of the eye, severely restricting vision and often causing blindness.

Lucentis is the only treatment officially approved by the FDA for wet AMD. However, ophthalmologists have discovered that Avastin, a popular anti-cancer drug that's chemically similar to Lucentis, can be broken up into very small bits, injected directly into the eye, and stop the progress of the disease.

While a Lucentis AMD regimen can cost upwards of $2,000 per treatment, a similar course of Avastin costs just $50. And so, predictably, Avastin has steadily grown in popularity as an "off-label" wet AMD treatment, with an estimated 60 percent of doctors now using the cancer drug to combat the disease, rather than the eye-disease drug.

This shift piqued the government's interest because Medicare covers the bulk of wet AMD patients. If officials could get these patients to shift from Lucentis to Avastin, they'd generate millions in savings.
Both drugs are manufactured by Genentech. And they do share some molecular similarities. But, as of now, there isn't enough scientific evidence to definitively prove the drugs are interchangeable. Indeed, Lucentis was created for wet AMD, and is FDA-approved for it. Avastin was created to fight cancer, and only FDA-approved to fight certain cancers.

That's where the NIH comes in. There's a chance officials will use the results of the NIH study to impose a "fail-first" policy in Medicare, requiring wet AMD patients to try Avastin first before Lucentis. Such a shift might create savings in the short term. But it would likely force many patients to use less effective treatments and permanently compromise their health.

The second impending government encroachment on patient autonomy also revolves around Avastin. But bureaucrats are toeing a very different line on the drug in this case.
Late last year, the FDA ruled to revoke Avastin's approval in the treatment of late-stage breast cancer. Back in 2008, the FDA had granted the drug temporary approval for that purpose based on a research showing that Avastin, in combination with a specific chemotherapy agent, can significantly slow down the growth of tumors in some patients.

However, upon revaluating the drug last summer, FDA officials determined the clinical evidence was insufficient and changed their policy. Officials claim cost wasn't a factor.

That line is suspect. To justify its withdrawal, the FDA shifted its approval standard. In 2008, they applied a "progression-free survival" metric that measures how long Avastin can keep a patient's tumor from growing. Last year, the agency switched to an "overall survivability" standard that essentially measures how much additional life the drug gives the average patients. The nature of Avastin is such that it fairs well on the former and poorer on the latter.

Genetech, Avastin's manufacturer, has appealed the ruling. But the FDA has shown little interest in reversing itself. If the decision holds, it's very likely public and private insurance programs will stop covering Avastin for advanced breast cancer. Patients will, again, have a treatment option eliminated by distant government officials.

Human bodies are incredibly complex and can have widely different reactions to the same pharmaceutical drug. A group of studies might show that a particular treatment works about as well as another -- but that's for the average patient.

If the NIH AMD study and FDA Avastin reversal are used to constrict Medicare coverage for the more expensive options for treating these life-threatening illnesses, many Americans could suffer premature death and disease.

These decisions should be made by doctors and patients, not bean counters.  Protecting the doctor-patient relationship should be a high priority because the long-term cost implications of worse outcomes associated with fail first and survivability will mean higher costs in Medicare. These costs will be borne by taxpayers, but the price will be paid by patients.

Joel White is a the former staff director for the Subcommittee on Health with the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Parents are often more comfortable talking with their kids about sex and drugs than basic finance.

There was a time in this country when "European-style healthcare" served as a cautionary tale. Today it is beginning to look like something to envy.

Future generations wishing to identify the moment the shift took place should look to December 16, 2010. That was the day the FDA ruled to deny American breast cancer patients access to a blockbuster new drug -- and the day the European Commission ruled to keep it on the shelf.
 

By Dennis DeRossett, Executive Director, Illinois Press Association

Taxpayers have seen their fair share of government takeovers the past few years. The auto industry, Wall Street banks, student loans, healthcare, the list goes on and on.

All of these takeovers originated in Washington D.C. However, there is an ominous government takeover looming right here in Illinois, one that is not in the best interest of citizens of Illinois.

One important piece of foundation of our democracy is openness, or transparency, in government.