Quantcast
Channel: Health Insurance Headlines on One News Page [United States]
Viewing all 22794 articles
Browse latest View live

IPA Family Announces New Supplemental Insurance Product Designed to Help Fill Financial Gaps Left by Obamacare Plans

$
0
0
Accident insurance, critical Illness and hospital indemnity benefit can provide cash for covered illnesses and accidents.

Tampa, FL (PRWEB) July 09, 2014

IPA Family (IPA) is excited to announce the release of Metal Gap*, a supplemental insurance product that helps bridge the gap in insurance coverage for many with high-deductible health insurance plans.

“Since the launch of ‘Obamacare’ health insurance plans, many individuals and families who purchased insurance policies from the federal exchange have now realized the limited availability of physician networks and high costs for out-of-pocket expenses,” said Dave Keeler, President and Chief Operating Officer of IPA Family, which is a member of The IHC Group. “Obamacare health insurance plan deductibles can range from $2,000 to over $6,000 for an individual, depending on the plan they have selected. For many Americans, that type of expense can cause a severe financial setback. This is especially true if an individual is recovering from a car accident or receiving treatment after a heart attack. That’s where Metal Gap comes in. Metal Gap is affordable supplement coverage to help pay for much of what the Obamacare ‘metal’ plans do not.”

Metal Gap complements major-medical health insurance, providing accident coverage, critical illness coverage, and an optional hospital stay benefit. Additionally, all Metal Gap plans provide discount vision and prescription drug coverage.

“Our licensed advisors have an unparalleled focus and commitment to serving others, something we take great pride in. Metal Gap is a product our advisors stand behind because it provides their clients several options to help curb health insurance costs. Our Metal Gap cash benefit can be used for hospital bills, daycare, house payments and car loans. Our plans are designed to fill the gap in coverage in Obamacare plans, giving families the freedom to use the cash however they see fit,” added Keeler.

To learn more about Metal Gap coverage or to speak with a licensed IPA Family advisor, contact 813-983-2990. Reported by PRWeb 9 hours ago.

United States: New York Enacts Out-Of-Network Transparency And Coverage Reform - Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

$
0
0
A woman sued a health plan, claiming that she was misled about which physicians were participating providers in the company’s online health insurance exchange. Reported by Mondaq 9 hours ago.

The Government vs. the People: Rebuilding Trust in the Midst of the Illegal Alien Tsunami

$
0
0
The Government vs. the People: Rebuilding Trust in the Midst of the Illegal Alien Tsunami A bad case of whiplash. That’s what it feels like watching the Obama Administration talk about immigration enforcement. 

Two weeks ago, Obama told ABC News that most of the recent illegal border crossers would be sent home. Then on Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson refused to answer straightforward questions about deporting them. And now as the President seeks an additional $3.8 billion from Congress to deal with the crisis, the White House is trying to convince us anew that they are serious about enforcement. Right, and if you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it.  

“The immigration system is broken.” If only I had a dollar for the number of times politicians or pundits have used this meaningless cliché. Of course, what's really "broken" is the trust between the American people and their leaders. After years of failing to enforce immigration law, the voters correctly do not believe that the politicians are telling them the truth.

Our government threatens Border Patrol and healthcare workers who want to tell the truth about this new crop of illegal aliens. It restricts media access and reporting on the detention facilities. Recently we learned it set free 36,000 criminal aliens, including rapists, kidnappers, arsonists, burglars, sex offenders, and car thieves. Both Republicans and Democrats warn about the threat posed by ISIS after it overran Iraq’s borders but are strangely silent as our own borders are swamped. These same pols hang on every word of pro-amnesty billionaires, who enjoy lives of solitude behind their own high walls and locked gates. Meanwhile, when we raise our own voices in protest, we are branded as racists and xenophobes. And we’re supposed to trust these people?

Until this relationship is repaired, it will be extremely difficult to rally support for any immigration plan whatsoever. So what concrete steps can the Administration take and the GOP support to shrink this trust deficit? Here’s a start:

1. Start deporting people. Far from being cold-hearted or “draconian,” deportations will save lives and restore much-needed credibility to the U.S. immigration system. The thousands of illegals who risk their lives and those of their minor children to cross our southwest border are doing so in large part because they believe once here, they will not be sent back. Here is where Obama’s actions speak louder than his words. Contrary to the Administration’s claim of toughness on deportation, interior removals have dropped by 40 percent over the past three years. In 2013, for instance, Obama’s Administration deported less than 0.2 percent of illegal aliens who had not committed a major crime. As John Sandweg, Obama’s former director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, told the Los Angeles Times in April: “If you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero.” No surprise that a plurality of Americans in the latest Rasmussen poll believe President Obama helped create the current crisis. 

2. Halt foreign aid, work, and tourist visas for any country that refuses to assist in the repatriation of its citizens who have entered our country illegally. Ditto for countries that facilitate the transport of illegals to the U.S., as Mexico is currently doing. In egregious cases, we should consider suspending trade agreements and freezing the bank accounts of the political leaders of offending nations. If you abuse your relationship with America by effectively dumping your low-skilled workers here, you should suffer the economic consequences.   

3. Order U.S. financial institutions to stop remittances illegal immigrants wire back to their home countries. For decades, other nations have enjoyed the economic benefit of money made illegally here but sent there. Last year, remittances topped a whopping $51 billion, and almost half of that went to Mexico. The best way for people to fix their own countries is to work in their home countries and fight for political reforms there. The incentive to come here illegally will be greatly reduced if they can’t transfer money out of the country.

4. End birthright citizenship. The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was never meant to require automatic citizenship to infants born here where neither parent is a U.S. citizen. Even Harry Reid has railed against this absurdity. Every day, women in their 3rd trimesters of pregnancy travel to the U.S. from China, Mexico, and beyond to deliver their new U.S. citizen babies—and gain unlimited access to U.S. welfare. Once their infants get U.S. passports, they know that there is little political appetite to deport that child’s family (see Step 1 above). One need only Google the words “birth tourism” to see how out of hand the situation has become. Canada and the U.S. are the only two developed countries that allow birthright citizenship; the U.K., Australia, Ireland, New Zealand are among the dozens of other countries that have done away with it.

5. Inflict severe penalties against companies that hire illegal aliens. E-verify should make the system rather simple to administer. If you can’t get legal workers to do your field or roofing work at the wage you’re offering, raise the wage. If you cannot make a profit without breaking the law, you should go out of business and make room for someone who can.

6. Deny privileges of citizenship and legal immigrant status to immigration lawbreakers. No Obamacare, food stamps, welfare, disability payments, driver’s licenses, apartment rental contracts, mortgages, or bank accounts.  

7. Lifetime ban of returning to America for illegal aliens who use stolen Social Security numbers or other fraudulent identification. These people should be in a fast-tracked deportation proceeding, then sent home.

8. Pass legislation to amend the George W. Bush-era human trafficking law that made it exceedingly cumbersome to deport unaccompanied minors to countries without contiguous borders.   

9. Increase the number of ICE officers (the agency responsible for deportation) and grow ICE resources (which have been long neglected) in order to expedite removals and reduce new arrivals. In addition, deploy the forces necessary to enforce the border. Work with border states and local governments to accomplish this common goal. If that means mobilizing the National Guard, so be it.

10. Finish the border fence. As Israel has demonstrated, properly constructed and monitored fences work.

11. Streamline adoptions from countries such as Guatemala for qualified U.S. families. I know what you’re saying—how does this relate to immigration? It directly relates to the abiding concern we have for innocent orphaned children trapped in a system that doesn’t adequately attend to their needs. Thousands of otherwise indigent and abandoned children are waiting to be adopted throughout Central America. As someone who has spent time a good deal of time in El Salvador and Guatemala going back to the mid-'80s, I am acutely aware of how desperate the situation remains for millions in the region. 

My experience in Guatemala is part of what drove me to adopt my daughter Maria from an orphanage there 6 years ago. Since then, international adoptions from Guatemala have slowed to a trickle, with many families heartbroken after years of waiting to bring their adoptive children home. When loving families are willing to open their hearts and homes to abandoned children, we should as a nation support that. Senators Mary Landrieu and Roy Blunt have worked tirelessly on this issue; let’s rally behind their efforts.

I don’t pretend to have all the answers on immigration, but I do know that the American people deserve and demand better. Six in ten Americans now believe that the American Dream is out of reach. While the rich get richer, most middle-income earners see prices for basic necessities skyrocketing as their incomes flat-line. It’s no wonder that recent polling shows that Americans want less immigration—even as legislators are promoting endless increases to the number of foreign workers imported into the nation. Yet, up to now, their desire seems to fall on deaf ears.

Until both parties rebuild the trust they so cavalierly squandered on immigration, there is no sense in trying to pass an immigration deal of any kind.  It’s time for our political class to start valuing our Constitution and the well-being of their own citizens over the big business lobby, immigration activists, or their own political futures.

Laura Ingraham is the host of the nationally syndicated radio program The Laura Ingraham Show. She is a regular Fox News contributor and the principal substitute host on The O'Reilly Factor. Follow her on Twitter @IngrahamAngle. Reported by Breitbart 7 hours ago.

The IHC Group Announces Metal Gap, a New Supplemental Insurance Product Designed to Help Fill Gaps in Coverage Left by “Obamacare” Plans

$
0
0
Metal Gap's accident insurance, critical illness and hospital indemnity benefit will provide first dollar, lump sum payment for covered illnesses and accidents.

Minneapolis, MN (PRWEB) July 09, 2014

The IHC Group is pleased to announce the release of Metal Gap,1 an innovative product that helps bridge the gap in insurance coverage for many with high-deductible health insurance plans.

“As Americans covered by ‘Obamacare’ policies begin to file claims under their new policies, it has become very apparent that many people will struggle to pay the out-of-pocket percentage required before their coverage kicks in,” said Dave Keller, Chief Sales and Marketing Officer for IHC Specialty Benefits, which is a member of The IHC Group.

“The most popular plan level, the Silver Plan, could have a deductible of over $4,000 for an individual. For many, that type of expense is financially devastating or would, at a minimum, cause severe financial hardship. This is particularly true for those unable to work because they are recovering from an accident, receiving treatment for a life-threatening disease, or disabled by a heart attack. That’s why The IHC Group developed Metal Gap – affordable coverage (in some cases as little as $1 per day) to pay for much of what the Obamacare ‘metal’ plans do not.”

Metal Gap complements major-medical health insurance, providing between $3,500-$6,350 in accident coverage, $7,500 in critical illness coverage, an optional $500 in first-day hospital stay benefit, plus $500 a day for hospital confinements up to 10 days. Additionally, all Metal Gap plans provide discount vision and prescription drug coverage.

“Our Metal Gap cash benefit can be used for hospital bills, daycare, mortgage and car payments or anything else. The plans are designed to fill the gap, in many circumstances, between first dollar expenses and the maximum out-of-pocket allowed by Obamacare plans, but they can be used however the individual sees fit,” added Keller.

To learn more about Metal Gap coverage or to contract as a licensed agent with The IHC Group contact 866-746-6610.

1 Metal Gap is not a comprehensive health plan and does not constitute “minimum essential coverage” as defined under the ACA. It is not intended to serve as a replacement for the comprehensive health insurance required under the ACA. Pre-existing conditions are subject to exclusion under the policy. Not all plan options available in all states.

About IHC Specialty Benefits, Inc.
IHC Specialty Benefits is a full-service marketing and distribution company that focuses on small employer, individual and consumer products. Products are marketed through general agents online, telebrokerage, advisor centers, private label and directly to consumers.

About The IHC Group
The IHC Group is an organization of insurance carriers and marketing and administrative affiliates that has been providing life, health, disability, medical stop-loss and specialty insurance solutions to groups and individuals for over 30 years. Members of The IHC Group include Independence Holding Company, American Independence Corp., Standard Security Life Insurance Company of New York, Madison National Life Insurance Company, Inc. and Independence American Insurance Company. Each insurance carrier in The IHC Group has a financial strength rating of A- (Excellent) from A.M. Best Company, Inc., a widely recognized rating agency that rates insurance companies on their relative financial strength and ability to meet policyholder obligations. (An A++ rating from A.M. Best is its highest rating.) Collectively, the companies in The IHC Group provide insurance coverage to more than one million individuals and groups. For more information about The IHC Group, visit http://www.ihcgroup.com. Reported by PRWeb 8 hours ago.

eLoyalty's Cloud Platform Achieves PCI and HIPAA Compliance

$
0
0
DENVER, July 9, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- TeleTech Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: TTEC), today announced that eLoyalty, part of its customer technology services division,  has received its Payment Card Industry (PCI) and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) compliance... Reported by PR Newswire 7 hours ago.

NYC Nurse Fired Over ‘Man vs 6 Train’ Instagram Post

$
0
0
NYC Nurse Fired Over ‘Man vs 6 Train’ Instagram Post NYC Nurse Fired Over ‘Man vs 6 Train’ Instagram Post
NYC Nurse Fired Over ‘Man vs 6 Train’ Instagram Post
Internet
Has Been Optimized

A nurse was fired from New York Presbyterian Hospital after she took a photo of a ransacked trauma room and posted it to Instagram with the caption “Man Vs 6 Train.”

Katie Duke assisted in treating a man who had been hit by a subway train.

"I got a call at the end of my shift telling me I was being let go after seven years in the ER,” Duke told ABC News.

A supervisor told her she hadn’t breached hospital policy or violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

"I was told I was being fired for being insensitive," she said.

Duke explained that the picture wasn’t even hers. She had reposted it from a doctor’s Instagram.

The doctor, who also works at NYPH was not reprimanded, according to Duke.

Duke says she didn’t do anything wrong.

"If you hung around nurse’s station and heard the way we talk about injuries, life and death you might get the wrong impression but it’s just a coping mechanism,” she said. “Now I check my posts so no one gets offended or thinks I am a cold-hearted person.”

Duke, whose story was part of the ABC docuseries “NY Med,” comes from a long line nurses.

“My mom is a nurse. My sister’s a nurse. My aunt’s a nurse. My cousin’s a nurse," she said.

Sources: Gothamist, WABC-TV

1
Video Piece: 
Regular Piece Reported by Opposing Views 5 hours ago.

United States: Supreme Court Sides With Hobby Lobby In Contraception Case - Barnes & Thornburg

$
0
0
The Supreme Court ruled that Hobby Lobby could claim a religious exemption to the requirement that they provide health insurance for contraceptives. Reported by Mondaq 5 hours ago.

Hobby Lobby: A Victory for Social Liberals

$
0
0
Social liberals have fought time and time again for the rights of individuals to hold and abide by values that differ from those of the majority. Social liberalism, at its core, strives for freedom from government in matters of sex, love, health, and family, and opposes laws aimed at influencing private morality, such as restrictions on homosexual activity or abortion. This struggle against moralizing majoritarian tyranny has often been aided by the Supreme Court. Prohibitions on private homosexual activity remained in force until the Supreme Court struck down these unfair and bigoted laws in the Lawrence v. Texas decision of 2003. The Defense of Marriage Act prohibiting federal recognition of same sex marriage was gutted in last year's United States v. Windsor decision. Perhaps the most controversial socially liberal ruling of modern history was the Roe v. Wade decision, affirming the right of women to legal abortions until the fetus is viable, and thus expanding the power of women to adhere to the dictates of their consciences with regards to motherhood. These rulings, among others, eschewed the coercion of social conservatism for a kind of moral libertarianism.

Despite popular statements to the contrary, the private freedom championed by social liberals has been expanded by the recent Hobby Lobby v. Burwell ruling. The Green Family, the founders and owners of billion-dollar crafts company Hobby Lobby, argued that funding four of the twenty contraceptives required by the Department of Heath and Human Services under the Affordable Care Act mandate would violate their pro-life religious views. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, passed almost unanimously by a Democratic Congress and president, held that federal laws and regulations could not unduly burden one's freedom of religion, even if the statue had no intention of singling out one particular religious group. Under this twenty-year old act of Congress, federal statutes burdening one's freedom of religion must demonstrate a compelling governmental interest and be the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court's conservatives held that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) unfairly burdened Hobby Lobby's religious beliefs in requiring the corporation to either fund contraceptives or face hefty fines(about $2,000 per employee). The Court controversially ruled that closely-held, for-profit corporations have religious rights, and argued that the government can accomplish its interest in promoting women's health by other means.

Several leading social liberals have viewed the Hobby Lobby ruling as a blow to women's rights and a victory for theocrats. In her thirty-five page dissent, Justice Ginsburg wrote, "Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations ... The Court has ventured into a minefield." Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood said in a statement, "the Supreme Court ruled against American women and families, giving bosses the right to discriminate against women and deny their employees access to birth control coverage." The New York Times editorial board criticized the Court, arguing that it "swept aside accepted principles of corporate law and religious liberty to grant owners of closely held, for-profit companies an unprecedented right to impose their religious views on employees." Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, argued that "five male justices essentially rule that discrimination against women is not discrimination at all" and allowed "bosses to make personal decisions about health care which we pay for with our labor." Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi echoed similar sentiments, arguing that women's reproductive choices should be unimpeded by the religious beliefs of their employers.

This approach to the ruling by leading social liberals is in fact deeply illiberal, as well as disingenuous. Much of the criticism against the ruling has written off the decision as the whims of bigoted men, even though a Gallup poll released a month ago shows men and women split almost equally between pro-life and pro-choice positions. This data belies the repeated trope on the left that accounting for the concerns of religious groups is itself a manifestation of sexism and male privilege. Though much has been made of five male justices on the right overruling three female justices on the left, the ruling is more obviously a cleavage of left versus right than one of male versus female (especially given that male Clinton-appointee Stephen Breyer also dissented).

Another problematic criticism of the ruling has focused on the much-maligned concept of corporate personhood. Some social liberals fear that the ruling promotes a further expansion of corporate power in the wake of the disastrous Citizens United ruling, which allowed corporations free reign to spend money on elections and subvert the democratic political process. Despite its size and market cap, Hobby Lobby is a family-owned, family-run business, and it is indeed a reflection of its owners, as it is run on Christian principles. Workers are given time off on Sundays, and the company provides substantial funding to charitable organizations.

In being cast as an archetypal, evil corporation, Hobby Lobby has been unfairly vilified. A company that pays its workers almost double the minimum wage need not be seen as another horseman preceding an apocalyptic corporate takeover(save those feelings for McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission). Justice Alito rightly argues that religion does not stop at home, but continues into the workplace. Though many throw around the word "corporation" as a kind of demeaning term in itself, it would be unfair to argue that one's right to religious practice is abolished if one decides to undertake the most American of activities, entrepreneurship. Alito rightly rejects the distinction between home and work, family and family office with regards to freedom of conscience. Engaging in for-profit work does not mean checking one's values at the door, or being required to fund something that is perceived as immoral.

Liberal critics have argued that the Court has chosen owners over employees by allowing employers to impose religious beliefs on employees. A popular sign held by pro-choice protesters outside the Court read, "Birth Control: Not My Boss's Business." This message results from a poor reading of the case. The Hobby Lobby ruling does not allow an employer to regulate what an employee does in his or her free time away from the office, but rather prevents the government from forcing an employer to fund what it considers to be an immoral activity. Birth control becomes a boss's business when the Department of Health and Human Services requires the boss to make birth control his or her business. In their admirable efforts to ensure broader access to contraceptives for women, the Obama administration and the HHS have run-up against a familiar foe: employer-based health insurance. Ezekiel Emanuel of the University of Pennsylvania argues that relying on employment for health insurance "promotes job lock, fuels health care inflation and keeps wages down." Emanuel argues that a shift towards vouchers and away from employer-sponsored health insurance may be an unintended consequence of this ruling. This change would have beneficial economic effects, and render mute the issues raised by Hobby Lobby. Still, as long as the employer-insurance system endures, requiring an employer to involve itself in its employees' health insurance will make private healthcare decisions, in some respects, the business of the employer. Given this anachronistic system, the Court rightly ruled in favor of protecting the freedom of conscience of the employer against the well-intended pro-choice coercion of the federal bureaucracy.

Considering the diversity of opinions in this country with respect to when life begins even among people of the same gender, and the complications of employer-sponsored health insurance, social liberals should see this ruling primarily as a victory of religious accommodation. Allowing a family-owned business to recuse itself from funding activities it deems immoral on religious grounds is a noble cause for social liberals. The American Civil Liberties Union strongly opposed the Hobby Lobby ruling on pro-choice grounds despite fighting for religious accommodations in the past, such as advocating to allow Muslim police officers to grow beards; why not support freedom of conscience again when it comes to a Christian family business? Supporting reproductive rights does not necessitate limiting the free religious exercise of businessmen. Women's legal reproductive rights are not threatened by this ruling, and the Court urged alternative means of providing cost-free contraceptives, such as direct federal subsidies.

It is short sighted for social liberals to decry this ruling because it lands on the wrong side of the pro-life/pro choice divide. Those on the left should view this ruling as a further endorsement of the idea that the private sphere of conscience is beyond the long reach of government. The Hobby Lobby ruling is a movement away from theocracy, not towards it. The five conservatives of the Supreme Court have scored a victory for individual freedom for religious and secular alike. For those who are truly social liberal, Hobby Lobby is another reason to celebrate this 4th of July. Reported by Huffington Post 5 hours ago.

AmeriLife® Partners with UPARC as Presenting Sponsor for 2014 Festival of Trees

$
0
0
As Presenting Sponsor for the 30th Annual Festival of Trees event, AmeriLife is collaborating with UPARC Foundation to bring this year's Candyland Christmas theme to life.

Clearwater, FL (PRWEB) July 09, 2014

As planning for the 2014 Festival of Trees is underway, AmeriLife, the largest annuity, life and health insurance marketing group in America, has partnered with UPARC, a not-for-profit corporation that provides services for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities, as the Presenting Sponsor for this year’s 30th annual event.

Donating $20,000 to support UPARC and the 2014 Festival of Trees, AmeriLife is also collaborating to help bring this year’s Candyland Christmas theme to life by designing and printing various materials for the event. The company has grown its involvement with Festival of Trees over the last few years, decorating a tree in 2012, and participating as the Feature Tree in 2013. As Presenting Sponsor for 2014, a team of AmeriLife associates will also have the opportunity to decorate a 9 ft. tree to join the forest of trees that will line the Candyland streets at the festival and be auctioned to benefit UPARC.

"We are honored and grateful to welcome AmeriLife as the Presenting Sponsor for UPARC Foundation's 30th Anniversary Festival of Trees,” said Madison Hauenstein, Development and Communications Coordinator for UPARC Foundation. “UPARC has relied on strong community support for the last 50 years and it is because of partnerships with companies like AmeriLife that we will continue to enhance the lives of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the Tampa Bay area.”

Renowned in the Tampa Bay area as a holiday festival in a family-centered fantasyland and a signature event supporting UPARC, Festival of Trees promises to be a memorable way to get into the Christmas spirit. This year, guests will stroll through the colorful streets of Candyland as The Long Center gymnasium is transformed into a whimsical winter wonderland lined with candy treats and filled with cheer and fun for all ages.

Showcasing over 125 trees and wreaths, as well as vendor booths to help guests start their holiday shopping early, Festival of Trees will also offer complimentary photos with Santa and the opportunity for youngsters to create special crafts to take home with them.

“Festival of Trees is a great opportunity to celebrate the holiday season, while supporting a worthy cause,” explains AmeriLife President, Gary Jenkins. “AmeriLife is thrilled to be Presenting Sponsor as Festival of Trees celebrates its 30th Anniversary. We look forward to helping UPARC make this year’s event one of the best yet.”

About Festival of Trees and UPARC Foundation
Established in 1984, the Festival of Trees has raised more than a million dollars and welcomed more than 10,000 people each year to become the traditional opening of the holiday season in Tampa Bay.

UPARC is a not-for-profit corporation that demonstrates excellence in providing services for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Founded in 1958, UPARC operates residential group homes and adult day services in Clearwater, Tarpon Springs and a unique art studio in Safety Harbor. People served by UPARC range from having mild to moderate developmental disabilities to severe, profound disabilities, such as autism, Prader-Willi Syndrome and dually diagnosed behavioral intensive disorders.

About AmeriLife
AmeriLife is the nation’s premier insurance marketing group. Founded in 1971, AmeriLife represents more than 30 national insurance carriers, has 15 individual national marketing organizations, 33 career agency branch locations and works with thousands of independent insurance agents across the country.

For additional information about UPARC Foundation or Festival of Trees, please call Jessica Petot or Madison Hauenstein at 727-797-8712 or email Info(at)UPARCFoundation(dot)org. For more information about AmeriLife or its involvement with UPARC and the Festival of Trees, please contact AmeriLife Marketing Communications at Media(at)AmeriLife(dot)com. Reported by PRWeb 4 hours ago.

Dems: Supreme Court Turned Religious Freedom Law 'On Its Head'

$
0
0
The Supreme Court ruled last week that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law passed nearly unanimously by Congress in 1993, protects for-profit corporations from having to cover contraception in their health plans if they morally object to it. But the Democratic members of Congress who helped pass RFRA nearly two decades ago said the conservative justices misapplied the federal law.

"As someone who voted for that act and watched the debate and stood at [former Sen. Ted Kennedy's (D-Mass.)] side, this is ... they have taken this act and stood it up on its head," Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said of the Supreme Court at a press conference on Wednesday.

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), who also voted for RFRA in 1993, told reporters it was intended to be a "shield" for employers, not a "sword" with which to deny women the full range of contraception coverage mandated by federal law.

RFRA, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, says the government must demonstrate that any law which "burdens the free exercise of religion" is necessary to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restric­tive means of achieving that interest. The Obama administration argued in Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Burwell that the government has a compelling interest in making sure that women receive the full range of contraception at no out-of-pocket cost in their health insurance plans, along with all other kinds of basic health coverage, because it is necessary for women's reproductive freedom and economic equality. But the Supreme Court decided that the birth control rule in the Affordable Care Act violates the ability of closely held, for-profit companies who object to birth control to exercise their religion.

As a reaction to that ruling, Democrats in the House and Senate have introduced the Protect Women’s Health from Corporate Interference Act, a bill that would override the Supreme Court's decision and prevent for-profit employers from using RFRA to opt out of federal laws. The bill would prevent companies like Hobby Lobby from refusing to cover any of the 20 forms of contraception that the Affordable Care Act requires them to include in their health insurance plans.

Boxer said the bill would make it clear that the Supreme Court can't use RFRA "to deny women equal health care, or frankly to deny anyone the right to choose their health care."

The bill is expected to move to the Senate floor for a vote as early as next week, but is not likely to be taken up in the GOP-controlled House. While the bill currently has no Republican co-sponsors, Democrats said they are talking to their colleagues across the aisle about the bill and are optimistic about its chances.

"We're gonna get bipartisan sponsors on it and you're going to see some action, so hang on," said Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.). Reported by Huffington Post 2 hours ago.

Health Insurance Is Not a Favor Your Boss Does For You

$
0
0
The debate over the Hobby Lobby case has been plagued by many problematic presumptions, but there's one that even many people who disliked the decision seem to sign on to without thinking about it. It's the idea that the health insurance you get through your employer is something that they do for you—not just administratively, but in a complete sense. But this is utterly wrong. You work, and in exchange for that labor you are given a compensation package that includes salary and certain benefits like a retirement account and health coverage. Like the other forms of compensation, the details of that insurance are subject to negotiation between you and your employer, and the government's involvement is to set some minimums—just as it mandates a minimum wage, it mandates certain components health insurance must include.

Those who support Hobby Lobby are now talking as though mandating that insurance include preventive care is tantamount to them forcing you to make a contribution to your local food bank when you'd rather give to the pet shelter. You can see it, for instance, in this piece by Megan McCardle in which she tries to look at the clash of rights involved in this dispute, but running through the whole piece is the idea that an employee's health insurance isn't compensation for her labor but a piece of charity her boss has bestowed upon her for no reason other than the goodness of his heart. Referring to the question of whether the religious beliefs of  Hobby Lobby's owners are being imposed on its employees, she writes: "How is not buying you something equivalent to 'imposing' on you?" Then later she refers to "a positive right to have birth control purchased for me."

But when your insurance coverage includes birth control, your employer isn't "buying you" anything. Your employer is basically acting as an administrative middleman between you and the insurance company. Your employer isn't the one whose money is paying the premiums, you are. It's compensation for the work you've done, just as much as your salary is.

This goes all the way back to to the roots of our employer-based insurance system. During World War II, the government imposed wage and price controls, meaning employers couldn't give raises. So they began to offer health insurance as an alternate form of compensation, and when the IRS decided in 1943 that insurance could be paid with pre-tax dollars, it made it all the more attractive as a form of compensation. And keep in mind that the preferential tax treatment of health insurance (which the self-employed don't get) is a tax benefit to the employee, not the employer. If you eliminated it, employers' balance sheets would stay the same (it would still be counted as an expense), but employees would have to pay taxes on the benefit.

You might or might not think that remembering the true nature of the insurance benefit should change the calculation in the Hobby Lobby case. I'm guessing that for the plaintiffs, it wouldn't; they'd probably argue that even having to think about what sinful harlots their employees are imposes a "substantial burden" on their religious freedom. And as I've argued before, we should get rid of the employer-based insurance system entirely. That may happen eventually, but in the meantime, it's good to remember just whose health insurance it is. It's not your boss'. It's yours. Reported by The American Prospect 2 hours ago.

A Grandmother on "Debts,""Trespasses" and Flipping "Religious Freedom" on its Head

$
0
0
"'Debts'!"

"No! 'Trespasses'!"

In Miss Challis' fifth grade, we absolutist 10 year-olds argued all year about which to use when we recited the Lord's Prayer each morning. The Baptists knew it had to be "debts," because that was the way it was. We Methodists were equally adamant that "trespasses" was the way it had to be because that is what we were taught. It never occurred to us to each say what we knew and not argue. Most of us weren't even aware that Catholics (then) said the same prayer in Latin and stopped before our ending. Or consider that Henry, our one Jewish classmate, must have felt excluded.

Although such childhood squabbles are just that, current discussions roiling the United States have led me to see them in a larger context: perhaps precursors of the my way religiosity we see more broadly -- but particularly focused in Hobby Lobby and the cases following from it.

At Phelps Elementary in Springfield, Missouri, in 1944, classes began with prayer. Then the Pledge of Allegiance -- without "under God," which, as far as we knew, was what the Founders intended. "Under God" came much later; my 80 year-old tongue still stumbles.

In American history, we learned that the first settlers risked crossing the Atlantic to escape religious persecution and to worship according to their own beliefs without an established church making the rules. We were not entirely sure about what 'established church' meant but assumed something like 'no one could boss you about religion.' President Roosevelt, meanwhile, spoke about freedom of worship, along with speech and from want and fear, all pictured in a Norman Rockwell world.

So I began to understand that religious freedom, a bedrock of American society, indeed means no bossing anyone about religious beliefs -- not the government, not faith communities, not individuals and, looking at the present issue, not their corporations.

When I was in school, the emphasis was on Protestant Puritanism, an over-simplified view of our "Christian" beginnings still widely held. Important parts of our broader history were missing. We learned little about the intolerance and imposition of belief dominating many colonies or that Quakers and Baptists were persecuted. Nor the business reasons for colonies like Virginia. Or that a half-century before Jamestown, Spanish Catholics settled in Florida and the southwest. Or that one of the country's oldest Jewish congregations, in Newport, Rhode Island, was founded in 1658. We had no idea that many slaves, the dominant population of the colonial south, brought their Muslim faith from Africa and covertly observed Ramadan, the Islamic fasting month. Later -- high school civics? -- I learned that the Constitution's first Amendment insures the separation of church and state and provides for individual free exercise of religion.

In 1944, somewhere in Springfield there must have been Catholics, synagogues and Negro churches and schools. But we were isolated from them. Ours -- then, there -- was effectively a white Protestant bubble.

Seventy years later, I live outside Washington, an area that reflects our democracy and our many faiths at their most visibly pluralistic. When we moved here 60 years ago, however, it was a sleepy, segregated southern town. Thus, this area also embodies the demographic shifts and social struggles in the United States, perhaps more than many places or perhaps just differently. While some Americans feel threatened by these changes, living enmeshed in this ethnic and religious diversity is one of the things we most appreciate about our country.

Our grandson's elementary schoolmates spoke 63 languages. Driving to our favorite Chinese restaurant, we pass the oldest Jewish congregation in Alexandria and an Episcopal seminary, both predating the Civil War. Also a Catholic church and school, a well-established mosque, at least eight different denominations of Protestant churches from mainstream to Pentecostal -- several with notices for services in Korean, Tagalog, Spanish, Vietnamese or for the deaf. And a house that serves as a Vietnamese Buddhist temple, plus signs pointing to Greek and Russian orthodox churches. Down Richmond Highway, a Quaker meetinghouse predates Fort Belvoir, where it still sits. Our condo's Laotian staff goes to their own Buddhist temple. Elsewhere there are other Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh places of worship. On a clear day, we see the glint off of Maroni topping the Mormon Temple across town. Periodically, various school districts discuss how best to handle absences for Yom Kippur or Idul Fitr in addition to the Christmas holidays.

Our community is a microcosm of the same diversity of young, old, gay, straight, many ethnicities, languages and religious beliefs or no belief at all. Not unlike my fifth-grade "debt""trespass" argument, the cars in the parking lot sport bumper stickers reflecting a more complicated range of beliefs about politics, civil rights, religious freedom and acting on conscience articulated in America's pluralistic society:

"God is Pro-Life""Pro-Child, Pro-Family, Pro-Choice""Adam and Eve Not Adam and Steve""Don't Believe in Gay Marriage? Don't Marry a Gay. Problem Solved"

Despite America's self-definition as a democracy of people created equal and free to worship (or not) as we believe, our larger tensions melding civil rights, religious freedom and acts of conscience are not new: Think slavery, abolition, the Civil War, segregation, Jim Crow, states rights, civil rights, exclusionary laws, and later, Women's Lib, LGBT rights and all too prevalent but less visible forms of discrimination. Likewise, the Hobby Lobby case and its fallout are rooted in particular groups' certainty about what God intends and consequently their "religious freedom" to act on it. (Whether the Bible or science support their contention is a valid question but beside the point. They believe it.)

One of the advantages of old bones and long memory is witnessing, and sometimes participating in, the struggles for social change over two-thirds of a century. And also knowing first hand the conflicting beliefs and roles people of faith and conscience played in them. As a nation we forget, or never really learn about, these struggles at our peril.

While not unique, my family believed in racial equality and inter-religious tolerance ("God created us equal in his sight"), so I grew up that way. As the Civil Rights movement gained momentum, friends with and without religious affiliations joined the African American-led struggle. A lawyer friend persuaded federal courts to overturn Virginia's Massive Resistance laws. My mother and an interracial delegation from Church Women United lobbied for school integration in Richmond. My husband and I worked on a church-organized drive supporting Open Housing laws.

We were relieved when the Supreme Court, in Griswold, reversed Connecticut's statute prohibiting any person from using drugs or other articles to prevent conception. And welcomed Loving vs. Virginia, which overturned religious scruples and state law, making interracial marriage legal.

This past week -- coincidental to the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision -- we honored the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Outlawing discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, that act also ended unequal voter registration requirements and racial segregation. Further, it defined public accommodations and the right of equal access to them, ending "whites only" signs by the water fountains and the segregated lunch counters, bakeries, hotels and other businesses of my Southern childhood. Public entities were bound to abide by the law and, despite their owner's religious principles, could not discriminate against individuals or groups of people and stay open.

The struggle was not simple or comfortable. Those who felt these changes infringed on their rights argued: "You can't legislate morality." Certainly, not at a personal level, then or now. But those struggles and the resulting laws established public guarantees of equal rights, focused on race but equally applicable to religion. While we still grapple with these issues, the Civil Rights Law changed acceptable public morality.

In the intervening years, the Supreme Court carefully balanced individual religious liberty and resulting public action. In 1968, after an owner who believed the Bible justified segregation brought suit, the Court ruled he had to desegregate his restaurant chain. Later, a federal appeals court ruled that a Christian school in California could not withhold health benefits from their married female employees.

Here we go again. In Hobby Lobby the nominal issue may be contraception and women's rights to make their own health decisions, which I believe in, as important as that is. The more fundamental question, however, is the definition of religious freedom and the kind of society we want as a nation. From this perspective, the current legal battles cast as protecting "religious freedom" and "acts of conscience" -- be it opposition to same sex marriage, allowing businesses to refuse service to various groups they deem acting contrary to God's law, exempting employers with "deeply held religious beliefs" from including contraception in their employee health insurance or a Christian college from even signing papers that would accommodate their opposition to similar health insurance -- flip my long-held understanding of religious freedom on its head.

The issue isn't personal beliefs or what an individual or a religious group preaches or practices. Those are constitutionally protected. We should be able to differ respectfully and let it go. In a plural democracy, the issues are whether an individual or group claiming "freedom of religion" may impose their beliefs on others and whether that individual's or groups' values and beliefs translate into "rights" the public entities they own or run may act on.

In their Hobby Lobby ruling, it seems to me, the majority of the Supreme Court reworked a longstanding balance between religious liberty and the rule of law. In so doing, they effectively re-established discrimination by giving preference to owners' beliefs rather than the public's or their employees', thus sanctioning trespass, or, more accurately, trespass against. For my grandchildren, this grandmother will continue to fight such discrimination. Join me. Boycott. Write letters. Speak out. Reported by Huffington Post 2 hours ago.

ENDA Was Awful Before Hobby Lobby

$
0
0
This week, a number of prominent LGBT organizations withdrew their support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) -- which would, theoretically, for the first time, prohibit employment discrimination against LGBT people nationwide -- expressing concerns over the unprecedentedly broad special exemption provided for religious organizations. For the most part, this has been framed as a reaction to the Hobby Lobby decision, in which the Supreme Court found that the part of the Affordable Care Act which required employers to provide health insurance which covers contraception constituted a violation of religious liberty under a previous law passed by Congress.

The thing is, ENDA was awful long before the Supreme Court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case. First, as mentioned, the special exemption provided for religious organizations is nearly unprecedented in scope. This is not new -- Hobby Lobby threatens only to broaden that scope further. Second, ENDA prohibits both public and private employers from making use of most affirmative action programs -- but only when applied to LGBT people. And, finally, ENDA may roll back significant progress made in protecting transgender Americans from employment discrimination.

Each of these aspects of ENDA undermine its potential for effectively combating employment discrimination against LGBT people -- and none of these characteristics is present in any other significant piece of civil rights legislation.

If passed, ENDA would establish a "separate, but unequal" law of employment discrimination for LGBT people. As it stands today, ENDA is to employment nondiscrimination what civil unions are to marriage -- a token, but ultimately simply another reminder that LGBT persons are regarded as less-than, and that discrimination against us is regarded as more legitimate than it is against nearly any other group in the United States today.

*A Special Exemption for the Religious?*

Understanding this point requires some brief background. In 1964, Congress passed one of many civil rights acts. This one included what is called "Title VII," which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Although many religious conservatives demanded "religious exemptions" be made across the board, Congress allowed for only a narrow exemption -- allowing religious non-profits to discriminate only on the basis of religion. Thus, while qualifying organizations may insist that their employees be members of their own faith, they may not refuse to hire a qualified individual because they are, for example, a woman.

In addition to this statutory exemption, American courts have created a "ministerial exception." This rule is based upon the First Amendment's free exercise clause, and prevents the application of civil rights laws to employees whose positions are of religious importance. So, for example, while Title VII prevents a Catholic church from refusing to hire a female janitor, it does not prevent that church from refusing to hire a female priest, or, possibly, even a female Sunday school teacher. (In the Supreme Court's decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, the Court found a schoolteacher at a religious institution to be a "minister" for the purposes of the ministerial exception.)

ENDA upsets this traditional understanding of the intersection of civil rights laws and religious liberty. The current exemption simply takes the exemption provided for religious discrimination in Title VII and applies it to LGBT people -- allowing any religious organization to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. This rests upon the fallacy that, for the purposes of employment, sexual orientation and gender identity are more akin to religious belief than to any other protected class in Title VII. Of course, this is not so. Sexual orientation and gender identity are, unlike religious affiliation, immutable. Also, it nearly goes without saying that religious belief is far more pertinent to a religious organization's mission than sexual orientation or gender identity.

Furthermore, in light of the reality of the ministerial exception, it is hard to take the so-called "religious liberty" complaints of conservatives seriously. Because of the relative breadth of the ministerial exception, even if ENDA contained no special exception whatsoever for religious groups, religious organizations would still be able to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity when it comes to positions of religious importance.

Although the Supreme Court's decision in Hobby Lobby now raises the possibility that purportedly religious for-profit organizations would fall within this already-broad exception, the problem was never Hobby Lobby -- the problem was the breadth of the exception in the first place.

Considering that many conservatives, including many religious conservatives, have long accused basic civil rights measures to protect LGBT people as being "special rights," it is with great irony that they now demand an unprecedented exemption from a generally-applicable law.

*Ending LGBT Affirmative Action Before it Begins*

Although the Supreme Court has grown less and less tolerant of the use of affirmative action by government entities, including universities, affirmative action and diversity programs are common in the private sector. Today, many companies and schools have "diversity programs" or something similar which they use to ensure that their workplaces are not homogenous. Typically, these programs are designed to increase the numbers of people of color, women, and LGBT people in their workforce or student body. Nor is affirmative action for LGBT people as alien as some would have us believe: The idea of affirmative action for LGBT college applicants has been around for nearly a decade. These programs have the dual benefit of working, if slightly, to compensate for the reality of dealing with discrimination and ensuring a variety of perspectives.

ENDA, however, would likely prevent both governmental and private entities from continuing to include LGBT individuals in these employment programs. Section 4(f) of the bill provides, in part:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed or interpreted to. . .permit any covered entity to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity of such individual or group... or... the adoption or implementation by a covered entity of a quota on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.
In other words: Even as it singles out LGBT Americans for worse treatment under federal antidiscrimination law, ENDA insists that we pretend there exists an even playing field for LGBT Americans in the world of employment.

*Rolling Back Protection for Trans* People*

Unfortunately, this point also requires some explanation. As mentioned, Title VII prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex. In a series of decisions, the Supreme Court held that sex discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of gender stereotypes. For example, in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, the Court held that refusing to promote a woman because she was too masculine was a violation of Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination. Thus, employers are prohibited not only from discriminating against someone because they are a woman, but also because they are a woman who does not act like the employer believes a woman is "supposed to."

In recent years, transgender people have begun to make progress toward inclusion under the protections of Title VII by arguing that discrimination on the basis of gender identity is simply discrimination on the basis of sex.

For example, in one case the Library of Congress extended an employment offer to a person they considered the most qualified -- only to rescind that offer when they discovered their prospective employee was transgender. A federal court found that discriminating against someone for being transgender was both sex discrimination and discrimination on the basis of gender stereotypes -- and therefore prohibited under Title VII. The court explained:
The evidence establishes that the Library was enthusiasti c about hiring David Schroer--until she disclosed her transsexuality . The Library revoked the offer when it learned that a man na med David intended to become, legally, culturally, and physically, a woman named Diane. This was discrimination 'because of... sex.'

...Imagine that an employee is fired because she converts from Christianity to Judaism. Imagine too that her employer te stifies that he harbors no bias toward either Christians or Jews but only 'converts.' That would be a clear case of discriminati on 'because of religion.' No court would take seriously the notion that 'converts' are not covered by the statute.

This court is not alone. Multiple federal appeals courts have also found discrimination on the basis of gender identity to be sex discrimination -- and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal agency charged with the enforcement of Title VII, agrees with them. The idea that gender identity discrimination is sex discrimination has spread beyond Title VII -- the Department of Education, for example, recently announced that it would consider gender identity discrimination to be a violation of another federal law Title IX, which provides, in part:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
Unfortunately, the current version of ENDA poses a substantial risk to all of this progress. Because ENDA explicitly includes "gender identity" as a protected characteristic while Title VII does not, it is likely that, if ENDA is passed, the protection of transgender people from employment discrimination will "shift" from Title VII to ENDA.

This would not be problematic if ENDA were substantially the same as Title VII or other civil rights legislation. But it is not: It would protect fewer trans* people, and provide them arguably weaker protections than Title VII currently does.

*The End of ENDA*

I am glad to see support for this deeply flawed piece of legislation dissipating, but let us be clear: ENDA is not suddenly unworkable because of the Hobby Lobby decision. These deep flaws I've enumerated have been sold to us as "necessary" for its passage, but it has been two decades since ENDA's first introduction and federal civil rights protections for LGBT Americans remain out of grasp. Moreover, even supposing that ENDA were to pass in its current state, I find it difficult to imagine at what point this intransigent Congress would take the steps necessary to undo what ENDA would achieve: Enshrining into federal law anti-LGBT bias as an officially more-acceptable form of bigotry. Reported by Huffington Post 2 hours ago.

Practical Solutions for Cost Reduction Under Health Care Reform

$
0
0
According to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll, almost 60 percent of Americans feel the Health Care Reform legislation has had no impact on their lives. However, the organization also identified that in 2012, prior to the employer mandate deadline, almost 96 percent of employers with at least 50 full-time equivalent employees already offered health insurance to their employees. It is these same organizations that are most impacted by reform legislation and are seeking creative and practical… Reported by bizjournals 50 minutes ago.

Time to Face Social Media

$
0
0
The majority of employers in the United States do not have a published social media policy. Social media is complicated, which is precisely why employers need to have a set of social media policies to establish boundaries and help employees navigate the systems.

Policies and procedures need to work together. Social media is intertwined as another method of communication. Employers need to review all their policies to see if and where social media considerations need to be made and published.

In the Debord v. Mercy Health System of Kansas, Inc. (Nov. 201) case, Sara Debord claimed she was retaliated against for making a sexual harassment claim using a Facebook post. The post she referred to did mention her supervisor needed to keep his creepy hands to himself, however when human resources attempted to investigate, Debord failed to cooperate and disrupted the workplace with false messages about the investigation to other employees. Fortunately, Mercy Hospital had a flexible reporting procedure for harassment allegations which was well communicated.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a number of opinions defining how using the electronic water cooler may be considered protected concerted activity. Whether the company has a union or not, the NLRB protects employees who are attempting to gain support of coworkers to combat an unreasonable work condition or form a union. Care needs to be taken in drafting the policy as a result.

An employee venting on Facebook doesn't necessarily establish protected concerted activity. In the case of Klinger v. University of Mississippi (Dec. 2013), an assistant professor who was placed on a paid administrative leave sent messages to his students requesting they support him in his dispute with administration. He also posted his disciplinary document, and supporting documents from the investigation which placed him on the leave. The assistant professor's contract was not renewed and his claims were dismissed.

Social media is susceptible to misuse. A rapidly rising area of employment cases involve voyeuristic use of social media. There have been cases of hospital employees photographing sedated patients and posting the pictures on Facebook; posting pictures of a man dying of stab wounds in an emergency room instead of treating the man; and nursing students posing with placenta on Facebook.

These health care cases point out how breaching the reasonable expectation of privacy feels. These cases were addressed using Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA), code of conduct and ethics policies. Health care professionals were disciplined; some were dismissed for these acts. It was determined the nursing students were improperly dismissed from school. The students had permission to photograph and there was no violation of patient privacy. Health care isn't the only industry battling in court over misuse of social media. No industry is safe.

Employers need to face the fact that as social media evolves so must policies to maintain a safe and respectful workplace.

*Employers' To Do List:*
1. Manage company information. Identify what is confidential and/or proprietary and establish rules for access and use.
4. Review existing policies to determine if social media needs to be added as a method of communication.
7. Determine how employees are currently using social media and whether that may impact the business and/or productivity. Reported by Huffington Post 22 hours ago.

Memphis 'Blue Flu' symbol of pension troubles

$
0
0
Faced with major changes to their health insurance benefits, more than 500 Memphis police officers called in sick Wednesday for the second consecutive day to protest cuts aimed at helping buttress the city's troubled pension program in a showdown that reflects wider struggles in cash-strapped urban centers across the country. Reported by Miami Herald 21 hours ago.

Memphis Blue Flu symbol of pension troubles

$
0
0
Faced with major changes to their health insurance benefits, more than 500 Memphis police officers called in sick Wednesday for the second consecutive day to protest cuts aimed at helping buttress the citys troubled pension program in a showdown that reflects wider struggles in cash-strapped urban centers across the country. Reported by MyNorthwest.com 21 hours ago.

WalletHub report says Hawaii 4th in the U.S. for health care coverage

$
0
0
A recent study by Wallet Hub said that the number of the uninsured population has dropped from about 9 percent about 6 percent thanks to the Affordable Care Act, which means Hawaii’s uninsured population is the fourth lowest in the United States. Hawaii also scored low with the fewest new enrollees in Medicaid and fewest new enrollees to private health insurance. About 26,010 people are currently on the state's Medicaid program, also called QUEST, and about 8,592 people have signed up for private… Reported by bizjournals 20 hours ago.

CareFirst revises some of its proposed insurance rates in D.C. for 2015

$
0
0
CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield wants to reduce its proposed rates on individual health plans in the District for next year, the D.C Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking said Wednesday. The insurer is asking to revise its proposed rates to be offered on D.C. Health Link, the District's health insurance marketplace, dropping them four percent. In June, the department released the proposed health insurance rates for next year, including an 8 percent decrease for United Healthcare plans.… Reported by bizjournals 20 hours ago.

Yes, millions of uninsured Americans did get coverage through Obamacare

$
0
0
Around 9.5 million Americans gained health insurance during the six-month enrollment period for Obamacare, according to a new survey by the Commonwealth Fund. Some of these Americans got insurance through plans sold through the new exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act, and others got insurance through expanded Medicaid coverage, the survey found. The survey found that 63 percent of adults who got new coverage through the Obamacare exchanges or Medicaid were previously uninsured. This increase… Reported by bizjournals 16 hours ago.
Viewing all 22794 articles
Browse latest View live


Latest Images