CAMP HILL, Pa., July 12, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Highmark Health Services announced today that it will open a Highmark Direct retail health insurance store in Allentown, Pa. The store will be the tenth location in Pennsylvania and the second in the Lehigh Valley. "Highmark Direct... Reported by PR Newswire 1 day ago.

The Connecticut Health Council, an association of health sector leaders who work together to promote Connecticut as a national center of health excellence and to improve health care and wellness, will host ‘Creating an Affordable, Effective & Sustainable Health Care System’ with Karen Ignagni on Wednesday, July 17th from 7:30-9:30a.m. at The Bushnell in Hartford.

Hartford, Conn. (PRWEB) July 12, 2013

The Connecticut Health Council, an association of health sector leaders who work together to promote Connecticut as a national center of health excellence and to improve health care and wellness, will host ‘Creating an Affordable, Effective & Sustainable Health Care System’ with Karen Ignagni on Wednesday, July 17th from 7:30-9:30a.m. at The Bushnell in Hartford.

As President and Chief Executive Officer of America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), Ms. Ignagni is the voice of health insurance plans, representing members that provide health care, long-term care, dental and disability benefits to more than 200 million Americans. Ms. Ignagni regularly testifies before Congress on key federal legislation. In recent years, she has appeared before Senate and House committees on matters ranging from health insurance plans’ role in homeland security to Medicare reform to patient protection issues and access to health care coverage.

"High-value, affordable health care for individuals and families requires a sustained commitment by all stakeholders to actively engage and address the key drivers of health care costs,” said Karen Ignagni, President and CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans. "There is tremendous opportunity ahead to embrace bold, innovative reforms."

During ‘Creating an Affordable, Effective & Sustainable Health Care System’ Ms. Ignagni will discuss the various changes to the insurance marketplace as a result of the Affordable Care Act and the opportunities for addressing barriers to affordability in the health care system.

“Ms. Ignagni is a nationally respected healthcare leader,” said Oz Griebel, President and CEO of the MetroHartford Alliance which provides the operational support for the Council. “We are delighted to welcome one of our country’s true health care leaders to Connecticut and to hear her perspective on our rapidly evolving health care system.”

“It is a testament to our evolving and maturing Health Council that we can attract an individual of Karen Ignagni’s national stature to come here to speak to us about health care in America today” said Mickey Herbert, The Council’s interim Executive Director.

The Connecticut Health Council’s programming is designed to link the network of professionals across various components of the health sector, thereby increasing the number of people promoting the State’s significant inventory of health assets and resources.

‘Creating an Affordable, Effective & Sustainable Health Care System’ is sponsored by Harvard Pilgrim Health Care with CT1 Media as the Media Sponsor.

Tickets for ‘Creating an Affordable, Effective & Sustainable Health Care System’ are $25/per person. To learn more and to register, visit: http://www.cthealthcouncil.com.

About the Connecticut Health Council

The Connecticut Health Council, is an association of health sector leaders who work together to promote Connecticut as a premier center for the development of businesses, initiatives, and technology that improve health care and wellness both nationally and in the State. Representing health organizations from across the state, the Council strives to highlight the power of the state's health sector and support its continued growth and advancement. By fostering collaboration among health organizations and providing high-quality educational programming, the Connecticut Health Council will strengthen the connections between members of the sector and help showcase the health assets and resources across Connecticut. To learn more, visit: http://www.cthealthcouncil.com. Reported by PRWeb 1 day ago.

Experient Health, a Virginia Farm Bureau company, will address community questions on the impact of Health Care Reform on families and small businesses.

Amherst, Va. (PRWEB) July 12, 2013

Experient Health will host a Health Care Reform 101 community seminar for Virginia Farm Bureau Tuesday, July 23 from 6 to 7 p.m. in Amherst County at the Coolwell Community Center, located at 640 North Coolwell Road in Amherst, Va.

New health care reform laws that go into effect in 2014 mandate that individuals carry health insurance or, in most cases, pay a fine. Consumers will have to purchase plans with comprehensive benefits that meet minimum coverage requirements.

The free seminar is meant to provide an open forum to ask questions about, among other health care reform topics, online marketplaces (formerly referred to as exchanges), tax credits, essential health benefits,pre-existing conditions and network requirements.

Planning to attend? RSVP to Alison Creasy or Martha Jones at 434.946.5336.

Register online here.

Can’t attend? Visit http://www.experienthealth.com to request a private consultation.

ABOUT EXPERIENT HEALTH:

For years, Experient Health, a Virginia Farm Bureau company, has helped people find the right insurance coverage and get the most for their health care dollars. The Richmond, Va.-based group is dedicated to providing high quality health insurance options to customers in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington DC. As a result, its consultants, with an average of more than 20 years experience, are intimately familiar with the states’ provider networks, products and regulations.

Representing the top national insurance carriers, Experient Health provides customers with multiple policy options designed to meet wellness needs and financial requirements.

Experient Health grew out of Virginia Farm Bureau and is a “hometown agency” in that it operates a network of more than 100 offices. However, it boasts the resources and technology of larger firms.

Consultants are available online, via phone and through their offices.

Learn more at http://www.experienthealth.com, utilize the online health insurance quote calculator or contact a consultant directly at 855.677.6580. Reported by PRWeb 1 day ago.

Funded by $37 million in state grants, four dozen diverse groups from around California -- including labor unions, civil-rights advocates, medical clinics and the Los Angeles Unified School District -- are preparing to launch education programs promoting Obamacare, the national health-care plan set to take effect in January.

The 48 recipients were selected from about 200 that applied for the grants, chosen for their access and ability to reach the estimated 5.3 million Californians in underserved communities who will be eligible for the subsidized or guaranteed health coverage.

"These organizations are well-established and well- known and trusted in their communities," said Larry Hicks, a spokesman for Covered California, the state agency established to oversee a marketplace of insurance carriers. "They'll take a more personal approach in explaining the programs and offerings through our health-insurance exchange."

Covered California has tentatively chosen 13 commercial health plans to offer guaranteed coverage under the federal Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare. With enrollment opening Oct. 1, the agency hopes to get the outreach efforts started in the next few weeks.

"We're taking a very targeted approach," Hicks said. "We looked at characteristics like ethnicity, language, region and age, then partnered with organizations to reach out to those demographics."

Cal State L.A. received $1.25 million to reach out to students at all CSU campuses, while the University of California got $1 million for its statewide campaign.

Of the $37 million total, groups serving metropolitan Los Angeles received almost $16 million. That includes the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, which was awarded $1 million for an campaign that will extend to San Bernardino and Orange counties, and the Actors Fund, which got $435,000 to communicate with its members.

Loma Linda University Medical Center was awarded $990,000, while the San Bernardino Employment and Training Agency got $750,000. Ventura County Public Health received $700,000 to reach out to local Latino residents.

With its grant of $250,000, the nonprofit Valley Community Clinic in North Hollywood will take its message to farmers markets and athletic fields -- places where working-class families often congregate -- as well as state employment offices and its own waiting rooms.

"People need to know they can get coverage for themselves and for their families," said Olga Duran, the clinic's director of patient services. "They can have ongoing coverage with preventative care -- not just acute care at an emergency room. We can get up close and personal to guide them through the process ... help get them an understanding of the world they're entering into and to facilitate that process."

Covered California is finalizing its contract with Los Angeles Unified, which has been tapped to receive $990,000 to connect with students and families in the nation's second-largest school district.

Dr. Kimberly Uyeda, LAUSD's director of Student Medical Services, said information will be presented to students in the adult-ed division, which offers English-language, high school equivalency and vocational-training classes.

In addition, younger students who belong to after-school clubs with a health or medical focus will be trained and asked to convey information about the insurance-plan options to their families.

The grant money will help pay the salaries of district employees who are already working to coordinate health and social services for students. "We'll be pulling from well-trained and skilled staff members who can really do this outreach plan," Uyeda said.

Conservative bloggers have blasted LAUSD's plan to use students as "messengers" for President Obama's health-care reforms, but Uyeda insisted that any participation will be voluntary. "This is never going to be part of the curriculum or regular education," she said. "It would never be mandatory."

Hicks said Covered California will closely monitor the groups to ensure they're spending the money appropriately and meeting their goals. Under guidelines for the grants, those receiving $750,000 must make contact with at least 99,000 people. A $1 million award raises that target to 132,450 people.

Covered California also plans to advertise its insurance exchange in television and radio commercials beginning later this summer, with detailed information available on its website, coveredca.com. ___

(c)2013 the Daily News (Los Angeles)

Visit the Daily News (Los Angeles) at www.dailynews.com

Distributed by MCT Information Services Reported by Huffington Post 23 hours ago.

The decision last week to delay implementation of the Affordable Care Act's "employer mandate" has received lots of attention.

Pundits and proponents and opponents of the ACA have argued over the decision. Some pointed to the delay and said it is proof of a "train wreck" in implementing the health care law. Others said the delay won't mean much at all in the long run.

What was missing from the (mostly) political debate was a thorough explanation of the mandate, officially known as the "employer responsibility provision."

Simply put, the employer-responsibility provision will require some businesses to provide an adequate level of affordable health insurance coverage to their employees or pay a penalty.

Calling it a mandate is a bit of a misnomer, because the penalty does not apply to the vast majority of employers. It applies only to companies with more than 50 full-time-equivalent employees.

About 210,000 U.S. businesses have more than 50 employees, according to Mark Duggan of the Wharton School's Department of Business Economics and Public Policy. And according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, approximately 94 percent of all companies with 50 to 199 employees and 98 percent of all companies with 200 or more employees already offer health insurance coverage.

Bottom line: Roughly 10,000 out of 5.7 million businesses in the U.S. (less than 1 percent of all American businesses) would be subject to the no-coverage penalty.

Under that provision, large employers that do not offer coverage would be required to pay a penalty of $2,000 per employee, with the first 30 employees exempted. If a company with 60 employees is subject to the penalty, its annual liability would be $60,000 (60 employees: 30 employees x $2,000 = $60,000), an amount that will likely be less than the cost of purchasing insurance.

However, that penalty is triggered only if an employee subsequently receives a federal subsidy to purchase insurance through the new health insurance exchange. Employees with incomes more than 400 percent of the federal poverty level (in 2013, an individual with an annual salary of more than $45,960) are not eligible for a subsidy and cannot trigger the no-coverage penalty. In addition, if the employee has an income less than 400 percent of FPL and chooses to pay the individual mandate tax penalty instead of buying insurance, the employer would not be required to pay the no-coverage penalty. Finally, employers do not have to provide coverage for part-time employees (less than 30 hours per week) or seasonal employees (less than 120 days per calendar year). The penalty is not triggered even if those employees receive a federal subsidy.

The employer-responsibility provision also includes a penalty that takes effect if an employer does not offer sufficient coverage that is affordable for all of its workers. If an employer does not offer coverage that pays at least 60 percent of the cost of the employee's health care, meets the essential-benefits requirements of the Affordable Care Act or costs more than 9.5 percent of the individual employee's annual income, then it will be subject to a financial penalty -- $3,000 for each employee that receives a federal subsidy. In most cases, this penalty would apply only to those employees that actually receive a federal subsidy.

So, why did Congress include the employer-responsibility provision in the Affordable Care Act? As with the ACA in general, the goal is to encourage, entice or require the maximum number of people to participate in the system. That's how costs will be controlled.

Currently, 49 percent of Americans get health insurance as part of their job. Employers clearly make a significant financial contribution to health care coverage, and from a systemwide point of view, that contribution is critical to funding our current health care payment system.

If that contribution were reduced, the difference would have to be made up by employees, other consumers and taxpayers.

Congress was concerned that, with the individual mandate requiring insurance coverage and subsidies available for lower-income people, some businesses might have an incentive to drop or not offer coverage to their employees. Congress was also concerned that if employers offered only limited-benefit insurance plans or coverage that was not affordable to their lower-income employees, taxpayers would once again be called on to pick up the financial slack.

Enter the employer-responsibility provision, which Congress at the time referred to as the "free rider" penalty. This idea was to discourage larger businesses from dropping or offering substandard coverage and forcing employees to take a "free ride" at taxpayer expense. In addition, the no-coverage penalty would help reimburse taxpayers for the cost of subsidizing a company's lower-wage employees if that company decided not offer them coverage. The affordable-coverage penalty would help ensure that employers would offer affordable and comprehensive coverage.

There are pros and cons with respect to this provision. On the pro side, it may encourage more employers to cover their workers, or at least keep the coverage that is offered. It may also create minimum standards for coverage that will curb the use of limited-benefit plans that restrict or cap benefits, which means more of the employees' health care costs will be covered.

Finally, requiring employers to report details on insurance coverage and benefits will give employees a better sense of their plan options and allow them to compare their coverage with that available on an exchange or in the open market.

On the con side, employer administrative overhead will increase due to the new federal reporting requirements. In response, employers may drop coverage for their employees and elect to pay the penalty. However, in Massachusetts, which has had an employer penalty in place for several years, the number of employers offering coverage has increased by 1 percent between 2005 and 2011. In comparison, employer coverage nationally has dropped by almost 6 percent.

Employers may also be less inclined to hire lower-wage workers who are more likely to qualify for subsidies.

Finally, it may encourage employers to hire part-time instead of full-time employees, since part-time employees do not trigger the penalty. In the worst-case scenario, some businesses may convert full-time low-wage workers into part-time employees in order to evade the penalty.

So, perhaps the question about the delay is less important than whether the employer responsibility provision is the best approach to meet the law's objectives. Employer reporting could be less onerous. The law could be modified to base the penalty on the percentage of payroll that a business spends on health care instead of a threshold based on full-time employees.

That kind of discussion would require both sides to recognize the benefit of working together to improve the law for both employers and employees. Given the politically polarized Congress, that seems unlikely.

That topic, in fact, is a completely different debate. Reported by Huffington Post 22 hours ago.

Patch Healdsburg, CA --

U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson (CA-05) today announced two grant awards for health centers in Sonoma County to help enroll the uninsured in new health insurance options made available by the Affordable Care Act. Santa Rosa Community Health Centers was award Reported by Patch 20 hours ago.

Patch Rohnert Park, CA --

U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson (CA-05) today announced two grant awards for health centers in Sonoma County to help enroll the uninsured in new health insurance options made available by the Affordable Care Act. Santa Rosa Community Health Centers was award Reported by Patch 18 hours ago.

Online USA Doctors is offering unlimited doctor access to those who do not have health insurance, or who would like to discuss their medical questions with a doctor.

Los Angeles, CA (PRWEB) July 12, 2013

The largest portion of the health insurance premium dollar is influenced directly by medical costs and medical providers (doctors, clinics, and hospitals) and not so much by the insurance company itself. Online USA Doctors is offering patients access to affordable and quality healthcare through their telehealth packages.

Online USA Doctors is a unique virtual doctor platform where patients can find answers to all their medical questions through leading doctors. OnlineUSADoctors.com enables patients to ask health related questions in real time with the most popular and recent questions asked being displayed at the bottom of the homepage. Once patients submit a question, they also have the option of submitting follow-up questions or adding more details if and when required. Designed to be used as an online medical chart, patients receive replies to the questions they post along with product/supplement recommendations at OnlineUSADoctors.com. Unlike in-person doctor consultations, patients neither have to worry about forgetting any questions nor will they experience any difficulty getting the information they seek as all their information is housed within their user profile at OnlineUSADoctors.com, so they can continue to request information.

Online USA Doctors offers different telemedicine packages where doctors offer basic, moderate, and expert medical opinion and the choice of the package depends on the complexity of the problem and the level of assistance required. The doctor, support staff, and patients will have different options available within the health portal. Online USA Doctors has also created an online questionnaire that offers suggestions regarding how patients can improve their overall health and it also recommends products to buy from OnlineUSADoctors.com. All that patients need to do is complete the questionnaire and fill in all the required information.

After a product is purchased, Online USA Doctors will also send the patient an automated email reminder to replenish their stocks a week before they run out, so re-orders are automatically managed. Additionally, the $200 value My Online USA Doctors Health Quiz is offered to registered users of OnlineUSADoctors.com free of charge. These multiple health quizzes from Online USA Doctors are available for a variety of health questions.

Dr. Shelton, the co-founder and Chef Medical Adviser of OnlineUsaDoctors.com says, “Most patients have trouble contacting physicians by telephone or e-mail as very few doctors will consult by telephone and less than one-in-four are set up to communicate with patients electronically. Statistics indicate that as many as one-in-four have problems taking time from work to see a doctor, and nearly one-in-three people trouble seeing their primary care physician.”

More than one-half of all ER visits are for non-emergency health problems. Instead of overusing emergency rooms because their primary care physicians are inaccessible after hours or by telephone, patients can opt for Online USA Doctors’ telemedicine packages or medical consults over the telephone and internet, which are a proven solution when it comes to supporting healthcare consumerism. By using telemedicine to make medical care more accessible and convenient to patients, Online USA Doctors is offering effective solutions in response to the problems that plague both patients and practitioners in today’s healthcare system. Patient-focused telemedicine solutions like those offered by Online USA Doctors reduce the costs of healthcare while offering them access to affordable and high quality healthcare.

Online USA Doctors Contact Information:
(855) 872-0012
info (at) onlineusadoctors (dot) com Reported by PRWeb 18 hours ago.

It's hard not to get jealous when I talk to my extended family.

My cousin's husband gets 36 vacation days per year, not including holidays. If he wants, he can leave his job for a brief hiatus and come back to a guaranteed position months later.

Tuition at his daughter's university is free, though she took out a small loan for living expenses. Its interest rate is 1 percent.

My cousin is a recent immigrant, and while she was learning the language and training for jobs, the state gave her 700 euros a month to live on.

They had another kid six years ago, and though they both work, they'll collect 100 euros a month from the government until the day she turns 17.

They of course live in Finland, home to saunas, quirky metal bands, and people who have for decades opted for equality and security over keeping more of their paychecks.

Inarguably one of the world's most generous —and successful—welfare states, the country has a lower infant mortality rate, better school scores, and a far lower poverty rate than the United States, and it's the second-happiest countryon earth (the U.S. doesn't break the top 10). According to the OECD, Finns on average give an 8.8 score to their overall life satisfaction. Americans are at 7.5.

Sometimes when I'm watching the web traffic for stories here at The Atlantic's global desk, I'll notice a surge in readership in one of a couple of archival stories we have about how fantastic Finland is -- usually thanks to Reddit or a link from another news site. One is about Finland's "baby boxes, " a sort of baby shower the Finnish government throws every mom. A package sent to expecting women contains all the essentials for newborns -- everything from diapers to a tiny sleeping bag. (Want to choose your own baby clothes? You can opt instead for the box's cash value, as my cousin did.)

The other popular story is about Finland's school system, which ranks as one of the world's best -- with no standardized testing or South Asian-style "cramming" but with lots of customization in the classroom. Oh, and students there also spend fewer hours physically in school than their counterparts in other Western countries.

As the U.S. raises student loan rates, considers cutting food stamps, guts long-term unemployment insurance, and strains to set up its first-ever universal healthcare system, it's easy to get sucked into articles about a country that has lapped America in certain international metrics but has also kept social protections in place. Like doting parents trying to spur an underperforming child, American liberals seem to periodically ask, "Why can't you be more like your brother?"

It's a good debate to have, and in some ways, it seems like there's no reason why the U.S. shouldn't borrow from Finland or any other Nordic country -- we're richer and just as committed to improving education and health, after all. Here's the difference: Finland's welfare system was hardwired into its economic development strategy, and it hasn't been seriously challenged by any major political group since. And just as Finland was ramping up its protections for workers, families, and the poor in the 1960s, Americans began to sour on the idea of "welfare" altogether. What's more, some economists argue that it's because of all that American capitalism contributes to the global economy that countries like Finland—kinder, gentler, but still wealthy—can afford to pamper their citizens. With actual Pampers, no less.

***

Let's start with mandatory maternity leave, a favorite topic among the having-it-all, Leaning-In crowd. The U.S is one of the last countries on earth without it, but the Finnish state mandates four months of paid maternity leave, and on top of that, the mother and father can share an additional six-month "parental leave" period, with pay. After that, kids can either continue staying home with their mothers until they reach school age, or parents can instead send them to a publicly subsidized child-care center, where the providers are all extensively trained. The cost is on a sliding scale based on family income, but the maximumcomes out to about $4,000 a year, compared with $10,000 for comparable care in the U.S.

This is just one of the many reasons Finland is "the best place to be a mom," as the nonprofit Save the Children declared in May.

Can't get a job? Not to worry. Unemployment insurance in Finland lasts for 500 days, after which you can collect a means-tested Labor Market Subsidy for an essentially indefinite period of time. (The unemployment rate is a high-but-not-awful 8.2 percent).

At this point, if you've literally turned green with envy and need to see a doctor, you're in luck! In addition to dirt-cheap universal healthcare, Finland offers compensation for wages you might have lost while you were away from work, as well as a "Special Care Allowance" if you need to take some time off to take care of your sick kids.

All of this adds up to the stress equivalent of living in what is essentially a vast, reindeer-fur-lined yoga studio.

"It seems to me that people in Finland are more secure and less anxious than Americans because there is a threshold below which they won't fall," said Linda Cook, a political scientist at Brown University who has studied European welfare states. "Even if they face unemployment or illness, Finns will have some payments from the state, public health care and education."

The Finns didn't always have it this good. For much of the early 20th century, Finland was agrarian and underdeveloped, with a GDP per capita trailing other Nordic countries by 30 to 40 percent in 1900.

One advantage Finland did have, however, was enlightened policies towards gender. The country focused on beefing up child and maternal care in large part because women were at the core of Finland's independence and nation-building efforts at the turn of the 20th century. Finnish women were the second in the world to get the vote in 1906, and they were heavily represented in the country's first parliament.

Ellen Marakowitz, a lecturer at Columbia University who studies Finland, argues that because women helped form modern Finland, things like maternity leave and child benefits naturally shaped its welfare structure decades later.

"You have a state system that was built on issues concerning Finnish citizens, both men and women, rather than women's rights," she said. "Government was created in this equal footing for men and women."

Finland's strong trade unions pioneered its initial worker protections, but the state soon took those functions over. Today, roughly 75 to 80 percent of Finnsare union members (it's about 11 percent in the U.S.), and the groups dictate the salaries and working conditions for large swaths of the population.

And as the country worked to industrialize in the 1960s, its economic policymakers took on a mentality similar to that of CEOs at tech companies with awesome employee perks like free string cheese and massages.

"The thinking was, 'for a country of 5 million, we don't have many resources to waste. If people are happy, they'll maximize their work ethic, and we can develop,'" says Andrew Nestingen, a professor who leads the Finnish studies program at the University of Washington. The theory of the welfare state was that "everyone should get a slice of the cake so that they have what they need to realize their life projects."

The country's unemployment and disability system was in place by 1940, and subsequent decades saw the expansion of child benefits and health insurance.

Meanwhile, thanks to the country's strong agrarian tradition, the party that represents the rural part of Finland pushed through subsidies for stay-at-home (or stay-on-farm, in their case) mothers -- thus the current smorgasbord of inexpensive child-care options.

Over time, Finland was able to create its "cake" -- and give everyone a slice -- in large part because its investments in human capital and education paid off. In a sense, welfare worked for Finland, and they've never looked back.

"In the Finnish case, this has really been a part of our success story when it comes to economic growth and prosperity," said Susanna Fellman, a Finn who is now a professor of economic history at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden. "The free daycare and health-care has made it possible for two breadwinners -- women can make careers even if they have children. This is also something that promotes growth."

With this setup, Finns have incredible equality and very little poverty -- but they don't get to buy as much stuff. The OECD gives the U.S. a 10 when it comes to household income, the highest score, while Finland gets a measly 3.5.

And there are some major lifestyle differences: Finns live in houses and apartments that are about half the size of Americans', and their taxes on the wealthy, like those on capital gains, are much higher than ours. (Hence why taxes make up a huge chunk of their GDP.) Professionals such as doctors make far less there, which helps medical care to stay reasonably priced. (The conservative Heritage Foundation ranks Finland as downright "repressed" in some categories, like government spending, on its "Index of Economic Freedom.")

It's also worth noting that Finland isn't a total economic Wonderland, either: It's not growing very fast and will probably have issues with its aging population in coming years. The Bank of Finland recently predicted that the country might soon exceed the 60 percent debt-to-GDP ratio mandated by the European Union -- a common problem in Europe these days.

Some of Finland's more conservative politicians have suggested cutting public benefits there in the wake of the economic downturn -- but even with those cuts, social protections there would still be far more generous than ours.

And the economic redistribution there doesn't always work perfectly. Some municipalities inevitably find themselves with lower-quality hospitals and day cares, even when they're supposed to be roughly identical, and recently some pro-business groups have tried to edge the country toward greater privatization (though unions have pushed back.)

Still, the country's small, well-educated population and investments in technology have allowed it to avoid some of the problems currently plaguing other, similarly socialist European countries. Overall, most Finns love the welfare system that loves them back.

I asked my cousin's husband, Reijo, why he was willing to support such an arrangement even though he works full time.

"Money isn't everything. We value equality, not inequality," he said. Fair enough. But does he have any gripes about the Finnish way? Anything he would change? Perhaps kick some of those freeloaders off their indefinite unemployment?

No, he said, but he did point to one small issue: "I think that for university students it is not yet good enough. Many students have to work while they are studying."

***

Like Finland, the U.S. also set up massive safety-net programs, in the form of Medicare and Medicaid, in the 1960s. But paradoxically, many Americans began developing a deep aversion to government handouts at the same time.

The 1960s saw a rise in poverty and children born out of wedlock, particularly in urban communities. Sensational media stories about families "abusing" welfare -- especially when the putative abusers were portrayed as African-American -- helped cement opposition to public assistance.

One study foundthat in the early 1970s, nearly three-quarters of magazine stories about welfare or poverty featured images of African-Americans, even though African Americans comprised only about a third of welfare recipients.

"I do think that racial divisions are an important factor here -- the sense among many people that universal benefits will take from 'us' and give to 'them' -- to a part of society that is seen as different, less deserving, imagined as racially different," Cook, from Brown University, said. "I think that many middle-class Americans favor social benefits for what they see as 'deserving' people who have worked and earned them -- so Medicare is good -- but universal health care would provide benefits for people who are imagined as not deserving."

In a 1976 speech, Ronald Reagan made mention of supposed "welfare queens" who make six-figure salaries while drawing government funds, stoking a sense of outrage over perceived waste in public assistance. (It was later shown that he used an exaggerated anecdote). Arguing that social insurance dis-incentivized work, and prioritizing markets and individual liberty, the growing new conservative movement eventually joined together businesses and working-class voters in pushing for cuts in government programs.

Though we seemingly support spending on the sick, poor, and elderly, in 2006,46 percent of Americans still thought the government spent "too much" on welfare, even 10 years after a total structural overhaul of welfare had passed.

***

Jefferey Sellers, a University of Southern California political scientist, foundanother key difference between the two nations: Finland has much more powerful local governments than the U.S., and they're tasked with executing the myriad functions of the welfare system -- from helping the poor to operating the day cares. Municipal taxes are redistributed and supplemented with grants, thus largely eliminating the problem of under-resourced areas. Local public expenditures are 20 percent of GDP in Finland, but just 10 percent in the U.S., he points out.

"The national government provides local governments with the financial means, legal powers, and the expertise to perform well," he said. Meanwhile, "Fiscal redistribution among local governments assures equality in how those services are distributed."

What's more, some economists argue that the only way countries like Finland can be so well-off and yet so cushy is because countries like the U.S. create the technology that powers the rest of the world -- with huge rewards for success but few safety nets in the case of failure.

"The entire world benefits because of Apple's iPhones," said Daron Acemoglu, an economist at MIT, admitting it was a relatable but not necessarily optimal example (Finland gave us Nokia and Linux's Linus Torvalds, after all). "If the United States did not provide incentives for Apple to come up with and develop the iPhone, then the entire world economy would lose the benefits it obtains from this product. The cutthroat reward structure in the United States is encouraging the creation of many products and technologies like this."

If America were to adopt some of Finland's "cuddly" benefits, the thinking goes, the entire world economy might slow down. For Finns, it would be out with the baby boxes, in with the subsistence farming again.

So what about education reform, then? Finnish school expert Pasi Sahlberg has written that Finnish schools are based on "improving the teaching force, limiting student testing to a necessary minimum, and placing responsibility and trust before accountability."

It's true that Finnish teachers design their own curricula and don't have to deal with test-score-based evaluations, but school officials there are also placing young minds in very well-equipped hands: All teachers have graduate degrees in education and their subject areas of expertise. And schools are funded based on need, so the most struggling schools get the most resources. There is no "Teach for Finland," as Sahlberg has said.

But in some ways, even the Finnish way of educating requires a strong welfare system as a foundation. The country has an extremely low child-poverty rate, which likely makes teaching without testing or score-keeping much easier. And how many American teachers would love to get a master's degree but aren't willing to take on the student loans that come with it?

"The easiest [explanation] is to say that Finland seems to be a well-performing system overall, as far as the international rankings are considered," Sahlberg told me. "So, it is no wonder the education system also works well."

The no-testing model also makes sense for a culture that's low on one-upmanship: "I think one of the more important things is that there's less of an emphasis on competition in Finland," Marakowitz said. "Many Finnish children don't know how to read before they go to school, and you need a certain kind of cultural setting for that. Some U.S. parents would be quite freaked out."

***

When Americans hold up Finland as a model, their arguments are usually dismissed with two indisputable facts: Finland is indeed much smaller than the U.S., making it easier to disperse generous benefits on a national scale. It's also far more homogeneous, making disputes over payouts less frequent and less racially charged.

Still, Cook says, the claims of homogeneity are a bit over-stated. Finland has both sizeable Swedish- and Russian-speaking communities, and right-leaning parties like the "True Finns" want to pare back the little immigration the country does have. (Even the True Finns, though, love the welfare state.)

Building on the success of Finland's local governments, individual U.S. states could conceivably be more like mini-Finlands -- just look at Massachusetts, which had a comprehensive health-care system before the rest of the nation. But creating and enforcing 50 separate safety nets would require a level of oversight the U.S. federal government just doesn't have. Even Obamacare was challenged aggressively in court and has faced opposition from some two dozen states.

Fellman described Finland's welfare state as a "virtuous circle"—Finns' social cohesion props up the welfare state, which in turn promotes greater harmony. But in a way, America's economic competitiveness, focus on innovation, and lack of safety net all reinforce one another, too.

The very reason we're so frequently googling what we can learn from "Finland's school success," after all, is that we want to stay one step ahead.

Click here to follow The Atlantic.

*More from The Atlantic:*

Yes, You Should Be Totally Outraged By The Farm Bill

Why Is The Golden Age Of TV So Dark?

Sinkholes: When The Earth Opens Up

Join the conversation about this story »

 
 
 
  Reported by Business Insider 19 hours ago.

Owner eligibility in an HRA depends on tax filing status.

Park City, Utah (PRWEB) July 12, 2013

Today, Zane Benefits, the online alternative to group health insurance, published new information on HRA owner eligibility.

According to Zane Benefits’ website, a Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) is a flexible tool for small business owners to increase their tax savings and to offer tax-free health benefits. An HRA may reimburse for qualified medical expenses such as co-payments, deductibles, and personal health insurance premiums. HRAs are often used as a small business alternative to group health insurance.

Zane Benefits reviews HRA owner participation for the following owner types and entities:


· C-Corporation Owners
· Sole Proprietors
· S-Corporation Owners
· Partners
· LLC's
· One-Person Nonprofits

HRA Eligibility: C-Corporation Owners

According to Zane Benefits’ website, C-Corporation ("C-Corp") owners may participate in an HRA, and receive reimbursements 100% tax free. C-Corp owners may use the HRA to reimburse his or her medical expenses, as well as family medical expenses.

Click here to read full article.

About Zane Benefits
Zane Benefits was founded in 2006 to provide a revolutionized SaaS (Software-as-a-Service) administration platform ("ZaneHRA") for Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs) and defined contribution health care. The flagship software provides a 100% paperless administration experience to small businesses and insurance professionals that want to offer better health benefits without a traditional group health insurance plan at lower costs. For more information about ZaneHRA, visit http://www.zanebenefits.com. Reported by PRWeb 15 hours ago.

College health-insurance plans are getting better—and pricier. Reported by Wall Street Journal 11 hours ago.

When the White House thinks about how to measure the success of President Barack Obama's health care reform law, the most important number isn't the 49 million Americans who don't have health insurance. It's the 150 uninsured people in a single neighborhood in Los Angeles or Miami they want to reach.

The 2010 Obamacare law has sweeping aims and is projected to reduce the number of U.S. residents without health insurance by 27 million over the next decade. But with the start of the six-month enrollment period for the law's health insurance exchanges just 81 days away, the Obama administration is more narrowly focused on pinpoint targeting of young, healthy people -- mostly men in urban areas and disportionately racial and ethnic minorities, who are more likely to lack coverage and to qualify for financial assistance, senior administration officials told reporters at a briefing Friday.

The White House believes that Obamacare can connect 7 million people to health benefits next year and that 2.7 million of those must be young, healthy adults with low medical costs to offset the expenses of the older and sicker people expected to flock to the health insurance exchanges. The battle will be won or lost not in the halls of Congress, on cable news programs or through television advertisements, but block by block in communities where the need is greatest and the prospects for success the highest, the officials said.

Amid continued efforts by congressional Republicans to repeal the health care reform law and unyielding opposition from conservative groups like Americans For Prosperity, Obama and his team view now as the time to move past the political debate about whether Obamacare was a good idea and instead emphasize the practical and personal effects the law will have on people starting this fall, an official said.

And the best sources for that message aren't Obama and other politicians, but people at the community level: family, friends, neighbors, clergy, physicians, pharmacists, hospitals, and local government leaders, the official said. The senior administration officials spoke to reporters at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House on the condition they not be named nor quoted.

The overall profile of the health insurance exchange customers coveted by the administration -- and health insurers -- is 18-to-35-year-olds, 57 percent of whom are male and 52 percent of whom are not white and who tend to live clustered together in urban areas, a senior administration official said, citing census data.

Because so many young adults will qualify for subsidized health benefits, the administration could almost meet its enrollment target solely by covering these lower-income people, an official said. Polls show the American public, especially those likely receive benefits, has a poor understanding of the law.

The universe of those the administration and its partners at the national, state and local level, along with health insurance companies, need to reach is relatively small. Only about 16 percent of Americans are uninsured, and just 5 percent currently buy health insurance on their own rather than get it from their jobs or from a government program like Medicare or Medicaid. Although the health care law requires nearly everyone to obtain health insurance, most who are already covered will keep the benefits they already have.

About one-third of the individuals in the administration's sights live in California, Texas and Florida, the official said. The administration wants to see 339,000 Californians enrolled, 335,000 Texans and 188,000 Floridians. California is expanding Medicaid for poor adults under Obamacare and is running its own health insurance exchange, called Covered California. Texas and Florida aren't broadening Medicaid and left the federal government in charge of exchanges for their residents.

Using census data, the Obama administration has refined the profile at the state and local level. In California, for example, more than half of the uninsured will be newly eligible for Medicaid benefits or for tax credits for private health insurance, and 48 percent of uninsured Californians are Hispanic, a senior administration official said. At the neighborhood level, the administration can identify 800 uninsured people living near each other and the 150 of those who are young adults, the official said.

The federal government and its partners will hold events about enrollment at rodeos, churches, community health centers, retail stores and elsewhere, an official. States operating health insurance exchanges are eyeing similar outreach campaigns, like events at minor league baseball games and bourbon festivals in Kentucky. The District of Columbia health insurance exchange forged an alliance with restaurants and insurance companies to spread the word about enrollment, the city's government announced Friday.

Selling younger consumers on Obamacare is seen as a major challenge, since young people who buy their own health insurance now are most likely to see premium increases next year, not counting subsidies. Because the law prohibits insurance companies from rejecting people with pre-existing conditions or charging them higher rates and doesn't permit health plans to charge older people more than three times what younger people pay, that will shift some costs to healthier customers.

Uninsured young adults often are described as "young invincibles" and believed to go without health insurance because they aren't heavy users of the health care system and don't think they need coverage. Surveys belie that stereotype, however. A Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation survey released last month showed more than three-quarters of young adults view health insurance as important. Just 11 percent of uninsured people 18 to 25 lack insurance by choice, a senior administration said, citing polling data.

The education, outreach and marketing campaign for health insurance enrollment under Obamacare is just beginning. Although a senior administration official said federally funded advertising campaigns won't debut until closer to October, states like Colorado, Oregon and Kentucky are working to build awareness and private-sector efforts, like one announced by Walgreens and the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association this week, will soon begin to proliferate. Organizing for Action has aired two television ads this month promoting the law.

The federal government recently unveiled a new website, HealthCare.gov, and a telephone hotline where consumers can get basic information about the health care law's requirements and benefits. The administration also distributed $150 million for community health centers to help sign up people for coverage and plans other community-based activities with partners, including libraries and city mayors. Reported by Huffington Post 14 hours ago.

Some Democrats see the abortion row played out in Austin's statehouse as a turning point for Texas liberals. But with the bill now passed by the senate, others warn that life will get even harder

Clad in orange or blue as they wait outside the entrance, the long line of punters might be queueing for a sporting event or a concert.

But the 100,000-capacity Longhorns football stadium is a mile away and the nightlife of Sixth Street a few blocks to the south. This is the Texas Capitol in Austin, where a seat in the public gallery of the senate chamber has become the hottest ticket in town thanks to a series of fierce abortion debates that have seized the nation's attention.

The statehouse steps were filling up again on Friday morning, hours before the Senate's 2pm start, as activists set up stalls. "I've been queueing every day and not been getting in, going to the overspill room like a lot of people," says Tara Bhattacharya. "Two-and-a-half weeks ago no one knew who the politicians were, and now they're looked at like they're rock stars."

The 33-year-old does not have health insurance and says she cannot afford to get ill, let alone bear the costs of a complicated pregnancy, in a state that offers minimal help and has just passed some of America's most restrictive abortion laws, banning terminations after 20 weeks and imposing other restrictions and requirements for providers.

"Women are second-class citizens in Texas, if we're even considered citizens at all," says Vicki Bishop as she waits in brutal heat to pass through the airport-style security. "I have been an apathetic voter for years – until now."

People such as Vicki are the foot-soldiers in a battle that is either a "war on women" or a "war on babies", depending on whether you are one of the orange-clad pro-choice activists or among the anti-abortion crowd, who wear blue. Two speeches inside this vast building turned two women into liberal heroines in an often anti-liberal state. One spoke for 11 hours, another for two minutes.

Like hundreds of others, Sarah Slamen applied to testify last week in front of a senate committee. She did not waste her chance, launching an articulate tirade that quickly went viral on the web. "I'm tired of Republican primary politics, misogyny and greed dominating the state I was born, raised and schooled in," she began.

"It was destiny that you would discriminate against us to try to force your way inside the bodies of Texas women. Thank you for finally working against us women so publicly and not in the shadows like you're used to … thank you for being you, Texas legislature. You have radicalised hundreds of thousands of us … women and their allies are coming for you."

When she started a systematic critique of the politicians sat before her, the 28-year-old was dragged out of the room by a posse of state troopers shortly before her time was up. Not that she missed a beat: "This is my government, ma'am. I will judge you."

Slamen's eloquent fury was a sequel of sorts to the marathon efforts of Wendy Davis. On 25 June the 50-year-old state senator from Fort Worth embarked on a filibuster to frustrate the passage of the proposed legislation.

Critics charge that the bill would necessitate expensive, impractical and unnecessary upgrades that would spell the closure of all but five of the state's 42 abortion clinics, forcing women in rural areas to travel hundreds of miles. Proponents claim they want to make the process safer; their opponents argue the reverse will be true as women will seek backstreet abortions and be denied many health services.

Davis stood and spoke for nearly 11 hours without so much as a bathroom break. The drama was live-streamed online and Davis became an overnight Democratic darling. But triumph was fleeting. Rick Perry, the Texas governor, called a 30-day special session to give the bill another chance. This time it zipped over the hurdles and was approved by the Senate late on Friday night, though it will now be challenged in the federal courts, potentially delaying its implementation for years.

Since Davis's stand, rallies have taken place in Austin on an almost daily basis, with slogans on T-shirts and placards declaring "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries" and "Rick Perry: soft on guns and tough on vaginas". An orange bus branded "Stand With Texas Women" has just finished a tour of the state's major cities. Publicity-seeking celebrities have arrived, from former Republican presidential wannabe Rick Santorum to the actor Lisa Edelstein, best known as Hugh Laurie's chief love interest in House.

Austin is the most leftwing and unconventional city in Texas, yet the statehouse is crammed with some of America's most hardline conservatives. On Monday, Perry revealed that he would not seek re-election next year, prompting speculation that he will mount a fresh bid for the US presidency in 2016. Flanked by bulldozers at a Caterpillar dealership owned by one of his backers, the 63-year-old preached that Texas's impressive economic growth during his unprecedented 12-plus years as governor is thanks to hands-off government.

Critics object that Perry is overseeing the ultimate governmental intrusion: the state dictating what a woman can and cannot do with her body. In 2010, Texas had the fourth-highest teenage pregnancy rate in the US and the highest level of "repeat teen births". But in 2011 the state drastically cut funds for family planning and introduced a law designed to persuade women not to have abortions by forcing them to undergo sonograms and listen to a description of the foetus.

The governor appears to hold a genuine religious conviction that abortion is morally wrong, but in Texas politics a stance usually has a subtext. "It's hardly about everyone being able to go to bed and know they're going to heaven. It's about a lot of political and financial interests," Slamen says, pointing out that Perry's sister is on the board of an advocacy association for Texas outpatient surgery centres, which would play a central role in future abortion provision in the state.

In his 2010 book, Fed Up!, Perry wrote: "If you don't support the death penalty and citizens packing a pistol, don't come to Texas." After last December's school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, Perry and Greg Abbott, the state's attorney general, tried to lure gun owners and manufacturers to the Lone Star State with the promise of a more supportive environment. Abbott posted an advertisement on his Facebook page in March with a picture of a gun and a Bible and the words: "Two things every American should know how to use … Neither of which are taught in schools."

Slamen lives in Houston, a booming oil and gas industry hub which one recent study named the most diverse metropolitan area in the US. Houston's mayor, Annise Parker, is an openly lesbian Democrat. But Slamen is frustrated that Texas is "looking really regressive and oppressive" to "the people who only know us through TV and cowboy hats, and it probably all looks like a western".

Democrats believe that the last few weeks mark a turning point, but Slamen is sceptical about the party's prospects. In fact, she thinks it might become even tougher for the left: "It's a long process, and right now I don't think we're in resolution, we're in the agitation process.

"Their kneejerk reaction is to dismiss me and assume that it's going to melt away. They are a 20th-century legislature dealing with 21st-century conditions. So I think they're going to snap back and get more repressive and make it a lot harder for people."

Slamen may be getting the hell out of Dodge. She is contemplating a move to New York City, her partner's home town. The couple have decided they "just couldn't bear to live here any more" and with the lack of low-cost healthcare. A Gallup poll found that last year nearly 29% of Texans had no health insurance, by far the highest percentage in the US. But Perry refused to accept an estimated $100bn over 10 years in federal handouts to expand Medicaid, the government healthcare programme for the poor, calling it an unworkable system.

"We cannot afford to get pregnant here," Slamen says. "I'm a person, I can't be some agenda all the time." If she does go, she will be a loss to her fellow activists. These are hard times for the beleaguered liberals of Texas. Reported by guardian.co.uk 1 hour ago.

Geo Insurance provides information on health insurance for Medicare, families, individuals, and groups. Find more info contact with us.


Geo Insurance provides information on health insurance for Medicare, families, individuals, and groups. Find more info contact with us.

Health insurance is given against the risk of incurring medical expenses among individuals. By estimating the overall risk of health care and health system expenses, among a specific group, an insurer can develop a routine finance structure, such as a monthly premium or payroll tax, to ensure that money is available to pay for the health care benefits specified in the insurance agreement. The benefit is administered by a central organization such as a government agency, private business, or not-for-profit entity. According to the Health Insurance Association of America, health insurance is defined as “coverage that provides for the payments of benefits as a result of sickness or injury. Includes insurance for losses from accident, medical expense, disability, or accidental death and dismemberment”.

A health insurance policy is:

1) a contract between an insurance provider (e.g. an insurance company or government) and an individual or his/her sponsor (e.g. an employer or a community organization). The contract can be renewable (e.g. annually or monthly) or lifelong in the case of private insurance, or be compulsory for all citizens in the case of national plans. The type and amount of health care costs that will be covered by the health insurance provider are specified in writing, in a member contract or “Evidence of Coverage” booklet for private insurance, or in a national health policy for public insurance.

2) Insurance coverage is provided by an employer-sponsored self-funded ERISA plan. The company generally advertises that they have one of the big insurance companies. However, in an ERISA case, that insurance company “doesn’t engage in the act of insurance”, they just administer it. Therefore ERISA plans are not subject to state laws. ERISA plans are governed by federal law under the jurisdiction of the US Department of Labor (USDOL). The specific advantages or coverage details are found in the Summary Plan Description (SPD). An appeal must go through the insurance company, then to the Employer’s Plan Fiduciary. If still required, the Fiduciary’s decision can be brought to the USDOL to review for ERISA compliance, and then file a lawsuit in federal court.

Company Contact Information
GEO Insurance
Hami Rabbani
4152 Hayvenhurst Dr
Encino
91436
18182695530

News and Press Release Distribution From I-Newswire.com Reported by i-Newswire.com 44 minutes ago.

A state board today approved the Pontiac emergency manager's plan to suspend health insurance coverage for nearly 1,000 city retirees for two years and give them $400 more a month in their pension checks in lieu of the benefit. Reported by detnews.com 2 days ago.

The federal government wants poor residents of states not expanding Medicaid under President Barack Obama's health care reform law to know who's denying them health coverage -- and the administration has a plan to make sure they find out.

When Americans begin shopping for benefits on the law's health insurance exchanges on Oct. 1, the people who would qualify for Medicaid but live in the 20-plus states where Republican governors or state legislators won't approve the expansion will see a note explaining that federal law allows them to get coverage that their states' leaders won't provide them. A senior administration official told reporters about the note Friday.

The health care reform law calls for Medicaid, the joint federal-state health program for the poor, to be opened up to anyone who earns up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, which is $15,282 for a single person this year. But when the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare last year, justices also ruled that states could opt out of the Medicaid expansion. The result will be millions fewer poor U.S. residents gaining health coverage, mostly among adults without children.

More than 20 states are opting out of the Medicaid expansion because of opposition from GOP governors such as Rick Perry of Texas and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, or because majority-Republican legislatures blocked expansion plans supported by Republican governors such as Rick Snyder of Michigan and Democratic governors including Missouri's Jay Nixon.

Under the Obamacare law, the federal government will pay the full cost of covering newly eligible people on Medicaid from 2014 to 2016, then will gradually reduce its share of the funding until it reaches 90 percent in 2022 and years following. The federal government currently pays an average of 57 percent of states' Medicaid expenses.

The health insurance exchanges are online marketplaces where people who don't get health benefits at work can compare health plan benefits and costs, and learn whether they qualify for Medicaid or tax credits for private insurance. The federal government will run the exchanges in 34 states, while 16 states and the District of Columbia will manage their own exchanges.

In those states that didn't create exchanges, leaving the federal government in charge, people whose income is below 133 percent of the poverty level will see a notation explaining that their states declined to take up the Medicaid expansion that would have covered them, the official said. The exact wording of the notice hasn't been determined, and senior administration officials spoke to reporters at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House last week on the condition they not be named nor quoted.

Some of those left out of Medicaid may qualify for tax credits to use on private health insurance, but many of the poorest likely will remain uninsured.

The health care reform law creates health insurance tax credits for people at the poverty line up to four times the poverty line -- but not below it. This means that those earning less than the poverty level -- $11,490 for an individual this year -- won't have access to these subsidies or Medicaid if their home states don't expand the program. Because these people will fall between the cracks, the Obama administration has exempted them from the law's individual mandate that most U.S. residents obtain health coverage next year. Reported by Huffington Post 2 days ago.

Online USA Doctors created an alternative health insurance program giving people unlimited daily access to a USA licensed doctor. The medical insurance alternative plans are available for one person or an entire family.

New York, NY (PRWEB) July 15, 2013

New telemedicine based healthcare solutions from Online USA Doctors are now available for those who are looking for cost-effective alternatives to short term health insurance.

Online USA Doctors is now offering affordable alternatives to individual health insurance or personal insurance plans to help people avoid the financial challenges posed by the spiraling costs of health insurance.

An authority source on health and healthcare information online, OnlineUSADoctors.com has designed a number of reasonably priced health plans that are not only a suitable alternative to short term health insurance but also offer people proper access to quality healthcare.

Health insurance for unemployed is an expensive proposition as even those who are employed are constantly subjected to plan design changes such as increasing deductible or co-payment amounts. Due to these shifting costs, individual health insurance becomes extremely expensive as people end up paying more of the out-of- pocket costs. If they have temporary health insurance, they may also end up contributing more towards their insurance premium.

Apart from offering a number of healthcare and wellness solutions and answering medical questions, OnlineUSADoctors.com utilizes a complex and proprietary algorithm to help understand some of the most common health problems for men such as erectile dysfunction that might otherwise not be discovered through laboratory tests, or online health searches.

Online USA Doctors answers health questions, offers consultations and provides affordable health care coverage alternatives that include online doctor consultations via the telemedicine platform. Various alternatives to short term health insurance include competitively priced monthly subscription plans such as Individual, Couple, Couple +1 child, and Family.

Current pricing studies indicate that these plans help peoples save as much as 75% of the money that they would otherwise have to spend on major medical health insurance coverage. These remarkably affordable health insurance options include a pay per consult priced at $0.99 while a video consultation costs $39.99. Health insurance for unemployed is now possible with these comprehensive plans that include annual doctor consults, doctor recommended pharmaceutical-grade supplements, and access to overall health improvement.

To find out more about these alternative to short term health insurance that offer all the services that one can expect from comprehensive health care coverage or to get all health questions answered, visit http://www.onlineusadoctors.com/our-plans. Reported by PRWeb 2 days ago.

Exchange to Help 646,500 Uninsured Oklahoma Residents Find Coverage in 2014

Park City, Utah (PRWEB) July 15, 2013

Today, Zane Benefits, the online alternative to group health insurance, published new information on the Oklahoma Health Insurance Exchange.

According to Zane Benefits’ website, beginning in 2014 as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), health insurance coverage for individuals and small businesses will become available through new state health insurance exchanges.

Oklahoma will default to a federally-facilitated health insurance exchange. The Oklahoma Health Insurance Exchange will open for enrollment on October 1, 2013, with coverage starting January 1, 2014.

According to Zane Benefits’ website, the Oklahoma Health Insurance Exchange will be operated through a federally-run health insurance exchange, also called the Health Insurance Marketplace. Starting in October 2013, Oklahoma residents will be able to access information about all the plans available through the Exchange. The SHOP Exchange will also be available to Oklahoma small businesses with fewer than 100 employees.

A key part of the Oklahoma Health Insurance Exchange is that eligible individuals and families will be able to access individual premium tax subsidies, capping the cost of their premium between 2% to 9.5% of income. Individuals qualify if their household income is up to 400% of the federal poverty level, and they are not offered qualified, affordable insurance through their employer. The Exchange will also screen for Medicaid and public assistance programs.

According to an estimate by healthcare.gov, 646,500 or 20% of Oklahoma’s non-elderly residents are uninsured. Oklahoma officials estimate that ~210,000 Oklahomans will be eligible to purchase insurance through an exchange.

Click here to read full article.

--

About Zane Benefits

Zane Benefits was founded in 2006 to provide a revolutionized SaaS (Software-as-a-Service) administration platform ("ZaneHRA") for Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs) and defined contribution health care. The flagship software provides a 100% paperless administration experience to small businesses and insurance professionals that want to offer better health benefits without a traditional group health insurance plan at lower costs. For more information about ZaneHRA, visit http://www.zanebenefits.com. Reported by PRWeb 2 days ago.

When I led the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), we invested a substantial amount of time and resources in health care issues that were always among the top concerns of our members. One of our biggest headaches was making certain we had reliable expertise on staff to attend all of the endless hearings and meetings, and decipher the complex proposals bouncing around on Capitol Hill. The people who really understood what was going on were few and far between.

And that was before Obamacare -- the thousand page plus bundle of incomprehensible bureaucratic and legalistic doubletalk that no one fully understands. For the last couple of years our economy has struggled -- growing but not fast enough, adding jobs but not fast enough -- and a major impediment to economic growth is Obamacare which is like the fabled sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of political and business leaders. No one knows exactly how it is going to play out, but it is clear that the overall cost of health care, already at about 18 percent of GDP, can only increase under this program. We simply cannot afford to lard expensive new requirements onto our bloated health care system, but that is exactly what this program will do.

The Obama administration's recent decision to postpone for a year the requirement that businesses employing 50 or more employees provide their workers with health insurance or face fines -- a key provision in the law -- dramatically underscores the fundamental incoherence at the base of this ill-conceived adventure in runaway government.

Some states are moving ahead to set up exchanges to enable low-income people to obtain health insurance, while others are dragging their feet. Everyone is waiting for regulations to guide their decisions, but the health care bureaucrats in Washington are having trouble writing sensible regulations. In the meantime, the public is totally confused and worried about what the new system will mean to them. "The administration's public information campaign on the benefits of the Affordable Care Act deserves a failing grade," Senator Max Baucus told Health and Human Services Secretary last April. "You need to fix this."

But I fear it is beyond fixing. Obamacare is at its core a Rube Goldberg contraption attempting to provide universal cradle-to-gave health care without recognizing and resolving the economic implications. President Obama should have first taken on the admittedly tough challenge of reining in health care costs before he attempted to extend health insurance to everyone.

In the final analysis, the critical failing of Obamacare is that it lacks broad public support. "Great innovations," said Thomas Jefferson, "should not be forced on slender majorities." To bring about dramatic change in something as large and pervasive as health care, you must have a credible bi-partisan consensus. Obamacare is much too complex to permit intelligent implementation and its lack of broad public support exacerbates that weakness. Senator Baucus said he sees a huge train wreck coming, and I share that concern.

Jerry Jasinowski, an economist and author, served as President of the National Association of Manufacturers for 14 years and later The Manufacturing Institute. Jerry is available for speaking engagements. July 2013 Reported by Huffington Post 2 days ago.

Among the many life-changing freedoms Americans gained under Obamacare was the option to leave jobs at big employers -- the only ones offering workers comprehensive, affordable health benefits regardless of sex, age or health condition -- to start their own businesses. The health care reform law ends this absurd social policy, known as "job-lock," but Republicans are fighting to take away this important new freedom. They've set two more repeal votes for Wednesday to help them do it.

A report from the Urban Institute and Georgetown University says that this provision in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will liberate an estimated 1.5 million Americans to become self-employed and start new businesses.

Obamacare bans insurance companies from turning down applicants because of any kind of so-called "pre-existing" conditions including cancer, heart disease, acne, diabetes, high blood pressure, asthma, the full range of mental and physical disabilities, birth defects, multiple sclerosis, digestive disorders, substance abuse, being a women and even being the victim of a violent crime. This provision protects 129 million Americans who have such conditions from being excluded from coverage and prohibits insurers from charging extra premiums because of a consumer's health history.

"By ensuring that people can't be discriminated against when they buy health insurance and helping those with modest incomes cover the cost of premiums, the ACA could help create a new generation of self-employed entrepreneurs," says Andy Hyman, who leads health coverage programs at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "Having access to affordable insurance in the open market is what millions of people need to become their own boss."

As Wendell Potter has reminded us, this is a big deal. But the Republicans want to repeal it.
In case anyone has forgotten the benefits and consumer protections the Republicans are fighting to take away, here are a few examples of what their plan to repeal Obamacare would do:

· Revive the loathsome practice of allowing insurers to deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. Soon after it was enacted, the ACA required insurance companies to cover children with pre-existing conditions. The insurers fought this before and after the law passed. Repeal would permit insurance companies to push sick children back into the uninsured population to spruce up their profit reports.
· End prescription drug savings for seniors. In only three years, the ACA has saved 6.3 million seniors $6.1 billion on their prescription drugs. Repeal would force elderly Americans to give that money back to overpaid drug company executives. The ACA also strengthens and protects Medicare and eliminates waste, fraud and abuse.
· Kick young adults off their parents' health plans. About 3.1 million young adults are now covered on their parents' insurance plans because of the ACA. Repeal would dump them into a broken marketplace that doesn't offer them affordable, quality coverage.
· Make it more expensive to get preventive care. Preventive health services are now provided without co-pays in all new private insurance plans and through Medicare. These benefits include an expanded list of preventive health services for women, from domestic violence counseling to contraception. More than 71 million Americans have already benefited from the full range of these services. Repeal would restore co-payments and increase out-of-pocket costs for everyone.
· Shut down small-business tax credits. Last year, hundreds of thousands of small employers used the small-business tax credit created by Obamacare to provide health insurance for workers. Repeal would eliminate the tax credit and cause these small businesses to pay more, which would compromise coverage.
· End premium rebates and let insurance companies go back to charging whatever they want. In the last two years, consumers received $1.6 billion in rebates from insurers that spent more than 20 cents of each premium dollar on things other than actual health care, such as profits, administration and bloated executive pay. Last year, 77.8 million consumers saved $3.4 billion upfront on premiums under the law as insurance companies complied with the 80/20 rule.

These votes will be the 38th and 39th times the House Republicans will try to repeal Obamacare at a cost to the taxpayers exceeding $55 million. This wasteful legislative effort represents about 15 percent of the House's business calendar. The House could instead be powering the economy by creating jobs to support the middle class and those working their way into it.

House Speaker John Boehner is one of the least effective people to ever hold that important job, and now we can add wasteful to that woeful description. The only success he can claim is that he set out to run a do-nothing Congress, and he has without any doubt been a smashing success. Mission accomplished, John Boehner! Reported by Huffington Post 2 days ago.