On October 13, Moody’s released is rating methodology for U.S. Health Insurance Companies.
Reported by Mondaq 11 hours ago.
United States: Rating Agency Developments - 28 October 2014 - Orrick
↧
↧
Blue Cross sends incorrect rate information to 42,000 customers
Some 42,000 Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina customers received a letter containing incorrect rate information, the insurer reported Thursday. The error affected only customers who are grandfathered and have a Blue Advantage health plan with a $15 co-pay for primary-care office visits, according to Blue Cross of N.C., the state's largest health insurer. These are customers who buy on the individual market, meaning those who do not buy health insurance through an employer. "We're human…
Reported by bizjournals 9 hours ago.
↧
Meet The Working Mother Taking Her Pregnancy Discrimination Case To The Supreme Court
WASHINGTON -- When Peggy Young became pregnant in 2006, she had every intention of continuing to work delivering packages for UPS in Maryland. At the urging of the company's occupational health manager, Young visited her doctor to obtain a note detailing any work restrictions she might need. Her doctor recommended that she not lift more than 20 pounds for the first 20 weeks of her pregnancy.
Based on the doctor's note, UPS placed Young on unpaid leave, an all too common experience for women nationwide. Although UPS often put workers with other conditions on light duty, it told Young that such accommodations wouldn't apply to an "off-the-job" condition such as her pregnancy. Not only would she lose her income, she would have to suddenly switch to her husband's health insurance plan, changing the hospitals at which she could potentially give birth.
"I wanted to work," Young told The Huffington Post. "I all but begged for them to let me work."
The unborn child Young was carrying in 2006 is now a 7-year-old girl named Trinity. Young no longer works for UPS, but she's still fighting the shipping giant for denying her accommodations while she was pregnant. Young sued UPS alleging discrimination, and her case, Young v. UPS, is now before the Supreme Court, with oral arguments expected in December.
If the policy enforced on Young in 2006 doesn't seem particularly enlightened, UPS itself would seem to agree. In a memo sent to employees this week, the company announced that it will begin offering light duty to pregnant workers on Jan. 1, the Washington Post reported Wednesday. The turnaround puts UPS in the peculiar position of defending before the Supreme Court a policy that it is already walking away from.
In a brief filed last Friday, UPS maintains that its decision to deny Young an accommodation was "lawful at the time it was made," a position it reiterated to HuffPost. The company said it decided to alter the policy to respond in part to new guidelines from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which investigates workplace discrimination.
"Laws have been changing, and there's a growing consensus looking at best practices," said Kara Gerhardt Ross, a UPS spokeswoman. "We want to provide good benefits. We saw this as a good thing for our employees."
Even though it may now be moot for UPS's own workforce, Young's case could have far-reaching consequences for working women throughout the country. The underlying question is whether or not the Pregnancy Discrimination Act compels companies to offer light-duty options to pregnant workers if they already do so for non-pregnant workers in other situations. The 1978 law, which amended the Civil Rights Act, forbids companies from treating pregnant workers differently from workers who are "similar in their ability or inability to work."
UPS maintains that its leave policy was pregnancy "neutral," treating workers like Young no better or worse than their colleagues who aren't pregnant. The circumstances under which UPS drivers were entitled to light duty, the company notes in its argument, were laid out in a collective bargaining agreement with the Teamsters union. Under that agreement, the company didn't have to provide temporary accommodations to workers with "off-the-job injuries or conditions," unless it was a cognitive disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Ultimately, the company argues, the policy "treats a lifting restriction resulting from pregnancy in exactly the same way" as, say, a "back injury sustained off the job."
Young's legal team says the policy violated the "plain language" of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, deeming the company's off-the-job distinction irrelevant. They note that the law includes no exceptions for a "pregnancy-blind" reason to deny a pregnant worker accommodations. If the company is willing to provide light duty to other workers, then it has to grant them to pregnant workers, they argue.
"If a person wasn't pregnant but was injured on the job and had the same restrictions, UPS would have provided an accommodation," Sam Bagenstos, a lawyer for Young and a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, told HuffPost shortly before UPS announced its policy change. "UPS actually accommodates a very large swath of its drivers who have lifting restrictions, but not for workers whose restrictions result from pregnancy."
Bagenstos said the case is more likely to affect women in low-wage and manual-labor jobs than anything else. After all, women in higher-paying, white-collar positions generally don't have to worry about heavy lifting in the course of their job duties, and are therefore less likely to find themselves having to request light duty from their employer.
Given the stakes of the case, a broad and rather unusual coalition of stakeholders have lined up behind Young. Those filing briefs in her support include not only a host of women's rights organizations and the American Civil Liberties Union, but also the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce and 23 pro-life groups. The interest of the pro-life crowd is obvious. As the groups note in their brief, "economic pressure is a significant factor in many women’s decision to choose abortion over childbirth."
Ariela Migdal, a lawyer handling pregnancy discrimination cases at the ACLU, said the ideological diversity of Young's alliance is an asset for her.
"They kind of came together around this because it offends many people to think workplaces should be forcing pregnant workers to make horrible choices," Migdal said.
Now 42 years old and a mother of three, Young works for a government contractor outside of Washington, D.C. Eight years after becoming pregnant with Trinity, she still has the same lawyer, Sharon Fast Gustafson, who pressed UPS to accommodate her pregnancy in 2006.
Last year, Young and Gustafson celebrated Maryland's passage of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a law that requires the state's employers to make reasonable accommodations for their pregnant employees. Similar laws have been passed in other states since Young first filed her case, and a federal version has been championed by Democrats in Congress, though it hasn't passed either the House or Senate yet.
Despite the progress that has been made, Young said that both the law and corporate America have plenty more catching up to do.
"It's not just about me; it's about all women considering becoming pregnant," Young said. "You're not pregnant forever, and a lot of families these days need both their incomes. I think if hard-working women want to work and become pregnant, then we should let them." Reported by Huffington Post 8 hours ago.
Based on the doctor's note, UPS placed Young on unpaid leave, an all too common experience for women nationwide. Although UPS often put workers with other conditions on light duty, it told Young that such accommodations wouldn't apply to an "off-the-job" condition such as her pregnancy. Not only would she lose her income, she would have to suddenly switch to her husband's health insurance plan, changing the hospitals at which she could potentially give birth.
"I wanted to work," Young told The Huffington Post. "I all but begged for them to let me work."
The unborn child Young was carrying in 2006 is now a 7-year-old girl named Trinity. Young no longer works for UPS, but she's still fighting the shipping giant for denying her accommodations while she was pregnant. Young sued UPS alleging discrimination, and her case, Young v. UPS, is now before the Supreme Court, with oral arguments expected in December.
If the policy enforced on Young in 2006 doesn't seem particularly enlightened, UPS itself would seem to agree. In a memo sent to employees this week, the company announced that it will begin offering light duty to pregnant workers on Jan. 1, the Washington Post reported Wednesday. The turnaround puts UPS in the peculiar position of defending before the Supreme Court a policy that it is already walking away from.
In a brief filed last Friday, UPS maintains that its decision to deny Young an accommodation was "lawful at the time it was made," a position it reiterated to HuffPost. The company said it decided to alter the policy to respond in part to new guidelines from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which investigates workplace discrimination.
"Laws have been changing, and there's a growing consensus looking at best practices," said Kara Gerhardt Ross, a UPS spokeswoman. "We want to provide good benefits. We saw this as a good thing for our employees."
Even though it may now be moot for UPS's own workforce, Young's case could have far-reaching consequences for working women throughout the country. The underlying question is whether or not the Pregnancy Discrimination Act compels companies to offer light-duty options to pregnant workers if they already do so for non-pregnant workers in other situations. The 1978 law, which amended the Civil Rights Act, forbids companies from treating pregnant workers differently from workers who are "similar in their ability or inability to work."
UPS maintains that its leave policy was pregnancy "neutral," treating workers like Young no better or worse than their colleagues who aren't pregnant. The circumstances under which UPS drivers were entitled to light duty, the company notes in its argument, were laid out in a collective bargaining agreement with the Teamsters union. Under that agreement, the company didn't have to provide temporary accommodations to workers with "off-the-job injuries or conditions," unless it was a cognitive disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Ultimately, the company argues, the policy "treats a lifting restriction resulting from pregnancy in exactly the same way" as, say, a "back injury sustained off the job."
Young's legal team says the policy violated the "plain language" of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, deeming the company's off-the-job distinction irrelevant. They note that the law includes no exceptions for a "pregnancy-blind" reason to deny a pregnant worker accommodations. If the company is willing to provide light duty to other workers, then it has to grant them to pregnant workers, they argue.
"If a person wasn't pregnant but was injured on the job and had the same restrictions, UPS would have provided an accommodation," Sam Bagenstos, a lawyer for Young and a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, told HuffPost shortly before UPS announced its policy change. "UPS actually accommodates a very large swath of its drivers who have lifting restrictions, but not for workers whose restrictions result from pregnancy."
Bagenstos said the case is more likely to affect women in low-wage and manual-labor jobs than anything else. After all, women in higher-paying, white-collar positions generally don't have to worry about heavy lifting in the course of their job duties, and are therefore less likely to find themselves having to request light duty from their employer.
Given the stakes of the case, a broad and rather unusual coalition of stakeholders have lined up behind Young. Those filing briefs in her support include not only a host of women's rights organizations and the American Civil Liberties Union, but also the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce and 23 pro-life groups. The interest of the pro-life crowd is obvious. As the groups note in their brief, "economic pressure is a significant factor in many women’s decision to choose abortion over childbirth."
Ariela Migdal, a lawyer handling pregnancy discrimination cases at the ACLU, said the ideological diversity of Young's alliance is an asset for her.
"They kind of came together around this because it offends many people to think workplaces should be forcing pregnant workers to make horrible choices," Migdal said.
Now 42 years old and a mother of three, Young works for a government contractor outside of Washington, D.C. Eight years after becoming pregnant with Trinity, she still has the same lawyer, Sharon Fast Gustafson, who pressed UPS to accommodate her pregnancy in 2006.
Last year, Young and Gustafson celebrated Maryland's passage of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a law that requires the state's employers to make reasonable accommodations for their pregnant employees. Similar laws have been passed in other states since Young first filed her case, and a federal version has been championed by Democrats in Congress, though it hasn't passed either the House or Senate yet.
Despite the progress that has been made, Young said that both the law and corporate America have plenty more catching up to do.
"It's not just about me; it's about all women considering becoming pregnant," Young said. "You're not pregnant forever, and a lot of families these days need both their incomes. I think if hard-working women want to work and become pregnant, then we should let them." Reported by Huffington Post 8 hours ago.
↧
Health Insurance Provides 5 Important Benefits for Families!
Individualhealthinsurancenebraska.com (http://individualhealthinsurancenebraska.com/) announces a new blog post, “5 Ways Health Insurance Benefits Your Family!”
(PRWEB) October 31, 2014
Individualhealthinsurancenebraska.com has released a new blog post presenting 5 benefits health insurance provides for families.
Health insurance plans can provide financial security and health benefits for a family. Health insurance is now more or less mandatory. Government sponsored programs aim to insure most of the United States’ population.
However, the newly released blog post highlight the importance of having an individual policy, bought from a private agency. An individual policy provides better coverage options and more financial security.
Clients can now find affordable health insurance plans by comparing quotes. In order to compare quotes, clients should visit a professional insurance brokerage website like: http://individualhealthinsurancenebraska.com.
Individualhealthinsurancenebraska.com is an online provider of life, home, health, and auto insurance quotes. This website is unique because it does not simply stick to one kind of insurance provider, but brings the clients the best deals from many different online insurance carriers. In this way, clients have access to offers from multiple carriers all in one place: this website. On this site, customers have access to quotes for insurance plans from various agencies, such as local or nationwide agencies, brand names insurance companies, etc.
Individualhealthinsurancenebraska.com is owned by Internet Marketing Company.
For more information, please visit http://individualhealthinsurancenebraska.com. Reported by PRWeb 9 hours ago.
(PRWEB) October 31, 2014
Individualhealthinsurancenebraska.com has released a new blog post presenting 5 benefits health insurance provides for families.
Health insurance plans can provide financial security and health benefits for a family. Health insurance is now more or less mandatory. Government sponsored programs aim to insure most of the United States’ population.
However, the newly released blog post highlight the importance of having an individual policy, bought from a private agency. An individual policy provides better coverage options and more financial security.
Clients can now find affordable health insurance plans by comparing quotes. In order to compare quotes, clients should visit a professional insurance brokerage website like: http://individualhealthinsurancenebraska.com.
Individualhealthinsurancenebraska.com is an online provider of life, home, health, and auto insurance quotes. This website is unique because it does not simply stick to one kind of insurance provider, but brings the clients the best deals from many different online insurance carriers. In this way, clients have access to offers from multiple carriers all in one place: this website. On this site, customers have access to quotes for insurance plans from various agencies, such as local or nationwide agencies, brand names insurance companies, etc.
Individualhealthinsurancenebraska.com is owned by Internet Marketing Company.
For more information, please visit http://individualhealthinsurancenebraska.com. Reported by PRWeb 9 hours ago.
↧
Reducing Health Insurance Costs Is Now Possible!
Individualhealthinsurancenevada.com (http://individualhealthinsurancenevada.com/) announces a new blog post, “How to Reduce Individual Health Insurance Costs!”
(PRWEB) October 31, 2014
Individualhealthinsurancenevada.com has released a new blog post explaining how to reduce individual health insurance prices.
Reducing individual insurance costs is a big concern for many families. An individual health insurance policy provides additional medical coverage and it is an important investment every family should have.
Health insurance will cover a part of the insured’s medical expenses. There are different types of health insurance available and clients should know what plan they need.
A good way of reducing health insurance costs is by comparing quotes. Quotes are now available online on professional insurance brokerage websites like: http://individualhealthinsurancenevada.com/ .
Individualhealthinsurancenevada.com is an online provider of life, home, health, and auto insurance quotes. This website is unique because it does not simply stick to one kind of insurance provider, but brings the clients the best deals from many different online insurance carriers. In this way, clients have access to offers from multiple carriers all in one place: this website. On this site, customers have access to quotes for insurance plans from various agencies, such as local or nationwide agencies, brand names insurance companies, etc.
Individualhealthinsurancenevada.com is owned by Internet Marketing Company.
For more information, please visit http://individualhealthinsurancenevada.com/ . Reported by PRWeb 9 hours ago.
(PRWEB) October 31, 2014
Individualhealthinsurancenevada.com has released a new blog post explaining how to reduce individual health insurance prices.
Reducing individual insurance costs is a big concern for many families. An individual health insurance policy provides additional medical coverage and it is an important investment every family should have.
Health insurance will cover a part of the insured’s medical expenses. There are different types of health insurance available and clients should know what plan they need.
A good way of reducing health insurance costs is by comparing quotes. Quotes are now available online on professional insurance brokerage websites like: http://individualhealthinsurancenevada.com/ .
Individualhealthinsurancenevada.com is an online provider of life, home, health, and auto insurance quotes. This website is unique because it does not simply stick to one kind of insurance provider, but brings the clients the best deals from many different online insurance carriers. In this way, clients have access to offers from multiple carriers all in one place: this website. On this site, customers have access to quotes for insurance plans from various agencies, such as local or nationwide agencies, brand names insurance companies, etc.
Individualhealthinsurancenevada.com is owned by Internet Marketing Company.
For more information, please visit http://individualhealthinsurancenevada.com/ . Reported by PRWeb 9 hours ago.
↧
↧
SEPTA and union still far apart in contract talks, says source
Despite reports earlier this week that SEPTA and it's largest union are making strides toward signing a new contract, a source close to the negotiations said the two sides are still far apart — meaning that the possibility of a strike is very much on the table. In fact, SEPTA appears to have dug in with regard to the length of a new deal, the source said. The union wants a two-year contract so it can better assess how the Affordable Care Act will affect their health insurance plans. SEPTA wants…
Reported by bizjournals 8 hours ago.
↧
Zacks Industry Outlook Highlights: UnitedHealth Group, WellPoint, Aetna, Humana and Health Net
CHICAGO, Oct. 31, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- Today, Zacks Equity Research discusses the Health Insurance (part 3), including UnitedHeath Group Inc. (NYSE:UNH-Free Report), WellPoint Inc. (NYSE:WLP-Free Report), Aetna Inc. (NYSE:AET-Free Report), Humana Inc. (NYSE:HUM-Free Report) and...
Reported by PR Newswire 7 hours ago.
↧
This Hidden Health Care Cost Keeps Heading Higher
Filed under: Health Insurance, Planning*Valpazou*
Health insurance is one of the most important benefits that employees get from their jobs. Yet even as the growth of U.S. health care costs starts to slow, employers are increasingly taking steps to hold their benefit costs in check. So even though you might not see your health care coverage premium go up in 2015, the quality of the coverage you receive won't necessarily be as good -- and you could find yourself on the hook for a big up-front payment before your insurance company pays a penny on your claims.
*Looking Beyond the Premium*
A recent report from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust looked at the costs of employer-provided health insurance coverage, and the headline number seemed relatively promising. Compared to last year, average annual premiums for family coverage rose just 3 percent in 2014, continuing a string of relatively modest increases in premium costs. Moreover, workers pay only about 29 percent of the premiums charged for family coverage, shouldering $4,823 on average out of the $16,834 total cost.
But paying premiums is just half of the health care story. Workers also have to cover any copayments and deductibles on their health insurance coverage, and increasingly, they've had to pay more out of their pockets before their insurance coverage starts to make payments at all. This year, the Kaiser report found that 80 percent of workers have to pay an annual deductible before most services are covered, and on average, that deductible amount rose to $1,217. Many workers face even larger burdens, with 18 percent of all employees having a deductible of $2,000 or more.
In recent years, companies have steadily increased the amount of deductibles their workers have to pay. Just five years ago, the average deductible was only $826, making this year's amount a 47 percent increase since 2009. Nearly double the share of workers now have to pay $1,000 or more in deductibles compared to five years ago, and that trend appears to be taking hold and accelerating.
*Understanding Deductibles*
The most important aspect of understanding how a deductible affects your insurance coverage is to know which medical services are subject to it. The Affordable Care Act imposed restrictions on the ability of insurance companies to force policyholders to pay deductibles for certain types of services, with a special emphasis on preventive treatment. As a result, many immunizations, screenings and annual wellness visits are available at no charge even if you haven't fully paid your deductible yet.
Unfortunately, other rules governing deductibles and copayments aren't always uniform across different health insurance plans and providers. In some cases, you might qualify for a lower copayment on a particular type of service but be exempt from the full impact of your deductible, while other services might require you to pay your deductible in full before coverage kicks in. Contacting your insurance company can get you information about your coverage, but often, it's hard to pinpoint definitive answers to specific questions until a situation actually arises.
In comparing different coverage options with different deductibles, it's important to consider your own medical history. For someone who's relatively healthy, accepting a higher deductible could be worth it if it results in substantially lower monthly premiums. If you frequently need medical services, however, you might end up better off by paying higher monthly premiums on your insurance if it reduces your deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs.
Finally, many employers offer financial incentives of their own to encourage participation in wellness programs. According to Kaiser, 36 percent of large employers and 18 percent of small employers offer lower premiums, reduced deductibles or higher employer contributions toward health care costs if an employee participates in the company wellness program. The hope is that by encouraging preventive care, companies will save money in the long run by avoiding costlier treatments down the road.
Motley Fool contributor Dan Caplinger relies on his wife's employer for his health insurance. You can follow him on Twitter @DanCaplinger or on Google+. To read about our favorite high-yielding dividend stocks for any investor, check out our free report.
Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments Reported by DailyFinance 7 hours ago.
↧
Millennials Openly Defy the Obamacare Mandate
A few days before the election, the divisive Affordable Care Act (ACA) is back in the headlines once again. According to new data from Enroll America, there was a steep drop in the number of uninsured Americans aged 18-34. The New York Times hailed millennials as some of "the biggest winners from the law."
Hidden in the spin is the fact that the law has barely made a dent with millennials; two-thirds of uninsured millennials remain uninsured. It's true that large government programs need time to raise awareness, but millennials are hyper-connected to news through technology and social networks. They know about the law. They know about the mandate to buy insurance or pay a fine.
They simply don't care.
Millennials are openly defying the government mandate and thumbing their noses at legislators who continue to ignore the issues critical to young Americans. They're fed up with government forcing them to pay for the poor financial decisions of previous generations.
In the recovery from the 2008-2009 recession, young Americans were left behind. Washington gave bailouts to real estate gamblers and the stagnant automotive industry, while millennials struggling with crushing student loan debt got a token reduction in interest rates. And now comes the ACA, extorting millennials into subsidizing seniors through insurance plans they don't want or need. For those younger than 26, they get coverage through their parents, but it's a band-aid rather than a cure. Minimum wage hikes and the institutionalization of unpaid internships are killing the post-graduation job market for young workers. In effect, their ability to gain financial independence is just pushed down the road.
Financial independence is hard to imagine for the 7-in-10 recent graduates with an average of nearly $30,000 in educational debt. It makes the ACA penalty -- up to one percent of their income -- a laughable expense for millennials. They don't have jobs to be taxed. And they know it's virtually unenforceable due to additions to the final ACA bill that restricted the ability of the IRS to collect. Failure to signup for health insurance isn't an oversight or an act of laziness. It's an act of outright rebellion.
Millennials have no fear of repercussions for defying the government. They make up 40 percent of America's unemployed. They would love to have health insurance, but they prioritize finding a job and gaining financial independence. It's insult to injury that the millennial unemployment rate is nearly twice that of Baby Boomers and yet the government wants healthy young workers to foot the tab for a healthcare system bankrupted by seniors.
As their prospects fail to improve and the "newspaper of record" deigns to call them winners, millennials are a swing voting bloc again, according to an unsurprising new study released by Harvard this week. Democrats' commanding lead with young voters has evaporated, a stunning development considering that President Barack Obama's 2008 victory was the largest landslide among young voters since exit polling began in 1972.
Millennials blame the party in the White House for their economic problems, the injustice of the healthcare law and the lack of respect for young people in Washington, DC. But that's reductive and likely to incite pundits on both sides to start a flame war that won't benefit millennials or anyone else. The truth is that neither party gives a crap about millennials except on Election Day. Young Americans don't have money or influence to offer. They don't yet have the life skills to outwit older generations. And they're too busy grasping for the bottom rung of the economic ladder to have the time or energy to fight entrenched political parties.
But floating to the political middle is not an act that can be dismissed as youthful disobedience. What they lack in dollars, millennials will soon make up in population. By 2020, millennials will comprise approximately half the workforce. And as they rapidly fill up urban centers, they'll transform cities into power bases that challenge long-standing geographic advantages used by politicians to stay in power.
Millennials are the entrepreneurial generation, born out of necessity and fostered by poor leadership in government. In higher and concentrated numbers in places like San Francisco, Austin and Portland, millennials will find new ways to disrupt flawed programs like the ACA and the electoral system in general. They've upended industries like the taxi and hotel industry with sharing economy darlings Uber and Airbnb, and now millennials have placed a bulls-eye on another industry that relies on precedent rather than innovation. Politics.
There's a long way to go before millennials recover economically, replace crooked politicians, create a third (and fourth) party, temper the disproportionate government spending on older generations, or revolutionize the voting process. But their open defiance of the Obamacare mandate may just be the turning point that signifies their readiness to really stand up to the U.S. government. Reported by Huffington Post 6 hours ago.
Hidden in the spin is the fact that the law has barely made a dent with millennials; two-thirds of uninsured millennials remain uninsured. It's true that large government programs need time to raise awareness, but millennials are hyper-connected to news through technology and social networks. They know about the law. They know about the mandate to buy insurance or pay a fine.
They simply don't care.
Millennials are openly defying the government mandate and thumbing their noses at legislators who continue to ignore the issues critical to young Americans. They're fed up with government forcing them to pay for the poor financial decisions of previous generations.
In the recovery from the 2008-2009 recession, young Americans were left behind. Washington gave bailouts to real estate gamblers and the stagnant automotive industry, while millennials struggling with crushing student loan debt got a token reduction in interest rates. And now comes the ACA, extorting millennials into subsidizing seniors through insurance plans they don't want or need. For those younger than 26, they get coverage through their parents, but it's a band-aid rather than a cure. Minimum wage hikes and the institutionalization of unpaid internships are killing the post-graduation job market for young workers. In effect, their ability to gain financial independence is just pushed down the road.
Financial independence is hard to imagine for the 7-in-10 recent graduates with an average of nearly $30,000 in educational debt. It makes the ACA penalty -- up to one percent of their income -- a laughable expense for millennials. They don't have jobs to be taxed. And they know it's virtually unenforceable due to additions to the final ACA bill that restricted the ability of the IRS to collect. Failure to signup for health insurance isn't an oversight or an act of laziness. It's an act of outright rebellion.
Millennials have no fear of repercussions for defying the government. They make up 40 percent of America's unemployed. They would love to have health insurance, but they prioritize finding a job and gaining financial independence. It's insult to injury that the millennial unemployment rate is nearly twice that of Baby Boomers and yet the government wants healthy young workers to foot the tab for a healthcare system bankrupted by seniors.
As their prospects fail to improve and the "newspaper of record" deigns to call them winners, millennials are a swing voting bloc again, according to an unsurprising new study released by Harvard this week. Democrats' commanding lead with young voters has evaporated, a stunning development considering that President Barack Obama's 2008 victory was the largest landslide among young voters since exit polling began in 1972.
Millennials blame the party in the White House for their economic problems, the injustice of the healthcare law and the lack of respect for young people in Washington, DC. But that's reductive and likely to incite pundits on both sides to start a flame war that won't benefit millennials or anyone else. The truth is that neither party gives a crap about millennials except on Election Day. Young Americans don't have money or influence to offer. They don't yet have the life skills to outwit older generations. And they're too busy grasping for the bottom rung of the economic ladder to have the time or energy to fight entrenched political parties.
But floating to the political middle is not an act that can be dismissed as youthful disobedience. What they lack in dollars, millennials will soon make up in population. By 2020, millennials will comprise approximately half the workforce. And as they rapidly fill up urban centers, they'll transform cities into power bases that challenge long-standing geographic advantages used by politicians to stay in power.
Millennials are the entrepreneurial generation, born out of necessity and fostered by poor leadership in government. In higher and concentrated numbers in places like San Francisco, Austin and Portland, millennials will find new ways to disrupt flawed programs like the ACA and the electoral system in general. They've upended industries like the taxi and hotel industry with sharing economy darlings Uber and Airbnb, and now millennials have placed a bulls-eye on another industry that relies on precedent rather than innovation. Politics.
There's a long way to go before millennials recover economically, replace crooked politicians, create a third (and fourth) party, temper the disproportionate government spending on older generations, or revolutionize the voting process. But their open defiance of the Obamacare mandate may just be the turning point that signifies their readiness to really stand up to the U.S. government. Reported by Huffington Post 6 hours ago.
↧
↧
How to Take Back Democracy on November 4th
Bold prediction: Rising inequality of income and wealth will be the most important political battleground over the next few decades.
Just take a look at the figures. The share of income accruing to the top 1 percent increased from 9 percent in 1976 to 20 percent in 2011. The richest 0.1 percent controlled 7 percent of the wealth in 1979 and 22 percent of the wealth in 2012. Meanwhile, there are a number of studies out there showing that the most effective way to reduce this inequality would be higher taxes on income and wealth, but the rich won't let it happen.
Consider also this: The rise of income inequality and wealth inequality are intimately connected, and causes all sorts of problem over the long term. As Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman write:Income inequality has a snowballing effect on the wealth distribution: top incomes are being saved at high rates, pushing wealth concentration up; in turn, rising wealth inequality leads to rising capital income concentration,which contributes to further increasing top income and wealth shares.
That is, income is a flow, which quickly becomes a stock. The rich make enough money to save; in contrast middle-class and low-income workers don't have enough money to live, so they are increasingly burdened by debt. They can't build up wealth, which means they are deprived of opportunity. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle of wealth on the top and debt on the bottom.
In a comedy bit on wealth, Chris Rock claims, "You can't get rid of wealth." The empirical research on the question largely supports his assertion. In "The Son Also Rises," Gregory Clark finds that wealth remains in a family for 10-to-15 generations and notes,Groups that seem to persist in low or high status, such as the black and the Jewish populations in the United States, are not exceptions to a general rule of higher intergenerational mobility. They are experiencing the same universal rates of slow intergenerational mobility as the rest of the population.
But, of course wealth and income inequality weren't always as bad as they are today. What happened? In a word: cheating. Although many people try to explain rising inequality away by arguing we live in a winner-take-all economy or that inequality is the result of skill-biased technological change, these arguments are bunk. Inequality has been driven by public policy choices that favored the rich, the decline of unions and the rise of finance. As the chart below shows, tax rates on both income and inheritance were high during the relatively equal '60s, '70s and '80s and then fell dramatically paving the way for the inequality we see today (Chart Source).
The best way to reduce inequality would be to tax income and wealth. While conservatives often claim that this would reduce economic growth, such claims have very little economic support. For instance, Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Stefanie Stantcheva find no correlation between economic growth and tax cuts. Because of this, they find, "the top tax rate could potentially be set as high as 83%." (Chart Source)
Nobel Prize-winner Peter Diamond argues that the top marginal tax rate could safely breach 73 percent, and indeed, such a rate might even be "optimal." Another recent studyfinds the top marginal tax rate could be as high as 90 percent. Republicans sometimes claim that inequality is necessary for economic growth; in fact, the evidence suggests rather the opposite is true: High levels of inequality imperil growth.
But, here's the problem: The same political forces that allowed the 1 percent to take our political system hostage have only worsened in the past decade. As Nick Hanauer notes in a recent Intelligence Squared debate,At the same time, the percent of -- of labor -- the percent of GDP devoted to labor has gone from 52 to 42. So that difference is about a trillion dollars annually. So that -- here's the thing you have to understand. That trillion dollars isn't profit because it needs to be or should be or has to be. It's profit because powerful people like me and [Edward Conrad] prefer it to be. That trillion dollars could very easily be spent on wages. Or -- or on discounts for consumers. This isn't a consequence of some magical law of economics. This is a consequence of differentials in power.Nick hits on a very important point: The rising concentration of economic power has coincided with a concentration of political power. A recent paper by Adam Bonica and others illustrates that as inequality has increased, the rich have spent more money on the political system:
As Benjamin Page, Larry Bartels and Jason Seawright recently found that the wealthy tend to be more economically conservative than the population at large. But a particularly startling finding is that, "on economic issues wealthy Democratic respondents tended to be more conservative than Democrats in the general population." The wealthy are usingthe political system to turn their income into wealth and then that wealth into more wealth. They're going to keep doing it, unless we stop them. One solution is to reduce the massive turnout gap between the rich and poor.
Studies show that states with more low-income turnout have higher minimum wages, more generous child health insurance programs and stricter anti-predatory lending policies. They also have more generous welfare benefits. The fight against inequality will be a long one, but the first step is turning out to vote -- the most radical step one can take in our country is actually believing democracy is more than just an idea.
This piece originally appeared on Salon. Reported by Huffington Post 5 hours ago.
Just take a look at the figures. The share of income accruing to the top 1 percent increased from 9 percent in 1976 to 20 percent in 2011. The richest 0.1 percent controlled 7 percent of the wealth in 1979 and 22 percent of the wealth in 2012. Meanwhile, there are a number of studies out there showing that the most effective way to reduce this inequality would be higher taxes on income and wealth, but the rich won't let it happen.
Consider also this: The rise of income inequality and wealth inequality are intimately connected, and causes all sorts of problem over the long term. As Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman write:Income inequality has a snowballing effect on the wealth distribution: top incomes are being saved at high rates, pushing wealth concentration up; in turn, rising wealth inequality leads to rising capital income concentration,which contributes to further increasing top income and wealth shares.
That is, income is a flow, which quickly becomes a stock. The rich make enough money to save; in contrast middle-class and low-income workers don't have enough money to live, so they are increasingly burdened by debt. They can't build up wealth, which means they are deprived of opportunity. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle of wealth on the top and debt on the bottom.
In a comedy bit on wealth, Chris Rock claims, "You can't get rid of wealth." The empirical research on the question largely supports his assertion. In "The Son Also Rises," Gregory Clark finds that wealth remains in a family for 10-to-15 generations and notes,Groups that seem to persist in low or high status, such as the black and the Jewish populations in the United States, are not exceptions to a general rule of higher intergenerational mobility. They are experiencing the same universal rates of slow intergenerational mobility as the rest of the population.
But, of course wealth and income inequality weren't always as bad as they are today. What happened? In a word: cheating. Although many people try to explain rising inequality away by arguing we live in a winner-take-all economy or that inequality is the result of skill-biased technological change, these arguments are bunk. Inequality has been driven by public policy choices that favored the rich, the decline of unions and the rise of finance. As the chart below shows, tax rates on both income and inheritance were high during the relatively equal '60s, '70s and '80s and then fell dramatically paving the way for the inequality we see today (Chart Source).
The best way to reduce inequality would be to tax income and wealth. While conservatives often claim that this would reduce economic growth, such claims have very little economic support. For instance, Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Stefanie Stantcheva find no correlation between economic growth and tax cuts. Because of this, they find, "the top tax rate could potentially be set as high as 83%." (Chart Source)
Nobel Prize-winner Peter Diamond argues that the top marginal tax rate could safely breach 73 percent, and indeed, such a rate might even be "optimal." Another recent studyfinds the top marginal tax rate could be as high as 90 percent. Republicans sometimes claim that inequality is necessary for economic growth; in fact, the evidence suggests rather the opposite is true: High levels of inequality imperil growth.
But, here's the problem: The same political forces that allowed the 1 percent to take our political system hostage have only worsened in the past decade. As Nick Hanauer notes in a recent Intelligence Squared debate,At the same time, the percent of -- of labor -- the percent of GDP devoted to labor has gone from 52 to 42. So that difference is about a trillion dollars annually. So that -- here's the thing you have to understand. That trillion dollars isn't profit because it needs to be or should be or has to be. It's profit because powerful people like me and [Edward Conrad] prefer it to be. That trillion dollars could very easily be spent on wages. Or -- or on discounts for consumers. This isn't a consequence of some magical law of economics. This is a consequence of differentials in power.Nick hits on a very important point: The rising concentration of economic power has coincided with a concentration of political power. A recent paper by Adam Bonica and others illustrates that as inequality has increased, the rich have spent more money on the political system:
As Benjamin Page, Larry Bartels and Jason Seawright recently found that the wealthy tend to be more economically conservative than the population at large. But a particularly startling finding is that, "on economic issues wealthy Democratic respondents tended to be more conservative than Democrats in the general population." The wealthy are usingthe political system to turn their income into wealth and then that wealth into more wealth. They're going to keep doing it, unless we stop them. One solution is to reduce the massive turnout gap between the rich and poor.
Studies show that states with more low-income turnout have higher minimum wages, more generous child health insurance programs and stricter anti-predatory lending policies. They also have more generous welfare benefits. The fight against inequality will be a long one, but the first step is turning out to vote -- the most radical step one can take in our country is actually believing democracy is more than just an idea.
This piece originally appeared on Salon. Reported by Huffington Post 5 hours ago.
↧
OBAMA: Here's When Republicans Will Stop Calling It 'Obamacare'
President Barack Obama predicted on Friday that Republicans would stop calling the Affordable Care Act by its colloquial name, "Obamacare," sometime in the next decade because the American public will eventually view it as a success."No matter how many times Republicans threaten to repeal this law, we're going to keep it in place — because it's working. Not only is it covering more people, not only is it protecting women and people with preexisting conditions from discrimination, but it's actually been part of the trend that's lowering health care inflation," Obama said during remarks Friday at Rhode Island College in Providence.
"We're actually saving money because the system is getting smarter and there’s more preventive care instead of emergency care, and we're changing how health care is delivered. Which is why I’m pretty sure that in 10 years they're not going to call it Obamacare anymore. Republicans will be like, oh, I was for that, yes. That's how that works."
After he laid down the market, an audience member shouted they would "remember" that Republicans were vehemently opposed to the law.
"You’ll remember though. You’ll remind them," Obama said.
Republicans coined the term "Obamacare" during the debate over the law. Obama eventually embraced the term during the 2012 presidential campaign, saying he does "care — that's why we fought so hard to make it happen." Indeed, polls have shown that calling the healthcare law "Obamacare" makes it significantly less popular than "the Affordable Care Act."A common belief among supporters of the law is that it will be viewed in a much more positive light down the road, after Obama leaves office and benefits of the law kick in for more and more Americans. Right now, though, it remains unpopular — an average of six October polls shows the majority of the American public still opposes the law.
Obama hasn't been shy on touting the law's successes on the campaign trail, saying earlier this month that more than 10 million people — 26% of the uninsured in the country — had gained access to health insurance in the first year of the law.
Join the conversation about this story » Reported by Business Insider 3 hours ago.
↧
Politicans spent $303 million on TV ads referencing health care
With just days left until Election Day, more than 1 million advertisements focused on health care, including political campaign spots, have have aired on television airwaves in 2014. That's based to a new study of spending on political ads and health insurance marketing, according to a new Kaiser Family Foundation. Spending on health insurance television advertising totaled about $482 million, the report shows. Political TV spots referencing health care issues totaled about $303 million. The data…
Reported by bizjournals 1 hour ago.
↧
AmeriLife® Kicks off the College Football Season by Raising Money for Suncoast Hospice
With the kick-off of the college football season, AmeriLife, the nation’s premier annuity, life and health insurance marketing organization, launched its AmeriLife Football Club campaign to build camaraderie amongst its employees, while also raising money to benefit Suncoast Hospice and its 2015 Beach Stroll fundraiser event.
Clearwater, FL (PRWEB) October 31, 2014
With the kick-off of the college football season, AmeriLife, the nation’s premier annuity, life and health insurance marketing organization, launched its AmeriLife Football Club campaign to build camaraderie amongst its employees, while also raising money to benefit Suncoast Hospice and its 2015 Beach Stroll fundraiser event.
“We’re a family here at AmeriLife,” explained CEO Timothy O. North. “The AmeriLife Football Club is about our employees, encouraging them to come together to celebrate their favorite college football teams, while also benefiting a great local organization.”
As the college football season commenced, the company raised money to benefit Suncoast Hospice through Season Passes that allow employees to wear jeans on Fridays throughout the season, and also participate in special Club Meets. Employees voted on their favorite teams, which drive which games are featured at special events hosted by the company.
Starting with a Friday afternoon pizza party on September 9th at the company’s AmeriLife Place headquarters, Club Meets have also included off-site game viewing parties at local restaurants outside of business hours. Complimentary food and non-alcoholic beverages are provided to all who participate, and the company continues to accept donations to benefit Suncoast Hospice, noting that a check will be presented to the organization at the conclusion of the season.
“In any business, it takes teamwork to be successful,” said North. “It’s wonderful to see our employees’ competitive spirit come out through this campaign and we’re thrilled to have raised over $4,490 for Suncoast Hospice so far.”
About Suncoast Hospice
For almost 40 years, Suncoast Hospice has provided hospice and palliative care services in Pinellas County. They have expanded their services to meet the needs of the community, including palliative home health and physician services, independent living assistance and day care for seniors, HIV services and advance care planning.
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 AmeriLife or its community involvement, please contact AmeriLife Marketing Communications at Media(at)AmeriLife(dot)com. Reported by PRWeb 39 minutes ago.
Clearwater, FL (PRWEB) October 31, 2014
With the kick-off of the college football season, AmeriLife, the nation’s premier annuity, life and health insurance marketing organization, launched its AmeriLife Football Club campaign to build camaraderie amongst its employees, while also raising money to benefit Suncoast Hospice and its 2015 Beach Stroll fundraiser event.
“We’re a family here at AmeriLife,” explained CEO Timothy O. North. “The AmeriLife Football Club is about our employees, encouraging them to come together to celebrate their favorite college football teams, while also benefiting a great local organization.”
As the college football season commenced, the company raised money to benefit Suncoast Hospice through Season Passes that allow employees to wear jeans on Fridays throughout the season, and also participate in special Club Meets. Employees voted on their favorite teams, which drive which games are featured at special events hosted by the company.
Starting with a Friday afternoon pizza party on September 9th at the company’s AmeriLife Place headquarters, Club Meets have also included off-site game viewing parties at local restaurants outside of business hours. Complimentary food and non-alcoholic beverages are provided to all who participate, and the company continues to accept donations to benefit Suncoast Hospice, noting that a check will be presented to the organization at the conclusion of the season.
“In any business, it takes teamwork to be successful,” said North. “It’s wonderful to see our employees’ competitive spirit come out through this campaign and we’re thrilled to have raised over $4,490 for Suncoast Hospice so far.”
About Suncoast Hospice
For almost 40 years, Suncoast Hospice has provided hospice and palliative care services in Pinellas County. They have expanded their services to meet the needs of the community, including palliative home health and physician services, independent living assistance and day care for seniors, HIV services and advance care planning.
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 AmeriLife or its community involvement, please contact AmeriLife Marketing Communications at Media(at)AmeriLife(dot)com. Reported by PRWeb 39 minutes ago.
↧
↧
Why a New Credit Card Study Isn't Really About Credit Cards
My new study out this week from Demos and the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) looks at credit card debt in the Latino community. But it isn't ultimately about credit cards at all.
Instead, it's a look at how our unemployment insurance system has failed to protect out-of-work Americans, how vast sectors of our economy fail to offer employees health coverage, and how wages have failed to keep up with the cost of living. It's an account of how Latinos, who are disproportionately uninsured, disproportionately employed in low-wage jobs, and historically face difficulty in accessing mainstream credit opportunities, are among those bearing the brunt of these trends. And it's a look at how discriminatory treatment and fraud continue to plague Latinos in the United States, even when dealing with large and mainstream financial services companies. Finally, amidst the multiple economic failures described above, the study is a hopeful glimpse at how common-sense regulation can work successfully to help households save money and pay down debt. And okay, maybe it's also about credit cards.
First, consider unemployment.
The study finds that unemployment is a leading contributor to credit card debt among Latino households. Among low- and middle-income Latino households carrying credit card debt, 1 in 3 report that a layoff or other loss of a job contributed to their current credit card debt and one 1 in 5 report job loss was the single *greatest* contributor to their debt. This isn't the all-too-typical credit card story about the need for more financial literacy or personal responsibility in spending -- instead it speaks to the 2.4 million Latinos who were unemployed, and the additional 2.5 million more who were underemployed in 2012 when the survey data was collected. The National Employment Law Project finds that due to a combination of language barriers, lack of familiarity with the program, and other factors, Latinos are less likely than Americans of other backgrounds both to apply for unemployment benefits and to receive benefits when they do apply. Even when unemployed workers do apply and qualify for benefits, payments may be too low to enable households to make ends meet, and benefits may run out before workers are able to find another job.
The result? For low- and middle-income Latinos -- and many other indebted Americans--credit cards become a privatized "plastic safety net" to pay for groceries and other necessities when the public safety net is insufficient. But unlike unemployment insurance or food stamps, credit card borrowing comes with high interest charges -- at rates that turn out to be significantly higher for Latino and African American borrowers than for whites.
Credit cards are also used to make up for inadequate wages when workers are on the job. In 2012, the median Latino man earned just 67 cents for every dollar paid to a non-Hispanic white man, while the median Latina earned just 59 cents. It's troubling -- but not surprising -- to learn that among low- and middle-income Latino households with credit card debt, 43 percent report using their credit cards to pay for basic living expenses such as rent, mortgage payments, groceries or utilities in the past year because they didn't have enough money in their checking or savings accounts. The Department of Labor notes that 6.8 million Latino workers would benefit if Congress raises the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, including not just workers earning minimum wage but those paid just above the minimum who would also see their paychecks rise.
For more on how credit card use in the Latino community reflects disparities in health insurance coverage, the growing racial and ethnic wealth gap, and unequal access to credit, see the report itself. And if you're wondering about the impact of credit card debt on other communities, such as African Americans and senior citizens, see the earlier reports in our series.
But if you've been waiting for the good news on Latinos and credit cards, here it is: credit card reform legislation passed in 2009 has succeeded in adding new protections for borrowers and making credit cards a safer, fairer financial product. Latino credit cardholders have especially benefitted, reporting that they are now paying down debt more quickly and saving money by avoiding unfair fees. As a result of new disclosures and reduced fees in the mandated by the CARD Act, 38 percent of low- and middle-income Latino households with credit card debt report that they are paying more toward their credit card balances in a typical month, 41 percent say they are charged late fees less often, and 36 percent report they are charged over-the-limit fees less frequently -- benefits greater than those reported by credit card borrowers as a whole.
While financial services reform alone fails to address the deeper issues of why Latino households find themselves turning to credit cards to make up for larger shortcomings in job quality and the public safety net, it does offer a small indicator of how smart public policy can make a concrete and positive difference on people's lives. If we intelligently regulate credit card fees, borrowers will save more and pay less of them. If we improve the public safety net and improve job quality, households may not have to turn to credit cards and other forms of debt to make ends meet in the first place. Reported by Huffington Post 1 day ago.
Instead, it's a look at how our unemployment insurance system has failed to protect out-of-work Americans, how vast sectors of our economy fail to offer employees health coverage, and how wages have failed to keep up with the cost of living. It's an account of how Latinos, who are disproportionately uninsured, disproportionately employed in low-wage jobs, and historically face difficulty in accessing mainstream credit opportunities, are among those bearing the brunt of these trends. And it's a look at how discriminatory treatment and fraud continue to plague Latinos in the United States, even when dealing with large and mainstream financial services companies. Finally, amidst the multiple economic failures described above, the study is a hopeful glimpse at how common-sense regulation can work successfully to help households save money and pay down debt. And okay, maybe it's also about credit cards.
First, consider unemployment.
The study finds that unemployment is a leading contributor to credit card debt among Latino households. Among low- and middle-income Latino households carrying credit card debt, 1 in 3 report that a layoff or other loss of a job contributed to their current credit card debt and one 1 in 5 report job loss was the single *greatest* contributor to their debt. This isn't the all-too-typical credit card story about the need for more financial literacy or personal responsibility in spending -- instead it speaks to the 2.4 million Latinos who were unemployed, and the additional 2.5 million more who were underemployed in 2012 when the survey data was collected. The National Employment Law Project finds that due to a combination of language barriers, lack of familiarity with the program, and other factors, Latinos are less likely than Americans of other backgrounds both to apply for unemployment benefits and to receive benefits when they do apply. Even when unemployed workers do apply and qualify for benefits, payments may be too low to enable households to make ends meet, and benefits may run out before workers are able to find another job.
The result? For low- and middle-income Latinos -- and many other indebted Americans--credit cards become a privatized "plastic safety net" to pay for groceries and other necessities when the public safety net is insufficient. But unlike unemployment insurance or food stamps, credit card borrowing comes with high interest charges -- at rates that turn out to be significantly higher for Latino and African American borrowers than for whites.
Credit cards are also used to make up for inadequate wages when workers are on the job. In 2012, the median Latino man earned just 67 cents for every dollar paid to a non-Hispanic white man, while the median Latina earned just 59 cents. It's troubling -- but not surprising -- to learn that among low- and middle-income Latino households with credit card debt, 43 percent report using their credit cards to pay for basic living expenses such as rent, mortgage payments, groceries or utilities in the past year because they didn't have enough money in their checking or savings accounts. The Department of Labor notes that 6.8 million Latino workers would benefit if Congress raises the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, including not just workers earning minimum wage but those paid just above the minimum who would also see their paychecks rise.
For more on how credit card use in the Latino community reflects disparities in health insurance coverage, the growing racial and ethnic wealth gap, and unequal access to credit, see the report itself. And if you're wondering about the impact of credit card debt on other communities, such as African Americans and senior citizens, see the earlier reports in our series.
But if you've been waiting for the good news on Latinos and credit cards, here it is: credit card reform legislation passed in 2009 has succeeded in adding new protections for borrowers and making credit cards a safer, fairer financial product. Latino credit cardholders have especially benefitted, reporting that they are now paying down debt more quickly and saving money by avoiding unfair fees. As a result of new disclosures and reduced fees in the mandated by the CARD Act, 38 percent of low- and middle-income Latino households with credit card debt report that they are paying more toward their credit card balances in a typical month, 41 percent say they are charged late fees less often, and 36 percent report they are charged over-the-limit fees less frequently -- benefits greater than those reported by credit card borrowers as a whole.
While financial services reform alone fails to address the deeper issues of why Latino households find themselves turning to credit cards to make up for larger shortcomings in job quality and the public safety net, it does offer a small indicator of how smart public policy can make a concrete and positive difference on people's lives. If we intelligently regulate credit card fees, borrowers will save more and pay less of them. If we improve the public safety net and improve job quality, households may not have to turn to credit cards and other forms of debt to make ends meet in the first place. Reported by Huffington Post 1 day ago.
↧
Tiger-Consulting’s Expanded Health Insurance Options Now Available to Employees of Its 200+ Enterprise Clients and Locals in Need of Affordable Health Coverage in Asia
Boutique agency specializing in Asia HR, payroll, PEO, local bill pay and software migration services to Western businesses that have or want to have 1-100 employees in satellite operations across Asia-Pacific provides group health coverage rates to client staff members and individuals looking for better, more affordable health coverage options in Asia. Those under the Tiger-Consulting coverage umbrella may select from local and offshore providers and take their individual or family plan from job to job, and country to country like a 401K.
(PRWEB) October 31, 2014
Tiger-Consulting, an American-owned and managed firm specializing in Asia HR, payroll and business support services for American, Canadian, European and Australian-based businesses, is now coordinating premium local health insurance for employees of its enterprise clients and individuals across Asia. The firm says there is no time like the present to take advantage of 2014 rates before the year comes to a close.
With offices in 14 countries across Asia and banks headquartered in Singapore, Tiger-Consulting can access a range of plans spanning health, medical and travel insurance for an Individual, family or group. The team is well versed in advising clients on the range of health solutions available.
“To get health coverage in Asia through us, you don’t need to work for a company that we support,” said CEO, Neil Satterwhite. “To get ‘group coverage’ pricing, we’ll bring individuals under our umbrella. What’s more, our group plan is like a 401K that moves with you from country to country, job to job.”
For over 20 years, Tiger-Consulting has made life easier for businesses to set-up shop in Asia-Pacific. Now the firm offers “group” health insurance for individuals and employees in Australia, China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam.
“For many clients, this will be the first time that they have the power to select their own health plan. It’s their choice, not the employer’s or simply the only one affordable plan available. Clients have all the power to—with our help—make their own choice of what’s best for them, their family and budget,” said Satterwhite.
Tiger-Consulting finds local health insurance solutions with the highest service standards, compliant with local laws and regulations. Individuals as well as employees can choose from quality plans through local providers based and licensed in their own country. Offshore insurers may offer the advantage of alternative solutions that may not be locally available but come from specialized providers.
For questions about Tiger-Consulting’s Insurance Services or the firm’s International HR, Payroll, PEO, Software Migration and/or Local Bill-Pay Services in Asia-Pacific, contact SalesUS(at)tiger-consulting(dot)net. Custom quotes are complimentary.
About Tiger-Consulting
Tiger-Consulting is committed to making expansion and management of satellite operations easier for international businesses. The HR, Payroll, PEO, Bill-Pay, and Employment Outsource Firm supports operations for 200+ enterprise clients that have (or want to have) 1-100 employees in Asia-Pacific. Tiger-Consulting has offices and experienced teams on the ground in 14 countries: Australia, Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. Through strategic partners, the firm also supports clients in Europe, South America, and other key markets.
### Reported by PRWeb 1 day ago.
(PRWEB) October 31, 2014
Tiger-Consulting, an American-owned and managed firm specializing in Asia HR, payroll and business support services for American, Canadian, European and Australian-based businesses, is now coordinating premium local health insurance for employees of its enterprise clients and individuals across Asia. The firm says there is no time like the present to take advantage of 2014 rates before the year comes to a close.
With offices in 14 countries across Asia and banks headquartered in Singapore, Tiger-Consulting can access a range of plans spanning health, medical and travel insurance for an Individual, family or group. The team is well versed in advising clients on the range of health solutions available.
“To get health coverage in Asia through us, you don’t need to work for a company that we support,” said CEO, Neil Satterwhite. “To get ‘group coverage’ pricing, we’ll bring individuals under our umbrella. What’s more, our group plan is like a 401K that moves with you from country to country, job to job.”
For over 20 years, Tiger-Consulting has made life easier for businesses to set-up shop in Asia-Pacific. Now the firm offers “group” health insurance for individuals and employees in Australia, China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam.
“For many clients, this will be the first time that they have the power to select their own health plan. It’s their choice, not the employer’s or simply the only one affordable plan available. Clients have all the power to—with our help—make their own choice of what’s best for them, their family and budget,” said Satterwhite.
Tiger-Consulting finds local health insurance solutions with the highest service standards, compliant with local laws and regulations. Individuals as well as employees can choose from quality plans through local providers based and licensed in their own country. Offshore insurers may offer the advantage of alternative solutions that may not be locally available but come from specialized providers.
For questions about Tiger-Consulting’s Insurance Services or the firm’s International HR, Payroll, PEO, Software Migration and/or Local Bill-Pay Services in Asia-Pacific, contact SalesUS(at)tiger-consulting(dot)net. Custom quotes are complimentary.
About Tiger-Consulting
Tiger-Consulting is committed to making expansion and management of satellite operations easier for international businesses. The HR, Payroll, PEO, Bill-Pay, and Employment Outsource Firm supports operations for 200+ enterprise clients that have (or want to have) 1-100 employees in Asia-Pacific. Tiger-Consulting has offices and experienced teams on the ground in 14 countries: Australia, Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. Through strategic partners, the firm also supports clients in Europe, South America, and other key markets.
### Reported by PRWeb 1 day ago.
↧
HUFFPOST HILL - Remember: Unwrapped Candy Spreads Ebola
The GOP is proving it's the big tent party thanks in part to a serial killer with a face tattoo who called Lee Terry "the greatest Republican ever." Don Young tried to prove his LGBT bona fides by saying he "hired a person of a different orientation," though that could just mean his LD drives a Prius. And Democratic children will go trick or treating while Republican children will denounce the program of Halloween handouts and instead donate tens of millions of dollars to Congress to procure their candy. This is HUFFPOST *HELLLLLLLLLLLL* for Friday, October 31st, 2014:
*WHAT KIDS WILL GET TRICK-OR-TREATING AT THE OLD OBAMA PLACE TONIGHT* - The haul, via the White House: A box of White House Hershey Kisses, a bag of black licorice and orange tangerine jelly beans, a White House Sweet Dough Butter Cookie, *a Gala apple*, kettle corn, Bo and Sunny baseball cards, and "assorted candies," whatever the hell those might be. Probably kale.
*CLANDESTINE SERVICES ARE CLANDESTINE* - Ali Watkins: "When Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) took to the Senate floor earlier this year to allege that the CIA had spied on the U.S. Senate, she confirmed the existence of a secret document. *That document, she said, could further validate a scathing report on the spy agency's torture practices that is expected to be unveiled in the next few weeks...*No one knows what will ultimately become of the [document]. The Justice Department this week declined to provide the document in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. It’s unclear if some parts of the review will be included in the 500-page executive summary of the Senate's torture study that is released to the public. Feinstein has said that committee staff didn’t rely on the disputed document when writing the report. And the committee said it doesn’t have any plans to release the entire CIA document with the executive summary." [HuffPost]
Civil rights charges against Darren Wilson unlikely, WashPost reports.
*BENGHAZI HAX0RZ UPDATE* - Sharyl Attkisson clearly learned everything she knows about hacking through the movie "Hackers." Media Matters: "*Computer security experts say that a video released by former CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson appears to show her computer 'malfunction[ing],' likely due to a stuck backspace key, not being hacked by government agents as she had suggested.* In her new book Stonewalled, Attkisson claims that both her personal Apple laptop and a CBS News-issued Toshiba laptop were hacked in late 2012 while she was reporting on the Benghazi terrorist attacks. In June 2013, CBS News confirmed that the CBS News computer was breached, using what the network said were 'sophisticated' methods. According to the book, unnamed sources confirmed for Attkisson that an unnamed government agency was behind the attack. She also claims that she has submitted her personal Apple laptop to the Department of Justice's Inspector General for additional review." [Media Matters]
*PAUL LePAGE PEDALED INTO GROUND BY HEROIC BICYCLE NURSE* - More like Paul LePWNED. Robert Bukaty: "A Maine judge has given nurse Kaci Hickox the OK to go wherever she pleases, handing state officials a defeat in their bid to isolate her. The nurse who treated Ebola patients in Sierra Leone called it 'a good day' and said her 'thoughts, prayers and gratitude' remain with those who are still battling Ebola in West Africa." [AP]
Watch Jim Moran, America's least-caringest congressman, get drunk with Matt Laslo. Moran recalls beating up a guy on the House floor.
*DAILY DELANEY DOWNER* - The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been busy editing Ebola info on its website after some panicky news stories came out. Basically the agency wants you to know *you can't catch Ebola from a doorknob* unless someone sick with Ebola sneezes boogers all over said doorknob and you touch it within a few hours of said sneeze and then put the sick person's boogers in your eye. FYI. [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
*CO SEN: GOP TRYING TO WIN LATINO VOTES WITHOUT IMMIGRATION REFORM* - Elise Foley: "Latinos could decide the outcome of Colorado's Senate race, which could in turn determine which party controls the upper chamber. That makes Latinos' votes -- or their decision to stay home -- particularly important. Both parties know it. Republicans and Democrats in Colorado both say they're making unprecedented Latino voter outreach efforts this year...If Republicans prevail, particularly Senate hopeful Cory Gardner and incumbent Rep. Mike Coffman, the GOP may rethink the way it approaches elections to come. Not too long ago, the party thought it needed to pass comprehensive immigration reform to stand a chance in states with large Latino populations. Now, Republicans may find solace in a formula that relies instead on softened rhetoric, aggressive voter outreach, a touch of Spanish speaking, and support for only piecemeal elements of immigration reform." [HuffPost]
Economy still the biggest deal to voters, according to our latest poll.
*GOP CANDIDATES RUNNING FROM HARDLINE ANTI-ABORTION STANCES* - Laura Bassett:"After losing badly among women voters in the 2012 elections, some Republican candidates seem to have undergone a 'pro-choice' makeover. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), who has previously said he opposes legal abortion even in cases of rape and incest, told voters earlier this month that an anti-abortion bill he signed 'leaves the final decision to a woman and her doctor.' New Hampshire GOP Senate candidate Scott Brown (R), who was endorsed by an anti-abortion group in 2012, now insists that he is 'pro-choice.' Two GOP Senate candidates who previously supported fetal personhood measures, which would ban abortion without exceptions, have since been running from those measures. Joni Ernst in Iowa assured voters the personhood measure she supportedwouldn't have actually done anything, and Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.)claimed a federal amendment he cosponsored didn't exist. Multiple Republican candidates have also come out in support of over-the-counter birth control since August." [HuffPost]
*STATE THAT GAVE US DAVID DUKE DOESN'T HAVE RACE PROBLEM: GOP* - If while reading this you faintly hear your great uncle from Lafayette lecture you about how the Civil War broke out over states' rights, don't be alarmed. Matt Sledge: "[Mary] Landrieu told NBC's Chuck Todd on Thursday that Obama had a hard time in Louisiana because *'the South has not always been the friendliest place for African-Americans.' 'It's been a difficult time for the president to present himself in a very positive light as a leader,' she said*...Republicans, including Landrieu's opponents Rep. Bill Cassidy and Col. Rob Maness, immediately seized on her remarks. 'Senator Landrieu’s comments are remarkably divisive. She appears to be living in a different century,' tweeted Gov. Bobby Jindal (R). 'That is a major insult by Senator Landrieu to the people of Louisiana and I flatly reject it.'" [HuffPost]
*ARIZONA GOP THROWS PAUL RYAN UNDER BUS* - To be fair, if he was weak enough to allow himself to be thrown under said bus, then the free market willed it so and we should all be grateful. Vox: "Rep. Ron Barber (D-AZ) is in one of closest House races in the country. He's leading in the only recent poll but his Republican opponent — Air Force veteran Martha McSally, the first woman to fly in combat — lost to him by less than a percentage point in 2012, and Republicans are outspending Democrats on TV ads in the district...The latest GOP tactic in the election is fascinating. The Arizona Republican Party apparently sent out [a] direct mailer... attacking Ron Barber for being too close to … Paul Ryan." [Vox]
*DON YOUNG WOULD SUPPORT ENDA, MAYBE* - Hell, if it has nothing to do with oil or guns... Kate Sheppard: "Alaska's Republican congressman, Don Young, suggested in a debate Thursday night that he may be open to voting for workplace protections for gays and lesbians. The debate, hosted by Alaska Public Media, asked candidates for Alaska's only seat in the House whether they would support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA... *Young, 81, first avoided answering. 'I've hired a person of a different orientation,' he said*, before pivoting to talk about about gay marriage. 'That's personal. ... I do believe in the Bible. Always have and always will. But hiring is different.'" [HuffPost]
*Americans are, surprisingly, more open-minded than Don Young*: "According to a new Harris poll released Thursday, two-thirds of Americans support federal legislation that would bar employers from discriminating against workers on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and 55 percent reject exemptions for any employers -- even churches." [HuffPost's Shadee Ashtari]
*MEET THE LADY TAKING PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION TO THE SUPREME COURT* - Dave Jamieson: "When Peggy Young became pregnant in 2006, she had every intention of continuing to work delivering packages for UPS in Maryland. At the urging of the company's occupational health manager, Young visited her doctor to obtain a note detailing any work restrictions she might need. Her doctor recommended that she not lift more than 20 pounds for the first 20 weeks of her pregnancy. Based on the doctor's note, *UPS placed Young on unpaid leave, an all too common experience for women nationwide*. Although UPS often put workers with other conditions on light duty, it told Young that such accommodations wouldn't apply to an 'off-the-job' condition such as her pregnancy. Not only would she lose her income, she would have to suddenly switch to her husband's health insurance plan, changing the hospitals at which she could potentially give birth. '*I wanted to work*,' Young told The Huffington Post." [HuffPost]
*BECAUSE YOU'VE READ THIS FAR* - Here's a kitten freaking out over a remote controlled spider
*OH MAN, THIS HAPPENED*
*COMFORT FOOD*
- Dog squares off against a chicken nugget.
- A local TV weatherman has our favorite Halloween costume this year.
- And here's the best Halloween Snapchat video.
- Irish people watch baseball.
*TWITTERAMA*
@KagroX: If I told you "the science is still out on Ebola transmission," THEN could we agree to do nothing about Kaci Hickox?
@CNNyourmom: Democrats And Republicans Call Off Your Mom
@SimonMaloy: can't spell iMac without CIA
*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 1 day ago.
*WHAT KIDS WILL GET TRICK-OR-TREATING AT THE OLD OBAMA PLACE TONIGHT* - The haul, via the White House: A box of White House Hershey Kisses, a bag of black licorice and orange tangerine jelly beans, a White House Sweet Dough Butter Cookie, *a Gala apple*, kettle corn, Bo and Sunny baseball cards, and "assorted candies," whatever the hell those might be. Probably kale.
*CLANDESTINE SERVICES ARE CLANDESTINE* - Ali Watkins: "When Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) took to the Senate floor earlier this year to allege that the CIA had spied on the U.S. Senate, she confirmed the existence of a secret document. *That document, she said, could further validate a scathing report on the spy agency's torture practices that is expected to be unveiled in the next few weeks...*No one knows what will ultimately become of the [document]. The Justice Department this week declined to provide the document in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. It’s unclear if some parts of the review will be included in the 500-page executive summary of the Senate's torture study that is released to the public. Feinstein has said that committee staff didn’t rely on the disputed document when writing the report. And the committee said it doesn’t have any plans to release the entire CIA document with the executive summary." [HuffPost]
Civil rights charges against Darren Wilson unlikely, WashPost reports.
*BENGHAZI HAX0RZ UPDATE* - Sharyl Attkisson clearly learned everything she knows about hacking through the movie "Hackers." Media Matters: "*Computer security experts say that a video released by former CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson appears to show her computer 'malfunction[ing],' likely due to a stuck backspace key, not being hacked by government agents as she had suggested.* In her new book Stonewalled, Attkisson claims that both her personal Apple laptop and a CBS News-issued Toshiba laptop were hacked in late 2012 while she was reporting on the Benghazi terrorist attacks. In June 2013, CBS News confirmed that the CBS News computer was breached, using what the network said were 'sophisticated' methods. According to the book, unnamed sources confirmed for Attkisson that an unnamed government agency was behind the attack. She also claims that she has submitted her personal Apple laptop to the Department of Justice's Inspector General for additional review." [Media Matters]
*PAUL LePAGE PEDALED INTO GROUND BY HEROIC BICYCLE NURSE* - More like Paul LePWNED. Robert Bukaty: "A Maine judge has given nurse Kaci Hickox the OK to go wherever she pleases, handing state officials a defeat in their bid to isolate her. The nurse who treated Ebola patients in Sierra Leone called it 'a good day' and said her 'thoughts, prayers and gratitude' remain with those who are still battling Ebola in West Africa." [AP]
Watch Jim Moran, America's least-caringest congressman, get drunk with Matt Laslo. Moran recalls beating up a guy on the House floor.
*DAILY DELANEY DOWNER* - The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been busy editing Ebola info on its website after some panicky news stories came out. Basically the agency wants you to know *you can't catch Ebola from a doorknob* unless someone sick with Ebola sneezes boogers all over said doorknob and you touch it within a few hours of said sneeze and then put the sick person's boogers in your eye. FYI. [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
*CO SEN: GOP TRYING TO WIN LATINO VOTES WITHOUT IMMIGRATION REFORM* - Elise Foley: "Latinos could decide the outcome of Colorado's Senate race, which could in turn determine which party controls the upper chamber. That makes Latinos' votes -- or their decision to stay home -- particularly important. Both parties know it. Republicans and Democrats in Colorado both say they're making unprecedented Latino voter outreach efforts this year...If Republicans prevail, particularly Senate hopeful Cory Gardner and incumbent Rep. Mike Coffman, the GOP may rethink the way it approaches elections to come. Not too long ago, the party thought it needed to pass comprehensive immigration reform to stand a chance in states with large Latino populations. Now, Republicans may find solace in a formula that relies instead on softened rhetoric, aggressive voter outreach, a touch of Spanish speaking, and support for only piecemeal elements of immigration reform." [HuffPost]
Economy still the biggest deal to voters, according to our latest poll.
*GOP CANDIDATES RUNNING FROM HARDLINE ANTI-ABORTION STANCES* - Laura Bassett:"After losing badly among women voters in the 2012 elections, some Republican candidates seem to have undergone a 'pro-choice' makeover. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), who has previously said he opposes legal abortion even in cases of rape and incest, told voters earlier this month that an anti-abortion bill he signed 'leaves the final decision to a woman and her doctor.' New Hampshire GOP Senate candidate Scott Brown (R), who was endorsed by an anti-abortion group in 2012, now insists that he is 'pro-choice.' Two GOP Senate candidates who previously supported fetal personhood measures, which would ban abortion without exceptions, have since been running from those measures. Joni Ernst in Iowa assured voters the personhood measure she supportedwouldn't have actually done anything, and Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.)claimed a federal amendment he cosponsored didn't exist. Multiple Republican candidates have also come out in support of over-the-counter birth control since August." [HuffPost]
*STATE THAT GAVE US DAVID DUKE DOESN'T HAVE RACE PROBLEM: GOP* - If while reading this you faintly hear your great uncle from Lafayette lecture you about how the Civil War broke out over states' rights, don't be alarmed. Matt Sledge: "[Mary] Landrieu told NBC's Chuck Todd on Thursday that Obama had a hard time in Louisiana because *'the South has not always been the friendliest place for African-Americans.' 'It's been a difficult time for the president to present himself in a very positive light as a leader,' she said*...Republicans, including Landrieu's opponents Rep. Bill Cassidy and Col. Rob Maness, immediately seized on her remarks. 'Senator Landrieu’s comments are remarkably divisive. She appears to be living in a different century,' tweeted Gov. Bobby Jindal (R). 'That is a major insult by Senator Landrieu to the people of Louisiana and I flatly reject it.'" [HuffPost]
*ARIZONA GOP THROWS PAUL RYAN UNDER BUS* - To be fair, if he was weak enough to allow himself to be thrown under said bus, then the free market willed it so and we should all be grateful. Vox: "Rep. Ron Barber (D-AZ) is in one of closest House races in the country. He's leading in the only recent poll but his Republican opponent — Air Force veteran Martha McSally, the first woman to fly in combat — lost to him by less than a percentage point in 2012, and Republicans are outspending Democrats on TV ads in the district...The latest GOP tactic in the election is fascinating. The Arizona Republican Party apparently sent out [a] direct mailer... attacking Ron Barber for being too close to … Paul Ryan." [Vox]
*DON YOUNG WOULD SUPPORT ENDA, MAYBE* - Hell, if it has nothing to do with oil or guns... Kate Sheppard: "Alaska's Republican congressman, Don Young, suggested in a debate Thursday night that he may be open to voting for workplace protections for gays and lesbians. The debate, hosted by Alaska Public Media, asked candidates for Alaska's only seat in the House whether they would support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA... *Young, 81, first avoided answering. 'I've hired a person of a different orientation,' he said*, before pivoting to talk about about gay marriage. 'That's personal. ... I do believe in the Bible. Always have and always will. But hiring is different.'" [HuffPost]
*Americans are, surprisingly, more open-minded than Don Young*: "According to a new Harris poll released Thursday, two-thirds of Americans support federal legislation that would bar employers from discriminating against workers on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and 55 percent reject exemptions for any employers -- even churches." [HuffPost's Shadee Ashtari]
*MEET THE LADY TAKING PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION TO THE SUPREME COURT* - Dave Jamieson: "When Peggy Young became pregnant in 2006, she had every intention of continuing to work delivering packages for UPS in Maryland. At the urging of the company's occupational health manager, Young visited her doctor to obtain a note detailing any work restrictions she might need. Her doctor recommended that she not lift more than 20 pounds for the first 20 weeks of her pregnancy. Based on the doctor's note, *UPS placed Young on unpaid leave, an all too common experience for women nationwide*. Although UPS often put workers with other conditions on light duty, it told Young that such accommodations wouldn't apply to an 'off-the-job' condition such as her pregnancy. Not only would she lose her income, she would have to suddenly switch to her husband's health insurance plan, changing the hospitals at which she could potentially give birth. '*I wanted to work*,' Young told The Huffington Post." [HuffPost]
*BECAUSE YOU'VE READ THIS FAR* - Here's a kitten freaking out over a remote controlled spider
*OH MAN, THIS HAPPENED*
*COMFORT FOOD*
- Dog squares off against a chicken nugget.
- A local TV weatherman has our favorite Halloween costume this year.
- And here's the best Halloween Snapchat video.
- Irish people watch baseball.
*TWITTERAMA*
@KagroX: If I told you "the science is still out on Ebola transmission," THEN could we agree to do nothing about Kaci Hickox?
@CNNyourmom: Democrats And Republicans Call Off Your Mom
@SimonMaloy: can't spell iMac without CIA
*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 1 day ago.
↧
Anthem dropping health insurance for 30,000 in state
INDIANAPOLIS - Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield has sent notices to 30,000 people in Indiana that it is canceling health care insurance policies and asking them to switch to plans that comply with the federal Affordable Care Act.
Reported by Journal Gazette 13 hours ago.
↧
↧
Will Working Moms Show Up on Election Day?
Kasey Nalls, having just put in a 4 p.m. - 2 a.m. overnight shift, steals a few winks before she's back up at 6 a.m. She pushes aside her own fatigue to rouse her two kids - 10 and 14 - from their beds, get them fed and off to school.
She typically works about 70 hours a week, including 30 hours of overtime, so she can afford the essentials -- rent, gas and groceries -- and the extras -- Catholic school tuition for her daughter, a PlayStation 4 for her son.
So, how is she going to find time to show up for Tuesday's midterm elections? The Merrillville, Indiana working mom simply says "I'm going to vote. But with so much on my plate, my time is limited. I work overtime so I can give my kids what they need and deserve. Any time I have off, I spend with my kids or running errands to keep my household afloat."
Kasey is part of a coveted female swing-voter demographic in this year's midterms. Yet with just a few days remaining until Election Day, are working moms too weary juggling demands of work and family to give Democrats the margin of votes needed to hold a Senate majority?
Wherever you call home - maybe it's Georgia, North Carolina, Louisiana, Colorado, Iowa or Kansas- all tight battlegrounds in the race for the Senate - the worries of working moms are the same.
My child is sick, but I can't afford to take off from work.
I want to attend my son's soccer game, but I need overtime hours to get by.
Christmas is around the corner. Can I stretch my minimum-wage paycheck to buy gifts this year?
These weighty, deeply personal concerns are front and center for far too many of the 25.2 million U.S. moms who work outside the home. The good news is working moms - by their sheer numbers - have the power to elect candidates who know their struggles and will do something about them.
Moms just need to show up and vote.
*Working moms are the new normal *
Today, women make up almost half of U.S. workers and a record 4 in 10 households with children under the age of 18 include a mom who is the sole or primary breadwinner, according to a Pew Research Center analysis.
Moreover, out of almost 11 million low-income working families in 2012, more than 4 million were headed by working moms - with 65 percent led by African American moms, reports State Policy and Low-Income Working Mothers: Investing for a Better Economic Future.
Most of these women work jobs without health insurance or paid medical and maternity leave. Living on the edge of the economy, they have little patience for congressional gridlock or political left jabs and right hooks.
They're too busy balancing work schedules, long commutes, doctor's appointments, school activities, homework and making sure everyone is fed.
This may explain a recent poll of Walmart moms that found many moms can't recall much about the candidates running for Senate or even why Senate control matters. Instead, they're asking how does politics work for me? Why should I vote?
Moms, your vote counts because you vote with your children and family at heart.
Showing up at the polls or staying home can make the difference between electing a candidate who shares your priorities and sending one to Washington who doesn't.
Take Georgia's razor-tight Senate race. Raising the minimum wage, access to preschool education and ensuring women earn equal pay for equal work dominate the race between Democratic Senate hopeful Michelle Nunn and Republican challenger David Perdue.
In North Carolina, Democratic Senator Kay Hagan and Republican contender Thom Tillis illustrate the sharp political and policy divide around abortion rights, state education funding and federal Medicaid expansion.
And in Louisiana, economically anxious moms are holding Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu and Republican challenger Rep. Bill Cassidy accountable for their positions on lowering college student loan rates, increasing stagnant wages and ongoing Hurricane Katrina disaster relief.
I, too, am a mom and a full-time worker. And like millions of moms across America, I wake up every day striving to create a better future for my family. Yes, sometimes motherhood feels like the toughest job you'll ever love. And often, there's just not enough hours in the day. But I'm voting on Election Day because what happens in Washington matters - from the schools our kids attend to the wages we earn to the health and well-being of our families.
Moms, let's make our voices heard. Vote. Reported by Huffington Post 8 hours ago.
She typically works about 70 hours a week, including 30 hours of overtime, so she can afford the essentials -- rent, gas and groceries -- and the extras -- Catholic school tuition for her daughter, a PlayStation 4 for her son.
So, how is she going to find time to show up for Tuesday's midterm elections? The Merrillville, Indiana working mom simply says "I'm going to vote. But with so much on my plate, my time is limited. I work overtime so I can give my kids what they need and deserve. Any time I have off, I spend with my kids or running errands to keep my household afloat."
Kasey is part of a coveted female swing-voter demographic in this year's midterms. Yet with just a few days remaining until Election Day, are working moms too weary juggling demands of work and family to give Democrats the margin of votes needed to hold a Senate majority?
Wherever you call home - maybe it's Georgia, North Carolina, Louisiana, Colorado, Iowa or Kansas- all tight battlegrounds in the race for the Senate - the worries of working moms are the same.
My child is sick, but I can't afford to take off from work.
I want to attend my son's soccer game, but I need overtime hours to get by.
Christmas is around the corner. Can I stretch my minimum-wage paycheck to buy gifts this year?
These weighty, deeply personal concerns are front and center for far too many of the 25.2 million U.S. moms who work outside the home. The good news is working moms - by their sheer numbers - have the power to elect candidates who know their struggles and will do something about them.
Moms just need to show up and vote.
*Working moms are the new normal *
Today, women make up almost half of U.S. workers and a record 4 in 10 households with children under the age of 18 include a mom who is the sole or primary breadwinner, according to a Pew Research Center analysis.
Moreover, out of almost 11 million low-income working families in 2012, more than 4 million were headed by working moms - with 65 percent led by African American moms, reports State Policy and Low-Income Working Mothers: Investing for a Better Economic Future.
Most of these women work jobs without health insurance or paid medical and maternity leave. Living on the edge of the economy, they have little patience for congressional gridlock or political left jabs and right hooks.
They're too busy balancing work schedules, long commutes, doctor's appointments, school activities, homework and making sure everyone is fed.
This may explain a recent poll of Walmart moms that found many moms can't recall much about the candidates running for Senate or even why Senate control matters. Instead, they're asking how does politics work for me? Why should I vote?
Moms, your vote counts because you vote with your children and family at heart.
Showing up at the polls or staying home can make the difference between electing a candidate who shares your priorities and sending one to Washington who doesn't.
Take Georgia's razor-tight Senate race. Raising the minimum wage, access to preschool education and ensuring women earn equal pay for equal work dominate the race between Democratic Senate hopeful Michelle Nunn and Republican challenger David Perdue.
In North Carolina, Democratic Senator Kay Hagan and Republican contender Thom Tillis illustrate the sharp political and policy divide around abortion rights, state education funding and federal Medicaid expansion.
And in Louisiana, economically anxious moms are holding Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu and Republican challenger Rep. Bill Cassidy accountable for their positions on lowering college student loan rates, increasing stagnant wages and ongoing Hurricane Katrina disaster relief.
I, too, am a mom and a full-time worker. And like millions of moms across America, I wake up every day striving to create a better future for my family. Yes, sometimes motherhood feels like the toughest job you'll ever love. And often, there's just not enough hours in the day. But I'm voting on Election Day because what happens in Washington matters - from the schools our kids attend to the wages we earn to the health and well-being of our families.
Moms, let's make our voices heard. Vote. Reported by Huffington Post 8 hours ago.
↧
10 States Where Poverty Is Worse Than You Think
The U.S. federal poverty line has been determined using the same general framework since the mid-1960s. In that time, the official measure has come under criticism as an inadequate way to measure the number of people truly in need.
In 1995, a National Academy of Sciences panel made recommendations for how an alternative poverty measure could be developed. Since then, the Census Bureau has worked in partnership with the Bureau of Labor Statistics to further these recommendations. The result was the supplemental poverty measure, which produces state level poverty rates that differ considerably from the official poverty measures.
Compared to Mississippi’s official poverty rate of 20.7% between 2011 and 2013, the supplemental poverty rate was more than five percentage points lower during that time. In California, the supplemental poverty rate was 7.4 percentage points higher and, at 23.4%, the highest in the nation. Based on recently released data from the Census Bureau, these are the states where poverty is worse than you think.
Click here to see all 10 states.
In an interview with 24/7 Wall St., Sheldon Danziger, president of the Russell Sage Foundation, said “It’s been common wisdom among researchers since at least the 1970s that we should rethink the official poverty measure.” Danziger added that the supplementary measure improves understanding of poverty by including items such as the earned income tax credit and food stamp benefits.
Kathleen Short, economist at the Census Bureau and author of its report on the supplemental poverty measure, explained, “The important feature of that measure is that it includes a lot of the non-cash benefits that we have in the United States to help families with low incomes.” Short added that this is useful for policymakers because it allows them “to get a better idea of how effective our safety net is for helping people.”
One of the primary differences between the supplemental poverty measure and the official one is housing costs. The supplemental measure is adjusted to reflect local housing costs, whereas the official poverty measure is not. According to Short, this is one of the major factors that can push up poverty rates in many states under the supplemental measure.
In fact, of the 10 states with the highest increases in poverty under the supplemental poverty measure, eight also had among the 10 highest costs of living. Further, in seven of these states, the relative cost of renting an apartment was also among the 10 highest nationally. The two states with the largest increases in poverty under the supplemental measure — California and Hawaii — were also the top two states in terms of the cost of renting a home.
Still, the role of non-cash benefits programs is very important in shaping the supplemental poverty levels in many states. For example, in many of these states residents are far less likely to receive an earned income tax credit. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimates that 79% of eligible Americans filing tax returns received a credit in the 2010 tax year, the most recent year for which data is available. However, in many of the states where poverty is most undercounted, the percentage of eligible filers receiving a credit is far lower. In Nevada, just 71.5% claimed their credit, while in California just 71% did, among the lowest rates in the U.S.
High levels of out-of-pocket medical expenses are also a factor contributing to higher supplemental poverty levels in many states. In fact, according to the Census Bureau, 11 million Americans fall into poverty under the supplemental measure because of these expenses, more than for any other reason. While some states where the poor are undercounted have high rates of health insurance coverage, others do not. Notably, in Nevada and Florida, 20.7% and 20% of the states’ populations were uninsured, respectively, as of 2013. These were the second- and third-highest rates in the nation.
In addition to the huge role played by out-of-pocket medical costs, Beth Mattingly, director of research on vulnerable families at the Carsey School of Public Policy, identified work-related costs as another expenditure that leads many families to struggle. Mattingly said that much of these costs are related to transportation, which can be high for people who live in cities, as well as in rural areas. In cities, “to take the train, then take the bus, it really adds up,” Mattingly said. Yet, in more rural areas, long drives, and the wear-and-tear on vehicles can also increase costs.
In order to determine the 10 states where poverty is worse than you think, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed data from the Census Bureau’s recent release, “The Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2013.” We then ranked states on the difference between the supplemental poverty and the official poverty measure. The supplemental measure uses an updated definition of households, as well as poverty thresholds that incorporate area housing costs. Further, while the official poverty rate is calculated using gross before-tax cash income, the supplemental measure is adjusted for noncash benefits, taxes and tax credits, work expenses, out-of-pocket medical costs and child support payments.
Data on Social Security, cash public assistance, Supplemental Security Income, SNAP benefits — or food stamps — and other factors included in measuring the social safety net are from the Census Bureau’s 2013 American Community Survey. Data on Unemployment Insurance claims are from the Department of Labor. Data on Earned Income Tax Credits are from the IRS. EITC participation rates are as of the 2010 tax year, while average EITC amounts are for the 2013 tax year. Figures on regional price parities — representing the differences in cost of living and cost of rent — are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis for 2012.
These are the states where poverty is worse than you think. Reported by Huffington Post 3 hours ago.
In 1995, a National Academy of Sciences panel made recommendations for how an alternative poverty measure could be developed. Since then, the Census Bureau has worked in partnership with the Bureau of Labor Statistics to further these recommendations. The result was the supplemental poverty measure, which produces state level poverty rates that differ considerably from the official poverty measures.
Compared to Mississippi’s official poverty rate of 20.7% between 2011 and 2013, the supplemental poverty rate was more than five percentage points lower during that time. In California, the supplemental poverty rate was 7.4 percentage points higher and, at 23.4%, the highest in the nation. Based on recently released data from the Census Bureau, these are the states where poverty is worse than you think.
Click here to see all 10 states.
In an interview with 24/7 Wall St., Sheldon Danziger, president of the Russell Sage Foundation, said “It’s been common wisdom among researchers since at least the 1970s that we should rethink the official poverty measure.” Danziger added that the supplementary measure improves understanding of poverty by including items such as the earned income tax credit and food stamp benefits.
Kathleen Short, economist at the Census Bureau and author of its report on the supplemental poverty measure, explained, “The important feature of that measure is that it includes a lot of the non-cash benefits that we have in the United States to help families with low incomes.” Short added that this is useful for policymakers because it allows them “to get a better idea of how effective our safety net is for helping people.”
One of the primary differences between the supplemental poverty measure and the official one is housing costs. The supplemental measure is adjusted to reflect local housing costs, whereas the official poverty measure is not. According to Short, this is one of the major factors that can push up poverty rates in many states under the supplemental measure.
In fact, of the 10 states with the highest increases in poverty under the supplemental poverty measure, eight also had among the 10 highest costs of living. Further, in seven of these states, the relative cost of renting an apartment was also among the 10 highest nationally. The two states with the largest increases in poverty under the supplemental measure — California and Hawaii — were also the top two states in terms of the cost of renting a home.
Still, the role of non-cash benefits programs is very important in shaping the supplemental poverty levels in many states. For example, in many of these states residents are far less likely to receive an earned income tax credit. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimates that 79% of eligible Americans filing tax returns received a credit in the 2010 tax year, the most recent year for which data is available. However, in many of the states where poverty is most undercounted, the percentage of eligible filers receiving a credit is far lower. In Nevada, just 71.5% claimed their credit, while in California just 71% did, among the lowest rates in the U.S.
High levels of out-of-pocket medical expenses are also a factor contributing to higher supplemental poverty levels in many states. In fact, according to the Census Bureau, 11 million Americans fall into poverty under the supplemental measure because of these expenses, more than for any other reason. While some states where the poor are undercounted have high rates of health insurance coverage, others do not. Notably, in Nevada and Florida, 20.7% and 20% of the states’ populations were uninsured, respectively, as of 2013. These were the second- and third-highest rates in the nation.
In addition to the huge role played by out-of-pocket medical costs, Beth Mattingly, director of research on vulnerable families at the Carsey School of Public Policy, identified work-related costs as another expenditure that leads many families to struggle. Mattingly said that much of these costs are related to transportation, which can be high for people who live in cities, as well as in rural areas. In cities, “to take the train, then take the bus, it really adds up,” Mattingly said. Yet, in more rural areas, long drives, and the wear-and-tear on vehicles can also increase costs.
In order to determine the 10 states where poverty is worse than you think, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed data from the Census Bureau’s recent release, “The Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2013.” We then ranked states on the difference between the supplemental poverty and the official poverty measure. The supplemental measure uses an updated definition of households, as well as poverty thresholds that incorporate area housing costs. Further, while the official poverty rate is calculated using gross before-tax cash income, the supplemental measure is adjusted for noncash benefits, taxes and tax credits, work expenses, out-of-pocket medical costs and child support payments.
Data on Social Security, cash public assistance, Supplemental Security Income, SNAP benefits — or food stamps — and other factors included in measuring the social safety net are from the Census Bureau’s 2013 American Community Survey. Data on Unemployment Insurance claims are from the Department of Labor. Data on Earned Income Tax Credits are from the IRS. EITC participation rates are as of the 2010 tax year, while average EITC amounts are for the 2013 tax year. Figures on regional price parities — representing the differences in cost of living and cost of rent — are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis for 2012.
These are the states where poverty is worse than you think. Reported by Huffington Post 3 hours ago.
↧
Fight for health insurance sales keeps premiums down
Affordable Care Act premiums, once predicted to skyrocket in the second year under the government's marketplace, have risen about 6 percent for 2015, according to an analysis of preliminary state filings.
Reported by Journal Gazette 14 hours ago.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
