Two days before the deadline to sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, a small group of protestors marched through the French Quarter to argue for 242,000 Louisianans who might not be able to afford coverage. That...
Reported by nola.com 4 hours ago.
'Health care for all' is rallying cry for march through French Quarter
↧
↧
Q. And A.: Repercussions and Reprieves at Health Insurance Enrollment Deadline
After Monday, most people must have health coverage or face a penalty, and the confusion of the last six months appears likely to continue.
Reported by NYTimes.com 3 hours ago.
↧
Newborns Need Health Insurance Too
If Mom and Dad have separate coverage, weigh which is better for the baby.
Reported by Wall Street Journal 1 hour ago.
↧
Experient Health Encourages Social Sharing of Nutrition Tips In Latest Blog Post
The Virginia-based health insurance brokerage company provides tips on how to help people on the road to health as part of its community education outreach through its Blog.
Richmond, Va. (PRWEB) March 29, 2014
Attention all Hashtag using health foodies.
Experient Health, the health insurance arm of the Virginia Farm Bureau, is looking for help in spreading the word about how easy it can be to eat healthy.
In its latest post on its Blog, Experient Health published a list of suggested Tweets, links and Hashtags for the community - individuals, families and companies - to use to help encourage more people to eat healthy during this, National Nutrition Month.
Nutrition is a key part of a healthy lifestyle and preventative care, a cornerstone to any health program. Experient Health uses its Blog and communications channels as part of its commitment to its clients and preventative care. Topics range from healthy living tips to recipes to deeper explanations of changes under health care reform and the Affordable Care Act.
Below is a sample of the suggested Tweets and topics Experient Health encourages people to use.· Think eating #healthy needs to be expensive? Think again! Check out these healthy, cheap ingredients – http://bit.ly/174xw
· Remove the #temptation—don’t keep junk food in the house! Healthy snacks will help your family stay on track.
· Don’t eat a small number of big meals; eat a big number of small meals! #diettip
· If you eat small snacks during the day, you won’t #overeat at meals! #diettip
· If you’re consistently feeling #tired, the reason might be on your plate – http://bit.ly/oA7ICE
· We’ve all attempted a #diet and failed. Here are five tips to make your next one a success – http://bit.ly/FRoEXK
· Tip to reduce weight: Turn your head to the left and then to the right. Repeat #exercise when offered junk food.
· Even if you exercise regularly, your body needs plenty of nutrients to keep it working at 100 percent. #nutrition
· Easy #nutrition tip: Eat slower. It takes a while for your brain to realize that you’re full. Eat slower and you’ll eat less.
· When you eat at home, you eat healthier. When you cook a meal, make extra servings to freeze and eat later instead of fast food. #nutrition
Need more fodder? Visit the Live Well, Work Well Blog series by Experient Health.
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 health insurance carriers, including Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield and Aetna, 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 2 hours ago.
Richmond, Va. (PRWEB) March 29, 2014
Attention all Hashtag using health foodies.
Experient Health, the health insurance arm of the Virginia Farm Bureau, is looking for help in spreading the word about how easy it can be to eat healthy.
In its latest post on its Blog, Experient Health published a list of suggested Tweets, links and Hashtags for the community - individuals, families and companies - to use to help encourage more people to eat healthy during this, National Nutrition Month.
Nutrition is a key part of a healthy lifestyle and preventative care, a cornerstone to any health program. Experient Health uses its Blog and communications channels as part of its commitment to its clients and preventative care. Topics range from healthy living tips to recipes to deeper explanations of changes under health care reform and the Affordable Care Act.
Below is a sample of the suggested Tweets and topics Experient Health encourages people to use.· Think eating #healthy needs to be expensive? Think again! Check out these healthy, cheap ingredients – http://bit.ly/174xw
· Remove the #temptation—don’t keep junk food in the house! Healthy snacks will help your family stay on track.
· Don’t eat a small number of big meals; eat a big number of small meals! #diettip
· If you eat small snacks during the day, you won’t #overeat at meals! #diettip
· If you’re consistently feeling #tired, the reason might be on your plate – http://bit.ly/oA7ICE
· We’ve all attempted a #diet and failed. Here are five tips to make your next one a success – http://bit.ly/FRoEXK
· Tip to reduce weight: Turn your head to the left and then to the right. Repeat #exercise when offered junk food.
· Even if you exercise regularly, your body needs plenty of nutrients to keep it working at 100 percent. #nutrition
· Easy #nutrition tip: Eat slower. It takes a while for your brain to realize that you’re full. Eat slower and you’ll eat less.
· When you eat at home, you eat healthier. When you cook a meal, make extra servings to freeze and eat later instead of fast food. #nutrition
Need more fodder? Visit the Live Well, Work Well Blog series by Experient Health.
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 health insurance carriers, including Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield and Aetna, 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 2 hours ago.
↧
Understanding Health Care Reform Blog Series Launches on The Health Journal
Experient Health account executives are offering guidance to the community on healthcare reform via The Health Journal in Tidewater, VA.
Richmond, VA (PRWEB) March 29, 2014
There’s no question about it, the new changes in healthcare can be difficult to understand.
That's how Dayton Wiese, Experient Health's benefits consultant in the Tidewater, VA area, starts off his healthcare reform summary Blog post for The Health Journal earlier this month.
Experient Health is helping the community better understand healthcare reform thanks to a guest Blogging opportunity with The Health Journal, a healthcare news magazine based out of Williamsburg, VA with a readership that stretches across the Peninsula and into South Hampton Roads.
Experient Health benefits consultants will be writing about, among other topics, subsidies, understanding grandfathered plans, pre-existing conditions and primary care physician shortages.
"If it all sounds confusing, it’s because it is," Wiese wrote in that first post. "The best way to sort through all the confusion is to enlist the assistance of a broker."
Stay tuned to read the complete healthcare reform series, or sign up for The Health Journal's newsletter, #Hashtags to read these and more.
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, including Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shied and Aetna, 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 31 minutes ago.
Richmond, VA (PRWEB) March 29, 2014
There’s no question about it, the new changes in healthcare can be difficult to understand.
That's how Dayton Wiese, Experient Health's benefits consultant in the Tidewater, VA area, starts off his healthcare reform summary Blog post for The Health Journal earlier this month.
Experient Health is helping the community better understand healthcare reform thanks to a guest Blogging opportunity with The Health Journal, a healthcare news magazine based out of Williamsburg, VA with a readership that stretches across the Peninsula and into South Hampton Roads.
Experient Health benefits consultants will be writing about, among other topics, subsidies, understanding grandfathered plans, pre-existing conditions and primary care physician shortages.
"If it all sounds confusing, it’s because it is," Wiese wrote in that first post. "The best way to sort through all the confusion is to enlist the assistance of a broker."
Stay tuned to read the complete healthcare reform series, or sign up for The Health Journal's newsletter, #Hashtags to read these and more.
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, including Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shied and Aetna, 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 31 minutes ago.
↧
↧
Sen. John Barrasso: White House Is 'Cooking The Books' On Obamacare Enrollment Numbers
WASHINGTON -- Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) on Sunday dismissed the White House's recent announcement that Obamacare enrollment had reached more than 6 million people, calling it a meaningless figure.
"I don't think it means anything. ... I think they're cooking the books on this," said Barrasso on "Fox News Sunday."
On Thursday, the Obama administration had announced that the number of people who have chosen a health care plan through a state or federal exchange had topped 6 million, putting enrollment ahead of revised projections with several days still left before the March 31 deadline.
Barrasso said that simply putting out enrollment numbers isn't enough.
"What kind of insurance will those people actually have?" the senator asked. "Will they be able to keep the doctor that they want? How much more is it going to cost them? We know that some of the best cancer hospitals in the country want very little to do with people that actually buy this insurance on the Obamacare exchanges."
In a statement sent to reporters after Barrasso's TV appearance, the Democratic National Committee shot back, "It *means* something to the 105 million Americans who no longer have a lifetime cap on essential benefits, and it *means* something to the parents of over 17.6 million children who no longer have to worry about their kids being denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions. It *means* something to approximately 3 million young people who have health insurance through their parents' plan and it *means* something to the over 32.5 million seniors who have already received one or more free preventive services."
The Obama administration's announcement of how many people had signed up for private health care plans under the Affordable Care Act exceeded the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's estimate that 6 million people would sign up in the program's first year. That projection was down, however, from initial expectations of 7 million enrollees, due to problems with the federal website. Reported by Huffington Post 11 hours ago.
"I don't think it means anything. ... I think they're cooking the books on this," said Barrasso on "Fox News Sunday."
On Thursday, the Obama administration had announced that the number of people who have chosen a health care plan through a state or federal exchange had topped 6 million, putting enrollment ahead of revised projections with several days still left before the March 31 deadline.
Barrasso said that simply putting out enrollment numbers isn't enough.
"What kind of insurance will those people actually have?" the senator asked. "Will they be able to keep the doctor that they want? How much more is it going to cost them? We know that some of the best cancer hospitals in the country want very little to do with people that actually buy this insurance on the Obamacare exchanges."
In a statement sent to reporters after Barrasso's TV appearance, the Democratic National Committee shot back, "It *means* something to the 105 million Americans who no longer have a lifetime cap on essential benefits, and it *means* something to the parents of over 17.6 million children who no longer have to worry about their kids being denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions. It *means* something to approximately 3 million young people who have health insurance through their parents' plan and it *means* something to the over 32.5 million seniors who have already received one or more free preventive services."
The Obama administration's announcement of how many people had signed up for private health care plans under the Affordable Care Act exceeded the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's estimate that 6 million people would sign up in the program's first year. That projection was down, however, from initial expectations of 7 million enrollees, due to problems with the federal website. Reported by Huffington Post 11 hours ago.
↧
Rural residents confront higher health care costs
DENVER (AP) — Bill Fales wanted a new baler and a better irrigation system for the 700-acre ranch where he raises grass-fed beef cattle, but he scrapped those plans when he saw his new health insurance premiums. Health care has always been more expensive in far-flung communities, where actuarial insurance data show fewer doctors, specialists and hospitals, as well as older residents in need of more health care services. "If premiums are not allowed to keep up with underlying medical costs, no company is going to survive," said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman with America's Health Insurance Plans, a Washington, D.C.-based industry group. Health insurance premiums track the underlying cost of medical care. "There's always been geographic variance in insurance," said Craig Garthwaite, an economist at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management who has studied the economic consequences of the new health care law. Garthwaite also said the health care law makes it easier for rural health insurance shoppers to see what city residents are paying. At the meetings, state insurance officials pass out the actuarial data behind the premiums, including details from Colorado's All Payer Claims Database, which lists hospitalization rates and other factors used to determine the cost of health care in a region. Salazar then walks residents through the differences and says that state officials cannot lower rural rates without driving insurers out of the market. "People really see the value of insurance up here, and they're mystified about why our premiums are so much higher," said Tamara Drangstveit, executive director of the Family and Intercultural Resource Center in Frisco, Colo., about 25 miles east of Vail in the heart of the state's ski country.
Reported by SeattlePI.com 9 hours ago.
↧
Insurance enrollment help available across Conn.
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — With the open enrollment deadline looming, organizations across Connecticut are helping people sign up for health insurance coverage.
Reported by Boston.com 8 hours ago.
Reported by Boston.com 8 hours ago.
↧
Monday is the deadline to sign up for health law
Monday is the deadline to sign up for private health insurance in the new online markets created by President Barack Obama's health care law. So far, about 4 out of every 5 people enrolling have qualified for tax credits to reduce the cost of their premiums.
Reported by Seattle Times 7 hours ago.
↧
↧
Deadline To Enroll In Health Care Approaches
The deadline to sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act is Monday night at midnight.
Reported by CBS 2 6 hours ago.
↧
No Title
Monday is the last day to sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.
Reported by WEAR ABC 3 6 hours ago.
↧
Rick Santorum Slams Uninsured Americans Who Signed Up for Obamacare (Video)
Rick Santorum Slams Uninsured Americans Who Signed Up for Obamacare (Video)Rick Santorum Slams Uninsured Americans Who Signed Up for Obamacare (Video)
Health
Politics
Rick Santorum
Has Been Optimized
Former GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum took aim at uninsured Americans today by claiming that many of the 6 million uninsured who signed up for health insurance via Obamacare won't “won’t make a payment” on their insurance premium.
During an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" today, Santorum also bragged that he not only opposed Obamacare, which has helped cover about 10 million Americans (including Medicaid expansion), but also opposed "HillaryCare" in 1994, noted RawStory.com (video below).
“When I ran my ’94 election, it was on health care against the sponsor of HillaryCare,” Santorum claimed. “You look at what Obamacare is really doing, it’s driving up costs right now.”
However, Santorum presented no evidence that Obamacare is "driving up costs."
“You look at these number of 6 million people [signing up for Obamacare], I talked to insurance companies, you’re looking at anywhere from 20 to 50 percent of those who haven’t made a premium payment yet,” Santorum added. “Many of them are uninsured and probably won’t make a premium payment.”
Santorum, who is a devout Catholic, also insisted that Pope Francis was not focusing on social issues, noted TalkingPointsMemo.com.
"What he's doing is the right thing, which is, he's looking at a world and he's looking at his faithful that are, that are really struggling right now, struggling with their faith," stated Santorum. "And he wants to focus on the central thing, which is the good news."
Sources: TalkingPointsMemo.com and RawStory.com
1 Reported by Opposing Views 4 hours ago.
↧
One Day Left to Enroll in Obamacare
More than 6 million people have signed up for health insurance ahead of the looming deadline.
Reported by msnbc.com 3 hours ago.
Reported by msnbc.com 3 hours ago.
↧
↧
Long Waits as Health Deadline Nears
Last-minute applicants for health insurance strained enrollment offices over the weekend, triggering long lines, extra security and hours of waiting across the country ahead of Monday's federal deadline.
Reported by Wall Street Journal 14 minutes ago.
↧
Guest Post: The Limited Economic Impact Of The US Shale Gas Boom
Authored by Mathilde Mathieu, Thomas Spencer, & Oliver Sartor, via Vox EU blog,
The recent rapid growth in the production of unconventional oil and gas (shale gas and tight oil) in the US has led to a significant decrease of natural gas prices as well as reduced oil imports. This has raised questions about the impacts of the unconventional oil and gas revolution on the US macroeconomy, industrial competitiveness, and energy sector. It has also raised questions about its implications for the EU (e.g. Beffa and Cromme 2013). Given the considerable discussion about the impacts of shale, in a recently published study by the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI), we aimed to address these questions empirically (Spencer et al. 2014).
** Energy-sector impacts of unconventional oil and gas in the US **
Between 2005 and 2013, US production of natural gas increased by 33% from 18 to 24 trillion cubic feet per year. Most of this was due to production of shale gas, which increased from 0.75 to 8.5 trillion cubic feet (Gruenspecht 2013). Over the same period, US production of liquid fuels increased by 52%, and the contribution from tight oil increased from 0.29 million to 3.48 million barrels/day.
As a result, net oil imports have also fallen, from over 11 million barrels/day in 2007 to 8 million barrels/day in 2013. Less well known, however, is that this has occurred as much due to a broader drop-off in energy demand. Alongside greater domestic production, US energy consumption has been moderated by a combination of recession, new energy efficiency standards, and changed consumer behaviour – in particular in response to higher global oil prices and an ageing population. For example, in 2012, per capita energy use in the US actually fell by 5% versus 2011, despite economic growth in that year.
The conventional wisdom also holds that the US consumer has received a massive boost from lower energy prices resulting from the gas glut. In reality, the unconventional oil and gas revolution has actually had a quite uneven impact on consumer energy prices. Gas prices for residential consumers have fallen around 20% from their pre-2008 peak, while industrial and power-sector gas prices fell by about 50% from their 2008 peaks. Residential electricity prices have continued to rise, and industrial electricity prices have also risen – albeit at a lower rate. For households, however, the effects of the unconventional oil and gas revolution have been largely outweighed by continued rises in electricity and in particular gasoline prices (Table 1).
*Table 1*. Average household energy expenditure, 2005–2012
Data: US Census Bureau, 2012, Consumer Expenditure Survey.
** Outlook for the US energy sector **
It is likely that the US will become a net gas exporter around the end of this decade, subject to political approval of export infrastructure. This would lead to some narrowing of price gaps over time between US and regional gas prices. However, the range of scenarios assessed in the study suggest that the US will remain a significant importer of crude oil in coming decades. Policies to improve the efficiency of the transport sector will therefore be crucial for reducing US crude imports and costs to US motorists.
The scenarios examined do not suggest that the US shale revolution will lead to a significant emissions reductions from the US energy sector. Indeed, historical data shows that the recent decline in the share of US coal-fired electricity was due to the cyclical drop in natural gas prices, which has largely reversed (Figure 1). Longer-term production cost expectations for shale gas are closer to $6–$10/MBTU. In the absence of further policy, such as the currently-proposed emissions standards for new power plants, the shale revolution will be insufficient on its own to drive coal out of the US power fleet or decarbonise the US energy sector.
*Figure 1*. Coal-gas share in US electricity and natural gas prices for power generation
Source: US Energy Information Administration, 2013, Net Generation by Fuel Type, Natural Gas Electric Power Prices. http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/
Macroeconomic impacts of the unconventional oil and gas revolution
· Impact on productivity and GDP of lower gas prices
The impact of lower gas prices on US productivity can be broadly categorised into two parts: a) the income effect, resulting from the fact that the same economic good, gas, can now be produced more cheaply and so, if the same amount of gas is consumed as before, more income can be spent on other goods; b) substitution effects, resulting from the fact that changing gas prices may change the relative prices of other goods in which gas is an input and this may in turn have a range of knock-on consequences for productivity in other sectors.
A detailed microeconomic analysis suggests that the impact on GDP of these latter effects is likely to be negligibly small, affecting sectors representing only 1.2% of the US economy (see Figure 2). Assuming a persistent gap of -$4/MBTU to -$8/MBTU between US gas prices with shale compared to the no-shale scenario, we estimate a total income effect of around 0.575% of GDP on average between 2012 and 2040. This is a long-term increase in the level of GDP, not the growth rate. A multi-model comparison study by Stanford University came up with a similar figure for the long-term GDP impact of shale gas (0.46% of GDP) (Huntington 2013).
· Improvement in the US trade balance due to decreased oil imports
Increased production of oil and gas has lowered US imports. Since gas imports are small at the level of GDP, essentially this means that oil producer surplus is being transferred from non-US oil exporters to US oil producers and thereby into the US economy. Assuming a long-run marginal production cost of around $70–$80/barrel for light tight oil and a long-run oil price of $114/barrel, we estimate that the long-run GDP effects of reduced oil imports would be roughly equivalent to a 0.35% increase in the level of GDP in the period to 2040 relative to 2012 levels. This may be offset slightly, but not entirely, by a small increase in the exchange rate and other crowding-out effects in US capital and labour markets, but we ignore these effects. As with the point above, this is a long-term increase in the level of GDP, not the growth rate.
Combining the two calculations would lead to a change in the long-run level of GDP of 0.875% on average over the next two to three decades. As discussed further below, we do not see a significant positive impact on the US manufacturing deficit in aggregate.
· Stimulus effect due to the recessionary circumstances in which the unconventional oil and gas revolution took place.
The US economy was not and is not at full employment of labour and capital during the recent shale boom. We estimate the short-term stimulus of lower gas bills and increased investment, employment, and spending on intermediate inputs in the oil and gas sector at 0.13% of GDP and 0.48% of GDP, respectively.
** Impact on manufacturing competitiveness **
Figure 2 shows the share of gas as a feedstock and fuel in value added in gas-consuming manufacturing subsectors. This is compared with sectoral expenditure on employer-sponsored health insurance in order to give a point of comparison. Gas-intensive sectors make up a relatively small share of the US manufacturing sector, and only about 1.2% of US GDP. There is no evidence that the shale gas revolution will contribute to a ‘reindustrialisation’ in the US at the level of the manufacturing sector as a whole. Exports have increased in gas-intensive sectors, but only to a total of $23.6 billion in 2012 compared to a US manufacturing trade deficit of $779.4 billion (Figure 3). Coupled with other factors since 2007 which would tend to boost exports and reduce imports, including declines in the US real exchange rate during this time, and the effects of the recession on net imports, it is difficult to conclude that any evidence exists of a US manufacturing renaissance led by shale gas. This conclusion is similar to that reached in an IMF staff working paper which concluded that the benefits of cheaper gas are likely to be limited to the chemicals, primary metals, and paper and print sectors, and that, on average, a doubling of the US–G7 gas price gap was associated with only a 1.5% increasing in US manufacturing production (Celasun et al. 2014).
*Figure 2*. Gas and health care expenditures in the manufacturing sectors, 2010
Data: US Energy Information Administration, US Census Bureau.
*Figure 3*. US real trade balance by product type, millions of 2009 dollars
Data: US Energy Information Administration, US Census Bureau Foreign Trade Statistics.
** Conclusions: A revolution, not a panacea **
Our analysis suggests that commentators and policymakers need to better distinguish between the ways in which the US shale gas boom constitutes a ‘revolution’ and the ways in which it does not. The US unconventional energy boom has reversed the decline of domestic production, significantly lowered oil and gas imports, reduced gas costs for consumers, and created a political space for tougher regulations on coal-fired power plants. But it is not a panacea. Even if current estimates of production turn out to be accurate, the benefits to the US economy in the long run are relatively small, and the benefits to manufacturing competitiveness in most sectors are even smaller. In the longer term, US energy security and climate goals will still require a strong role for public policy frameworks. Improving energy efficiency and promoting low-carbon technologies will be just as important as before. For the EU, given its more limited known reserves of unconventional oil and gas, these conclusions are likely to be all the more relevant. Reported by Zero Hedge 3 hours ago.
The recent rapid growth in the production of unconventional oil and gas (shale gas and tight oil) in the US has led to a significant decrease of natural gas prices as well as reduced oil imports. This has raised questions about the impacts of the unconventional oil and gas revolution on the US macroeconomy, industrial competitiveness, and energy sector. It has also raised questions about its implications for the EU (e.g. Beffa and Cromme 2013). Given the considerable discussion about the impacts of shale, in a recently published study by the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI), we aimed to address these questions empirically (Spencer et al. 2014).
** Energy-sector impacts of unconventional oil and gas in the US **
Between 2005 and 2013, US production of natural gas increased by 33% from 18 to 24 trillion cubic feet per year. Most of this was due to production of shale gas, which increased from 0.75 to 8.5 trillion cubic feet (Gruenspecht 2013). Over the same period, US production of liquid fuels increased by 52%, and the contribution from tight oil increased from 0.29 million to 3.48 million barrels/day.
As a result, net oil imports have also fallen, from over 11 million barrels/day in 2007 to 8 million barrels/day in 2013. Less well known, however, is that this has occurred as much due to a broader drop-off in energy demand. Alongside greater domestic production, US energy consumption has been moderated by a combination of recession, new energy efficiency standards, and changed consumer behaviour – in particular in response to higher global oil prices and an ageing population. For example, in 2012, per capita energy use in the US actually fell by 5% versus 2011, despite economic growth in that year.
The conventional wisdom also holds that the US consumer has received a massive boost from lower energy prices resulting from the gas glut. In reality, the unconventional oil and gas revolution has actually had a quite uneven impact on consumer energy prices. Gas prices for residential consumers have fallen around 20% from their pre-2008 peak, while industrial and power-sector gas prices fell by about 50% from their 2008 peaks. Residential electricity prices have continued to rise, and industrial electricity prices have also risen – albeit at a lower rate. For households, however, the effects of the unconventional oil and gas revolution have been largely outweighed by continued rises in electricity and in particular gasoline prices (Table 1).
*Table 1*. Average household energy expenditure, 2005–2012
Data: US Census Bureau, 2012, Consumer Expenditure Survey.
** Outlook for the US energy sector **
It is likely that the US will become a net gas exporter around the end of this decade, subject to political approval of export infrastructure. This would lead to some narrowing of price gaps over time between US and regional gas prices. However, the range of scenarios assessed in the study suggest that the US will remain a significant importer of crude oil in coming decades. Policies to improve the efficiency of the transport sector will therefore be crucial for reducing US crude imports and costs to US motorists.
The scenarios examined do not suggest that the US shale revolution will lead to a significant emissions reductions from the US energy sector. Indeed, historical data shows that the recent decline in the share of US coal-fired electricity was due to the cyclical drop in natural gas prices, which has largely reversed (Figure 1). Longer-term production cost expectations for shale gas are closer to $6–$10/MBTU. In the absence of further policy, such as the currently-proposed emissions standards for new power plants, the shale revolution will be insufficient on its own to drive coal out of the US power fleet or decarbonise the US energy sector.
*Figure 1*. Coal-gas share in US electricity and natural gas prices for power generation
Source: US Energy Information Administration, 2013, Net Generation by Fuel Type, Natural Gas Electric Power Prices. http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/
Macroeconomic impacts of the unconventional oil and gas revolution
· Impact on productivity and GDP of lower gas prices
The impact of lower gas prices on US productivity can be broadly categorised into two parts: a) the income effect, resulting from the fact that the same economic good, gas, can now be produced more cheaply and so, if the same amount of gas is consumed as before, more income can be spent on other goods; b) substitution effects, resulting from the fact that changing gas prices may change the relative prices of other goods in which gas is an input and this may in turn have a range of knock-on consequences for productivity in other sectors.
A detailed microeconomic analysis suggests that the impact on GDP of these latter effects is likely to be negligibly small, affecting sectors representing only 1.2% of the US economy (see Figure 2). Assuming a persistent gap of -$4/MBTU to -$8/MBTU between US gas prices with shale compared to the no-shale scenario, we estimate a total income effect of around 0.575% of GDP on average between 2012 and 2040. This is a long-term increase in the level of GDP, not the growth rate. A multi-model comparison study by Stanford University came up with a similar figure for the long-term GDP impact of shale gas (0.46% of GDP) (Huntington 2013).
· Improvement in the US trade balance due to decreased oil imports
Increased production of oil and gas has lowered US imports. Since gas imports are small at the level of GDP, essentially this means that oil producer surplus is being transferred from non-US oil exporters to US oil producers and thereby into the US economy. Assuming a long-run marginal production cost of around $70–$80/barrel for light tight oil and a long-run oil price of $114/barrel, we estimate that the long-run GDP effects of reduced oil imports would be roughly equivalent to a 0.35% increase in the level of GDP in the period to 2040 relative to 2012 levels. This may be offset slightly, but not entirely, by a small increase in the exchange rate and other crowding-out effects in US capital and labour markets, but we ignore these effects. As with the point above, this is a long-term increase in the level of GDP, not the growth rate.
Combining the two calculations would lead to a change in the long-run level of GDP of 0.875% on average over the next two to three decades. As discussed further below, we do not see a significant positive impact on the US manufacturing deficit in aggregate.
· Stimulus effect due to the recessionary circumstances in which the unconventional oil and gas revolution took place.
The US economy was not and is not at full employment of labour and capital during the recent shale boom. We estimate the short-term stimulus of lower gas bills and increased investment, employment, and spending on intermediate inputs in the oil and gas sector at 0.13% of GDP and 0.48% of GDP, respectively.
** Impact on manufacturing competitiveness **
Figure 2 shows the share of gas as a feedstock and fuel in value added in gas-consuming manufacturing subsectors. This is compared with sectoral expenditure on employer-sponsored health insurance in order to give a point of comparison. Gas-intensive sectors make up a relatively small share of the US manufacturing sector, and only about 1.2% of US GDP. There is no evidence that the shale gas revolution will contribute to a ‘reindustrialisation’ in the US at the level of the manufacturing sector as a whole. Exports have increased in gas-intensive sectors, but only to a total of $23.6 billion in 2012 compared to a US manufacturing trade deficit of $779.4 billion (Figure 3). Coupled with other factors since 2007 which would tend to boost exports and reduce imports, including declines in the US real exchange rate during this time, and the effects of the recession on net imports, it is difficult to conclude that any evidence exists of a US manufacturing renaissance led by shale gas. This conclusion is similar to that reached in an IMF staff working paper which concluded that the benefits of cheaper gas are likely to be limited to the chemicals, primary metals, and paper and print sectors, and that, on average, a doubling of the US–G7 gas price gap was associated with only a 1.5% increasing in US manufacturing production (Celasun et al. 2014).
*Figure 2*. Gas and health care expenditures in the manufacturing sectors, 2010
Data: US Energy Information Administration, US Census Bureau.
*Figure 3*. US real trade balance by product type, millions of 2009 dollars
Data: US Energy Information Administration, US Census Bureau Foreign Trade Statistics.
** Conclusions: A revolution, not a panacea **
Our analysis suggests that commentators and policymakers need to better distinguish between the ways in which the US shale gas boom constitutes a ‘revolution’ and the ways in which it does not. The US unconventional energy boom has reversed the decline of domestic production, significantly lowered oil and gas imports, reduced gas costs for consumers, and created a political space for tougher regulations on coal-fired power plants. But it is not a panacea. Even if current estimates of production turn out to be accurate, the benefits to the US economy in the long run are relatively small, and the benefits to manufacturing competitiveness in most sectors are even smaller. In the longer term, US energy security and climate goals will still require a strong role for public policy frameworks. Improving energy efficiency and promoting low-carbon technologies will be just as important as before. For the EU, given its more limited known reserves of unconventional oil and gas, these conclusions are likely to be all the more relevant. Reported by Zero Hedge 3 hours ago.
↧
Got health insurance? March 31 deadline to sign up is here
Sign up for health insurance today? Or pay a tax penalty next year?
Reported by TwinCities.com 2 hours ago.
↧
Will ACA Late Surge Dismay GOP Fans?
By: Mark Green
*LISTEN HERE:*
Bob Shrum and Torie Clarke diagnose Obamacare on eve of April deadline. Growing from six enrollees on first day of website to nearly seven million, is this biggest comeback since Kentucky, down 31, beat LSU by two in 1994? Then, will regulation debate change after GM/Toyota lies cost lives?*On Obamacare's Report Card. *Why are policymakers still ferociously fighting over this law since it was duly enacted four years ago and constitutionally upheld?Torie blames the awful rollout of the website and the many White House tweaks to the law that "moved the goalposts." Bob agrees it was awful but argues that a) changes were to make the program work better, not to sabotage it and b) the problem now, given the number of enrollees is climbing toward the original estimate, is "that the GOP has a desire to see it fail and an animosity to Obama personally" that they can't let go of.Is David Corn's snarky tweet on the money: "GOP: We hate your program. How dare you delay it!"? Torie says the facts indicate that up to 90 percent of those enrolling already had (perhaps inadequate) health insurance. Hearing the word "facts", Bob counters: "The facts are that health care inflation is at its lowest level in decades and people can't be denied coverage by insurance companies when they get sick." Q.E.D...not to mention that the feared "death spiral" of too few young enrollees collapsing the program didn't materializeHow might this play out in the 2014 midterms? Torie thinks it'll hurt Democratic prospects because the law is unpopular, especially in swing states with vulnerable incumbents. Again, Bob disagrees -- once you understand that a chunk of those opposed say it didn't go far enough, polls show a 47-49 split. (Host: the debate so far, however, appears to be motivating more of the *'*14 whiter/older off-year Republican base than the Democratic base.) Bob adds that the GOP has no viable replacement and Democrats should hang tough and together. Urging that his party get off defense and get back on offense, the famous speechwriter and adman suggests a commercial, along the lines of: Stop Koch brother billionaires who want to go back to when you were one illness away from bankruptcy and insurance companies could deny you coverage because of pre-existing conditions.This week the Supreme Court heard the Hobby Lobby case: viz, should a for-profit corporation get out of the ACA's contraception requirement because its owners hold a literal interpretation of the Bible that won't allow IUDs or RU-486? That is, does life begin at incorporation & should faith trump law?Justice Clarke laments that the Courts have to parse such judgments, including whether reproductive rights are a "compelling interest" to overcome a religiously based belief under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. She correctly notes that Congress could have created a subsidy program providing contraception to poor women who couldn't afford it.Justice Shrum? A law graduate but not a practicing lawyer, Bob cites the Scalia opinion of 1990 which concludes that you can't allow religion to exempt itself from the law based on its own eccentric or unscientific claims. Couldn't this have justified anti-miscegenation laws in the 60s? What next, blood transfusions, as Justice Sotomayor wonders?Bob also predicts that if the law works, it'll cease to be an issue after 2016 and that'd take the steam out of the single-payer movement...but if it should fail, then supporters would be inspired to say, ok, let's go all the way to the most efficient system, medicare for-all or single-payer.Host: Those jurists who normally look to the intent of the Founders would have to admit that in this case they surely never thought that corporations had the right to practice religion, and no Supreme Court has ever so ruled. But who knows what one of the most right-wing Courts in our history, according the conservative jurist Richard Posner, might decide?Think about it: corporations are not natural beings but are created by state charters and given special privileges like limited liability and perpetual life in order to engage in public commerce. Now they want to keep those corporate privileges but also allow their human owners to escape their obligations under the law to impose their religious values on their employees. To permit such a radical view would mean that a corporate plaintiff with crazy ideas could get himself exempted from law if s/he truly believed them (eg, Branch Davidian's David Koresh).This is ideology posing as law. If the Roberts Court so ruled, it would be as discredited a decision as any since Plessy v. Ferguson ("separate but equal" is constitutional) and Citizens United (which used the metaphor that money-is-speech to allow billionaires to now sway a democracy based on political equality).We also hear from DeAnn Friedholm, the head of health care policy at Consumer Reports, about what that organization is doing to help enroll people. They have a website, healthlawhelper.org , that educates visitors how to use the law. DeAnn explains why the law will improve health outcomes for millions of people who previously were priced out of the system. She also urges people to sign up and avoid a one percent to 2.5 percent tax on their gross earnings under the individual mandate provision.*On Regulation Debate after GM/Toyota. *We listen to McConnell and Obama assert standard polar views on regulation generally - that it burdens business and costs jobs...versus it saves lives and money. How do these arguments sound this month when both GM and Toyota were caught lying to customers about defects and dangers?Bob thinks this a perfect example of why we need safety legislation since the marketplace often fails to inform consumers about hidden dangers. He repeats the idea of Senator Ed Markey that auto firms should now have to send copies of customer complaints to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to make sure that they are not ignoring safety concerns. Torie agrees that there has to be a balance in such laws but not at the expense of legitimate businesses.The GM/Toyota case pits the slogan "job-killing regulation" against the reality of "life saving regulation." Attacking "big government regulation" polemically resonates in a country founded on skepticism of bigness and embrace of individuality. But as one goes from spin to specificity, voters obviously want government making sure that their children aren't breathing air with mercury particulates or food with e coli bacteria. By failing to tell Cobalt car customers that defective ignition switches could lead to car engines shutting down, GM engaged in possibly criminal behavior that led to multiple avoidable deaths. Toyota too with stuck acceleratorsThe problem in law enforcement, however, is that those who call the shots don't bear the risks. Laissez isn't always fair.*Quick Takes: NSA and Ukraine. *The panel agrees that President Obama seems to have struck the right balance by proposing that the NSA no longer have the power to collect metadata from tens of millions but instead would need to prove "probable cause" to a FISA court in order to collect such information, which would be stored in private companies and not the government.Then, as 100,000 Russian troops were mobilizing on the Ukraine-Russian border (and on the day before Putin called Obama to discuss the possibility of a diplomatic settlement of differences), the Host asks Shrum and Clarke what they thought were the numerical odds that Putin would invade further into Eastern Ukraine, or into Western Ukraine, or even a Baltic State with some Russians-speakers. Bob said 10 percent/five percent/one percent. Torie, however, said it was 90 percent Putin would try to occupy the rest of the East and then the Western Ukraine. Big difference.The Host is closer to Shrum than Clarke. Yes Putin has made it clear that he is anguished at the dismemberment of the Soviet Union and offended by, in his view, US duplicity toward his homeland. And his current bold actions have greatly boosted his popularity at home and silenced the anti-Putin movement there, for now. But re-taking Crimea is one thing. Attacking the rest of the Ukraine, however, would surely lead to punishing economic sanctions, which in turn would produce both a long-lasting recession and possibly a Chechnya/Algerian-like insurgency. In Churchill's timeless phrase, time to jaw-jaw than war-war.
Mark Green is the creator and host of Both Sides Now.
You can follow him on Twitter @markjgreen
Send all comments to Bothsidesradio.com, where you can also listen to prior shows.
Both Sides Now is available
Sat. 5-6 PM EST From Lifestyle TalkRadio Network
& Sun. 8-9 AM EST from Business RadioTalk Network. Reported by Huffington Post 2 hours ago.
*LISTEN HERE:*
Bob Shrum and Torie Clarke diagnose Obamacare on eve of April deadline. Growing from six enrollees on first day of website to nearly seven million, is this biggest comeback since Kentucky, down 31, beat LSU by two in 1994? Then, will regulation debate change after GM/Toyota lies cost lives?*On Obamacare's Report Card. *Why are policymakers still ferociously fighting over this law since it was duly enacted four years ago and constitutionally upheld?Torie blames the awful rollout of the website and the many White House tweaks to the law that "moved the goalposts." Bob agrees it was awful but argues that a) changes were to make the program work better, not to sabotage it and b) the problem now, given the number of enrollees is climbing toward the original estimate, is "that the GOP has a desire to see it fail and an animosity to Obama personally" that they can't let go of.Is David Corn's snarky tweet on the money: "GOP: We hate your program. How dare you delay it!"? Torie says the facts indicate that up to 90 percent of those enrolling already had (perhaps inadequate) health insurance. Hearing the word "facts", Bob counters: "The facts are that health care inflation is at its lowest level in decades and people can't be denied coverage by insurance companies when they get sick." Q.E.D...not to mention that the feared "death spiral" of too few young enrollees collapsing the program didn't materializeHow might this play out in the 2014 midterms? Torie thinks it'll hurt Democratic prospects because the law is unpopular, especially in swing states with vulnerable incumbents. Again, Bob disagrees -- once you understand that a chunk of those opposed say it didn't go far enough, polls show a 47-49 split. (Host: the debate so far, however, appears to be motivating more of the *'*14 whiter/older off-year Republican base than the Democratic base.) Bob adds that the GOP has no viable replacement and Democrats should hang tough and together. Urging that his party get off defense and get back on offense, the famous speechwriter and adman suggests a commercial, along the lines of: Stop Koch brother billionaires who want to go back to when you were one illness away from bankruptcy and insurance companies could deny you coverage because of pre-existing conditions.This week the Supreme Court heard the Hobby Lobby case: viz, should a for-profit corporation get out of the ACA's contraception requirement because its owners hold a literal interpretation of the Bible that won't allow IUDs or RU-486? That is, does life begin at incorporation & should faith trump law?Justice Clarke laments that the Courts have to parse such judgments, including whether reproductive rights are a "compelling interest" to overcome a religiously based belief under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. She correctly notes that Congress could have created a subsidy program providing contraception to poor women who couldn't afford it.Justice Shrum? A law graduate but not a practicing lawyer, Bob cites the Scalia opinion of 1990 which concludes that you can't allow religion to exempt itself from the law based on its own eccentric or unscientific claims. Couldn't this have justified anti-miscegenation laws in the 60s? What next, blood transfusions, as Justice Sotomayor wonders?Bob also predicts that if the law works, it'll cease to be an issue after 2016 and that'd take the steam out of the single-payer movement...but if it should fail, then supporters would be inspired to say, ok, let's go all the way to the most efficient system, medicare for-all or single-payer.Host: Those jurists who normally look to the intent of the Founders would have to admit that in this case they surely never thought that corporations had the right to practice religion, and no Supreme Court has ever so ruled. But who knows what one of the most right-wing Courts in our history, according the conservative jurist Richard Posner, might decide?Think about it: corporations are not natural beings but are created by state charters and given special privileges like limited liability and perpetual life in order to engage in public commerce. Now they want to keep those corporate privileges but also allow their human owners to escape their obligations under the law to impose their religious values on their employees. To permit such a radical view would mean that a corporate plaintiff with crazy ideas could get himself exempted from law if s/he truly believed them (eg, Branch Davidian's David Koresh).This is ideology posing as law. If the Roberts Court so ruled, it would be as discredited a decision as any since Plessy v. Ferguson ("separate but equal" is constitutional) and Citizens United (which used the metaphor that money-is-speech to allow billionaires to now sway a democracy based on political equality).We also hear from DeAnn Friedholm, the head of health care policy at Consumer Reports, about what that organization is doing to help enroll people. They have a website, healthlawhelper.org , that educates visitors how to use the law. DeAnn explains why the law will improve health outcomes for millions of people who previously were priced out of the system. She also urges people to sign up and avoid a one percent to 2.5 percent tax on their gross earnings under the individual mandate provision.*On Regulation Debate after GM/Toyota. *We listen to McConnell and Obama assert standard polar views on regulation generally - that it burdens business and costs jobs...versus it saves lives and money. How do these arguments sound this month when both GM and Toyota were caught lying to customers about defects and dangers?Bob thinks this a perfect example of why we need safety legislation since the marketplace often fails to inform consumers about hidden dangers. He repeats the idea of Senator Ed Markey that auto firms should now have to send copies of customer complaints to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to make sure that they are not ignoring safety concerns. Torie agrees that there has to be a balance in such laws but not at the expense of legitimate businesses.The GM/Toyota case pits the slogan "job-killing regulation" against the reality of "life saving regulation." Attacking "big government regulation" polemically resonates in a country founded on skepticism of bigness and embrace of individuality. But as one goes from spin to specificity, voters obviously want government making sure that their children aren't breathing air with mercury particulates or food with e coli bacteria. By failing to tell Cobalt car customers that defective ignition switches could lead to car engines shutting down, GM engaged in possibly criminal behavior that led to multiple avoidable deaths. Toyota too with stuck acceleratorsThe problem in law enforcement, however, is that those who call the shots don't bear the risks. Laissez isn't always fair.*Quick Takes: NSA and Ukraine. *The panel agrees that President Obama seems to have struck the right balance by proposing that the NSA no longer have the power to collect metadata from tens of millions but instead would need to prove "probable cause" to a FISA court in order to collect such information, which would be stored in private companies and not the government.Then, as 100,000 Russian troops were mobilizing on the Ukraine-Russian border (and on the day before Putin called Obama to discuss the possibility of a diplomatic settlement of differences), the Host asks Shrum and Clarke what they thought were the numerical odds that Putin would invade further into Eastern Ukraine, or into Western Ukraine, or even a Baltic State with some Russians-speakers. Bob said 10 percent/five percent/one percent. Torie, however, said it was 90 percent Putin would try to occupy the rest of the East and then the Western Ukraine. Big difference.The Host is closer to Shrum than Clarke. Yes Putin has made it clear that he is anguished at the dismemberment of the Soviet Union and offended by, in his view, US duplicity toward his homeland. And his current bold actions have greatly boosted his popularity at home and silenced the anti-Putin movement there, for now. But re-taking Crimea is one thing. Attacking the rest of the Ukraine, however, would surely lead to punishing economic sanctions, which in turn would produce both a long-lasting recession and possibly a Chechnya/Algerian-like insurgency. In Churchill's timeless phrase, time to jaw-jaw than war-war.
Mark Green is the creator and host of Both Sides Now.
You can follow him on Twitter @markjgreen
Send all comments to Bothsidesradio.com, where you can also listen to prior shows.
Both Sides Now is available
Sat. 5-6 PM EST From Lifestyle TalkRadio Network
& Sun. 8-9 AM EST from Business RadioTalk Network. Reported by Huffington Post 2 hours ago.
↧
↧
Rural health care costs rise
— Bill Fales wanted a new baler and a better irrigation system for the 700-acre ranch where he raises grass-fed beef cattle, but he scrapped those plans when he saw his new health insurance premiums.
Reported by detnews.com 43 minutes ago.
↧
Monday is last day to sign up for health insurance
Monday is the last day to sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.
Reported by Miami Herald 14 minutes ago.
↧
Zane Benefits Publishes New Information on Paying Employees to Get Their Own Health Insurance
Can employers pay employees to get their own health insurance?
Park City, UT (PRWEB) March 31, 2014
Today, Zane Benefits, the #1 Online Health Benefits Solution, published new information on paying employees to get their own health insurance.
According to Zane Benefits’ website, many small business owners are asking: "Can I pay my employees to get their own health insurance?" That's because most small businesses want to offer health insurance, but struggle to afford traditional group health insurance.
In fact, cost is the number one reason why more than 50% of small businesses in the U.S. do not offer traditional group health insurance. That's over 2.3 million small businesses that don't offer group health insurance.
The Affordable Care Act (aka "ObamaCare") creates new opportunities. Small businesses (
Click here to read the full article.
--
About Zane Benefits
Zane Benefits, the #1 Online Health Benefits Solution, was founded in 2006 to revolutionize the way employers provide employee health benefits in America. We empower employees to take control over their own healthcare, while helping employers recruit and retain the best talent. Our online solutions allow small and medium-sized businesses to successfully transition to a health benefits program that creates happier employees, reduces costs and frees up more time to serve their customers. For more information about ZaneHealth, visit http://www.zanebenefits.com. Reported by PRWeb 4 hours ago.
Park City, UT (PRWEB) March 31, 2014
Today, Zane Benefits, the #1 Online Health Benefits Solution, published new information on paying employees to get their own health insurance.
According to Zane Benefits’ website, many small business owners are asking: "Can I pay my employees to get their own health insurance?" That's because most small businesses want to offer health insurance, but struggle to afford traditional group health insurance.
In fact, cost is the number one reason why more than 50% of small businesses in the U.S. do not offer traditional group health insurance. That's over 2.3 million small businesses that don't offer group health insurance.
The Affordable Care Act (aka "ObamaCare") creates new opportunities. Small businesses (
Click here to read the full article.
--
About Zane Benefits
Zane Benefits, the #1 Online Health Benefits Solution, was founded in 2006 to revolutionize the way employers provide employee health benefits in America. We empower employees to take control over their own healthcare, while helping employers recruit and retain the best talent. Our online solutions allow small and medium-sized businesses to successfully transition to a health benefits program that creates happier employees, reduces costs and frees up more time to serve their customers. For more information about ZaneHealth, visit http://www.zanebenefits.com. Reported by PRWeb 4 hours ago.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
