June 27, 2017

No Image

Sarah Palin Sues 'New York Times,' Says Editorial Defamed Her

Sarah Palin seen at Politicon 2016 at The Pasadena Convention Center on June 26, 2016, in Pasadena, Calif.

Colin Young-Wolff/Colin Young-Wolff/Invision/AP

hide caption

toggle caption

Colin Young-Wolff/Colin Young-Wolff/Invision/AP

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin filed a defamation lawsuit against The New York Times Tuesday in a federal court in Manhattan.

Palin, a former vice presidential nominee, says the newspaper published a statement about her in an editorial earlier this month that it “knew to be false.”

The editorial, which was corrected the next day, linked one of Palin’s political action committee ads to the mass shooting in January 2011 that severely wounded then-Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords.

Lawyers for Palin say The Times “violated the law and its own policies” when it accused her of inciting the 2011 attack that killed six people.

The New York Times reports:

“The editorial was published online on June 14, the day a gunman opened fire at a baseball field where Republican lawmakers were practicing for an annual charity game. The editorial said there was a link between political incitement and the mass shooting in Arizona that severely wounded Representative Gabby Giffords and said that Ms. Palin’s “political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.”

The Times later issued a correction, saying that there was no established link between political statements and the shooting and that the map circulated by Ms. Palin’s PAC had depicted electoral districts, not individual Democratic lawmakers, beneath the stylized cross hairs. The NYT Opinion Twitter account also sent out the correction about the lack of a link, apologizing and saying that it appreciated that readers had pointed out the mistake.”

The suit charges the newspaper’s correction and apology to readers were “devoid of any reference to Mrs. Palin” and were “woefully insufficient.”

Palin is seeking damages to be determine by a jury, according to The Associated Press.

In a statement, a spokeswoman for The Times said, “We have not reviewed the claim yet but will defend against any claim vigorously.”

In the June 14 shooting at the ball field in Virginia, Rep. Steve Scalise was critically wounded. The House majority whip has since been released from the intensive care unit but remains at a Washington, D.C., hospital.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Today in Movie Culture: 'Baby Driver' Lego Trailer, 'Spider-Man: Homecoming' Starbucks Prank and More

Here are a bunch of little bites to satisfy your hunger for movie culture:

Remade Trailer of the Day:

Baby Driver arrives in theaters tomorrow, so here’s a redo of the movie’s trailer in Lego:

[embedded content]

Movie Trivia of the Day:

Speaking of Edgar Wright, Screen Crush shares some Shaun of the Dead trivia:

[embedded content]

Movie Takedown of the Day:

Despicable Me 3 hits theaters this weekend, so of course Honest Trailers mocks the first two and lampoon’s the song “Happy”:

[embedded content]

Promotional Prank of the Day:

In anticipation of Spider-Man: Homecoming, the Marvel superhero dropped in to get coffee and surprise fans in this promotional stunt:

[embedded content]

Vintage Image of the Day:

Tobey Maguire, who turns 42 today, meets with Sam Raimi on the set of the 2004 sequel Spider-Man 2:

Bad Film Analysis of the Day:

Learn the supposed “hidden meaning” of Logan from an alien in the future in the latest episode of Earthling Cinema:

[embedded content]

Actor in the Spotlight:

The latest episode of character actor showcase No Small Parts focuses on Noah Taylor:

[embedded content]

Cosplay of the Day:

The Tampa Yankees hosted a tribute to the movie A League of Their Own and the women baseball players it portrays, and a couple little fans dressed up for the occasion:

3 Rockford Peaches in the house for A League of Their Own Tribute Night! Can you guess which one is an ORIGINAL peach?! ???? pic.twitter.com/H0m6gvV0Wi

— Tampa Yankees (@TampaYankees) June 24, 2017

Movie Food of the Day:

Actually beverages, not food, are the focus of the latest episode of Binging with Babish, which shows how to make memorabe cocktails featured in The Big Lebowski, Groundhog Day, the James Bond franchise and more:

[embedded content]

Classic Trailer of the Day:

Today is the 20th anniversary of John Woo’s Face/Off starring Nic Cage and John Travolta. Watch the original trailer for the action movie classic below.

[embedded content]

and

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Q&A: What Does The Senate Health Bill Mean For Me?

The ongoing debate over health care has many people wondering how changes will affect their coverage.

Fanatic Studio/Collection Mix: Sub/Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Fanatic Studio/Collection Mix: Sub/Getty Images

Since Senate Republicans released the draft of their bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act last week, many people have been wondering how the proposed changes will affect their own coverage, and their family’s: Will my pre-existing condition be covered? Will my premiums go up or down?

The bill is still a work in progress, but we’ve taken a sampling of questions from All Things Considered listeners and answered them, based on what we know now.


Q: My husband and I are both in our 50s, self-employed, and we have a daughter in college. We buy insurance through the California exchange. Our family premium is now $1,100 a month with a deductible of $6,800 per person. We have never received a subsidy.

Three months ago, I was diagnosed with breast cancer. It was early stage, and I am in treatment with no cancer remaining. We are all very active and healthy otherwise.

Here is my concern: Based on what I have read, it appears our age group stands to see the biggest jump in premium costs. Not to mention, I now have a pre-existing condition. Will our premiums rise astronomically?

— Denise Estrada, Los Angeles, Calif.

A: This is a double-barreled question on premium costs and pre-existing conditions, both major concerns to consumers.

For a person in their 50s, worries about premium increases are well-founded. Under the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies are allowed to charge older people up to three times more than young people for the same insurance policies.

The Republican health care bills in both the Senate and House would allow insurers to charge up to five times more.

That change would likely lead to cheaper health plans for younger people, but also more expensive ones for those over 50. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that a 60-year-old in Los Angeles County who doesn’t qualify for subsidies would see her premium rise about $2,600 a year.

As for your question about your pre-existing condition, the answer would depend on where you live. The Senate bill does preserve the pre-existing condition protections that exist under the Affordable Care Act — meaning insurance companies must offer you a policy even if you have a medical problem. But it would also allow states to ask for waivers from some federal regulations, including those that define “essential health benefits.” If a state doesn’t include cancer treatment or pharmaceutical coverage in those benefits, then insurance companies can elect not to pay for some of the care you need.

Q: My 2 1/2-year-old son has been through eight hospitalizations and is fed partly through a feeding tube. We have insurance through my husband’s employer, and our son qualified for Medicaid last November because of a program in Pennsylvania for children with chronic illnesses.

The medical bills we’ve already seen would have been catastrophic without insurance, and our out-of-pocket medical expenses were thousands of dollars a year, even with insurance, before he qualified for Medicaid. His medical care needs have been so intense that I have not been able to work this past year.

We are very worried about his future care costs without Medicaid, as well as our ability to afford insurance coverage for him if pre-existing conditions are not afforded any legal protections.

How is Trumpcare likely to affect our family?

— Emily Kane, Pittsburgh, Pa.

A: It sounds like Pennsylvania’s Medicaid program has been helpful for your child. Under the proposed law, states will have even more power to design their own Medicaid programs, so there’s no reason to think that Pennsylvania would take away a local program that it has implemented.

What might be worrisome, however, are the overall reductions to the Medicaid program. The bill turns Medicaid from an open-ended program that pays for all the care beneficiaries need, to one that caps federal spending based on the number of people enrolled. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that if the Senate bill passes, Medicaid spending would be 26 percent lower, over the next decade, than it would be under the Affordable Care Act.

Some analysts believe that over time, states will have to cut services, reduce how much they pay doctors and hospitals and make it harder to qualify for Medicaid.

Q: My wife and I are both 42, and we have two children, ages 10 and 13. We have coverage through the marketplace but do not qualify for payment assistance. In addition, my wife has rheumatoid arthritis and currently uses expensive monthly injections to treat it. Would insurance still be required to cover my wife’s arthritis treatment under the new law? And how would our premiums be affected?

— Jeremy Merrill, Cedar Park, Texas

A: As far as premiums go, it looks like yours are likely to remain about the same. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that for a 40-year-old in Williamson County, Texas, who doesn’t qualify for subsidies, premiums are flat under the new law.

Whether your insurance will cover your wife’s condition depends largely on your governor. As I explained above, states can ask for waivers from many of the Affordable Care Act’s consumer protections, including those that define what medical services insurers have to cover.

Q: My 16-year-old daughter has Crohn’s disease. She requires Remicade infusions every six weeks. Each infusion costs $20,000. I am very concerned about lifetime maximums being reinstated. Additionally, I worry that children will no longer be able to stay on their parents’ insurance policies until 26, and that pre-existing conditions will result in higher premiums, even for employer-sponsored plans.

— Amy Lowe, Dayton, Ohio

A: You only have to worry about one of those things.

The Senate bill does include the very popular provision in the Affordable Care Act that allows children to stay on their parents’ health insurance policy until they are 26.

However, there is a chance that lifetime spending limits and annual limits [to what an insurer would pay for the care of a given patient] could return. Before the Affordable Care Act, about 60 percent of employers had lifetime limits on their health plans. The section of the bill that allows states to get waivers from federal rules opens the door to those limits making a comeback — even in employer-sponsored policies.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Supreme Court To Consider New Jersey's Bid To Legalize Sports Betting

New Jersey’s bid to offer legalized sports betting is going to the Supreme Court. The state wants to allow legal sports betting in its casinos and racetracks, but major league sports are united in their opposition.

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST:

New Jersey has been pushing to legalize sports betting at casinos and racetracks, and today the Supreme Court announced it would hear the case. It could be the undoing of a federal ban on sports betting in most states that goes back to 1993. Charles Lane of member station WSHU says the sports and gaming industries are watching this case closely and preparing for a future that might look very different.

CHARLES LANE, BYLINE: Ted Taylor works in a pub in Connecticut that is perfectly positioned if sports betting is legalized.

TED TAYLOR: They can watch whatever they want, including about 30 different sports channels on the television. And there’s a little pad there. If they don’t want to move, they can just place their bets on the pad.

LANE: Taylor is an executive at Sportech, a British gambling company that bought 16 off-track betting parlors in Connecticut and is poised to do the same in California. OTBs are a struggling industry, but this one is built to be a sports fan’s paradise. It’s all dark wood walls, saloon-style doors, 197 TVs and plenty of cashiers nearby for betters. Right now Taylor only takes bets on racing and highline, but he’s ready for traditional sports.

TAYLOR: When it’s legal, this would be a natural place for that to happen. But I’ve got to emphasize how important it is that everybody feels that that’s got to be regulated properly.

LANE: It’s not just betting parlors, either. Seven states have already moved legislation in preparation for legal sports betting even though the Supreme Court has only just decided to consider it. But from the gaming industry perspective, repealing the ban is a foregone conclusion. Geoff Freeman is president of the American Gaming Association.

GEOFF FREEMAN: Sports leagues, the casino gaming industry, the state’s broadcasters and many others have said it’s time to take a different approach to this complex issue.

LANE: Sport leagues have been the traditional opponent to repealing the ban. John Holden is a legal scholar at Florida State University who studies sports. He says leagues have been concerned about the integrity of their games.

JOHN HOLDEN: Legalized gambling might increase instances of match fixing or gambling corruption.

LANE: But leagues have increasingly begun to soften their stance and form partnerships that could capitalize on legal sports betting. The NFL, NHL, NBA – all of them have deals with data companies that watch for suspicious bets.

HOLDEN: However, these companies also provide the data that sportsbooks use to set lines. So while they provide sort of this integrity monitoring service, they’re also helping those operate betting businesses.

LANE: He says it’s not inconceivable that a sports team could own its own sportsbook. More likely, though, we’ll see new entrants into the sports gambling market. David Katz is a gaming analyst for Telsey Advisory Group. He says businesses like the horseracing company Churchill Downs or the investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald already have products ready to go.

DAVID KATZ: The technology that they use is translatable into a sports betting platform quite easily.

LANE: There’s even more surprising possibilities. Microsoft has technology that has been learning how to bet on sports, and the videogame division of Sony has a gambling patent which has some speculating if betting on video game sports could be legal as well. For NPR News, I’m Charles Lane, WSHU news.

Copyright © 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)