By Milt Thompson
The City of Indianapolis and the National Football League have enjoyed a remarkable relationship. Indianapolis is the annual host of the NFL combines where more than 300 prospective draftees are tested by all NFL teams. The NFL Players Association also conducts one of it's agents meetings in conjunction with the Combines. Of course the success of the Indianapolis Colts over the past decade has been integral to the city winning the bid to host the 2012 Superbowl following the 2011 season.
The NFL and the Players union have had an acrimonious past but have worked together under its current collective bargaining agreement to create the best and most commercially viable professional sports enterprise in the United States today. Unfortunately, the current collective bargaining agreement ends after the 2011 Superbowl that will be held in Dallas Texas after the 2010 season. Pursuant to that agreement, that if a new deal is not made, the 2010 season will operate without the existing salary cap per team which will create some interesting consequences with respect to player free agency and team management's ability to field competitive teams when larger market teams may use more resources to sign their own, or other team's unprotected players.
The well managed teams from a capped perspective will have an advantage because they have staggered the labor force in such a way that primary players are unable or unlikely to move. The Colt's seem to be in that position and appear roster ready to compete for another Superbowl run next season. Here is where the fun or pain begins. The negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement are at am impasse. If the NFL and the Player's union cannot reach a new deal, the 2011 season could be in jeopardy of a player lockout, and a subsequent blow to the organizing effort of the 2012 superbowl here in Indianapolis. The union is unwilling to fore go salary gains based on television revenue, and the NFL is interested in changing the current business model to direct more equity amongst competing interests from its small and large market teams. Although this is a simplified citation of the differences, suffice it to say that the real issues are about money and who gets the lion's share. The irony here, is that the place where both the NFL and Players unite, Indianapolis, could be the place that has the most to lose from their current intransigent positions. Please let cooler heads prevail and don't kill the goose with the preverbial golden egg and consider all those who stand to loose from a preventable work stoppage.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Trying HARD to comply with Medicare Secondary Payer rules
By Jim Bleeke
I recently attended the Defense Research Institute Medical Liability and Health Care Law Seminar in Phoenix (where snow in the rest of the country was a distant rumor).
One of the topics that generated much discussion was the presentation on the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act that is causing major concerns for defense and plaintiffs lawyers about how to settle cases while still complying with the law. While no definitive answers are readily available, a United States District Attorney emphasized that this is all just intended to recover for taxpayers money paid to individuals for injuries caused by entities other than the government. The speaker emphasized that the earlier in the case that efforts are made to secure that objective, the greater the likelihood that the United States Government will consider the good faith efforts made to comply with the law.
As experience with these new rules develops, it will be helpful to approach all of the more rigorous requirements with an understanding that the goal is to make the taxpayers as whole as possible for outlays that legally should be borne by the responsible tortfeasor.
I recently attended the Defense Research Institute Medical Liability and Health Care Law Seminar in Phoenix (where snow in the rest of the country was a distant rumor).
One of the topics that generated much discussion was the presentation on the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act that is causing major concerns for defense and plaintiffs lawyers about how to settle cases while still complying with the law. While no definitive answers are readily available, a United States District Attorney emphasized that this is all just intended to recover for taxpayers money paid to individuals for injuries caused by entities other than the government. The speaker emphasized that the earlier in the case that efforts are made to secure that objective, the greater the likelihood that the United States Government will consider the good faith efforts made to comply with the law.
As experience with these new rules develops, it will be helpful to approach all of the more rigorous requirements with an understanding that the goal is to make the taxpayers as whole as possible for outlays that legally should be borne by the responsible tortfeasor.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Campaign Fairness
By Brandon Milster
The United States Supreme Court recently issued a lengthy opinion in Citizens v. Federal Election Commission, which is already being viewed as a landmark constitutional law analysis in the areas of free speech and political campaigning. With mid-term congressional elections right around the corner, all potential candidates are reading this decision with great interest and speculation as to its far-reaching implications. In short, the Court held that corporate entities are no longer limited in the amount they can spend to finance political campaigns.
In today’s society, campaigns are already largely influenced by the national and local media, special interest groups, educational institutions, and private spending. Why should the ability of corporate America be limited? This is a major victory for the free speech rights of not only businesses but the American public as a whole. Washington should not be allowed to dictate how a campaign is funded. If the support and financing are available, then the political ideals represented by that individual’s campaign should be the beneficiary, regardless of whose stationary the check is written on.
The United States Supreme Court recently issued a lengthy opinion in Citizens v. Federal Election Commission, which is already being viewed as a landmark constitutional law analysis in the areas of free speech and political campaigning. With mid-term congressional elections right around the corner, all potential candidates are reading this decision with great interest and speculation as to its far-reaching implications. In short, the Court held that corporate entities are no longer limited in the amount they can spend to finance political campaigns.
In today’s society, campaigns are already largely influenced by the national and local media, special interest groups, educational institutions, and private spending. Why should the ability of corporate America be limited? This is a major victory for the free speech rights of not only businesses but the American public as a whole. Washington should not be allowed to dictate how a campaign is funded. If the support and financing are available, then the political ideals represented by that individual’s campaign should be the beneficiary, regardless of whose stationary the check is written on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
