DWI and No-Refusal Weekends in Texas

By Megan Breckenridge, Staff Writer
SULLO & SULLO, LLP

Home Criminal Defense Traffic Tickets Legal Articles

HOUSTON—In 2008, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported a total of 37,261 auto accident fatalities in the United States; 11,773 (32 percent) of which involved a driver whose blood alcohol content was above the legal limit. Perhaps even more disturbing are statistics that show Texas as the national leader in alcohol-related crashes, with 1,269 drunk driving deaths documented that year.

Given this information, it’s easy to see why alcohol and drug-related traffic offenses, commonly known as Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), are frequently prosecuted criminal offenses in Texas. If the alcohol concentration in a person's blood, breath or urine is .08 percent or higher, the person is considered intoxicated by law.

In some cases under Texas DWI law, the legal definition of intoxication is met even if a person's blood alcohol concentration is lower than .08 percent. Having alcohol, drugs or a controlled substance in one's body that causes loss of normal use of mental or physical faculties is also considered intoxication. If a person is operating a vehicle, vessel or even water skis in a public place, he or she is considered to be DWI, which is a Class B misdemeanor in Texas. Boating and operating an aircraft while intoxicated are also considered to be crimes.

The minimum amount of jail time in Texas for DWI is 72 hours, unless there is an open container of alcohol in the person's possession, in which case the jail time is at least six days. Consuming any amount of alcohol while operating a motor vehicle is also an offense in Texas.

In addition to jail time, a person who is convicted of DWI the first time will have his or her driver's license suspended for 90 days up to one year. Even if there is no conviction, the positive indication of alcohol from a blood, breath or urine test will result in automatic suspension of the person's driver's license. The option to complete a court-approved DWI education course within 180 days of conviction may be offered as a means of avoiding this suspension. A person who fails to complete such a program when sentenced to do so may lose his or her license. If the case presents unusual facts (i.e.—an accident, alcohol problem, bad driving record, etc.), additional conditions may be imposed. Most conditions are designed to address a problem that appears from the facts or alcohol/drug evaluation that is performed on the subject after conviction and include, but are not limited to, the installation of an ignition interlock device; alcohol treatment; an order to consume no alcohol; confinement; and restitution.

A DWI Second Offense is considered a Class A Misdemeanor, and requires the court to order, as a condition of release from jail on bond, the installation and maintenance of an ignition interlock device. This machine requires a breath sample before it will allow an individual to start his or her car, and periodic samples while driving to monitor and ensure sobriety. New technology has made the devices “user sensitive” so that another person cannot blow into the machine for the accused.

A DWI Third Offense (or greater) is considered a Third Degree Felony in Texas, and comes with a mandatory jail sentence of not less than two years nor more than ten years, along with many other stipulations and restrictions.

Refusing to submit to a blood, breath or urine test in Texas also carries penalties. If an officer has reason to believe that a person is driving while intoxicated, and the driver refuses to submit to a test, the person's driver's license will be automatically suspended for a minimum of 90 days if the person is 21 years of age or older, and for at least one year if the person is under 21. The period of license suspension increases with every subsequent test that shows an alcohol concentration above the legal limit, and with each time a person refuses to submit to alcohol testing. For example, if a person refuses to be tested for intoxication and there has been an alcohol or drug related conviction or license suspension within the previous five years, the person will lose his or her license automatically for one year. Under any circumstances, however, the person is entitled to a hearing.

In spite of these consequences, the number of DWI arrestees in Texas refusing to submit to a test has remained at roughly 50 percent. As a result, law enforcement agencies and prosecutors’ offices across the state have begun to use search warrants to obtain blood samples when suspects refuse to submit to a breathalyzer test, in a new program called “No-Refusal Weekends”. According to the Harris County District Attorney’s Office, the initiative aims to “ensure a breath or blood sample from every suspect pulled over for suspected DWI, full prosecution of these offenders, and, more importantly, a decrease in the number of fatalities over holidays.”

During no-refusal operations, which to date have been held during major holiday weekends, if a suspect is arrested on suspicion of DWI and refuses to submit to a breath or blood test, the arresting officer prepares an affidavit in support of a search warrant application. The affidavit must recite facts that demonstrate that the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect is under the influence, and that evidence of alcohol or drugs will be found in their blood. The officer then presents the affidavit to a judge who reviews if for probable cause. In practice, the police rarely appear in person to swear to the affidavit. Rather, the typical practice is for them to fax it or recite it over the phone to a judge who is “on call” for the operation. Once the warrant is approved, the arresting officer can obtain a blood sample without the suspect’s consent.

No-Refusal Weekends have been met with opposition from citizens claiming they are a violation of basic rights and the Constitutional ban on unreasonable search and seizure. Proponents, however, argue that not only will the program pull offenders from the streets, it may serve as a deterrent to those who previously thought they could side-step the law.

"If you or someone you know has had the misfortune of being involved in a drunk driving incident and need legal assistance, the experienced attorneys at Sullo & Sullo, LLP are here to help. Contact us at 713-839-9026 or visit our website at www.sullolaw.com to schedule your free consultation today."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Contact us today for a free legal evaluation at 713.839.9026 or visit our website at http://www.sullolaw.com/.
--------------
Best regards,
Sullo
Legal Attorneys Firm
Sullolaw.com - Sullo Sullo
Houston tx usa 77098
http://www.sullolaw.com/

Texas Driver Responsibility Program under Fire

By Megan Breckenridge, Staff Writer
SULLO & SULLO, LLP

Home Criminal Defense Traffic Tickets Legal Articles

HOUSTON—it is common knowledge that drunken-driving laws in America vary from state-to-state, but in Texas, they often differ between counties. This “checkerboard” system of enforcement has recently come under fire, with local judges, lawmakers and upset residents calling for congruent reform and the elimination of hefty surcharges often imposed on top of criminal penalties.
Criminal Justice Committee Chairman John Whitmire, D-Houston, has taken special issue with the state’s Driver Responsibility Program (DRP), which includes a surcharge of $1000 annually for three years for first-time driving-while-intoxicated (DWI) offenders. Too often, motorists simply opt not to pay the fines, which Whitmire and law officers said means more people driving without licenses or insurance.
The DRP was created in 2003 as a funding tool for trauma care centers and transportation projects. The program established a system that assigns points to moving violations, and applies subsequent automatic surcharges to offenders.
Under the DRP:Points are accumulated for moving violation convictions. For any consecutive three-year period in which a driver accumulates 6 points, he or she is assessed a $100 annual surcharge that is imposed annually until such time as his or her point total drops below 6. Each additional point on a driver's record will cost an additional $25 a year;
Under the program, driving while intoxicated carries an automatic $1,000 annual surcharge for a first offense. Each subsequent conviction carries an additional $1,500 annual surcharge; Driving without a license carries a $150 penalty, plus a $100 annual surcharge, making the total violation $450. Driving with an invalid license would cost a driver $150, plus a $250 annual surcharge, making the total violation $900;
Texans caught driving without proof of insurance would be required to pay a $250 fee, plus an automatic annual surcharge of $250 for three years from the date of their conviction, making the total cost of the violation $1,000; and Should a driver commit one of these latter two violations again within that three years, they would be assessed an additional annual surcharge.
Critics of the program argue that many Texans affected by these automatic surcharges are first-time offenders, students, single parents or low-income families, who are faced the choice of either complying with the law or paying for their education, rent food or emergency expenses like car repairs or medical bills. Others simply opt not to pay, and as of April 2010, 1.2 million Texans owed the state more than $1 billion in unpaid surcharges.
For proponents of the DRP, whatever money has been collected through the program has been a godsend. Quoted in the July 2010 issue of Texas Medicine Magazine, Dr. Ronald Stuart, MD, chair of the Trauma Stystems Committee of the Governor’s EMS & Trauma Advisory Council (GETAC) said, “The expansion of Texas trauma centers under the DRP has led to improved coverage of timely access to care when people need it the most. What we’re talking about is access and quality of care…[which is] why preserving the DRP and other funding programs is important.”
Dr. Stewart said that most trauma physicians and trauma facility administrators are sympathetic to the challenges inherent in the DRP and are willing to work to improve the program. “We’re not opposed to making the system better. We believe that in spite of its problems, the DRP is, in general, a fair and equitable way to pay for uncompensated trauma care in Texas.”
Dr. Stewart’s opponents, however, couldn’t disagree more.With Texas’ varying DWI laws, Sen. Whitmire asserts prosecutors are recognizing that the surcharges imposed by the program are “a burden [defendants] can’t meet and they’re allowing them to plead to something other than DWI.” He voiced concern that the absence of a formal DWI charge would hide an individual’s first drunken-driving offense, allowing him to avoid enhanced penalties if he offends again.
In Harris County, for example, District Attorney Pat Lykos’ office allows defendants facing drunken driving charges for the first time to plead guilty to DWI with the option of completing a strictly probated program, after which the conviction can be wiped off their record. And in Bexar County, District Attorney Susan Reed dealt with a backlog of cases by allowing first-time DWI offenders to plead instead to a charge of “obstruction of a highway—intoxication”. Both options allow the accused to avoid the DRP-imposed surcharges.
Perhaps the only thing that parties on either side of the debate can agree on is that the DRP is not perfect, and as such, the Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee, headed by Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, has been given the responsibility of vetting it before the 2011 legislative session. The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) is also working on new rules for the program to ease the surcharges for lower-income drivers.
Until such time that the existing surcharges are reduced or eliminated, being charged with DWI anywhere in Texas can have serious and life-changing consequences. If you or someone you know has been involved in a drunk driving incident, contact the experienced team of attorneys at Sullo & Sullo, LLP. Our lawyers understand how much is at stake in a DWI case and will fight for your rights. Call us at 713.839.9026 or visit our website at http://www.sullolaw.com/ for a free legal consultation today.

PROTECT YOURSELF FROM THIRD PARTY CAPTURE

By Megan Breckenridge, Staff Writer
SULLO & SULLO, LLP

Home Criminal Defense Traffic Tickets Legal Articles

HOUSTON—If you or someone close to you has been injured in an accident, you know how physically and emotionally traumatic the experience can be. It stands to reason then, that accident victims should be given time to recover and fully understand the ramifications of the accident before they are expected to negotiate personal injury compensation.

Unfortunately, insurance companies have begun to employ a settlement method called “third party capture” with alarming frequency, despite mounting criticism from consumers, legal experts and injury watchdogs. The practice involves contacting injured victims of accidents—people who would potentially make a claim for personal injury compensation—directly, and offering them a settlement before they have taken legal advice.

These offers are often far less than the amount of compensation the victim could have received if he or she had first consulted with an injury claims specialist.

Insurers defend the method, which they refer to as “third party assistance”, as a means of reducing unnecessary legal costs and enabling claimants to receive compensation more quickly than if they contact a legal representative. Consumer and claimant groups, however, argue that the practice puts undue pressure on victims to accept lower settlements, and to settle without considering all of their options.

In December 2009, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) concluded that third party capture was not inherently detrimental to claimants, but that there was a risk, in some cases, that they would settle for less than what they were entitled to.

The findings, published in a fact sheet, reminded insurers of their obligations to make sure unrepresented claimants were fully informed of their rights—including their right to independent legal advice—and that their interests were properly safeguarded.In response to the FSA’s release, the Association of British Insurers (ABI) published a voluntary code of practice on “third party assistance” and a consumer guide.

Under the code, unsolicited personal visits are banned, and insurers are only allowed to contact unrepresented claimants for the first time by telephone, text, email or letter. Phone calls are to be followed up in writing, and texts are limited to one message asking the claimant to call back. If there is no response, no further texts are to be sent.

The code also states that at each stage of the process, insurers must remind claimants of their right to seek independent legal advice and of the other options for pursuing their claim, such as through the court.In June 2010, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) responded with a warning to consumers to “Beware of the ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’,” referring to the ABI’s insurance guide. “[We have] been long concerned about a growing trend for the insurer of the person who caused the injury to make direct contact with the victim, offering to settle the compensation claim direct,” the APIL said in a press release.

“We have sent evidence to the FSA to illustrate occasions when insurers have quite clearly attempted to under-settle claims in these circumstances…[and] have also heard about quite shameful pressure to settle being brought to bear on vulnerable and injured people.”One of APIL’s key concerns is that most people know nothing about the compensation system, which makes it difficult for them to judge whether or not the compensation they are being offered is fair or correct. They also express concern about the part of this approach that involves people being “cold-called” by insurers, when they are at their most vulnerable.

The APIL recommends that injured parties seek independent advice about such key aspects of their case as medical reports, rehabilitation, and the level of compensation to be expected.

What is cited in the ABI’s guide as an “unnecessary” legal cost might make all the difference in putting someone’s life back on track after being sidelined by a needless injury.

If you or someone you know has been the victim of an accident and require independent legal advice to receive the compensation you deserve, contact the experienced team at Sullo & Sullo, LLP. Our lawyers understand how difficult it can be to recover from the emotional, physical and financial setbacks of a personal injury and are here to help. Call us at 713.839.9026 for a free legal consultation today.

High-profile Divorces

By Megan Breckenridge, Staff Writer
SULLO & SULLO, LLP

Home Criminal Defense Traffic Tickets Legal Articles

HOUSTON—We’ve all heard the sobering statistics about divorce rates in the United States, where the cost of dissolving a marriage is relatively low and the process simple. But for high-profile couples with piles of cash and material assets, parting ways can be a costly and complicated affair.Anyone with cable or Internet access knows the sordid details of Tiger Woods and Elin Nordegren’s split, which is rumored will soon be settled for a staggering $100 million. Amazingly, theirs will not be the most expensive A-list divorce to date. Here is a look some of the costliest celebrity divorces:
1. Mick Jagger and Jerry Hall.Estimated settlement: $15 to 25 million.The Rolling Stones’ front man and sexy supermodel met in 1977 and had two children together before tying the knot in a traditional Hindi wedding ceremony in Bali, Indonesia in 1990. Hall filed for divorce in 1999 after learning that Jagger had fathered a child with another woman. Jagger, worth an estimated $325 million at the time, successfully challenged the legality of the Balinese wedding and was granted an annulment. Hall walked away with only a fraction of his estate.
2. Michael and Diandra Douglas.Estimated settlement: $45 million.The couple met in 1977 at a Jimmy Carter inauguration party and wed six weeks later. During the course of their marriage, Michael became one of Hollywood’s top earning actors, starring in box office hits like Fatal Attraction, Wall Street and Basic Instinct. Amid rumors of the actor’s infidelities and alcohol abuse, the couple separated in 1998. Diandra was awarded an estimated $45 million in 2000, plus homes in Beverly Hills and Majorca. In June 2010, the couple returned to court to dispute Diandra’s claim to a portion of the proceeds from Michael’s upcoming Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. If the film is ruled to be a spin-off of the original Wall Street, which Michael filmed while they were together, Diandra will be entitled to a share of his earnings per their divorce settlement.
3. James Cameron and Linda Hamilton.Estimated settlement: $50 million.The famed director wed the star of his first two Terminator movies in July 1997. Though their marriage lasted a mere 18 months, they conceived a daughter together during that time. Their divorce settled shortly after Titanic was released, and Cameron was forced to give Hamilton more than half of the film’s revenues.
4. Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills.Estimated settlement: $50 million.The Beatles rocker married the former model and charity campaigner in 2002, with McCartney reportedly shunning Mills’ offer of a prenuptial agreement. In 2006, the pair began bitter divorce proceedings, which garnered a great deal of press and were not resolved until March of 2008. They have a daughter together who, in addition to Mills’ nearly $50 million settlement, will receive over $44,000 per year until her 18th birthday.
5. Madonna and Guy Ritchie.Estimated settlement: $76 million.The Material Girl wed the British film director in 2000, two years after they met at a dinner party hosted by Sting and his wife Trudie Styler. The pair have two children together, Rocco, 8, and David, 3, who was adopted from Malawi. They share custody of the kids, and Madonna shared a large chunk of her estimated $450 million net worth with Ritchie when they settled their divorce for $76 million in 2008.
6. Steven Spielberg and Amy Irving.Estimated settlement: $100 million.Famed director Spielberg and up-and-coming actress Irving met in 1979, had a son, and later married in 1985. But by 1989 the passion between them had fizzled and the amicably parted ways, with Spielberg giving Irving a $100 million settlement to show there were no hard feelings.
7. Neil Diamond and Marcia Murphey.Estimated settlement: $150 million.Neil Diamond has known international signing success since the ‘60s, and during his career has sold more than one million records worldwide. When he met the woman who would share his life for 25 years, he was already married to his first wife. Apparently Diamond went out for cigarettes in November 1969 and never returned. Three weeks later he had divorced and married TV producer Marcia Murphey. In 1994, following rumors of extramarital affairs on Diamond’s part, Murphey filed for divorce citing “irreconcilable differences”. Their settlement was for $150 million, half his fortune, which the singer claims he gave her cheerfully. “She’s worth every penny,” he said.
8. Rupert and Anna Murdoch.Estimated settlement: $1.7 billion.One of the richest men in the world, Rupert Murdoch developed his worldwide media empire when he inherited his father’s Australian newspaper in 1952. He married Anna in the early ‘60s and they remained together for 32 years and had three children.
The pair split on good terms in 1998 but when Rupert forced Anna off the board of News Corporation, things turned ugly. Rupert finally agreed to give his wife $1.7 billion worth of his assets, $110 million of it in cash. 17 days later, Rupert married Wendi Dang, one of his employees.
As you can see, the higher the net-worth of the individuals involved, the messier the divorce proceedings may be. If you or someone you know is faced with the dissolution of a marriage, it pays to consult a professional about how best to protect your interests and assets. The lawyers at Sullo & Sullo, LLP understand the emotional and financial ramifications of divorce and are here to help. Contact us today for a free legal evaluation at 713.839.9026

Drug Violence in Mexico Spills Into U.S

By Megan Breckenridge, Staff Writer
SULLO & SULLO, LLP
Home Criminal Defense Traffic Tickets Legal Articles

HOUSTON—Although Mexico has long been a source of production and transit for illegal drugs, the country now finds itself embattled with powerful and well-financed drug cartels. An upsurge in drug-related violence can be traced to the end of 2006 when President Felipe Calderón launched an aggressive assault on drug trafficking organizations by deploying tens of thousands of federal police and soldiers to reign them in. But his initiative has been largely unsuccessful to date, and there is a rising chorus of voices on both sides of the border questioning the cost and fallout of the attack on the cartels.

Given its geographic location, Mexico has been used as a staging and transshipment point for narcotics, illegal immigrants and other contraband destined for U.S. markets from Mexico, South America and elsewhere for decades. During the 1980s and early 1990s, Colombia’s Pablo Escobar was the main exporter of cocaine and dealt with organized criminal networks all over the world. When enforcement efforts intensified in South Florida and the Caribbean, the Colombian organizations formed partnerships with Mexico-based traffickers to transport cocaine through Mexico into the United States.

These new allegiances flourished, since Mexico had long been a major source of heroin and cannabis and possessed an infrastructure that stood ready to serve the Colombia-based traffickers. At first, the Mexican gangs were paid in cash for their transport services, but in the late 1980s, a settlement was reached wherein they would be compensated in product. Payment was usually 35 to 50 percent of each cocaine shipment, which meant that organizations from Mexico became involved in distribution as well as transportation, and quickly morphed into formidable traffickers in their own right.

With the demise of Colombia’s Cali and Medellín cartels in the 1990s, Mexican gangs stepped up to dominate the wholesale illicit drug market in the United States. Arrests and deaths of key leaders in recent years have led to increasing violence as rival cartels fight for control of the trafficking routes into the U.S. Amid this continuous power struggle, gang leaders often attempt to use law enforcement to their benefit, either by bribing Mexican officials to take certain action against an opponent, or by leaking intelligence about a rival’s operations to the Mexican government or the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

There is also mounting evidence of corruption amid border security and law enforcement officers, with suspicions being raised about agencies on both sides of the border.

To many Mexicans, the rising count of gruesome drug-related murders is evidence that the government’s strategy to combat the cartels has failed.

Current estimates put the death toll at close to 23,000 since Calderón took office in December 2006, with numbers increasing exponentially each year.

The government insists that the majority of those killed in Mexico’s drug violence were involved in the narcotics trade. But a growing number of bystanders are dying in the crossfire, and Americans are among them.

Tania Lozoya, 15, of El Paso, Texas, was killed by a stray bullet at her Aunt’s house across the border in Ciudad Juárez in May 2009, after gunfire broke out when two men chased another man into the backyard of the residence.

In December, a California assistant school principal, Augustin Salcedo, was killed after he was abducted from a restaurant along with five other men while he and his wife were visiting her hometown of Gomex Palacio, in the northern state of Durango.

The motive for the mass abduction is still unknown. Other Americans appear to have been specifically targeted.

U.S. anti-kidnapping expert Felix Batista was abducted by gunmen in December 2008 in the northern city of Saltillo, where he had gone to advise local businessmen on how to avoid becoming victims of the country’s wave of kidnappings. He has not been found. And on March 13, 2010, gunmen believed to be linked to drug traffickers ahot a pregnant American consulate worker and her husband to death in Ciudad Juárez. The same gunmen also killed the husband of another consular employee and wounded their two young children.

Americans, from border state governors to military analysts in Washington, have begun to question whether the mounting violence presents a threat to their own national security and, to the outrage of many Mexicans, whether the state itself will crumble under the strain of the war.

The Obama Administration released a critical report, called the 2010 National Methamphetamine Threat Assessment by the National Drug Intelligence Center of the Justice Department, that portrays drug cartels as easily able to circumvent the Mexican government’s restrictions on the importing of chemicals used to manufacture meth, which has reached its highest purity and lowest price in the United States since 2005. Closer to home, the report also points to increased cooperation between Mexican drug trafficking organizations and U.S.-based street and prison gangs to distribute illegal substances. In many areas, American gangs have used their alliances with Mexican cartels to facilitate an expansion of their midlevel and retail drug operations into more rural and suburban areas.
Responding to a growing sense that Mexico’s military-led fight against drug traffickers is not gaining ground, the U.S. and Mexico set their joint counternarcotics strategy on a new course in March 2010 by refocusing their efforts on strengthening civilian law enforcement institutions and rebuilding communities crippled by poverty and crime.
Under the new $331 million plan, American and Mexican agencies will work together to refocus border enforcement efforts away from building a better wall to creating systems that would allow goods and people to be screened before they reach crossing points. The plan also provides support for Mexican programs intended to strengthen communities where socioeconomic hardships force many young people into crime.
Even with these new initiatives under way, the drug-related violence in Mexico shows no signs of dissipating. The U.S State Department has warned against nonessential travel along the U.S.-Mexico border, especially in the violent cities of Ciudad Juárez and Tijuana, and allowed consulate employees to evacuate their families for the foreseeable future. As even Calderón has conceded, “It’s a war.”With the growing prevalence of illicit substances in the United States by way of Mexico, you or
someone you know may have been impacted by a drug-related crime. The lawyers at Sullo & Sullo, LLP understand the serious ramifications of these charges and are here to help. Contact us today for a free legal evaluation at 713.839.9026

Health Care Reform And You: A Guide

By Megan Breckenridge, Staff Writer

SULLO & SULLO, LLP

Home | Criminal Defense | Traffic Tickets | Legal Articles

HOUSTON—On March 23, 2010, after more than a year of passionate debate, partisan politics and substantive policy discussions, President Obama signed his health care overhaul legislation into law. The House of Representatives passed the reform package, which was initially green-lighted by the Sentate, with only a slim margin of 219 to 212.

The bill is the most far-reaching legislation of its kind since the creation of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and creates sweeping changes to the nation’s health care system. Most of the significant reforms will take years to implement, but many are already being put into place. The following is a comprehensive look at the package and its potential effects on you and your family:

Cost:

• The bill will cost $940 billion over ten years.

Deficit:

• The bill aims to reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the first ten years, and $1.2 trillion in the second ten years.

Coverage:

• Health insurance coverage will be expanded to 32 million Americans who are currently uninsured.

Health Insurance Exchanges:

• Uninsured and self-employed individuals will be able to purchase insurance through state-based exchanges with subsidies available to individuals and families with income between 133 percent and 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level* (FPL). *Note: The FPL for a family of four is $22,050.
• Separate exchanges will be created for small businesses to purchase coverage (effective 2014).
• Funding will be available to states to establish exchanges within one year of the bill’s enactment and until January 1, 2015.

Subsidies:

• Individuals and families who make between 100 and 400 percent of the FPL and would like to purchase their own health insurance on an exchange will be eligible for subsidies. They cannot be eligible for Medicare or Medicaid, and cannot be covered by an employer. Eligible buyers will receive premium credit cards, and there will be a cap for how much they are required to contribute to their premiums based on a sliding scale.

Funding The Plan:

• Medicare Payroll Tax on investment income: Beginning in 2012, the Medicare Payroll Tax will be expanded to include unearned income. There will be a 3.8 percent tax on investment income for individuals making more than $200,000 per year and families making more than $250,000 per year.
• Excise Tax: Starting in 2018, insurance companies will pay a 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” high-end insurance plans worth over $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. Dental and vision plans are exempt and will not be counted in the total cost of the plans.
• Tanning Tax: There will be a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services.

Medicare:

• The bill will completely close the Medicare Part D donut hole by 2020, through the provision of a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the gap in 2010, and a 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs in the donut hole beginning in 2011.
• Co-payments and deductibles for preventative services will be eliminated under the Medicare program beginning in 2011.
• The bill also includes $500 billion in Medicare cuts over the next decade.

Medicaid:

• Medicaid will be expanded to include 133 percent of the FPL.
• States will be required to expand Medicaid to include childless adults starting in 2014.
• The Federal Government will pay 100 percent of costs for covering newly eligible individuals through 2016.
• Illegal immigrants will not be eligible for Medicaid.

Insurance Reform:

• Insurance companies will be banned from dropping individuals from coverage if they become sick.
• Health plans will be prohibited from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. Beginning in 2014, this prohibition will apply to all persons.
• Insurance companies will be required to permit young people up to their 26^th birthday to remain on their parents’ policy, if the parents so choose.
• Insurance companies will be prohibited from placing lifetime caps on coverage.
• New plans will be tightly restricted in their use of annual limits to ensure access to needed care. Beginning in 2014, the use of any annual limits will be prohibited for all plans.
• New private plans will be required to cover preventative services with no co-payments and with preventative services being exempt from deductibles. Beginning in 2018, this requirement will apply to all plans.
• Customers purchasing new plans will have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal decisions made by their health insurance provider.
• Beginning in 2011, plans in the individual and small group market will be required to spend at least 80 percent of premium dollars on medical services, and plans in the large group market will be required to spend 85 percent. Insurers that do not meet these thresholds must provide rebates to policyholders.
• Intermediate access to insurance for Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition will be available through a temporary high-risk pool.
• New group health plans will be prohibited from establishing any eligibility rules for coverage that discriminate in favor of higher wage employees.
• Beginning in 2011, a long-term care insurance policy will be created, that will be financed by voluntary payroll deductions to provide benefits to adults who become functionally disabled.
• Aid will be provided to states in establishing offices of health insurance consumer assistance in order to help individuals with the filing of complaints and appeals.

Access To Care:

• The bill will provide new investment in training programs to increase the number of primary care doctors, nurses and public health professionals.
• Funding for Community Health Centers will be increased to allow for nearly a doubling of the number of patients seen by the centers over the next five years.

Abortion:

• Private and taxpayer health insurance premium funds will be segregated, and individuals will be required to pay for abortion coverage through two separate payments. (Private funds will have to be kept separate from federal and taxpayer funds).
• No health care plan will be required to offer abortion coverage. States will be permitted to pass legislation choosing to opt out of offering coverage through the exchange.

Individual Mandates:

• In 2014, everyone will be required to have health insurance or face a $695 annual fine. There will be exceptions made for some low-income individuals.

Employer Mandates:

• Employers with more than 50 employees will be required to provide health insurance or face an annual fine of $2000 per year, per worker, if any employee receives federal subsidies to purchase private health insurance. The fine will be applied to the total number of workers, with some allowances.
• Small businesses will receive tax credits to make employee coverage more affordable. Credits up to 35 percent of premiums will be immediately available for firms that choose to offer coverage, effective beginning for calendar year 2010. (Starting in 2014, the small business tax credits will cover 50 percent of premiums).
• Until the Exchanges become available in 2014, a temporary re-insurance program will be in place to help offset the costs of expensive health claims for employers that provide health benefits for retirees age 55-64. (Effective 90 days after the enactment of the law).

Illegal Immigrants:

• Illegal immigrants will not be allowed to purchase health insurance in exchanges, regardless of whether or not they can afford to pay the premiums themselves.