What Do Somalia and the United States Have in Common?

by Reid Maki, Child Labor Coalition Coordinator

You might be inclined to say “not much” since, as the New York Times noted, for the last 17 years Somalia has been ripped apart by anarchy, violence, famine, and greed. Yet, the United States and Somalia are the only two nations that belong to the United Nations and have not formally signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

To date, 193 countries have signed the convention, which requires countries to abide by and work toward a set of principles regarding the way children should be treated. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child monitors the progress being made by each country and files an annual report, helping to highlight problems and create incentives for remediation.

Admittedly, children in the United States do not suffer the types of exploitation that others do in some of the countries that have signed the CRC, but the American refusal to sign this basic international convention is mystifying and disappointing. In 1995 Madeleine Albright, acting as a delegate to the UN, signed the CRC on behalf of President Clinton, but the convention has not been ratified by Congress.

Some believe that one obstacle to the signing has been death penalty cases that involve executing minors, which would be banned under the CRC. Some conservatives have argued that the international treaty might interfere with parental rights.

At the National Consumers League, we believe that these concerns are not well founded and that children should have the right to a free, healthy, and productive life—and that international treaties that declare basic rights be entitled to children can play a beneficial role in advancing children’s interests. As the film Slumdog Millionaire made clear, there are still parts of the world where children are horribly abused—possibly even maimed—so that they can earn more money.

One CRC article that particularly interests us at the League is Article 32 on Child Labor: “Governments should protect children from engaging in work that is dangerous, inhibits their ability to obtain an education, or jeopardizes their health and overall development. Governments are responsible for setting a minimum age limit for employment, regulating the hours and conditions of employment, and establishing and enforcing sanctions against those who violate such provisions.”

Many of the 30-plus members of the Child Labor Coalition, which NCL coordinates, believe that the United States may actually be in violation of this article because migrant farmworker children are allowed to work at such young ages (12 and 13), are exposed to pesticides and other occupational hazards, and suffer an alarming school dropout rate. We don’t understand why the United States would have a minimum work age for one industry—agriculture—that is different than that in other industries. Why should a 12-year-old onion harvester be legally allowed to work for 12 hours in 100-degree heat when that same child cannot legally work in an air-conditioned office?

The CRC articles are very straightforward principles that the rest of the world has readily agreed upon: children have the right to survive, they should not be trafficked or exploited sexually, and they should not be allowed to fight in wars. The time has come to pass this much-needed international treaty. When he was in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama endorsed the CRC.

To learn more about the CRC and its ratification, please visit the Campaign for U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Don’t Let the Economy Make You Sick

by Mimi Johnson, Health Policy Associate

An article in last week’s NY Times outlines just how dangerous the poor economy can be on our health. A study, conducted nationally via telephone, reported that one in seven Americans under the age of 65 went without prescribed medication because they couldn’t afford it. What’s more alarming is that this number has likely grown since the survey was conducted in 2007 due to the current economic slump.

Among those surveyed, uninsured, working adults with at least one chronic condition were the most unlikely to fill a prescription. It is most important for this group of people to take their medications as directed, or their health will deteriorate and the cost of treatment will only increase.

It’s not only the uninsured who are affected by the rising costs of health care. The NY Times article states that “nearly one in four adults on Medicaid or state insurance programs said they’d had difficulty affording drugs.” And American veterans are among those most likely to forgo treatment as their co-pays rise.

Growing medical costs and diminishing medical coverage affect a majority of this nation; the National Consumers League is optimistic that a new Congress and Administration will address this serious problem. NCL is a member of Health Care for America Now, which calls for Congress to cover everyone with adequate insurance.

If you are among those who CAN afford to fill your prescription, it is important not only that you fill it, but that you also take the medicines as directed. It may seem like a good idea to conserve the meds in order to stretch the prescription between refills. But the costs – both to your health and your pocketbook – associated with NOT taking your prescribed medications are far greater than the costs of filling your prescription and taking your medications at the onset.

If you have questions, talk with your doctor. A study by the American Academy of Family Physicians found that doctors are often not very good at communicating the importance of taking your medicines as directed. As a consumer, it is your right and duty to ask the questions, prepare a medication list, and to work with your health care providers to understand how to incorporate the medication into your life. (You can learn more about this at the National Council on Patient Information and Education’s site here.)

The appropriate use of medication has long been an important issue to the League. In fact, we are currently in the planning phase of a national medication adherence campaign. If you would like to learn more about this campaign and our work on adherence, please contact NCL at (202) 835-3323, and ask to speak with our health policy department.

Bitter Fruit for Consumers from the Google Money Tree

By John Breyault, Vice President of Public Policy, Telecommunications and Fraud

When the economy goes into the tank, scammers seek to take advantage of consumers desperate for some extra cash. Unfortunately, due to trying economic circumstances, we find that consumers who would likely otherwise shy away from dubious business opportunities become more susceptible to them.

One such case involves a company advertising itself as “Google Money Tree,” which operates a site called www.googlemoneytree.com. Over the past two months, NCL’s Fraud Center has received more than a dozen consumer complaints via our online complaint form. In addition, blogs and message boards focusing on publicizing work-at-home scams have noted numerous complaints about the company.

The scam appears to work like this:

• The victim receives an email or sees an ad offering a substantial weekly salary earned simply by “Posting on Google.”

• The victim is then directed to a download site where they enter in their contact information to receive a “Google Money Tree Kit” for “free” (though a $3.88 shipping and handling charge applies).

• Customers who enter their credit card information to order the kit are charged the $3.88 shipping and handling fee.

Sounds great, right? Ready for the Google Money Tree to start sprouting your riches?

Not so fast. Unfortunately, numerous consumers have reported that they receive nothing and are subsequently charged a $72.21 fee for access to the Google Money Tree. When they call to dispute the charge, they are told that they agreed to the monthly fee when they signed up to receive the kit and didn’t call to cancel within seven days.

It’s hard to believe that many consumers would have fallen for this trick if the $72.21 fee was readily disclosed. Where is this fee listed? Why, in hard-to-read grey text on a white background at the bottom of the page (above the attention-grabbing red “Check This Out!” sign pointing to photos of a Range Rover, mansion, and island retreat), of course! As stipulated, agreeing to receive the kit gives the consumer a 7-day trial access to the Google Money Tree private Web site where, presumably, the secrets of getting rich quick with Google will be revealed.

The Devil is in the Term and Conditions

As with most dubious work-at-home schemes, the devil is in the details; or in this case, the “terms and conditions” section. There, in tiny font, the red flags abound. First, consumers are alerted that the use of the Google Money Tree involves a negative option, a bill practice that has been deemed unethical by some (since the customer must “opt out” in order to avoid getting billed). The Federal Trade Commission enforces strict rules about how negative option billing programs can be advertised and disclosed via the Prenotification Negative Option Rule, which “requires companies to give you information about their plans, clearly and conspicuously, in any promotional materials that consumers can use to enroll.”

Second, the “Disclaimer of Warranties and Liability” section seems at odds with the advertised purpose of Google Money Tree. Specifically, the fine print states that:

“This Site is for informational purposes only, and is intended to provide helpful and informative material on the subjects addressed. googlemoneytree.com does not provide legal, financial, or any other kind of professional advice or services. To make sure that information or suggestions on this site fit your particular circumstances, you should consult with an appropriate professional before taking action based on any suggestions or information on this site.”

The Google Money Tree Web site advertises that this is a “limited time offer” and that consumers should “act now!” Why then, are consumers advised to “consult with an appropriate professional” before taking any action (presumably to include investing money) that Google Money Tree advises?

Finally, there is the dreaded “Consent to Binding Arbitration Before the American Arbitration Association,” clause which essentially prevents a consumer from trying to get their money back from Google Money Tree in court.

Sleuthiness!

The dubiousness of Google Money Tree does not end at the Terms and Condition section. Since we’re inquisitive types, we took it upon ourselves to look a bit deeper into Google Money Tree. First, we checked with the Better Business Bureau of Southern Nevada (Google Money Tree is registered to a P.O. Box in Las Vegas). Lo and behold, Google Money Tree has an “F” rating with the BBB due, in part, to six complaints against the company. The good folks at the BBB told us that Google Money Tree does not have a valid business license and that they began receiving complaints about the business in November 2008, which is incidentally around the same time that our Fraud Center began receiving complaints as well (are we surprised?).

We also checked out the inference on Google Money Tree’s advertising Web site that they were written up in the New York Times and USA Today. The only “mention” of Google Money Tree in either publication was a November 12, 2008 story in the New York Times that mentions how a former Google employee’s friends call him “the Google money tree.” If this is what the operators of googlemoneytree.com feel amounts to an endorsement by the paper of record, they really are ambitious.

The Bottom Line: Avoid

For all intents and purposes, Google Money Tree looks like an extremely dubious enterprise, operating on the edge of being an out-and-out scam. Consumers should be on the watch for any get-rich-quick scheme, particularly those that promise large paydays in exchange for up-front investments in “training kits” or “educational materials,” especially if they involve recurring monthly fees. Because Internet companies like Google are respected names, scam artists frequently make use of their names to try and associate themselves with such companies’ good reputations. Remember to check out ANY company with the Better Business Bureau before sending them money and always, always, ALWAYS read the fine print. Finally, consumers who feel that they’ve been scammed by Google Money Tree or ANY scam should file their complaint at NCL’s online complaint form.

Women Paying More for Health Coverage?

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

According to a recent article in the New York Times, women buying individual health insurance policies are often paying significantly more than men their same age. The Times reviewed data from multiple insurance providers and online brokers and found that women are often paying well over 30 percent (sometimes closer to 50 percent) more in premiums than their male counterparts. For many consumers who have recently lost their job and health benefits, or for those making a switch from employer-sponsored insurance to the individual market for some other reason, it’s important to be aware of these practices.

This doesn’t sit right with me. The National Consumers League, a longtime proponent of health care for all, has long advocated for universal health coverage. In fact, before coming to NCL and serving as our president in 1940, Josephine Roche penned the first national health care bill while working for FDR’s administration. As a champion of economic and social justice for workers and consumers, NCL opposes such discrimination.

One of the main explanations for charging women more than men is that they are using more health services. Yes, women have babies, and giving birth is expensive. But you can’t punish women for that! Indeed, it’s in society’s best interest to see that babies are born healthy and with good prenatal care and that their mothers receive good care as well. The stress of not doing so is bad for the mom and for the baby. Moreover, aside from maternity care, women make better use of preventive health care services, which is exactly what health care experts tell us to do: get the check-ups, the mammograms, and the pap smears.

Studies have shown that investing in prevention can help delay – and even prevent - the onset of many chronic conditions, which account for a significant majority of the health care spending in this country. This is particularly important given that middle-aged women are disproportionately affected by certain chronic conditions such as asthma, obesity, arthritis, and certain cancers.

Many policy makers are speaking out. In both houses of Congress, leaders are asking why and how insurance companies can claim they are meeting the needs of women when the health care coverage is tough to attain, inefficient or incomplete, and more expensive. The Times article also reports that states such as Maine, Montana, and New York are “prohibiting sex-based rates in the individual insurance market.” Earlier this summer, the LA Times questioned insurers’ process for determining risks. We consumers are alarmed to learn that we may be charged more for (or even denied) coverage based on gender, race, or ethnicity.

The Kaiser Family Foundation reports that there are close to 17 million women (roughly 18 percent of women) who remain uninsured in this country, many of whom cannot obtain insurance because they work part-time or with companies that do not offer insurance. Of the 77 million or so women fortunate enough to have coverage, 6 percent purchase their own coverage, and that is where women end up paying more than men and where their coverage often falls short, (a number likely to rise in these bad economic times), often excluding mental health, family planning, and maternity care services.

We will work with policymakers to fix the unfair treatment women experience in the health insurance marketplace and to see that any additional expense related to maternity and childbirth are costs shared by all of us.