age-limited access to health care

Access to health care is usually presented as a function of income, proximity to services, or cultural dictates. Oddly, it can also be a function of age: Children also need a birth certificate to be eligible for the vaccination programme available to under five year olds. Those who are ineligible are left vulnerable to preventable diseases, a common problem in Cameroon. Given the child mortality rates (i.e. deaths under 5 yrs age) in under-developed countries, and the urgency to vaccinate as a public health measure ... I'm stunned that the gov't would refuse to vaccinate anyone under 5 just because of a birth certificate. I understand the need to control when the child gets vaccinated and make sure the child doesn't get too many. Although I'm equally sure that if the parents are well-off they could get their kid the shots.

Colt v. US

COLT INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff/Cross-Appellant, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee No. 89-1165 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 880 F.2d 1311; 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 10672; 89-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9450; 64 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5231; 30 ERC (BNA) 1179; 19 ELR 21450 July 24, 1989, Decided Taxpayer was assessed civil penalties in a consent decree because it failed to eliminate violations of the Clean Air Act. In satisfaction of the civil penalties imposed by the consent decree, the taxpayer remitted payment. The taxpayer then claimed the payment as an ordinary business deduction under I.R.C. § 162(a). Does anything more clearly demonstrate the fact businesses see non-compliance fines as just an ordinary business cost?

that's all, folks

Title 29 - Labor Chapter 15 - Occupational Safety & Health Sec. 666 - Civil and criminal penalties (e) Willful violation causing death to employee Any employer who willfully violates any standard, rule, or order promulgated pursuant to section 655 of this title, or of any regulations prescribed pursuant to this chapter, and that violation caused death to any employee, shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for no more than six months, or by both; except that if the conviction is for a violation committed after a first conviction of such person, punishment shall be by a fine of not more than $20,000 or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both. Now, here we go: > "civil and criminal penalties" gives a first impression that the plural applies to criminal, as well as civil. Nope. There's only one criminal provision under the federal (and Minnesota) Occupational Safety & Health Act. It's here. You need to actually achieve killing your employee. Not only that, but it also needs to meet the legal definition of "willful", which isn't the same as used in normal conversation. There's one of those op-ed pieces on a blog bemoaning the state of affairs when killing your worker carries a lower penalty than assaulting a burro on federal property. A claim I've read before. The author, however, failed to provide a bibliography along with the word 'bibliography'. So, I'm not sure how valid his numbers are, or where they're from. Which is sad, because I would like to use some of them & would have been happier if I didn't need to go looking for the information from primary sources. Like the burro. Or ... "By comparison with other federal agencies, OSHA is hardly the big bully it is often painted as. For example, the penalty for killing a burro on federal land is one year in jail, and the penalty for mail fraud is up to 30 years behind bars. The Environmental Protection Agency [in the course of] one year obtained prison sentences totaling 256 years." e.g. I'd like to know which year that was & where the burro law is. He also stated: "... there are fewer OSHA compliance officers than there are U.S. fish and game wardens. In other words, the large mouth bass and the wild turkey are afforded better [protection] than U.S. workers."

OHS prosecution in UK

Apparently we aren't the only ones who complain about the lack of prosecution for occupational safety failure.

The Guardian is pro-labor, left-leaning paper (left in the sense the the US uses it).

Libby, part 1

Well, a bit delayed with posting ... From February... W.R. Grace was back in the news with a new lawsuit. This is the owner of the vermiculite mine in Libby, Montana. The stupendous point of this is that the defendants in the suit are the Grace executives, not the company. This is the first time the EPA has tried this. They - unlike OSHA - are allowed to directly bring suit against individuals. Actually, I’m not sure OSHA is even allowed to sue anyone, just implement fines. I’m sure the rest of the legal community is waiting with baited breath (assuming we don’t have asbestosis, of course). The company did ban smoking at the mine in 1978 — smoking compounds the dangers of asbestos, doctors say — and also issued respirator masks to workers. But showers that the miners could have used at the end of their shifts before heading home were ruled out, because they might have overly worried people. In the largest judgment after trial (in 2003) in the history of the federal Superfund law, the Justice Department and the Environmental Protection Agency announced that the District Court of Montana has ordered W.R. Grace & Co. to pay over $54.5 million to reimburse the federal government for the costs of investigation and cleanup of asbestos contamination in Libby, Montana. There is asbestos all over the entire town. Usually asbestos abatement brings an image of workers in Tyvek suits & respirators working behind plastic sheeting. This abatement is somehow supposed to be the entire city of Libby.