Local Indiana insurance agency is proud to unveil its new branding strategy with a website that offers dynamic personal and business insurance services for clients in the community.

Schererville, IN (PRWEB) May 16, 2014

With office headquarters in Schererville, IN, Midwest Insurance Center has been steadily focused on bringing clients the best possible insurance solutions and providing a unique and personalized brand of customer service for nearly 50 years. With the commitment to provide clients secure protection for the future—not just sell them insurance—the agency has long built relationships with clients interested in finding tailored solutions for their families and businesses. As such, the agency is very excited to share its innovative, modernized digital marketing campaign. For an agency built on relationships with its clients and community, this is a natural step to partnering with them in providing exactly the products and services needed.

The agency’s new branding campaign is paired with a unique and user-friendly new website, http://www.midwestic.com/, a Virtual Insurance Office (“VIO”) designed to enhance the online insurance shopping experience. Working to remain innovative and strategic as times and technology change, Midwest Insurance Center anticipates this new online effort will not only maintain but further enhance the personalized attention and detail-oriented service offered to its clients.

Midwest Insurance Center hopes to make the insurance shopping experience more customer-service-centered, educational, and easy-to-use with its new VIO. Whether searching for personal insurance options such as auto insurance or health insurance, or varying types of business insurance, the new site helps consumers identify their exact needs and find specialized solutions in a more hands-on way than ever before. Additionally, the interactive approach on the VIO ensures the client gains an even better understanding of the insurance products that Midwest Insurance Center offers. With this new campaign, the agency is more eager to partner with clients than ever before.

In order to make these strategic branding changes possible, Midwest Insurance Center has partnered with Astonish, a digital marketing, technology, and insurance sales training company that specializes in modernizing the ways in which the independent insurance industry does business with its clients. The Astonish campaign is intended to help Midwest Insurance Center find and keep prospective clients as partner, while continuing to broaden the agency’s reach across Indiana.

Dedicated to providing exceptional service in helping clients meet their personal and business insurance goals, Midwest Insurance Center is ready to support those they partner with to find the exact solutions they need. Clients looking to find affordable and comprehensive insurance solutions can reach out to the friendly and knowledgeable staff in a few different ways: on the new website through an easy-to-submit quote form, by calling 800-568-8672, or by stopping by the office in Schererville.

Midwest Insurance Center is excited for the launch of its strategic digital marketing approach and the branding strategy highlighted on its Virtual Insurance Office. The agency hopes that, through the VIO, an increased sense of service and partnership will emerge in bringing their clients dynamic solutions from one of the top insurance leaders in the Indiana community.

About Midwest Insurance Center:
Throughout Chicagoland and Northwest Indiana, Midwest Insurance Center has provided exceptional products and services for all of their clients’ personal and business insurance needs. Built on personalized customer service, diverse coverage options, and a commitment to caring, Midwest Insurance Center partners with each and every client to find the right solutions for the future. Whether clients are individuals looking for health, life, or home insurance, or they are businesses seeking general liability coverage, workers’ compensation packages, or commercial auto insurance, they can expect to receive personal attention, expert understanding, and specialized partnership in choosing the most fitting plans for their situations. Midwest Insurance Center doesn’t just sell policies, but is committed to helping their clients grow with them. Reported by PRWeb 17 hours ago.

Woman With Massive Tumor Turned Down By Four Different Hospitals Because She Didn't Have Insurance (Video)
Woman With Huge Tumor Told She Can't Get Surgery Because She Doesn't Have Insurance (Video)
Woman With Massive Tumor Turned Down By Four Different Hospitals Because She Didn't Have Insurance (Video)
Headlines
Health
Lifestyle
Nation
Has Been Optimized

A 59-year-old Georgia woman with a massive tumor growing inside of her says that four different hospitals have turned her down for surgery because she doesn’t have insurance or the money to pay for it on her own.

Doris Lewis says that after her husband died a few years back, she lost her health insurance. She didn’t feel that it was necessary to get it back at that moment, however, because her health was seemingly fine. As soon as she found out she had a massive tumor growing inside of her, though, the lack of insurance presented a big problem.

“It's getting bigger every day,” said Lewis. “I can feel it on my body. My heart hurts a little bit. I didn't know it was a tumor in there. I thought I was just gaining weight at first. Some of the guys [doctors] looked at me and said, 'You got a tumor in there. That is so big. Bout to pop.’”

The tumor is reportedly benign and is wrapped around her ovaries, but the way it has grown makes the 59-year-old look as though she is pregnant. Lewis says she has attempted to have various surgeons remove it, but she has been turned away for lack of insurance.

“I've been trying to get insurance for the longest but had no success,” said Lewis.

Her family members have expressed concern over the size of the mass and Lewis’s overall health.

“I don't know how long that she has to be able to live with this thing in her,” said Sarina Lewis, Doris’s daughter.

Finally, after a long time spent dealing with intense pain and very little help, Lewis has gotten the response she’s been hoping for. She wound up in the emergency room one night recently because the tumor was causing so much pain, and finally, a doctor told her he would treat her regardless of whether or not she could pay for it.

“He said, ‘You will see a doctor without money,’” said Lewis, who now has a surgery scheduled for early June. 

1
Video Piece: 
Video Piece (This piece contains embedded video content) Reported by Opposing Views 14 hours ago.

This week, health advocates and activists working to end sexual violence join in solidarity to raise awareness about the serious impact of sexual assault on women's health, as part of National Women's Health Week. In reflecting on this important intersection of issues, and as a survivor of sexual violence myself, I am reminded of the profound impact of sexual assault on our society, and the ways in which this impact is disproportionately borne by particular communities. Not because sexual violence is a problem that only lives in certain communities, but because people who are already marginalized often have the fewest tools and resources to allow for healing and resiliency. This includes immigrant women, many of whom are relegated by our failed immigration policies to living in shadows and silence.In general, sexual assault is a vastly underreported crime, and data regarding immigrant women's experiences is virtually nonexistent. However, their stories speak louder than statistics. Legal and social service providers affirm that sexual assault is a prevalent reality along the U.S.-Mexico border. It's so frequent that immigrant women often expect it as an inevitability of the journey. In fact, some immigrant women and girls report starting contraceptive methods before migrating specifically to prepare for the possibility of rape.The heightened risk of sexual assault doesn't stop at the border. For those who are apprehended and detained in immigration detention centers, sexual assault remains an all-too-common threat. According to a Human Rights Watch report, over 200 cases of sexual assault were reported in detention facilities between 2009 and 2011. As sexual assault is a severely underreported crime, we can assume that the number of assaults is actually much higher. Additionally, the report found that invasive strip searches without consent are common, as are the presence of guards during private medical examinations. These practices doubtless leave detainees feeling violated and re-traumatized.Beyond the walls of detention centers, immigrant women living without status remain particularly vulnerable to interpersonal violence and abuse, as abusers may exploit immigration status or silence survivors with threats of deportation.Whether in the immediate aftermath of sexual assault, or even years later, surviving sexual assault often leads to the need for sexual and reproductive, as well as mental and other health services. As a former rape crisis counselor, and survivor, I know how important and empowering it is for survivors to have options. Those options should always include (but not be limited to) STI and HIV screening, prophylaxis, and treatment, pregnancy testing, contraceptive services and counseling, abortion services and counseling, mental health screening and treatment, pre-natal and pregnancy related care, and other care necessary for the physical, mental, and spiritual well-being and healing of survivors. When access to this needed health care is blocked by high costs, discriminatory refusals by providers, or harmful and restrictive policies, survivors and our families suffer.The experiences of sexual assault survivors can provide a lens through which to examine the cracks in our nation's flawed healthcare system and immigration policies and practices. We all need access to quality and affordable healthcare in order to be strong and resilient -- though immigrant women are largely locked out of opportunities to obtain health care and coverage. The systematic barriers to achieve good health affect us all; however, the harm is often magnified for sexual assault survivors who seek health treatment and services under incredibly difficult circumstances.Across the country, Latina immigrants' health is severely compromised under our current healthcare system. U.S. healthcare policies exclude immigrants from participating in the healthcare system their tax dollars already support. These restrictions on immigrant access to healthcare, in addition to lack of access to employer-sponsored coverage, mean that Latinas have the highest uninsured rate of any race or ethnic group, which impacts their ability to access quality and affordable healthcare options. For many Latina immigrants the only option for healthcare services is through women's health clinics that don't require insurance or proof of immigration status. However, state-level anti-choice policies have closed many clinics, leaving our Latina sisters without healthcare options.Fortunately, we're working to dismantle these barriers so that all people who need health care services, including sexual assault survivors, will be able to access this care. At the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (NLIRH) -- the only national reproductive justice organization dedicated to building Latina power to advance health, dignity, and justice for the 26 million Latinas, their families, and communities -- we fight for access to quality and affordable healthcare for all Latinas, our families, and our communities. Over the years, we've worked to ensure that emergency contraception is available over the counter, expand health insurance coverage, and improve the healthcare standards in detention centers.Right now, we're working closely with Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM-01) and dozens of allies to advance HR 4240 -- the Health Equity and Access under the Law (HEAL) for Immigrant Women and Families Act. This bill would remove political interference and restore coverage so that immigrants can participate in the healthcare programs their tax dollars already support. Additionally, we continue to work to improve the healthcare standards in detention centers, and to reduce the harms of detention and deportation overall. Part of this is to ensure that abortion services are made more accessible and affordable for people in detention that need them.There are many factors that affect a woman's health and wellbeing after a sexual assault. Immigrant Latinas often experience additional barriers to good health after a sexual assault, including their immigration status, geography, and income. It's time to extend our collective efforts against sexual assault to include our immigrant sisters, so that salud, dignidad, y justicia (health, dignity and justice) can be a reality for all.This post is part of a series produced by The Huffington Post in conjunction with National Women's Health Week, May 11-17. Read all posts in the series here. To learn more, please visit WomensHealth.gov. Reported by Huffington Post 12 hours ago.

Note: This post is part two of a piece about criticisms of NAFTA and the need for more comprehensive cooperative policies between the U.S. and Mexico

In the first post of this series, I described that many objections to NAFTA actually object to issues that NAFTA does not address. While some tout free trade as the evil face of neoliberalism, it in fact is not the demon it is made out to be by some, but rather a mixed bag. It is neither a silver bullet nor a catastrophe. In her book, Two Nations Indivisible: Mexico, the United States and the Road Ahead, Shannon O'Neil, Senior Fellow on Latin America at the Council on Foreign Relations points out that "economic liberalization alone can't be the engine for growth."

The knee-jerk reaction to blame NAFTA for any problems related to the U.S. or Mexico reveals the need for a deeper collaboration between the two countries to facilitate more comprehensive policies that will benefit both sides of the border.

*We Need Policies That Address Social Inclusion*

Social inclusion in both Mexico and the United States presents a huge challenge. Mexico is the second most unequal country in Latin America, but the United States isn't too low on the list either. In the past 25 years, Mexico has made great strides in increasing per-capita income from a little over $6,000 in 1990 to over $15,000 in 2011, largely through expanding social programs that provide health insurance to low income families and subsidizes low-income families to keep their children in school. But inequality remains high in Mexico and is on the rise in the U.S.

"North American partners need to develop the relationship into the labor movement," former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo said at the launch, "NAFTA After 20 and in 20" last week in a panel alongside Mack McClarty, who was Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff.

U.S. policies should support programs that improve social mobility and access to markets for Mexican workers and entrepreneurs, which would benefit them more than increased border control. Thanks to NAFTA, our commodities chain is inextricably tied. An expanded relationship between Mexico and the U.S. that goes beyond the production belt would measure for quality of life as well as profits between the two countries.

Despitea 400 percent growth in trade between Mexico, the U.S. and Canada, it is not enough to hope that policies that are good for business will trickle down to help the people who are shunted out of the system. Thus we must address social mobility, poverty and workers rights in both countries, improving institutions domestically in Mexico in the judicial and education sectors as well as in the police force.

This is all easy enough to say, but social inclusion needs to be put into terms that policymakers and business leaders see as strategically viable -- and in way that benefits everyone, not just a select few.

*We Need to Work Together to Address Immigration Reform*

Of course, no other factor affects the U.S.-Mexico relationship more than immigration reform. During the past two administrations, border protection expenditures have increased 500 percent, while almost no work has been done to improve border infrastructure. O'Neil asserts that this exorbitant effort has weeded out more innocuous border crossings and forced the creation of more sophisticated, sinister (often cartel-related) means to cross the border. This new style of migration not only pads crime networks, but makes it harder for undocumented immigrants to return home or reunite with their families.

The policy of opening trade but hardening the border is hypocritical, counterproductive, and an egregious waste of taxpayer's money. O'Neil writes, "Over the last three decades the U.S. government wrongfully presumed that it could open up goods and capital markets with its southern neighbor while closing off the movement of labor... Today's dysfunctional system leaves the United States and Mexico less able to manage the flows in ways that would be beneficial to both." At the launch, Ernesto Zedillo called the system "absurd."

Any effective policy will require labor input from both sides. Because of NAFTA, there are multiple border crossing during the production process, and thus, many Mexican and U.S. hands working on the same products. Our economies are inextricably linked. And yet our immigration policy sends the message that we want nothing to do with Mexican citizens. Only 40% of Americans view Mexico positively. The culture of ignorance, stereotype and fear that pervades U.S. media about Mexico and Mexicans certainly doesn't help us reach any kind of diplomatic, bilateral policy that would benefit both sides of the border.

*We Need Policies That Will Target the Drug Trade*

The hardening of the border and the growth of drug cartels are not exactly strangers. A recent New Yorker article about the capture of El Chapo, Mexico's most notorious drug lord cites that the Sinaloa cartel alone has built over 900 tunnels under the border that move operations literally underground. These organizations have begun to employ techniques that are nearly impossible to track and even harder to curtail.

The drug trade threatens the strengthening of Mexico's institutions, as the endless amounts of money that Mexican cartels can make (on majority U.S. drug users) exert far more power - and sometimes even render more effective social services -- than Mexico's emerging democracy. The U.S. can't pretend this isn't their problem, too. The insatiable U.S. demand for these black market goods - which are expanding from drugs into other sectors too -- is the impetus that give cartels the means to endlessly accrue power, creating Mexico's biggest roadblock to ever reaching a stable democracy.

Drug decriminalization has a long way to go, but it is in U.S. interest to recognize that many policy reforms important to the U.S. are also important to Mexico and vice-versa -- and this goes way beyond free trade. Zedillo puts it plainly. "What we do today is extremely stupid. We enrich the problem." He believes that the only realistic way to "change the terms of the debate" is to undermine the black market. Shannon O'Neil compellingly argues the same, saying that U.S. drug policy follows Albert Einstein's definition of insanity: trying the same strategy over and over, and expecting different results.

*NAFTA and Beyond:*

For naysayers of international free trade, the trend of prioritizing economic opening over social inclusion is an unfortunate but historically consistent status quo. The retrospective look that many organizations have taken at NAFTA in light of its twentieth anniversary are hopeful in that they set the stage for many reforms that strive to expand global trade treaties towards implementing environmental and employee standards.

Globalization, encouraged by free trade, has made the viral, international nature of movements like The 99% possible, demonstrating that the people want a transparent democracy that treats people as people, not corporations. Trade agreements like NAFTA must have working systems in place that make room for collective bargaining and enhance democracy by giving voice to the people rather than deferring to the wielding power of billion-dollar corporations. The Trans-Pacific Partnership could have that potential, but its outlook is already concerning. Most negotiations thus far have taken place at closed-door meetings between its players' most wealthy.

What NAFTA did prove, according to McClarty, is that it is possible to negotiate a bipartisan, multinational agreement even in a divided government. We must try to strategize in a similar way to pass much-needed reforms in sectors other than business in order to negotiate effective immigration and drug policy reform that will benefit both Mexico and the U.S.

The symbiotic relationship between Mexico and the U.S. demands a better understanding of the general public interest of both countries. The U.S. needs to support not only economic agreements but also agreements that are beneficial to the public, international good. Changing the discussion on drug policy and immigration reform would be a good first step. Reported by Huffington Post 12 hours ago.

Headlines trumpeted the news: "Co-habitation doesn't cause divorce!" (Live Science) "Best predictor of divorce? Age when couples cohabit" (Christian Science Monitor) "Call your dad: Living Together Before Marriage Does Not Lead to Divorce" (Slate).

All three statements are true for the one-third of younger Americans who have a bachelor's degree from college. And for the other two-thirds? The consequences of living together are more complicated, at best.

What captured media attention were several articles released by the Council on Contemporary Families, a nonpartisan organization of family researchers. One of those researchers was Arielle Kuperberg, assistant professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina-Greensboro. In the April issue of Journal of Marriage and Family, Kuperberg concluded that live-in relationships stand a good chance of lasting if the young people are at least 23 when they move in together. By that age, she writes, they should be able to identify compatibility and conduct themselves appropriately.

"The biggest predictor of divorce is the age at which a couple starts living together, not whether they are married of whether they live together," she says.

Brad Wilcox, a sociologist at the University of Virginia, says age and compatibility alone are not enough. Another factor, he says, is whether the partners have jobs that provide adequate financial support. Still another -- and perhaps the most important -- is whether both partners are 4-year college graduates.

"Most college kids will co-habit, get married and not get divorced," says Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project, a research organization based at the University of Virginia. But, he notes, about two out of three younger Americans do not have degrees at the bachelor's level or higher.

Why would lesser-educated couples have a harder time making their relationships last? Sharon Sassler, a professor of policy analysis at Cornell University, sheds some light on this in a forthcoming book on cohabitation. Young adults tend to move in together within six months of starting their relationships -- more quickly than college graduates. Many do this in part because it's cheaper to support one household rather than two. And indeed, saving on rent may make a positive difference in a relationship.

However, if personal characteristics such as honesty and trust -- arguably as important to relationships as income -- aren't already well established, these couples have less chance of surviving the inevitable rocky times, says Wilcox. They are more likely to split up before getting married, and if they marry, more likely to divorce. That's especially true if they have children they weren't planning for, which many do.

Completing a bachelor's degree in college makes a big difference in the timing of having children. In 2010, 12 percent of unmarried women in their 20's who had graduated from college gave birth to their first child, according to U.S. Census data. In that same year, the proportion was a staggering 52 percent for unmarried, 20-something women with only a high school diploma or some college.

College-educated women are more successful at postponing childbirth for several reasons. The most important, perhaps, is that having a B.A. or B.S encourages and enables them to seek decent-paying employment first. Also, they are more likely to know about, and be able to pay for, the relatively new, vastly improved methods of long-acting, reversible contraception.

(Note to Hobby Lobby and other employers fighting in court to deny insurance coverage of several methods of contraception covered by Obamacare: This is a strong argument for making all contraception affordable and easily available to your employees, unmarried as well as married. Not to do so, when your policies cover highly effective remedies for other medical conditions, is not only unfair to female employees but short-sighted in terms of morale, quality of employee hires, longevity and productivity.)

Research by Evelyn Lehrer, economics professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago, came to a conclusion similar to Kuperburg's regarding relationships and age. Every year a woman delays marriage and completes additional years of education, right up until her early 30s, decreases her chance of divorce, she found.

Delaying marriage allows couples to discuss issues which, though common to some couples in previous generations, are more frequent today and call for a couple to take their time before getting married. How will partners share their paychecks? Divide household chores? Do they want children? If they do, when should they have kids and who will take care of them? How will they keep their independence as individuals?

It takes time to negotiate all that successfully, says Jennifer Drake Fantroy. Fantroy and her husband, Justin Fantroy, recently moved from the Washington, D.C. area to St. Louis. "Justin and I were together for a long time, even before we officially moved in together," says Jennifer Fantroy, now the assistant director for the Sue Shear Institute for Women in Public Life. "Before we made it to the 'my toothbrush is here but this is not my address' stage we had a talk about our expectations. I think we were sort of traditional in that sense."

They lived together for four years before getting married two and a half years ago. She was 28, Justin Fantroy, 29. "We never pressured ourselves to get married simply because we had been together for a long time," she says. "While we took cohabiting seriously, we also knew that there was another level of commitment that we both aspired to and hadn't yet reached. For both of us, marriage was an outward signal that this is it."

The idea of having children helped propel them to marry. Not because they felt they should be married to have a child, but because they believed marriage would enable them to provide a more stable, secure family for a child. "We needed health insurance, a clean, safe, place to live, and a job that provided paid leave after I had the baby," she says.

She continues, "We were grateful for our time living together, because it made the transition to marriage a little easier. I can't imagine getting married to someone, and then having to get used to being with them all the time. With Justin, I felt like, I already know that you're going to leave your socks everywhere, and that the cabinet doors will be open every time you leave the kitchen. I can focus on being your next of kin." Reported by Huffington Post 12 hours ago.

Sarah has a healthcare concern: Can her employer drop coverage for her and her colleagues and force them into Obamacare? It's a valid worry. The health insurance marketplace is changing as a result of the Affordable Care Act, and some businesses may find it more attractive to get out of the... Reported by L.A. Times 12 hours ago.

Mandeville City Council members elected in the future would no longer be able to participate in the city's health insurance plan under an ordinance scheduled to go before the council next week. Councilman David Ellis drafted the ordinance, which beginning... Reported by nola.com 11 hours ago.

Indiana's Republican Gov. Mike Pence is stoking talk of a White House bid in 2016, with increasing trips out of state and the high-profile rollout of a health insurance plan he is calling an alternative to Medicaid. Reported by SignonSanDiego 9 hours ago.

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Indiana's Republican Gov. Mike Pence is stoking talk of a White House bid in 2016, with increasing trips out of state and the high-profile rollout of a health insurance plan he is calling an alternative to Medicaid.

Pence has been saying for months that he is "listening" to national conservatives interested in seeing him make a presidential bid. Meanwhile, he has been out meeting with influential Republicans and conservatives.

He opened the week mingling with potential donors in New York City, speaking at "The New York Meeting," an annual gathering of conservative-thought leaders organized by Mallory Factor. Factor, an independent banker and political pundit, built his name in the last decade connecting Republicans with high-dollar donors.

And the governor will be in Washington at the start of next week, pitching his proposal to expand health insurance coverage for low-income Indiana residents at the American Enterprise Institute, an influential conservative think tank.

But he has been demur about his ambitions. When asked at Factor's New York talk if he would run for the White House, Pence ducked the question — as he has many times in the past few years.

"Any time I'm mentioned or talked to about the highest office in the land is deeply humbling, deeply humbling to me and my family, but my focus is Indiana," he said.

The governor's work for Indiana occasionally raises national and even international questions. Earlier this month, Pence used an economic trade mission to Germany to take an odd step for a sitting governor and criticized President Barack Obama's handling of the situation in Ukraine. He also called for the resumed construction of a European missile defense shield. His staff explained his interest in foreign policy by citing his extensive service on the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs while serving in Congress.

The fundraising activity comes amid a flurry of Republican Party appearances for Pence. He headlined the Wisconsin Republican Party's annual convention earlier this month and is scheduled to speak at the Alabama Republican Party's convention next month.

Decisions are still a long way off for any would-be contender. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continues to dominate a speculative field for Democrats, while the Republican field is well-populated with possibilities, from establishment favorites including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to tea party fighters like U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.

That means Pence would enter the race amid a long list of viable Republicans, but he could find a way to victory if the field stayed wide open and clear of a front-runner, said Darrell West, vice president and director of Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based think tank.

"He's testing the waters," West said. "He would be on a long short-list. He's not at the very top of the list, but the top of the list doesn't look so strong at this point."

If he decided to enter the race, Pence would come in with a strong fundraising network built from his time in Washington and Republican moneymen in Indiana who helped try to entice former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels to run in 2012. Pence's name was thrown in the mix for the 2012 race as well, but he opted against a run at that point, as many observers pointed out his strong legislative resume, but lack of executive experience. Reported by Huffington Post 9 hours ago.

Compliance standards exist to provide a baseline for customer privacy and data protection. Regulatory requirements like SOX, HIPAA, and PCI-DSS are the rules that ensure companies are doing what it takes to guard sensitive information from unauthorized access. Businesses face legal and financial consequences for non-compliance, but perhaps the biggest risk of being out of compliance is loss of customer confidence – a major problem for any business’ bottom line.

Not all companies fall under all regulatory requirements. SOX (Sarbanes Oxley) only applies to publicly-traded companies, while HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) only affects businesses that deal with personal health information. However, almost every business must comply with the requirements of PCI-DSS (Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard)—rules put together by the credit card providers to govern data protection. PCI-DSS applies to any business that accepts, transmits, or stores credit card data – virtually every business that takes payments.

To read this article in full or to leave a comment, please click here Reported by PC World 9 hours ago.

Lying to the federal health insurance man could cost you dearly. Reported by Miami Herald 9 hours ago.

Karl Rove successfully manipulated the entire news media this week, so we are going to play along today. Rove's specialty is to take what could be considered a reasonable idea, and then twist it beyond recognition while dragging it through the swampiest mud he can dream up. Well, that's admittedly a terrible (and mixed) metaphor, but I think you get the general idea.

This week, Rove spoke out about the non-controversial idea: "Hillary Clinton will likely face scrutiny on her age and health if she runs for president" -- which is true, and would be true for anyone of her age and medical history. The problem was, ol' Karl decided to take a detour through the looney bin. Speaking of what Republicans used to deride as her "Benghazi flu" (the fall Hillary Clinton suffered which put her in the hospital for three days), Rove insinuated:



Thirty days in the hospital? And when she reappears, she's wearing glasses that are only for people who have traumatic brain injury? We need to know what's up with that.



Classic Rove, really. Later, he insisted that he never said anything like "Hillary Clinton is brain damaged," which only served to fuel the fires by causing everyone else to start using the term. Karl is a virtuoso at this sort of thing, and he largely succeeded in his real goal.

But we have noticed a lack, in the media, of a reference which really should be quite obvious. And so we aim to rectify this omission, by surrounding our introductory news blurbs this week with the lyrics from the Pink Floyd song "Brain Damage," the penultimate song on their masterpiece album Dark Side Of The Moon. Enjoy!



*The lunatic is on the grass
The lunatic is on the grass
Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs
Got to keep the loonies on the path*



While Democrats have mostly been disappointed in their eagerness to see Tea Party lunatics win Republican nominations for high office in the primaries this year, California may buck the trend. Tim Donnelly, leading the polls for the Republican side of the governor's race so far, may provide some amusement if he wins the chance to lose massively to the popular Democratic governor this November. Jerry Brown's re-election to a record-breaking fourth term leading the Golden State is not in jeopardy at all, rest assured. So why not have the Republican candidate be a guy who founded a "Minuteman" vigilante border-protection group, compares Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler and Kim Jong Il, voted against a bill to ban state-run stores from selling Confederate flag items, and is currently on probation for bringing a loaded gun into an airport in his briefcase? His better-funded Republican foe seems to recognize the danger, and has launched a new ad with Donnelly's face pasted over the old anti-John Kerry "windsurfing/flip-flop" ad. So it looks like there'll be plenty of lunacy to watch, at least until the June primary!

Or, if that's not enough for you, you can check out the gubernatorial debate among Idaho Republicans, which may indeed qualify for the looniest film clips of the entire election cycle. In addition to the two "normal" candidates, we also have on the stage a biker and a religious extremist, both seemingly right out of central casting ("Send over two random lunatics to spice up the debate, will you?"). The whole video can be seen on the Idaho Public Television site, in all its loony-tunes splendor.



*The lunatic is in the hall
The lunatics are in my hall
The paper holds their folded faces to the floor
And every day the paper boy brings more*



Every day the paper boy brings more, indeed. I wrote an article earlier this week about tomb robbing (of all things), but I had no idea a modern example would pop up in the news so quickly. President James A. Garfield's tomb, located in a cemetery in the suburbs of Cleveland, was broken into this week. The thieves ignored a cash donations box, and instead stole some relatively-worthless commemorative spoons from Garfield's inauguration. Amusingly, according to the cemetery's spokeswoman, the burglars also left behind "a broken stained-glass window, a T-shirt, two cigarette butts and, of course, an empty bottle of Fireball cinnamon whiskey."

Even more amusing was the funniest "getting primaried" story of the year. Saira Blair is only 17 years old, and will not be eligible to vote until she turns 18 in July. Nevertheless, the high school senior just won the Republican primary for a seat in West Virginia's legislature, beating out a two-term sitting delegate, Republican Larry Kump. In Blair's words, "I think I'm fully capable of doing the job, and I don't think it's rocket science by any means -- not if you just listen to the people." Definitely a race to watch in November!



*And if the dam breaks open many years too soon
And if there is no room upon the hill
And if your head explodes with dark forebodings too
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon*



In the "heads exploding" category, we have none other than Rick Santorum, who has apparently traveled to what Republicans consider the dark side of the moon: endorsing a form of single-payer health insurance. Speaking last week, Santorum was addressing the issue of Obamacare's mandate that employers provide birth control in their insurance coverage. Here's what Santorum had to say about it:



It would be less objectionable to me for the government to go out and say we're going to pay for all the pharmacies to stock contraception and give them out free. Am I paying for it indirectly? Yes, through my taxes, but I pay for a lot of things with my taxes that I don't like.



Santorum went on to explain that President Obama wasn't interested in such a simple plan, because Obama was more interested in forcing Christians to "bow to Caesar" instead.

There actually was a plan to do precisely what Santorum is suggesting, but it didn't just stop at birth control coverage. The plan would have removed all the middlemen from the health insurance system, and paid everyone directly from the federal government. It was called "single-payer," remember? Santorum obviously hasn't thought this through, folks. Maybe it was a full moon, or something.



*The lunatic is in my head
The lunatic is in my head
You raise the blade, you make the change
You rearrange me 'till I'm sane
You lock the door and throw away the key
There's someone in my head but it's not me.*



In the "full frontal lobotomy" category this week we find a police commissioner from New Hampshire who is not afraid to keep the light of his unreconstructed racism under a bushel. Robert Copeland, age 82, is one of three people who make the hiring and firing decisions for the small local police force of Wolfeboro, New Hampshire. He loudly stated in a local restaurant that he no longer watches television because he keeps seeing Barack Obama on the screen. Except that's not quite how he identified the leader of our nation. In fact, the words he used were (and I sincerely apologize for even reporting such vile language, but this is a direct quote): "that fucking nigger." When a citizen complained, his written response was:



While I believe the problems associated with minorities in this country are momentous, I am not phobic. My use of derogatory slang in reference to those among them undeserving of respect is no secret. It is the exercise of my 1st Amendment rights. I believe I did use the 'N' word in reference to the current occupant of the Whitehouse [sic]. For this I do not apologize -- he meets and exceeds my criteria for such.



Well, it's good to know the guy has some standards for using two of the vilest words in the English language to describe the President of the United States. One of his fellow commissioners chimed in with "[Copeland] said some harsh words about Mr. Obama, and here we are. This woman, she's blowing it all out of proportion."

Wow. I mean, just... wow.



*And if the cloud bursts, thunder in your ear
You shout and no one seems to hear
And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon*



To be fair, we conclude this litany of lunacy with a bit of outdated thinking from the Democratic side of the aisle. It's nowhere near as bad as the preceding items, but has to at least be acknowledged. Lanny Davis, ex-Clintonite mover and shaker, has a new plan to combat all the misinformation likely to arise from the House's new Benghazi committee. Davis is going to take a page straight out of the 1990s, and will sit at a table outside the hearing room, passing out printed copies which will "truth squad" the lunacy from the actual committee members. Got that? Printed lists. In 2014. He has been roundly ridiculed for not realizing that there are a whole bunch of new ways to communicate information which didn't exist when Bill Clinton took office, and rightly so.

Speaking of the Big Dog himself, Bill Clinton is in the news for a rather embarrassing comment as well. Seems he didn't get the memo that populism is a big thing in the Democratic Party these days. Speaking to Tim Geithner, who used to be Treasury Secretary, Clinton talked about the populist movement and how they could never be satisfied, even with the human sacrifice of the CEO of Goldman Sachs: "You could take Lloyd Blankfein into a dark alley and slit his throat, and it would satisfy them for about two days. Then the blood lust would rise again."

Hoo boy. Should his wife run for president, Hillary's biggest challenge is going to be (as always) keeping the Big Dog on a very short chain.

OK, this is running way long, so let's quickly touch on some media news and some marijuana news and then get right to the awards. The Associated Press is apparently laying down new guidelines to try to get everyone in its network to write much shorter stories, because it's not like anyone needs to read anything longer than a few hundred words these days, right? What was amusing was that this was followed the very next day by a story which came over the AP feed -- which has got to be the longest and most extensive and microscopic examination of every single possible candidate for the presidency in 2016 that I have yet seen. I mean, the article is just massive. Even The New Yorker would probably have cut this puppy down by a third. Now, don't get me wrong -- I loved the article and I also loved the "in your face" nature of its length, right after the story on the AP wanting shorter articles. Somebody somewhere within the bowels of the AP obviously responded to the edict: "Shorter stories? Ha! In your dreams! Here are 10,000 words right back atcha!"

In other cheerful media news, Ann Curry was saved by a Boy Scout troop, when she injured herself on a nature hike. No, really! You can't make this stuff up, folks.

In marijuana news, the head of the Drug Enforcement Agency is continuing to inspire calls for her resignation, for not getting on board with new Justice Department policies on marijuana. Just this week, she seized a shipment of hemp seeds which were to be used in a hemp (not marijuana, but non-psychoactive hemp) planting program that was just authorized by Congress. She's also against the new sentencing reforms Congress is considering, along with a few other former Drug Warriors. By week's end, however, it seems Eric Holder took her out to the woodshed and had a little talk with her, and she has now dialed her rhetoric down. For the moment, at least. Color us not impressed. She needs to go, period.

And finally, in Colorado -- months after legalizing recreational marijuana sales -- crime rates are still down, showing that the crime wave predicted by those against legalization still has not appeared. Color us not surprised, personally.

 

Whew! OK, the rest of this will be shorter, I promise.

Earning at least an *Honorable Mention* this week was none other than Clay Aiken, who is now the Democratic candidate for a North Carolina House seat. He was leading his Democratic rival by a few hundred votes, and a recount was on the horizon, when Aiken's opponent dropped dead. This cleared the way for Aiken, and although he doesn't have much of a prayer in a district that went for Romney by almost 60 percent, we still celebrate his willingness to be a celebrity candidate instead of just sniping at politics from the sidelines (as many celebrities on both sides of the aisle are wont to do).

Representative Alan Lowenthal from California also deserves an *Honorable Mention* for introducing a bill which would provide federal rules for redistricting, to depoliticize the process. He makes an excellent case for his proposal this week in the Huffington Post, if you'd like more details. Redistricting reform has already happened in California, but it happened by ballot initiative. The chances of Lowenthal's "Let The People Draw The Lines Act" actually passing are slim, but we have to at least salute his efforts, since it is such a worthy goal.

But this week's coveted *Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week* goes to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Senators Tom Udall and Michael Bennet. Udall and Bennet have written a proposed constitutional amendment which would go a long way towards reversing the Supreme Court's insistence that money equals speech in politics. Harry Reid also wins his own *MIDOTW*, because he is going to throw his support behind the effort and schedule it for "multiple votes" on the Senate floor.

Now, amending the Constitution is difficult. This effort is likely to fail, at least the first time around. The bar for ratification is incredibly high. But that doesn't mean the attempt shouldn't even be made. Reversing such odious Supreme Court decisions as Citizens United (and all the rest of the "corporations are people" decisions) is a worthy cause indeed. Since the Supreme Court has ruled on the matter, the only real way to bring back campaign finance reform is to amend the Constitution itself -- something that does not require the Supreme Court's imprimatur. In fact, we have called for Democrats to push a few such amendments as recently as a few weeks ago, right here in this space. So we feel bound to salute such efforts when they become reality.

For proposing some serious pushback on the idea of "corporate personhood," Senators Tom Udall and Michael Bennet deserve their *Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week* awards, and Harry Reid also deserves one for forcing the Senate to vote on the issue in an election year.

[Congratulate Senator Michael Bennet on his Senate contact page, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on his Senate contact page, and Senator Tom Udall on his Senate contact page, to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]

 

It certainly will be disappointing if Representative John Conyers doesn't appear on the ballot this year. Conyers is currently the longest-serving House member there is (he was first elected in 1964). But his campaign hit a snafu when a whopping big chunk of the signatures they turned in were ruled invalid. Conyers is now suing to get his name on the ballot, challenging the requirement that signature collectors must be registered voters of the district. But, even if he loses the court fight, we assume he'll probably be re-elected as a write-in candidate anyway (seeing as how he's been there for 50 years, his constituents must like him).

But there was one Democrat who exceeded the word "disappointing" this week, and crossed over into the realm of "downright disgustingly gross." Here is the entire news story (complete with video, if you really want to see it):



Rep. Joe Garcia (D-Fla.) is about to learn a valuable lesson: C-SPAN is always watching.

During a House Judiciary Committee meeting last week, the Democrat picked his ear and ate whatever he found there while Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.) testified.



We cannot personally recall when a winner of the *Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week* made us physically retch before. Seriously, if you've just eaten, do not watch that video. Maybe we should call it the *Most Downright Disgustingly Gross Democrat We've Ever Seen* award, this week.

Ugh.

[Contact Representative Joe Garcia on his House contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

*Volume 304* (5/16/14)

We have a somewhat special version of the talking points this week, because six out of seven of these are direct quotes. And, for what we think is the first time ever, one of them is from none other than Newt Gingrich himself.

Now, for all of these to morph into useable Democratic talking points, all you have to do is preface them with something like: "As Newt Gingrich recently said," or: "Don't you agree with the following quote?" We've got two quotes on the Karl Rove/Hillary Clinton "brain damage" controversy, two quotes from Senator Barbara Boxer on the Benghazi hearings, and then three unrelated talking points to finish up with. We saved the best one for last, as usual.

 *   Exactly what's wrong with American politics*We have to open with Newt Gingrich, just because. Newt answered back a Huffington Post reporter's question asking his reaction to Karl Rove's Clinton comments by writing the following (Note: we suspect, from the number of corrections, that this was transmitted through some form of social media):



[I] am totally opposed and deeply offended by Karl Rove's comments about Secretary Clinton. I have many policy disagreements with Hillary but this kind of personal charge is exactly whats [sic?] wrong with [A]merican politics. [Rove] should apologize and stop discussing her health. [I] was angry when people did this to Reagan in 1980 and I am angry when they do it to her today.



 *   Bubba shows us how it's done*Bill Clinton weighed in, and reminded us all that he and his wife have had lots of practice in how to respond to right-wing lunacy in the past. He went on to state how sharp Hillary's brain still is and what good health she now enjoys, but not after first making his point in fine Clinton style. When asked about Rove's comments, Bill responded:



Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. First they say she faked her concussion; now they say she's auditioning for a part on The Walking Dead!"



 *   Republicans have only one goal*These next two quotes come from an opinion piece Senator Barbara Boxer wrote this week, on the lunacy of holding more hearings on Benghazi. Her argument is strongest when she starts quoting the facts and figures.



Ever since the tragic attacks in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012 -- which claimed the lives of four Americans and wounded two others -- it has been obvious that the GOP's obsession with Benghazi has never been about getting to the truth of what happened or preventing future attacks against U.S. personnel overseas.

Republicans have only one goal: to turn this tragedy into a scandal. Their relentless campaign to use the events in Benghazi to score cheap political points ahead of the midterm elections is appalling.

Over the last 20 months, the facts and circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2012, attacks have received unprecedented scrutiny:

· 9 different House and Senate committees have already investigated the attacks
· 13 hearings have been conducted
· 50 briefings have taken place
· 25 transcribed interviews have been conducted
· 8 subpoenas have been issued
· more than 25,000 pages of documents have been reviewed
· 6 congressional reports have been released

But, dissatisfied with the results of these exhaustive reviews, the GOP has now decided to create an openly partisan panel with only one goal: to further politicize this tragedy.



 *   During the Bush administration, there were 166 attacks, which killed 116 people, including 18 Americans*The first paragraph of this should be memorized by every single Democrat, in preparation for the media circus that now looms on the horizon. Seriously, every Democrat should be able to accurately quote these figures at the drop of a hat, in the upcoming months.



Between 1998 and 2013, there were at least 501 significant attacks against U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel in 70 countries, which resulted in the deaths of 586 people, including 67 Americans. During the Bush administration, there were 166 attacks, which killed 116 people, including 18 Americans.

Those attacks were all terrible tragedies. The difference is that we never had a political party spend years exploiting them for political gain.

I remember serving in the House back in 1983 when a truck bomb exploded outside the Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 241 American service members. It was the deadliest attack on Marines since Iwo Jima, and it came just six months after 17 Americans were killed in the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut.

Tip O'Neill was the House speaker at the time. But rather than launching a partisan witch hunt that focused on President Reagan, the House conducted bipartisan oversight and produced a completely bipartisan report.

Unfortunately, Republicans never intended to conduct a fair review of the facts in the Benghazi attacks. Blinded by their anger at President Obama, they ignore the fact that he called the attacks "acts of terror" the day after they occurred. And in their mad dash to discredit former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, they never mention that she was the first person to convene an independent investigation of the attacks.



 *   The Constitution does not give corporations a vote*This one's from Harry Reid, from the prepared text of remarks he planned to make on the Senate floor in support of the constitutional amendment discussed above. He sums things up nicely, in a single paragraph.



The Supreme Court has equated money with speech, so the more money you have, he more speech you get, and the more influence in our democracy. That is wrong. Every American should have the same ability to influence our political system. One American, one vote. That's what the Constitution guarantees. The Constitution does not give corporations a vote. And the Constitution does not give dollar bills a vote.



 *   Outspent fifteen to one*Here's another handy figure every Democrat should know. Because someone took the time to quantify things. This one is our only talking point this week that isn't a direct quote, we should mention.

"An independent analysis of political advertising money spent gives some insight as to the headwinds the Obamacare system has faced in the public's mind. From 2010, when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed into law until now, the anti-Obamacare side has outspent the pro-Obamacare side to the tune of fifteen-to-one. While $27 million was spent on advertising the benefits of Obamacare, a whopping $418 million was spent on almost 900,000 anti-Obamacare ads -- many of which were misleading if not downright deceitful. Anyone looking at why the public is so massively misinformed as to what Obamacare does and does not do need look no further than the overwhelming ratio of 15-to-1. No wonder it's been such a struggle to get the real facts out!"

 *   Sulu approves, and so do we*George Takei helped this one go viral. The photo of a message board in front of Christ Lutheran Church shows that at least one minister is an absolute master at coming up with a poignant talking point. Seriously, folks, this one is the best bumpersticker slogan to come along since "We are the 99 percent" from the Occupy folks. It cuts right to the heart of the matter, it is incredibly memorable, and it shows the true spirit of what Christian love is supposed to be all about. The message board said, quite simply:



We support the separation of church and hate.



 

Chris Weigant blogs at:Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on Huffington Post
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com
All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank

  Reported by Huffington Post 3 hours ago.

Anti-Obamacare Indiana Gov. Mike Pence Now Using Part of Obamacare
Anti-Obamacare Indiana Gov. Mike Pence Now Using Part of Obamacare
Health
Politics
Indiana Gov. Mike Pence
Has Been Optimized

Indiana Governor Mike Pence (R) is a possible GOP candidate for president in 2016 and a proud opponent of Obamacare.

“Make no mistake about it, the president’s healthcare bill would do nothing to lower the cost of healthcare and would be a disaster for the American economy,” said Gov. Pence when he was in Congress in 2009. “If Obamacare passes, you will probably lose your health insurance and you might just lose your job.”

Of course, unemployment has gone down since 2009 and under Obamacare people can keep their health insurance if they lose their job, noted The Guardian.

However, in 2014, Pence is planning to use federal Medicaid dollars via Obamacare to expand health care coverage through Healthy Indiana Plan, which provides health spending accounts to low-income Indiana residents, reports The Washington Post.

Oddly, Gov. Pence can't seem to admit that he is embracing this part of Obamacare, which he has renamed a "market-based, consumer-driven approach."

“Reforming traditional Medicaid through this kind of market-based, consumer-driven approach is essential to creating better health outcomes and curbing the dramatic growth in Medicaid spending,” said Gov. Pence, reports The Indy Star.

However, conservative organizations saw through Gov. Pence's ruse and are slamming him.

The right-wing Heritage Foundation said Gov. Pence's Medicaid decision was a “disappointment.”

The Federalist said Gov. Pence's plan "isn't conservative," but is "the latest iteration of full Obamacare Medicaid expansion thinly disguised as a conservative entitlement reform.”

Sources: The Federalist, Heritage Foundation, The Indy Star, The Washington Post, The Guardian

1
Video Piece: 
Regular Piece Reported by Opposing Views 2 hours ago.

Reported by DallasNews 23 hours ago.

Reported by DallasNews 23 hours ago.

Reported by DallasNews 1 day ago.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A group of healthcare experts close to the White House is urging the Obama administration to appoint a new chief executive officer to oversee Obamacare's online health insurance exchanges and safeguard the next open enrollment period that begins in six months. Reported by Reuters 18 hours ago.

A group of healthcare experts close to the White House is urging the Obama administration to appoint a new chief executive officer to oversee Obamacare’s online health insurance exchanges and safeguard the next open enrollment period that begins in six months. The recommendation, in a report due to be released by the Washington-based Center for American Progress think tank, calls for a major shakeup within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which presided […] Reported by Raw Story 15 hours ago.

LucinaCare, a professional website that deals with breast-feeding issues, offers the best advice on breast pump insurance when buying equipmentLucinaCare is one of the best reference websites on the Internet that deals with breast-feeding. They have all the information that a mother could need, listed on their site.

They pride themselves in being a 'one-stop-shop' for mothers who are trying to make a decision on whether to breast-feed their baby or not. The have information about the benefits for the baby as well as information about the best breast pumps on the market. LucinaCare knows that breast-pumps can be very expensive for new families, especially with the expense of having an extra mouth to feed, and that is why they offer advice on breast-pump insurance. A lot of mothers don't know that sometimes the cost of a breast pump can be covered by health insurance. Under the Affordable Healthcare Act, there is a coverage guarantee, which means that the cost of buying or renting a breast pump is covered even if the mother only has minimal healthcare insurance.When a customer makes an order from LucinaCare, they are given advice about how to claim on their insurance to make the cost of breast pumps more affordable.

This is because breast-feeding is recognized within the medical community as being a better source of nutrition for the baby and it is more economical than buying baby formula. Therefore, insurance companies offer the mother as much help as they can so that she makes the right decision for her and her baby. LucinaCare does not want mothers to feel like they can't afford breast pumps, so they have chosen against breast-feeding. They give the mother advice to make breast-feeding a cost effective option. A company spokesperson added, "Here at LucinaCare, we are passionate about breast-feeding. Therefore, we give the best information that we can about it, including connotations for the mother. Our customer service team is contacted, on a regular basis, about health care for the mother and what creams she can use if there is irritation. We are delighted that we can offer the right information for new mothers."LucinaCare keeps their website updated with the best and most recent information. If any new breast-pumps are released, they will review it and give advice on buying it.

About LucinaCare:LucinaCare is a website that specialises in breast-feeding. The aim of their site is to give the customer all the information that they need about breast-feeding. They offer insurance policies for breast pumps and they have sourced the best breast pumps for their customers. They want mothers to make informed decisions about their breast-feeding needs and at the heart of their site is an online store that provides the mother will all the equipment that they need to breast-feed and look after themselves, as well as their baby. They provide a high level of customer service and they offer mothers the chance to make the right choices for their needs. You can visit their website at http://lucinacare.com

Company Contact Information
Lucina Advanced Care
Brad Langford
16 Midland Av
Hicksville
11801
949-478-0079

News and Press Release Distribution From I-Newswire.com Reported by i-Newswire.com 14 hours ago.

You just might want to pay attention to the latest health insurance jargon. It could mean thousands of dollars out of your... Reported by Deseret News 12 hours ago.