<![CDATA[Awesome Capital - Awesome Blog]]>

<![CDATA[Awesome Capital - Awesome Blog]]>Mon, 21 May 2012 17:27:29 -0800Weebly<![CDATA[Few small businesses claim ObamaCare health insurance tax credit]]>Mon, 21 May 2012 17:19:55 -0800http://www.awesomecapital.com/1/post/2012/05/few-small-businesses-claim-obamacare-health-insurance-tax-credit.htmlDepending on the estimate, 4% to 12% of small businesses eligible for health insurance tax credits claimed them in 2010, according to a new report.

The tax credit was included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to induce small businesses to offer health benefits but failed to do so, the Government Accountability Office said. “According to employer representatives, tax preparers and insurance brokers the GAO met with, the credit was not large enough to incentivize employers to begin offering insurance,” said the GAO. Employers also found the credit too complex, the GAO said. The credit was not enough of an incentive to make up for the time and cost required to apply, according to the report.
About 170,300 small businesses claimed the tax credit. Rough estimates projected that 1.4 million to 4 million employers met the eligibility criteria.

Businesses must employ fewer than 25 full-time equivalents to be eligible and the average annual wage must be less than $50,000 for full time equivalents. Also, an employer must uniformly pay 50% of the premium costs to qualify for the credit. Employers with 10 or fewer workers and average annual wages of $25,000 may receive the full credit; the rest qualify for partial credit.

The average credit was $2,700, the GAO said. The tax credit total cost for 2010 was $468 million.

About 83% did not qualify for full credit but received partial credit. The GAO also said that 30% saw their credit capped by rules that may apply the credit to the amount of the small group state average premium instead of an employer's own premiums.
http://tinyurl.com/7fq3g6d

]]><![CDATA[Catholic bishops lead suits vs. Obama over 1st Amendment rights]]>Mon, 21 May 2012 16:56:07 -0800http://www.awesomecapital.com/1/post/2012/05/catholic-bishops-lead-suits-vs-obama-over-1st-amendment-rights.htmlThe Archdiocese of New York, headed by Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., headed by Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the University of Notre Dame, and 40 other Catholic dioceses and organizations around the country announced on Monday that they are suing the Obama administration for violating their freedom of religion, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. The dioceses and organizations, in different combinations, are filing 12 different lawsuits filed in federal courts around the country.

The Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. has established a special website--preservereligiousfreedom.org--to explain its lawsuit and present news and developments concerning it.

"This lawsuit is about an unprecedented attack by the federal government on one of America’s most cherished freedoms: the freedom to practice one’s religion without government interference," the archdiocese says on the website. "It is not about whether people have access to certain services; it is about whether the government may force religious institutions and individuals to facilitate and fund services which violate their religious beliefs."

The suits filed by the Catholic organizations focus on the regulation that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced last August and finalized in January that requires virtually all health-care plans in the United States to cover sterilizations and all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives, including those that can cause abortions.

The Catholic Church teaches that sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion are morally wrong and that Catholics should not be involved in them. Thus, the regulation would require faithful Catholics and Catholic organizations to act against their consciences and violate the teachings of their faith.

Earlier, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had called the regulation an "unprecedented attack on religious liberty" and asked the Obama administration to rescind it.

“We have tried negotiation with the Administration and legislation with the Congress--and we’ll keep at it--but there's still no fix," Cardinal Dolan, who is also president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said in a statement released by the conference this morning.

"Time is running out, and our valuable ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now," the cardinal said. "Though the Conference is not a party to the lawsuits, we applaud this courageous action by so many individual dioceses, charities, hospitals and schools across the nation, in coordination with the law firm of Jones Day. It is also a compelling display of the unity of the Church in defense of religious liberty. It's also a great show of the diversity of the Church's ministries that serve the common good and that are jeopardized by the mandate--ministries to the poor, the sick, and the uneducated, to people of any faith or no faith at all.”

Cardinal Dolan's New York Archdiocese filed suit today in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of New York. Joining the archdiocese as plaintiffs in the suit are the Catholic Health Care Sytem, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre, Catholic Charities of Rockville Centre, and Catholic Health Services of Long Island.

In their suit, these groups name HHS Secretary Sebelius, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and their departments as defendants.

The archdiocese of Washington, D.C., is being joined in its lawsuit by Catholic Charities of the Washington Archdiocese, the Consortium of Catholic Academies of the Archdiocese of Washington (which includes four parochial schools), Archbishop Carroll High School, and the Catholic University of America. http://tinyurl.com/bpnb5du

]]><![CDATA[Voting Rights Act challengers see Supreme Court next step]]>Mon, 21 May 2012 16:00:00 -0800http://www.awesomecapital.com/1/post/2012/05/voting-rights-act-challengers-see-supreme-court-next-step.htmlAn appeals court upheld a federal voting-rights law that requires some local governments to seek Washington's approval before changing election procedures, rejecting a challenge by an Alabama county. In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled Friday that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 remains constitutional. The judges said Congress acted properly in 2006 to reauthorize the law in order to protect minority voters.

Section 5 requires parts or all of 16 states with a history of racial bias in elections to seek federal approval, or preclearance, before altering voting procedures.

The decision came in a challenge by Shelby County, Ala., and was viewed as an important test of Section 5, which a 2009 Supreme Court ruling suggested may no longer be justified given changes in voting patterns. The appellate court cited that decision, which upheld the Voting Rights Act but also opened the door to challenges to Section 5.

The appellate panel said it weighed concerns about whether Section 5 remains "congruent and proportional" to the problem it seeks to prevent. It determined that "Congress drew reasonable conclusions from the extensive evidence it gathered" and acted in accordance with the Constitution in "ensuring that the right to vote…—surely among the most important guarantees of political liberty in the Constitution—is not abridged on account of race." Congress deserved deference in making the judgment, the court said.

The county indicated it plans to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Shelby County, which includes suburbs of Birmingham, argued Section 5 places an undue burden on local governments. The provision could only be justified if there were current evidence the jurisdiction was carrying out the "unremitting and ingenious defiance" that existed in 1965 when the original law was passed, the county said.

The majority opinion by Judge David Tatel, a Clinton appointee, was joined by Judge Thomas Griffith, a George W. Bush appointee.

Dissenting Judge Stephen Williams, a Reagan appointee, suggested Section 5 could be used to encourage "racial gerrymandering in favor of the minority." He said "a congressional mandate to assure the electoral impact of any minority's majority seems to me more of a distortion than an enforcement of the 15th Amendment's ban on abridging" the right to vote because of race.

County attorney Frank "Butch" Ellis said Shelby County supported the Voting Rights Act and wanted only to be released from the burden of preclearance in recognition of how much the county has changed in nearly 50 years.

"I'm pleased with the strong dissent," Mr. Ellis said in an interview, adding that the county believes now is the time to seek a Supreme Court decision on Section 5's constitutionality.

A U.S. Justice Department statement said it welcomed the ruling and that Section 5 "continues to serve as a critical tool in both blocking and deterring discriminatory voting practices." http://tinyurl.com/84e7xvm

]]><![CDATA[S. Asia sees rise in global methamphetamine trade]]>Mon, 21 May 2012 15:33:22 -0800http://www.awesomecapital.com/1/post/2012/05/s-asia-sees-rise-in-global-methamphetamine-trade.htmlIran, Pakistan and other South Asian countries are a fast-rising force in the global methamphetamine market, with drug cartels thriving off the weak governance and law enforcement that have long fueled the region's heroin trade. This environment has allowed criminals to tap into the countries' relatively advanced pharmaceutical industries to get their hands on meth's two main ingredients: ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. The drug is more valuable than heroin, and some say, more addictive.

Highlighting this scourge are U.N. figures showing that the number of meth labs uncovered in Iran rose from two to 166 in three years, while the supply of precursor chemicals in Pakistan has more than tripled over roughly the same period.

A Supreme Court case in Pakistan involving the prime minister's son has drawn more attention to the problem. The case revolves around two Pakistani pharmaceutical companies that allegedly used political connections to obtain huge amounts of ephedrine and are suspected of diverting it to people in the drug trade who could have used it to make meth worth billions of dollars. The companies have denied any wrongdoing.

Ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are used to make common cold medicine, but either can also be used to manufacture meth easily at home or, in places like Mexico where the trade is most advanced, in huge labs indistinguishable from those of large pharmaceutical companies.

The greater South Asia region has a long history of drug manufacturing, but most of it has involved opium and heroin made from the vast quantities of poppy grown in Afghanistan and smuggled out through Pakistan and Iran.

As governments elsewhere clamp down on the availability of the precursor chemicals, this region is attracting more dealers, said Matt Nice of the Vienna-based International Narcotics Control Board, which enforces U.N. conventions regulating the manufacture and distribution of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine.

They look for a country with weak security and regulation "where you can obtain the chemicals because no one is paying attention, or it has never been a problem before," he said. http://tinyurl.com/7flrcpb

]]><![CDATA[Regrading election playing field after Supreme Court ObamaCare decision]]>Mon, 21 May 2012 03:41:15 -0800http://www.awesomecapital.com/1/post/2012/05/regrading-election-playing-field-after-supreme-court-obamacare-decision.html
The Supreme Court is about to toss a judicial bomb into the middle of the presidential campaign, and nobody knows what impact it will have.

The bomb, of course, is the court's ruling on President Obama's healthcare law, which is expected next month.
If the court upholds the law, Obama will hail the decision as proof that he was right all along.

But that won't change the unpleasant truth (for Obama) that the law is widely unpopular; polls show that more Americans want to scrap it than keep it. If Obama wins in the court, he'll have to spend precious campaign time defending a law that most of the electorate dislikes. That would be good news for his GOP rival, Mitt Romney.

Or take the contrary scenario: What happens if the court strikes down the law entirely?

At first glance, that would be a stinging defeat for the president; it would make him look like, well, a loser. Romney and other Republicans already have their talking points drafted: They'll say Obama should have been working on the economy but wasted time passing a law that turned out to be unconstitutional. And "unconstitutional" isn't a compliment.

"For most voters, 'unconstitutional' is synonymous with 'bad,'" Republican pollster Bill McInturff told me. "They're not going to look at it in a narrow legal sense."

But there's a contrarian view too: that a defeat in the court could turn into a political victory for Obama.

"It could be a great mobilizing event for liberals and Democrats," argues William A. Galston, a former aide to President Clinton. "A bitter loss mobilizes people in a way that success does not."

Democratic strategists have been working on their talking points too, and here's what they suggest Obama would say in the event of defeat: A Supreme Court dominated by conservative Republican appointees has deprived Americans of protections they liked, such as the guarantee that people with preexisting health conditions could still get insurance — and Romney's Republicans don't have anything to put in its place.

"It's a great argument to mobilize the base," Democratic pollster Celinda Lake said. "It would be great for turnout."

But there's a third, more complicated scenario: The court could uphold most of the law but strike down the "individual mandate," the federal requirement that everyone obtain health insurance or pay a fine.

Depending on what other provisions the court strikes down, the result could be chaos in policy land. If the court overturns the individual mandate but keeps the rule guaranteeing coverage to sick people, insurance companies will warn that their costs will go through the roof, and they might hike their rates to prove it. If the court overturns both the mandate and the insurance guarantee, the insurance companies will dodge that bullet, but Obama and Romney will be plunged into a furious debate over whether the truncated program that remains can be made workable.

It's not clear who would win that fight. In one sense, it would put Obama on friendly ground: Most of his healthcare plan would still be in place, but the part voters disliked most — the mandate — would be gone.

"The public will say, 'Phew.' They didn't think the mandate was essential," Lake predicted.

"The consequences of pulling the mandate out are not well understood," agreed McInturff. "It's going to be messy and hard to explain."

The Republican response, he predicted, would be that "Obamacare" without a mandate won't work, and they have a point: Without a mandate requiring healthy young people to purchase coverage, the economics of the president's plan don't quite pencil out.

But Republicans have a problem too. No one thinks the current system is working, but the GOP hasn't agreed on an alternative to put in Obamacare's place. Romney has promised to repeal and replace the president's law, but his current proposal is an unfinished framework. Republicans in Congress have nibbled around the issue, but they're nowhere near agreement on a full-scale alternative either.

And here's a wild card: Voters could resent any candidate who spends too much time talking about healthcare; that's not the issue that's at the top of their concerns.

"Voters want to hear the candidates tell them how they'd fix the economy," Republican pollster David Winston said. "They don't want to watch a rerun of the 2010 healthcare debate."

There's something to that. During the week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments, Obama's standing in the polls dropped a point or two, probably because news coverage was reminding voters about an issue most of them dislike.

About the only part of the public reaction that's predictable is this: Many voters will interpret the Supreme Court's actions as political, not as the product of dispassionate legal judgments. Big majorities, as high as 67%, have told pollsters they think the court's decision will be based on politics, not on the law.

One side or the other will gain an advantage from this fight, but at this point, it's still (and this is frustrating for this pundit) impossible to say which one. http://tinyurl.com/cvdvqar
]]><![CDATA[Education for employment]]>Sun, 20 May 2012 19:58:03 -0800http://www.awesomecapital.com/1/post/2012/05/education-for-employment.htmlI met a lovely couple from Phoenix who had been visiting in Marina del Rey. The girlfriend is a medical biller for a huge chain of hospitals. She argues with insurers to get the hospitals paid. She said she was hiring like mad and still could not keep up. The demand for capable men and women in this field is bottomless and growing. She had learned about it, if I recall correctly, at a nonprofit partly on-line, partly campus-based school called National University in San Diego.
This is some amazing coincidence, because I am addressing their commencement tomorrow in San Diego.

At the commencement preliminaries, the main one was visiting with Patricia Potter, a brilliant, lovely, friendly woman. Like my mother, she had spent some time at Goucher College in Maryland. My mother had transferred to Barnard but always had a fond spot for Goucher and for Maryland, where my sister and I "grew up." (I still know every word of "Maryland, My Maryland.") Ms. Potter and I had a great talk, then off to get robed, meet super friendly officers, trustees, and faculty. I also met the long-time soul of the school, Dr. Jerry C. Lee. He's retiring after a spectacular career at National and elsewhere.

We went into an immense room at the San Diego Convention Center. I was told there were 7,800 people there -- students and families, primarily. The room was kept at a perfect temperature.

I spoke mostly about National. It is a great place in that it educates people for the world as it is. The students are taught engineering, nursing, teaching, medical billing, many other subjects that will get the grads jobs when they get out. They will get jobs and they will make a living and they will have the self-esteem that only making a living and being self-supporting through their own contributions can confer.

Yes, it's true that many schools teach discontent, whining, moaning, bitching, navel gazing, and disloyalty. Yes, it's true that some of them are famous schools.

But at National University, they teach what America needs its students to know: the skills we need to keep America running.

Again, these are not whiners and moaners at National University. These are the people who will keep us competitive and will keep themselves alive without a handout. Many of these students were single parents and worked at a job (maybe two jobs) while they studied. This is motivation indeed and motivation is everything.

I looked out at the men and women in the room -- white, black, Asian, Hispanic, men, women, old and young, all learning how to keep the engine of America and the engine of their personalities running. I kept thinking, "I have seen the future of education and it works."

Governor Brown should put the trustees of National University in charge of the University of California. Fewer courses in subversion. More classes in subjects that really matter and get graduates jobs.

Many of the people in room had a military background and cheered as I lauded our military. I just loved these people.

Then the speech was over and we pooh-bahs went back to the robing room. I was sad to say good-bye to President Potter and Chancellor-Emeritus Lee. I was sad to say good-bye to all of them. The salt of the earth.

This has been an encouraging day and I don't have a lot of them.

On the way home, I met my pal Joe for dinner in Del Mar. He is as hard-working a man as I know of. And he has the success to prove it. The absolutely best anti-poverty program there is: work. They know it at National University. If we are smart about it, the future will be what schools like National make it. http://tinyurl.com/83jze7h

]]><![CDATA[Religious issues with Illinois bullying bill]]>Sun, 20 May 2012 18:28:27 -0800http://www.awesomecapital.com/1/post/2012/05/religious-issues-with-illinois-bullying-bill.htmlSome Illinois conservatives fear their children are about to face an assault on their morals and religious beliefs. They worry that state lawmakers will muzzle students who hold unpopular opinions and force them into indoctrination sessions.

The cause of their worry? Legislation requiring Illinois schools to discourage bullying.

The Illinois Family Institute claims the measure's real goal is "to use public education to promote unproven, non-factual beliefs about the nature and morality of homosexuality and `transgenderism'." It sees the bills as a beachhead for "homosexual activist organizations" that want to indoctrinate students and teachers.

Despite those broad concerns, the group's position is narrower in negotiations at the state Capitol. Lobbyist Ralph Rivera says the Family Institute will drop its opposition if the legislation makes clear that students can skip events and lessons they find objectionable.

A closer look reveals little in the legislation itself to justify the institute's fears. It would not tell local schools what to say about bullying, let alone anything specific about homosexuality. It would not require schools to hold assemblies or teach lessons about tolerance.

What the bill would do is spell out the steps that must be included in schools' anti-bullying policies. For instance, they would have to make the policy available to students through a website or school handbook. They would have to let students report bullying anonymously and spell out what steps could be taken with a student who has bullied classmates.

At the same time, the institute's request for a specific "opt out" provision is not unprecedented. Illinois laws already let students opt out of sex education and animal dissection if they have moral objections.

Groups supporting the legislation include the Illinois State Board of Education, American Civil Liberties Union, Illinois Safe Schools Alliance and the gay rights groups Equality Illinois and The Civil Rights Agenda.

Joining the Illinois Family Institute on the other side is the Concerned Christians of America.

Based on the recommendations of a state task force, the bill says a school's bullying policy must include a definition, a statement that bullying is against the law and procedures for accepting and investigating anonymous reports. The policy would have to explain what steps might be taken with a bully, such as counseling and community service, and it would have to be available to students and parents.

The only lessons in tolerance mentioned in the legislation are for students who have bullied others. Schools would be required to take steps that teach bullies "personal and interpersonal skills" and "build and restore relationships." How to do that is left up to each school and each community.

Rivera, the Family Institute's lobbyist, said the group opposes the bill but not its overall goal. "I want to always stress that the IFI wants a zero-tolerance policy on bullying," he said.

The group's main concerns, he said, are protecting students from being accused of bullying simply for stating their beliefs and from being forced to participate in lessons that contradict their religious beliefs. For instance, a student who does nothing more than share his opinion that homosexuality is immoral shouldn't be labeled a bully and put through counseling that says his religion is wrong.

To address those fears, the legislation's backers included language saying it is not meant to "infringe upon any right to exercise free expression or the free exercise of religion or religiously based views." At the IFI's request, they placed that statement in a prominent spot near the beginning of the legislation.

Then the IFI asked for a provision saying students and teachers can skip anti-bullying lessons and events that they feel are contrary to their beliefs. Supporters rejected that idea.

Khadine Bennett, legislative counsel for the Illinois branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, said that's partly because the measure only narrowly passed the House. Sending it back now with such a major change might kill it, she said. http://tinyurl.com/6ossqeo

]]><![CDATA[How many calories do you need daily?]]>Sun, 20 May 2012 17:21:02 -0800http://www.awesomecapital.com/1/post/2012/05/how-many-calories-do-you-need-daily.htmlThe number of calories people should eat each day depends on several factors, including their age, size, height, sex, lifestyle, and overall general health. A physically active 6ft 2in male, aged 22 years, requires considerably more calories than a 5ft 2ins sedentary woman in her 70s.

Recommended daily calorie intakes also vary across the world. According to the National Health Service (NHS), UK, the average male adult needs approximately 2,500 calories per day to keep his weight constant, while the average adult female needs 2,000. US authorities recommend 2,700 calories per day for men and 2,200 for women. It is interesting that in the UK, where people on average are taller than Americans, the recommended daily intake of calories is lower. Rates of overweight and obesity among both adults and children in the USA are considerably higher than in the United Kingdom.

The NHS stresses that rather than precisely counting numbers (calories), people should focus more on eating a healthy and well balanced diet, being physically active, and roughly balancing how many calories are consumed with the numbers burnt off each day.

According to the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the average person's minimum calorie requirement per day globally is approximately 1,800 kilocalories.

In industrialized nations and a growing number of emerging economies, people are consuming many more calories than they used to. Portion sizes in restaurants, both fast food ones as well as elegant places, are far greater today.

The average cheeseburger in the USA 20 years ago had 333 calories, compared to the ones today with over 600 calories.
The Harris-Benedict equation, also known as the Harris-Benedict principle, is used to estimate what a person's BMR (basal metabolic rate) and daily requirements are. The person's BMR total is multiplied by another number which represents their level of physical activity. The resulting number is that person's recommended daily calorie intake in order to keep their body weight where it is.

This equation has limitations. It does not take into account varying levels of muscle mass to fat mass ratios - a very muscular person needs more calories, even when resting.

How to calculate your BMR

Male adults
66.5 + (13.75 x kg body weight) + (5.003 x height in cm) - (6.755 x age) = BMR
66 + ( 6.23 x pounds body weight) + ( 12.7 x height in inches ) - ( 6.76 x age) = BMR

Female adults
55.1 + (9.563 x kg body weight) + (1.850 x height in cm) - (4.676 x age) = BMR
655 + (4.35 x kg body weight) + (4.7 x height in inches) - (4.7 x age) = BMR
http://tinyurl.com/6wz55um

]]><![CDATA[Entitled can talk but big taxpayers can walk]]>Sun, 20 May 2012 15:56:03 -0800http://www.awesomecapital.com/1/post/2012/05/entitled-can-talk-but-big-taxpayers-can-walk.htmlDid you know the government publishes a quarterly list of every individual who renounces his or her citizenship?

The Wall Street Journal's infographics team decided to crunch the data and came up with a chart tracking the growth of how many Americans no longer wish to be so.

The results are fairly striking:

http://tinyurl.com/bvj382c

]]><![CDATA[Students, especially overseas travellers, should update measles shots]]>Sun, 20 May 2012 13:06:01 -0800http://www.awesomecapital.com/1/post/2012/05/students-especially-overseas-travellers-should-update-measles-shots.htmlThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) declared measles officially eliminated in the United States in 2000. But after 222 measles cases and 17 outbreaks surfaced in the United States in 2011, the virus is experiencing a life after death.

Although none of the measles outbreaks and cases in 2011 proved fatal, health professionals say the virus is extremely contagious and it's vital for parents to ensure their children's vaccinations are up to date. That's advice parents of high school students need to take particularly seriously, says Carrie Byington, a professor of pediatrics at University of Utah School of Medicine.

Many measles cases are contracted on international travel, and high school students are more likely than elementary or middle school students to travel overseas, Byington says. The virus is still common in Asia and Europe, where there was a measles outbreak with 37,000 cases in 2011, according to Nichole Bobo, the nursing education director at the National Association of School Nurses, a Silver Spring, Md.-based nonprofit.

"High school students planning to travel to Britain for the Olympics this summer should check with their parents about whether or not their immunizations are up to date," Bobo says.

High school students also share computers and other equipment, adds Byington, the University of Utah professor. "The contacts that happen within the school settings may be more intense than what you would get by just walking through a mall, or spending an hour at a religious service, or attending a sporting event," she says. "You may ride together in the school bus, eat together, and it's over multiple hours a day and a great proportion of the week."

In the United States, about 90 percent of the population has had two doses of the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, according to Jeanette St. Pierre, associate director for communication science at the CDC's Division of Viral Diseases. But some communities have lower vaccine coverage. "Unvaccinated people put themselves and others are risk for measles and its serious complications, like pneumonia, encephalitis, or even death," St. Pierre says.

Laws governing what vaccinations are required for high school students vary by state, and some states offer personal, religious, or medical exemptions. Bobo says parents who don't vaccinate their children may be influenced by a 1998 article in the journal Lancet, which suggested vaccines can transmit autism and has since been retracted. "The risk of contracting a potentially deadly, vaccine-preventable disease outweighs the risk of being vaccinated," she says. http://tinyurl.com/dydq63o

]]>