Forty percent of Americans say they would quit their jobs immediately if they didn't need employer-provided health insurance, -More- 

*BYOD Webinar: Best Practice & Worst-Case-Scenarios *
*Register now* for the $95 webinar, on July 30, at 2pm ET. You will gain an understanding of the legal and practical issues you must consider in order to safely and effectively maintain a BYOD program, including how you can minimise your risk. Plus you could earn 1.5 HRCI credits! Reported by SmartBrief 8 hours ago.

Nine months after Americans began signing up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, a challenging new phase is emerging as confused enrollees clamor for help in understanding their coverage. Reported by Washington Post 5 hours ago.

In an election-year pitch to female voters, Democrats on Wednesday pressed for legislation that would restore free contraception for women who get their health insurance from companies that object on religious grounds. Reported by MyNorthwest.com 7 hours ago.

The primary driver of future projected debt and deficits has been the growth of federal healthcare spending, something that has alarmed economists as a wave of Baby Boomers retires and more people are added to the Medicare and Medicaid rolls. 

But over the last four years, healthcare spending has grown at a historically slow rate. Economists credit the Affordable Care Act in part, as well as other reforms. And according to new projections from the Congressional Budget Office, the trend could continue.

In in its annual 25-year forecast of the federal budget, the CBO projected growth of federal spending on healthcare programs will continue to slow at a healthy rate over the next 25 years.

In a startling but continuing reversal of projection, the CBO said Tuesday that the federal government would spend about $250 billion less on major federal healthcare programs than it had forecast in 2010, the year the Affordable Care Act was signed into law. 

The CBO's new projections say federal spending on major healthcare programs — Medicare, Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and federal subsidies for people buying insurance on the new Obamacare-established exchanges — will rise from about 4.9% of GDP this year to about 7.5% in 2035. The latter number is 2.2 percentage points lower than the CBO projected five years ago. 

Medicare, in particular, is on an even better path. In 2006, the trustees who monitor the Medicare and Social Security programs said the trust fund that pays hospital bills would be broke by 2018. Now, that trust fund is expected to be solvent until at least 2030, according to the CBO. Overall, Medicare expenditures in 2035 are 2.6 percentage points of GDP lower than the office projected in 2009. Projected Medicare spending is down 35% from five years ago.

Peter Orszag, the former director of the Office of Management and Budget, told Business Insider it's the equivalent of the "biggest fiscal development" in more than three decades.

"Health care spending has always been the core fiscal problem facing the United States," Orszag said. "If we had passed legislation that knocked down long-term Medicare spending projections by 35% it would easily qualify as the biggest fiscal development since the early 1980s — and the fact that the changes are occurring for multiple reasons doesn’t alter that conclusion."

From the Brookings Institute, here are two charts where you can see the healthcare and Medicare spending slowdown in action:

What's behind the continued healthcare slowdown? The CBO attributed it to many different causes, including slower overall projected economic growth and lower-than-projected interest rates in the future. But the CBO also suggested for the first time that the federal government may be able to keep growth costs in line with overall inflation, based on requirements set in the Affordable Care Act.

"Other evidence suggests that hospitals and other providers may be able to achieve significant productivity gains or to restrain the growth of their costs in some other way," the CBO report read.

Here's the big caveat: Though the healthcare spending growth decline is expected to continue, it doesn't mean the federal government is out of the woods. The "silver tsunami" of Baby Boomers will soon begin to retire, adding to an already aging population that will add more to the Medicare rolls and make healthcare spending the federal government's biggest expense by about 2030.

Overall, the CBO says federal debt is still on an unsustainable path, and projects it to reach 102% of GDP by 2039. The primary reason for that will be spending on the healthcare programs and Social Security, which are still projected to grow to about 14% of GDP together by 2039. 

Orszag, though, thinks the projections might still be a little too pessimistic, despite the sudden stroke of optimism in the CBO report. Medicare spending is up about 1.2% this fiscal year, significantly lower than projections.

"If that continues," Orszag said, "the fiscal picture looks even brighter."

*SEE ALSO: The one chart that shows Obamacare is working*

Join the conversation about this story » Reported by Business Insider 6 hours ago.

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

Here's a two-word summary of why the American healthcare system is fundamentally broken and cannot be fixed with policy tweaks: perverse incentives.

*If you type sickcare in the custom search box on this site, you get 10+ pages of articles. I have covered healthcare/sickcare in depth for many years.* I have many correspondents within the sector (doctors and nurses), and have paid the unsubsidized costs of insurance as an employer or as a self-employed worker for 30+ years.

Here are two charts and three stories of many I've published over the years:

ObamaCare: The Neutron Bomb That Will Decimate the U.S. Economy (November 21, 2013)

Greed + Cartels = U.S. Sickcare/ObamaCare (February 13, 2014)

Obamacare is a Catastrophe That Cannot Be Fixed (December 6, 2013)



*The unsubsidized cost of Obamacare for two 60-year old healthy adults ($23,244 annually) for an inferior plan to what we had before exceeds the cost of rent or a mortgage for the majority of Americans.* Please ponder this for a moment: buying healthcare insurance under Obamacare costs as much or more as buying a house.



*Here's a two-word summary of why the American healthcare system is fundamentally broken and cannot be fixed with policy tweaks: perverse incentives.* Physician Ishabaka provides a telling example of how perverse incentives operate beneath the surface of what patients (and clueless politicos) see:



Today I saw a 16 year old boy who weighed 310 pounds - the wave of the future - will have type II diabetes by his 20's, probably have at least one leg amputated by his 40's.





I got home - and there was a fax in my fax machine. It was from a medical device company, promoting their new machine which is used to test for peripheral autonomic neuropathy (a disease of the nerves). There was NO MENTION of how this device would help patients.





What WAS mentioned was that insurance and Medicare pay for this test, and that no pre-authorization is required. It was stated the average Medicare reimbursement is $200. The "C.P.T. code" - the code doctors use for billing insurance - for the test was included, and a statement that the device would return its initial cost within 3 months was included - also a statement that the test takes THREE MINUTES.

Now, $200 for three minutes work is pretty sweet. In all of medicine "doing things" pays more than "thinking". That's why surgeons on average earn twice or more the income of primary care doctors. Surgery isn't hard - if you can do carpentry, you can do surgery. The thinking is the hard part - but it doesn't pay.

 

Now - here's the crux of the matter - peripheral autonomic neuropathy is very common in diabetic patients - and we are having an explosion in the population of people with diabetes. Therefore there are a LOT of patients with peripheral autonomic neuropathy, and a lot more coming down the pipe. Seeing an established diabetic patient, going over their blood sugar results, other tests, diabetes medications, diet, and exercise takes 15 - 20 minutes and pays FAR LESS than $200 - but actually HELPS patients. This benefit has been scientifically proven.

 

As a general rule, medical tests should only be done if they are likely to HELP a patient - either due to the fact that they may guide treatment, or give the patient useful information - an example might be a test that shows a patient has incurable cancer with a life expectancy of three months (I have had to tell a guy this at least once, based on the results of my physical examination, which suggested cancer, and a CT scan, which revealed that the cancer originated in the pancreas, and had spread to the liver) the information doesn't affect the patient's treatment, but does help him arrange his life - i.e. that he should make sure his will is up to date, say goodbye to family and friends, etc.

 

Here is the deal - for 99.9% of diabetics there is NO TREATMENT for peripheral autonomic neuropathy, and NO BENEFIT for the patient to know if they have it or not. In other words, almost all the time - this test is completely and utterly useless. There are a small amount of diabetic patients with serious, treatable peripheral autonomic neuropathy - but in them, the diagnosis is best made by physical examination and symptoms - not by this test.

 

So there you have it - a worthless test that apparently Medicare and other health insurances WILL pay for, that I could use on a whole bunch of patients to make a LOT of money, in very little time.

 

In fact, Medicare pays about $50 - $60 for the established diabetic patient visit I referenced earlier - or about one quarter what I'd make from doing this worthless test. Not only could I test all my diabetic patients - if they tested negative, I could re-test them at yearly intervals, keep making my $200 a pop, all for no benefit whatever to my patients.

 

I thought this was the most crystal clear example of mal-investment in the health care field I've come across in some time. The fax is in my re-cycling bin, waiting to be picked up by the city today. I'm not buying one of the testing machines. Oh well - I'll never own an Porsche Turbo - and I love fast cars!

 

In conclusion - there are plenty of doctors who jump at this kind of profit-making opportunity - I know several. One in particular does an echocardiogram on EVERY SINGLE patient he admits to the hospital - he gets paid to read the results of the echocardiogram - which takes little time, and is very lucrative. An echocardiogram CAN be a very useful test in patients with certain heart conditions, or in who certain heart conditions are suspected (can confirm or refute the clinical suspicion - which can dramatically change the patient's treatment) - but an echocardiogram on EVERY patient is a rip-off, plain and simple.

I don't know how he gets away with it, but he does - he's a multimillionaire. I'm not. Sometimes I wonder who is the smarter doctor.



*Meanwhile, elsewhere in the world, equivalent care is affordable.* Since the advanced, developed nations of Taiwan and Japan both provide care for one-third of what the U.S. spends per person, we already know that fully 65% of what we spend on sickcare is waste, fraud, defensive medicine (i.e. medically worthless tests given to stave off future lawsuits), profiteering, racketeering and paper-shuffling.

*Consider this report from correspondent Barry P.:*



I've been visiting the Philippines and came down with an ear infection. I tried to allow my immune system do the work, but after 3 days of no improvement my wife dragged me to the hospital, Makati Medical Center (MMC). MMC is one of two-or-three hospitals that the well-to-do go to when the need arises. Just as modern as the average US city-hospital. I have no health insurance in The Philippines.

The doctor spoke excellent English. The tools and technique used was pretty much as I expected (having had a history of ear infections in life). The US dollar cash price (after the exchange rate) I paid was $18.44 for the office visit and $30.54 for one weeks worth antibiotics, a vial of ear drops, and five pills for pain (as needed). A week later, I'm OK; no infection, no pain.

 

So for less than $50, the amount around the "US-sickcare" co-pay, I'm done.

 

Let that sink in.

 

The US medical cartel has a racket, eh? But we know that.



I have direct experience of similar costs in Thailand and China for care that was as good or better than in the U.S. (i.e. minimal waiting and paperwork, caregivers were polite, care was efficient, test machines of the exact same type and brand as in the U.S., etc.).

*Correspondent M. submitted this report on the change in U.S. healthcare from a non-profit community-based hospital system to a centralized profit machine:*



I reviewed this same topic with 3 different MD practitioners in recent months and ALL said the same thing!... namely, that medical care transitioned from local community MD non-profit run, into psychopath MBA profit run (at the hospital level) starting in the 1970s. They emphasized or gave examples of how the effective local non-profit MD run community hospital was taken over by for profit MBAism, typically with huge buyouts of the previous MD non-profit operators. *Medical care became just another avenue for system wide racketeering via transition from local to larger system (i.e. racketeering).*





The solution as you say: return to local community.



*Large-scale rackets like sickcare cannot survive without a Central State that collects taxes and funnels the proceeds to the racketeers, who of course have bought political influence with their plundered profits.* This is a self-reinforcing system that cannot be reformed in any meaningful way. It will bankrupt the nation and then we'll have a chance to start over with an affordable, efficient, fair system that is focused on prevention and health rather than profiting from disease, fraud and lawsuits Reported by Zero Hedge 7 hours ago.

Americans want quality, affordable health insurance and have found it within the Affordable Care Act. Indeed, new enrollment numbers offer the firmest evidence yet that the health care law is working.

Three studies released last week by Gallup, the Urban Institute and The Commonwealth Fund show that the ACA has been successful in reducing the number of uninsured Americans. One report estimates that 14 million people obtained health insurance coverage through the marketplaces and Medicaid -- surpassing previous estimates -- and that the percentage of Americans without coverage has fallen by 5 percentage points. Among young adults (aged 19 to 34), the percentage of uninsured dropped twice as much -- from 28 percent to 18 percent - with an estimated 5.7 million fewer young adults uninsured.

Not only are more people insured as a result of the new law, a large majority of enrollees report that they are happy [infographic] with their coverage and believe it has improved their access to care. Seventy-eight percent, including 74 percent of ACA recipients who identify themselves as Republicans, reported being satisfied with their new plans, and almost 80 percent said they were optimistic that the ACA would improve their access to care.

The expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act also played a large part in reducing the number of uninsured. In states that expanded Medicaid, the uninsured rate for low-income adults dropped from 28 percent to 17 percent. However, states that have refused to expand Medicaid saw a drop of only 2 percent.

Of course, the law is also helping people who have long had insurance. Millions of Americans won't be dropped from their coverage if they get sick, or denied coverage for preexisting conditions. Seniors are saving money on prescription drugs. Insurers can't arbitrarily hike up premiums. And approximately 47 million women, including 1.6 million in Michigan, now have guaranteed access to additional preventive services at no out-of-pocket cost to them.

Later this month, Speaker Boehner plans to bring legislation to the House floor to sue the president in the latest GOP attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act. While a new poll shows that most Americans see this for what it is -- a political stunt -- my colleagues on the other side of the aisle should spend less time trying to repeal this law and instead work with us to strengthen and protect affordable health care for all Americans. Reported by Huffington Post 6 hours ago.

Earnings season continues as the health-insurance giant reports. Find out what to expect. Reported by Motley Fool 6 hours ago.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) denounced Senate Democrats for introducing a bill Wednesday to overturn the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision. 

The legislation would alter the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, cited by the Supreme Court in its ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby, which passed both Houses of Congress and was signed by President Bill Clinton.

Hatch remarked that the bill would distort the purpose of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, reminding observers that he teamed up with Senator Ted Kennedy to introduce the bill over 20 years ago, which passed 97-3.

“We believe that public policy issues can be addressed in a way that upholds, rather than ignores, religious liberty,” he said at a press conference on Wednesday outside the Capitol Building. 

Hatch dismissed the bill as a purely political exercise.

“It’s hard for me to understand, but politics takes over sometimes in this body, and that’s what it’s all about,” Hatch said. “It’s pure politics, and I think it’s really stupid politics at that.”

The bill is expected to fail, as Democrats are seeking leverage against Republicans in the upcoming mid-term elections, accusing them of blocking women’s access to free contraception from their employers.

Hatch was joined by his colleague Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and members of faith-based groups, who spoke out against the bill.

“This is a political move today that is very unfortunate because it tramples on religious freedom,” Alexander said. “Every American should be concerned when any American’s religious freedom is trampled upon.”

Republicans and faith leaders insisted that the Hobby Lobby case was not about restricting employees' access to contraception, but took issue, rather, with abortifacients.

“We do not object to including contraceptions other than abortifacients in employee health insurance policies, provided that employers with religious objections to them are fully exempted,” explained Helen Gonzalez, the vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals.

Melissa Swearingen, the associate director of Government Relations for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, called the Hobby Lobby decision a “just outcome” allowing protections for people with different viewpoints in a pluralistic society. She argued that the bill proposed by the Senate would distort the original meaning of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

“We won’t always agree, but we have to make space for people--even those we disagree with,” she said. “This bill does the exact opposite.” Reported by Breitbart 5 hours ago.

In an election-year pitch to female voters, Democrats on Wednesday pressed for legislation that would restore free contraception for women who get their health insurance from companies that object on religious grounds. Reported by San Jose Mercury News 5 hours ago.

Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked a bill that would have required all for-profit employers to include the full range of contraceptives in their health insurance plans, in effect overriding the Supreme Court's recent decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

The Senate voted 56 to 43 to proceed to debate on the bill, falling short of the 60 votes needed to move forward. Three Republicans-- Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) -- voted with Senate Democrats to proceed.

The bill, sponsored by Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.), would have barred for-profit companies from opting out of federal law based on the religious beliefs of their owners. The Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that Hobby Lobby, a craft supply chain owned by Evangelical Christians, could legally refuse to cover the four kinds of contraception that its owners believe are akin to abortion.

Supporters of the Democrats' bill used the Twitter hashtag #NotMyBossBusiness to express their opposition to the idea of employers getting to pick and choose what kinds of health coverage their female employees receive based on their own religious beliefs.

"While some are saying this case has nothing to do with access to birth control, that is simply not true," Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said during debate over the bill on Wednesday. "For most working families, affordability is access. A third of women in America say they have struggled with the cost of birth control at some point in their lives. For a working family getting by month to month, often paycheck to paycheck, these costs -- though they might be dismissed by Washington pundits -- these costs add up, and they can put contraception out of reach."

Republicans opposed the bill because they said it infringes upon the religious liberty of employers.

"The issue in Hobby Lobby is not whether women can purchase birth control, it's who pays for what," Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) told colleagues. "Those of us who believe that life begins at conception have moral objections to devices or procedures that destroy fertilized embryos. I think most Americans agree that that's reasonable." Reported by Huffington Post 4 hours ago.

Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked a bill aimed at restoring free contraception for women who get their health insurance from companies with religious objections, a legislative setback for Democrats that they hope will be a political winner in November's elections. Reported by FOXNews.com 4 hours ago.

Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked a bill aimed at restoring free contraception for women who get their health insurance from companies with religious objections, a legislative setback for Democrats that they hope will be a political winner in November's elections. Reported by Seattle Times 4 hours ago.

The American Dream now costs $130,000 a year. At least that's the figure USA Today came up with in its recent article, "Price Tag for the American Dream." USA Today derived that figure based on a family of four, taking into account items such as the cost of home ownership, groceries, a car, health insurance, taxes, retirement and education. The article puts a price tag on what it takes to achieve the dream.

And yet, $130k is beyond the reach for 7 out of 8 Americans, where the median salary is just $51,000. Does that mean the American Dream is on its way to extinction?

The article was written in response to the new book Chasing the American Dream. In it, social scientists-turned-authors take an in-depth look at the origins and dynamics of the American Dream and what it means in our current economic climate. "The American dream has served as a road map for the way we often envision the course of our lives," they wrote.

But that road map is not based purely on achieving financial objectives. When you examine the origin of the term American Dream, it was more about opportunities and achieving fulfillment than making money. James Truslow Adams coined the phrase in his 1931 book, The Epic of America, in which he described the American Dream as:
That dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement... It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.
Many of us picture the American Dream largely in monetary terms, and it took me a lot of years to rethink my own ideas about it. After graduation from school some 30 years ago, I eagerly began pursuing what I then considered to be the American Dream. I made it my mission to work hard and earn enough money to own my home, drive a nice car, send my kids to college, travel well, and retire comfortably.

I did it all. I checked all the boxes: home, car, college, vacation, and nest egg. And then, when I reached my fifties, I started to wonder, Is this all there is? Is life really about the things money can buy?

Of course not. Virtually all of us value our closest relationships far more than our stuff. We understand the joy of helping someone else often trumps the pleasure of a shiny new purchase. We love participating in activities that engage us and make us feel fulfilled.

Yet, our unrelenting pursuit of our idea of the American Dream often leads us astray. The irony is that our pursuit of more money, so we can buy more stuff, often takes us away from what really matters to us.

We know this, yet we continue to chase that version of the American Dream. Why? Because we get a burst of happiness when we buy the new thing. It feels good, but the pleasure quickly fades. We are left longing for more, for the next luxury purchase hit.

Maybe it's time to rethink your version of the American Dream, as I had to do. It may help to remind yourself about who and what provide you lasting satisfaction, and focus on the pursuit of those relationships and experiences.

As the authors of Chasing the American Dream wrote:
The American Dream has ultimately been about the manner in which our lives unfold and the ability of the individual, no matter where he or she comes from, to exert considerable control and freedom over how that process occurs. In a sense, it is about being able to live out our individual biographies to their fullest extent.
Rethinking my money-based version of the American Dream helped me discover there is more to life than checking boxes. So even though temptations to slip into old patterns abound, I'm sticking with the American Dream defined by Adams in 1931, and reinforced in this new book, a version that envisions every one of us having the control and freedom to live a life of fulfillment based on our capabilities. I'm optimistic enough to believe that version of the American Dream will never be extinct. We may just need occasional reminders that it's not just about "motor cars and high wages." You really can't put a price tag on the American Dream.

David Geller is the author of Wealth and Happiness: Using Your Wealth to Create a Better Life. He is the CEO of Atlanta-based GV Financial Advisors and is available for professional speaking engagements. Reported by Huffington Post 2 hours ago.

The time to comment on health insurers’ proposed rates for next year is now. The Oregon Insurance Division is taking public input up until midnight on Friday. Rate requests are available for review and comment online. The rates are for plans covering businesses with fewer than 50 employees and for individuals who buy their own insurance, about 10 percent of Oregonians. The Insurance Division must approve the rate requests, after a thorough review by actuaries to ensure they are “reasonable… Reported by bizjournals 2 hours ago.

Companion legislation has yet to advance in the Senate and the White House has promised a veto of the House bill for numerous reasons, including a provision that would block the Internal Revenue Service from enforcing the mandate on individuals to buy health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. The measure is one of the more obscure of the 12 annual spending bills funding the Treasury Department, the IRS, White House staff and operations, and the Securities and Exchange Commission's regulation of the financial sector. Republicans are furious at the agency over allegations it targeted tea party groups seeking tax-exempt status and has lost emails from the government account of former agency official Lois Lerner, who was formerly in charge of the IRS section responsible for scrutinizing such requests. Reported by SeattlePI.com 2 hours ago.

Washington D.C., Jul 16, 2014 / 03:36 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The U.S. Senate on Wednesday rejected a bill that opponents warned would have stripped conscience protections for businesses, drawing a response of cautious relief.

“While the outcome of today’s vote is a relief, it is sobering to think that more than half the members of the U.S. Senate, sworn to uphold the laws and Constitution of the United States, would vote for a bill whose purpose is to reduce the religious freedom of their fellow Americans,” said the U.S. bishops’ director of government, Jayd Henricks.

The procedural motion to move the bill along fell four votes short of achieving the 60-vote majority needed to continue. Sponsored by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the bill would have forced employers with group health plans to provide all “health items” mandated by federal law, including all FDA-approved contraceptives under the Affordable Care Act.

This would counter the Supreme Court’s recent decision that closely-held businesses like Hobby Lobby are protected by federal law from the federal birth control mandate, given their religious objections.

The controversial mandate requires employers to offer health insurance covering contraception, sterilization and some drugs that can cause early abortions. It has been the subject of religious freedom lawsuits from more than 300 plaintiffs across the country.

Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore and Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley of Boston – heads of the bishops’ religious freedom and pro-life committees, respectively – had cautioned against the proposed legislation in a letter to all U.S. Senators. They said that it “does not befit a nation committed to religious liberty. Indeed, if it were to pass, it would call that commitment into question.”

The bishops had argued that the bill would go far beyond the Hobby Lobby decision. If health care mandates were expanded in the future to include the abortion pill RU-486 or late-term abortions, employers would be forced to cover those and would have no recourse to conscience protections, they said. Reported by CNA 20 minutes ago.

Alabama residents looking for health insurance will have more options during the second year of the health exchange marketplace. UnitedHealthcare, the state's second largest insurer, has filed plans to expand its coverage to all 67 counties. "We have filed a QHP (quality health plan) exchange application and look forward to continuing our conversations throughout the approval process and expect to have a competitive product available for Alabama consumers," said UnitedHealthcare spokesperson Elizabeth… Reported by bizjournals 43 minutes ago.

Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked a bill aimed at restoring free contraception for women who get their health insurance... Reported by Deseret News 39 minutes ago.

President Obama mentions himself more regularly than previous commanders-in-chief, though the number drops if you leave out mentions of the bear being loose. The Senate blocked a bill on contraceptives, proving the body needed no outside help to shut that whole thing down. And Scott Brown referred all questions about a recent Supreme Court decision to his awesome red truck, which by the way he totally drives. This is HUFFPOST HILL for Wednesday, July 16th, 2014:

*ISSA SUBPOENA STORM INTENSIFIES, COULD BECOME ISSACANE* - Once his chairmanship ends, we look forward to his Derek Jeter-style Re2Pect ad with a bunch of Tea Party types tipping their tricorne hats to him. Justin Sink: "The director of the White House's political office defied a subpoena from the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday, setting up a new high-profile fight between the White House and House Republicans. Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said administration claims that White House political director David Simas was immune from testimony were 'absurd' and 'deeply disturbing.' 'The American people have a right to know if their tax dollars are being used for political activity,' Issa said, adding that Simas's testimony was 'critically important' to his investigation into whether the political office had violated the Hatch Act, a law prohibiting executive branch employees from engaging in partisan campaign activity. *Issa has not produced evidence of a specific instance of the White House violating the law and has pointed to abuses in the office that occurred under the Bush Administration to justify the subpoena*." [The Hill]

*STRONG ISSA GUST ENDS COMMITTEE HEARING* - Jen Bendery: "Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, seemed to catch everyone off guard Wednesday when *he suddenly pulled the plug on his committee hearing before witnesses could even testify.* Issa read his opening statement for the hearing on potential abuses of taxpayer funds by the White House's new political office, and let his Democratic counterpart, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), read his statement before declaring the hearing over. *Two witnesses who came prepared to testify were dismissed.* A source who was in the hearing said one of Issa's witnesses, Carolyn Lerner, the director of the independent Office of Special Counsel, appeared to leave angrily." [HuffPost]

*DEM CONTRACEPTIVE BILL THWARTED* - Laura Bassett: "Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked a bill that would have required all for-profit employers to include the full range of contraceptives in their health insurance plans, in effect overriding the Supreme Court's recent decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. The Senate voted 56 to 43 to proceed to debate on the bill, falling short of the 60 votes needed to move forward. Three Republicans-- Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) -- voted with Senate Democrats to proceed. The bill, sponsored by Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.), would have barred for-profit companies from opting out of federal law based on the religious beliefs of their owners. The Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that Hobby Lobby, a craft supply chain owned by Evangelical Christians, could legally refuse to cover the four kinds of contraception that its owners believe are akin to abortion." [HuffPost]

*NEGOTIATIONS OVER CHILD MIGRANTS COLLAPSE IN HOUSE* - Times: "Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, reversed course on Wednesday and said she would not back changes to a 2008 law that gave certain undocumented immigrant children broader legal rights to enter the United States. *Ms. Pelosi had suggested this month that she could accept changes to the Bush-era law that would expedite the deportation of children in exchange for President Obama’s emergency $3.7 billion request* to deal with a sudden surge of unaccompanied minors at the border, mainly from Central America. Since then, she said, Republican leaders have given little indication that they will back that funding request. One of her own members, Representative Henry Cuellar, Democrat of Texas, teamed up with Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, this week to introduce legislation that would amend the 2008 law, which is intended to stop sex trafficking, but which grants migrant children from Central America extra legal protections that have made them harder to return quickly to their home countries. The Democratic leadership’s hard line raises the prospects of an impasse on Capitol Hill that leaves the Obama administration with no additional resources to deal with the border surge. Republican leaders have said they will not give the president a “blank check” without policy changes. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus was set to meet with Mr. Obama on Wednesday afternoon, and White House officials were to brief Democratic senators on the border issue in the evening." [NYT]

*DAILY DELANEY DOWNER* - Since the Great Recession, many American cities have sought to eradicate homelessness not so much by giving people shelter, but by *making it illegal to be homeless*. Citywide bans on things that homeless people need to do to survive are on the rise, according to a new report by the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. Key findings: camping bans are up 60 percent since 2011, begging bans up 25 percent, loitering bans up 35 percent, sitting bans up 43 percent, and vehicle-sleeping bans are up 119 percent. [HuffPost]

*DOUBLE DOWNER* - Lawmakers have been eating unemployed people's lunch right and left this year. On Tuesday, the House of Representatives took another bite, approving a federal highway funding bill with a cost-cutting provision that had been part of legislation for the long-term jobless. *"This is now the second time they’ve taken offsets intended to help the unemployed and used them to pay for other priorities,"* Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I) said in a statement after the vote. Since December, Reed and Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) have been the chief sponsors of several bills to restore benefits to people jobless longer than six months. Republicans have stifled the bills, partly by demanding their cost be offset with spending cuts or revenue increases. Reed and Heller keep coming up with offsets, and other lawmakers keep taking them. [HuffPost]

Does somebody keep forwarding you this newsletter? Get your own copy. It's free! Sign up here. Send tips/stories/photos/events/fundraisers/job movement/juicy miscellanea to huffposthill@huffingtonpost.com. Follow us on Twitter - @HuffPostHill

*SENATE CONFIRMS JUDGE 15 YEARS AFTER FIRST NOMINATION* - And here we thought unconfirmed judicial nominees were kept in some kind of holding pen outside of Patrick Leahy's office and fed pellets every few hours. "The first time Ronnie White came up for a vote in the Senate, he was one of President Bill Clinton's judicial nominees and Senate Republicans sunk his confirmation to a Missouri district court. Then-Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.) led the charge against White, who is African-American, saying he'd been soft on criminals in death penalty cases he oversaw in his role as a state judge, and pointing to opposition from Missouri police associations later found to be all-white. White's supporters charged that race was a factor in his defeat, and Ashcroft's role in sinking White's confirmation contributed to his own loss in the subsequent Senate election. That was in 1999, two years after Clinton nominated White to the bench. On Wednesday, White got a rare second chance. The Senate voted to confirm him to the same court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, by a vote of 53 to 44...In the years since his nomination, White continued on as a Missouri Supreme Court judge and later went into private practice. He resurfaced on Capitol Hill in 2001 when Ashcroft was going through his own confirmation hearings to become U.S. attorney general under President George W. Bush. During those hearings, White expressed anger at Ashcroft for torpedoing his nomination by persuading Republicans he wasn't tough enough on crime." [HuffPost]

*Marsha Blackburn is standing between you and the ability to load cat videos faster*: "A senior congressional Republican this week introduced legislation that would bar the federal government from using its powers to help community-owned Internet service providers compete with private telecommunications companies...In many states, major providers of high-speed Internet connections have successfully lobbied state lawmakers to deliver legislation that bars community-owned ISPs from expanding beyond their home territories. The Federal Communications Commission has the authority to intervene and preempt such state laws to enable smaller Internet providers to compete with larger national firms. The legislation, introduced by Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee as an amendment to an annual spending bill, would strip the FCC of this power. *Blackburn’s top campaign donors include private telecommunications firms that do not want to have to compete with publicly owned ISPs.* Her state is home to EPB, a taxpayer-owned power company in Chattanooga that also provides local residents some of the fastest Internet speeds in the world at market-competitive rates. EPB is now aiming to expand its services beyond Chattanooga." [IBTimes]

*THE [DEL: BEAR :DEL] TIGER IS LOOSE: WHY DAVID WU LINGERS* - It's the absolute saddest iteration of those college freshman who constantly visit their high school. BuzzFeed: "[H]is main project these days is organizing an exchange trip in August to send American students to China to check out its space program. This is just one of Wu’s hodgepodge of current gigs. Some he does pro bono; some he gets paid for. His main stream of income seems to be coming from consulting Chinese companies about investing in the United States (“We sent $3 trillion over the last 30 years and I think it’s a good idea to repatriate some of that money,” he says). The rest of his time, he says, is spent going around the country “giving speeches and encouraging young people to get more involved in civic engagement.' Wu says there’s a legitimate reason he’s still in the District. *The terms of his divorce state he needs to remain there until his two teenage children have graduated from high school. He plans to one day return to Oregon*, where he spent years as a lawyer before running an underdog campaign for Congress...Until then, though, Wu remains in Washington. He considers himself someone who has a lot to offer the political world. He is the treasurer of a political action committee, the Education and Opportunity Fund. Filings show the PAC doesn’t do a lot, beyond small donations to local parties and a few House candidates, like Rep. Mike Honda, whom Wu considers a friend." [BuzzFeed]

*DEY TERK ER [DEL: JERBS :DEL] MERIT BADGES* - We call dibs on the EP credit for the talk show featuring this guy and Stark County treasurer candidate Phil Davison. AZ Central: "Republican congressional candidate and state legislator Adam Kwasman had just raced up to Phoenix Tuesday morning from the Oracle protest over the expected arrival of dozens of migrant children at a shelter. He had tweeted from the scene, 'Bus coming in. This is not compassion. This is the abrogation of the rule of law.' He included a photo of the back of a yellow school bus. *But there was a problem with Kwasman's story: There was no fear on their faces. Those weren't the migrant children in the school bus. Those were children from the Marana school district. They were heading to the YMCA's Triangle Y Camp, not far from the Rite of Passage shelter for the migrants, at the base of Mt. Lemmon.* 12 News reporter Will Pitts, who was at the protest scene, says he saw the children laughing and taking pictures of the media. I had to break it to Kwasman that those weren't migrant children. Kwasman later deleted the tweet. He did back flips trying to take back the story he told me. And while the YMCA kids showed up, the bus that Kwasman and other protesters were waiting for -- packed with migrant children -- won't be going to the shelter today, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services." [AZ Central]

*SCOTT BROWN'S CAMPAIGN PULLS A JOE MILLER* -
Guardian: "Jeremy, [a Brown campaign staffer], looking even more anxious than he did at Priscilla's, took me to a corner and told me that while I could witness Brown's electioneering, under no circumstances was I permitted to ask questions. I was explaining to Jeremy that Senate candidates don’t get to dictate when and where journalists ask them questions, when Brown re-emerged. Gruffly, he told me I had intruded in a private event. He was not going to answer my questions about Hobby Lobby. 'I’m not making any more news,' he explained. 'You’re being unprofessional and you’re being rude.' *A large man with chest hair poking out of his shirt put it more bluntly. 'You have to go,' he said. 'We can either do this the right way, or we can do this the wrong way.' 'What is the wrong way?' I asked. 'I don’t want you to find out,' he said.* I left the campaign event in the company of the tavern's owner. He and I were talking on the porch, several minutes later, when a police car pulled up. I don't know if Officer Valley, from the Ossipee Police Department, had ever before been called to deal with an errant reporter. I do know he walked up to the porch with an amused look on his face. 'How you doing?' he said, shaking everyone's hand. 'What’s up?' None of the parties disputed the facts of the case. I was the journalist. My job was to ask questions. The man holed up inside the tavern was Scott Brown, a would-be senator who didn’t want to answer. I was eventually asked to leave. I left. Officer Valley mulled over the situation before delivering his summary judgment. 'There’s no crime,' he said. 'No issue here at all.'" [Guardian]

*CLASSIC BIDEN* - Andrew Kaczynski: "Vice President Joe Biden said Wednesday the 'hope and change' promised by President Obama and himself in 2008 never happened. Biden was speaking at the Generation Progress, a segment of the Center for American Progress dedicated to student and youth advocacy. 'Look folks, this is within our power to change,' Biden said to the crowd. '*Everybody says because we tried in ‘08 and it didn’t happen*, it’s not possible. Wrong. We’ve gone through these periods before.'" [BuzzFeed]

*BECAUSE YOU'VE READ THIS FAR* - Here's a greedy raccoon

*PRESIDENT TALKS ABOUT HIMSELF, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT* - Why is this president using pronouns instead of leading and searching for Benghazi truths? WaPo: "We took a dozen or more speeches, comments, and radio addresses from the last three presidents in June and July of the second year of their second terms and counted the instances of 'I,' 'me,' and 'my.'...*Our counts showed that Obama mentioned himself 835 times in the 31,123 words we counted in 16 speeches. That's 2.68 percent of the time. Which is higher than the percentage for George Bush: 2.25 percent (897 uses in 39,810 words in 14 speeches). And it's higher than the percentage for Bill Clinton, if barely: 2.6 percent (676 uses in 26,031 words in 12 speeches)*...For kicks, we also tracked the number of times each president was interrupted by applause or laughter, and the number of times he referred to God. (In Clinton's defense, his speeches, from UCSB's American Presidency Project, appear to include fewer such annotations.) People clapped for Bush and Obama about equally, but laughed at Obama more. Is this affecting his ability to lead?" [WaPo]

*COMFORT FOOD*

- A collection of the most golf clap-worthy Facebook profile/cover photo combinations. [http://huff.to/1mhzFFc]

- "Game of Thrones" sigils for all 50 states. [http://bit.ly/1kuPPLY]

- Humans doing cat things. [http://huff.to/1zJ9AsZ]

- Next time you drive through Taco Bell, prepare to encounter drunk Charlie Sheen. [http://bit.ly/1mhdnU8]

- Today's Weird Al installment is a Lorde Parody, "Foil." [http://bit.ly/1naOPlO]

- LeBron James perfectly placed into "Dumb and Dumber." [http://bit.ly/UbLXsl]

- The use of swear words by chief executives on conference calls is directly correlated with the economy. [http://bloom.bg/1jP42IO]

*TWITTERAMA*

@NineCalifornias: #NineCalifornias is an initiative like @SixCalifornias but with 50% more Californias.

@TheTweetofGod: I, God, completely support __________ in its ongoing fight against __________. Kill them all!

@pourmecoffee: Why can't Rupert Murdoch just buy a two seater convertible instead of a cable company like a normal just divorced guy.

*Got something to add? Send tips/quotes/stories/photos/events/fundraisers/job movement/juicy miscellanea to Eliot Nelson (eliot@huffingtonpost.com) or Arthur Delaney (arthur@huffingtonpost.com). Follow us on Twitter @HuffPostHill (twitter.com/HuffPostHill). Sign up here: http://huff.to/an2k2e* Reported by Huffington Post 12 minutes ago.

The office of Utah's attorney general has filed an emergency petition to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a stay on a ruling that the state must legally recognize same-sex marriages performed while gay marriage was briefly legal in the state.

If granted the stay, the state would have more time to prepare its appeal to the high court. The existing stay on the ruling expires on July 21.

Last week, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Utah's attempt to block recognition of 1,300 same-sex marriages that were performed while the state's ban was lifted last December.

Reuters reports:
Utah refused to confer legal recognition of gay and lesbian marriages performed in the interim, leaving those couples unable to proceed with adoptions, obtain spousal health insurance benefits or legally change their names.

Four newlywed same-sex couples then filed a separate lawsuit to get the state to recognize their marital status, winning a decision in May from another federal judge that their marriages were valid. But that judge also temporarily stayed his own ruling to let Utah petition for a lengthier injunction pending appeal.

The 10th Circuit on Friday denied that request for a permanent injunction.
In the petition for the emergency hold, state officials claimed that "there is a likelihood — indeed, a certainty — of irreparable harm to the State" should the stay be denied.

Read the application below, courtesy of BuzzFeed's Chris Geidner:
UTAH - Application for SCOTUS Stay by Chris Geidner Reported by Huffington Post 23 hours ago.