The Supreme Court’s decision to hear King v. Burwell means that the Court, for the second time in three years, will be deciding an issue that will have a major impact on the Obama Administration’s ability to implement the Affordable Care Act. The ACA’s requirement that individuals purchase health insurance [...]
Reported by Forbes.com 18 hours ago.
Why "King v. Burwell" Obamacare Case Is Not "NFIB v. Sebelius" Redux
↧
↧
MeTV-2 News Break
Thousands of low-income Delawareans could lose their health insurance early next year, a man admits to fatally shooting someone in Wilmington, and Delawareans turn out for an event to honor veterans. 11/11/14
Reported by Delawareonline 18 hours ago.
Reported by Delawareonline 18 hours ago.
↧
The stupidity of the Affordable Care Act
In response to Jonathan Gruber - ACA and 'The Stupidity Of The American Voter':
I see the Left is drenching the Internet in flop sweat as they either search for some mystical "context" that will change the plain meaning of what Gruber said in this clip, or try to erase him from history altogether. He's getting the Stalin airbrush treatment right out of the ObamaCare picture. Having apparently failed to sell his vote to the incoming Republican majority, "independent" Senator Angus King of Maine has taken to pretending he can't even remember who Gruber is. He went from the wunderkind of health care reform to some random goofball who just happened to skateboard through the discussion, which begs the question of why he'd be addressing the sort of seminar where he regaled the audience with knee-slappers about how he and the President managed to pull scam after scam on the CBO and gullible American voters.
Besides being outrage-inducing to Americans who hated ObamaCare even before they knew it was a scam, Gruber's got a lot of brass insulting the stupidity of American voters, because ObamaCare is the dumbest cluck of a bill ever to fall off the turnip truck in the middle of the night and get rammed through Congress in a disgusting orgy of backroom deals. There are a million things wrong with this bill - it wasn't even fully written when they passed it - and every fresh catastrophe is dismissed as an unforeseen complication or unexpected side effect. Nobody who wrote the ACA was able to "foresee" how a single thing about it would work. They just spent the last six months or so trying to whistle past the Gruber graveyard by claiming all that stuff about state-only subsidies was a typo, and Gruber's defense of the language was a series of "speak-os." This law is dumber than a box of rocks, and about as popular as Ebola... and that's why we've got to shred the Constitution to keep it alive!
I've said before that I have a hard time imagining how any honest Justice could rule that the actual language of the Affordable Care Act is less important than what its largely-dethroned authors retrospectively claim they really meant. The big question will be what happens to the remains of the ACA if those subsidies get struck down. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if some variation of Gruber's subsidy trap snaps shut, bullying the states that have resisted setting up their own exchanges into capitulation, because the residents of those states will flip their lids if they have to pay the full freight for Obama's overpriced health insurance, while everyone else gets nice fat taxpayer subsidies. I even wonder if the looming threat of the King v. Burwell decision might spook a state or two into ditching HealthCareDotGov and setting up an exchange before the ruling actually comes down. It'll be very big news if that happens.
Michael Barone lays out a more optimistic Transformation of ObamaCare scenario at the Washington Examiner:
It would be easy to rewrite the Obamacare statute to make it say what Democrats say they intended to say but somehow didn’t quite do so. Just change a few words. But Republicans will have majorities in both houses in 2015. If there is demand for making the subsidies available in the 36 states where they would be barred by the Halbig ruling, Republicans might demand something in return. Like a major rewriting of Obamacare.
This could be a nightmare for the Obama administration. Democrats will not want to be blamed for withdrawing subsidies from people in 36 states—particularly since it will be clear that they did this by what can be described as either incompetence or political chicanery. They may be forced into accepting, reluctantly, major changes in Obamacare. Republicans cannot force repeal. But if the Supreme Court early next summer follows standard statutory interpretation, Republicans can get a good start on replace.
It'll be interesting to see if Democrats are able to weasel out from taking the blame for pushing through a law that self-destructs so spectacularly at the Supreme Court, and whether Republicans go with a plan to radically transform it (which they'll describe as "repeal and replace," while Democrats insist it wasn't a repeal at all) - or if they'll put Democrats in the position of filibustering or vetoing bills that would replace something the public never liked, as it sets the bank accounts of customers in 36 states on fire. Reported by Breitbart 18 hours ago.
I see the Left is drenching the Internet in flop sweat as they either search for some mystical "context" that will change the plain meaning of what Gruber said in this clip, or try to erase him from history altogether. He's getting the Stalin airbrush treatment right out of the ObamaCare picture. Having apparently failed to sell his vote to the incoming Republican majority, "independent" Senator Angus King of Maine has taken to pretending he can't even remember who Gruber is. He went from the wunderkind of health care reform to some random goofball who just happened to skateboard through the discussion, which begs the question of why he'd be addressing the sort of seminar where he regaled the audience with knee-slappers about how he and the President managed to pull scam after scam on the CBO and gullible American voters.
Besides being outrage-inducing to Americans who hated ObamaCare even before they knew it was a scam, Gruber's got a lot of brass insulting the stupidity of American voters, because ObamaCare is the dumbest cluck of a bill ever to fall off the turnip truck in the middle of the night and get rammed through Congress in a disgusting orgy of backroom deals. There are a million things wrong with this bill - it wasn't even fully written when they passed it - and every fresh catastrophe is dismissed as an unforeseen complication or unexpected side effect. Nobody who wrote the ACA was able to "foresee" how a single thing about it would work. They just spent the last six months or so trying to whistle past the Gruber graveyard by claiming all that stuff about state-only subsidies was a typo, and Gruber's defense of the language was a series of "speak-os." This law is dumber than a box of rocks, and about as popular as Ebola... and that's why we've got to shred the Constitution to keep it alive!
I've said before that I have a hard time imagining how any honest Justice could rule that the actual language of the Affordable Care Act is less important than what its largely-dethroned authors retrospectively claim they really meant. The big question will be what happens to the remains of the ACA if those subsidies get struck down. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if some variation of Gruber's subsidy trap snaps shut, bullying the states that have resisted setting up their own exchanges into capitulation, because the residents of those states will flip their lids if they have to pay the full freight for Obama's overpriced health insurance, while everyone else gets nice fat taxpayer subsidies. I even wonder if the looming threat of the King v. Burwell decision might spook a state or two into ditching HealthCareDotGov and setting up an exchange before the ruling actually comes down. It'll be very big news if that happens.
Michael Barone lays out a more optimistic Transformation of ObamaCare scenario at the Washington Examiner:
It would be easy to rewrite the Obamacare statute to make it say what Democrats say they intended to say but somehow didn’t quite do so. Just change a few words. But Republicans will have majorities in both houses in 2015. If there is demand for making the subsidies available in the 36 states where they would be barred by the Halbig ruling, Republicans might demand something in return. Like a major rewriting of Obamacare.
This could be a nightmare for the Obama administration. Democrats will not want to be blamed for withdrawing subsidies from people in 36 states—particularly since it will be clear that they did this by what can be described as either incompetence or political chicanery. They may be forced into accepting, reluctantly, major changes in Obamacare. Republicans cannot force repeal. But if the Supreme Court early next summer follows standard statutory interpretation, Republicans can get a good start on replace.
It'll be interesting to see if Democrats are able to weasel out from taking the blame for pushing through a law that self-destructs so spectacularly at the Supreme Court, and whether Republicans go with a plan to radically transform it (which they'll describe as "repeal and replace," while Democrats insist it wasn't a repeal at all) - or if they'll put Democrats in the position of filibustering or vetoing bills that would replace something the public never liked, as it sets the bank accounts of customers in 36 states on fire. Reported by Breitbart 18 hours ago.
↧
Melissa Etheridge Got It All Wrong
Shame on Melissa Etheridge for using her privilege and public platform to blame herself for her breast cancer and, by extension, blame all lesbian and bisexual women for our disproportionate burden of the disease. Cancer is a disease caused by the uncontrolled growth of rogue cells. Period. Of course, there are some things, like genetics and tobacco use, that increase the likelihood of occurrence. But Etheridge didn't cause her own breast cancer, and she didn't make it disappear once she "got [her] body back into balance." She had a genetic mutation that made her more susceptible, she used to be a chain smoker, and, considering that not everyone in those categories gets cancer, she was also unlucky. Then she had surgery (a lumpectomy) and five rounds of chemotherapy and radiation to get rid of her cancer. She was not cured by simply fixing her diet any more than she caused her cancer by eating poorly.In a recent article in AARP: The Magazine, Melissa Etheridge and Sheryl Crow also used their soapbox to call cancer a "gift." Really? As the founder and executive director of the National LGBT Cancer Network, I tend to think of the disease as terrifying, time-consuming, disfiguring, expensive and isolating. Having just mourned the death of my fourth dear friend to cancer, I think of the disease as more of a thief than a benefactor. Last night I had dinner with a friend, a transgender man who is facing down the end of his life and wanted to talk to me about hospice. Melissa Etheridge tramples my grief and my work by thanking cancer for waking her up to her poor diet and stress level.
Cancer excessively punishes LGBT people. And as a group, lesbians have the densest cluster of risk factors for breast cancer. Moreover, because of multiple barriers to accessing health care, including previous discrimination and lower rates of health-insurance coverage, we fall behind in our cancer screenings, like mammograms. Once diagnosed with cancer, many lesbians face additional challenges that our heterosexual sisters are spared, like invisibility, healthcare providers' rejection of our families of choice and lack of information about cancer's impact on lesbian sexuality, fertility and relationships.
What do we need from the people who get airtime, ink and blog space? We need plenty, and Melissa Etheridge blew the chance to help us, instead offering self-indulgent and incorrect information. We need encouragement to take better care of our bodies, yes, but that has to go beyond diet to also include cancer screenings. She could have suggested that we harness the power of our friendship networks and go in packs for mammograms, offering each other support and encouragement during the scary procedure. Instead of feeding individualized victim blaming, I wish she'd spoken out about the social determinants of our health, specifically how discrimination directly impacts LGBT bodies. We are not just a product of our personal habits. We are a community of people who need those with a voice to work for change for all of us. Reported by PopEater 17 hours ago.
↧
Zenefits’ CEO on why scaling a company is terrifying
[...] it has signed up 2,000 customers in 47 states. When venture capital firms Institutional Venture Partners and Andreessen Horowitz invested $66.5 million in Zenefits this summer, IVP labeled it the “fastest-growing software-as-a-service company we’ve ever seen.” Zenefits offers small and midsize companies cloud software that handles human resources tasks such as health insurance, payroll and benefits. Larger companies usually have access to some kind of Web-based human resources system, but smaller companies typically do not, instead having to manage many disparate systems at once. [...] it gives away the software, making money by taking a commission when its customers use the platform to purchase insurance. For software-as-a-service companies like Zenefits, each new customer initially represents a financial loss, but over time it will bring in increasing amounts of revenue. In other words, if it scales too quickly, its losses could potentially outpace revenue at a rate that makes the company go broke.
Reported by SFGate 16 hours ago.
↧
↧
Latinos Lag Under Health Law
Signing up uninsured Hispanics will be one of the Obama administration’s biggest challenges when it reopens the health law’s insurance exchanges Saturday. One quarter of Latinos lack health insurance, according to census data.
Reported by Wall Street Journal 15 hours ago.
↧
Obama's presidency doesn't need 'saving'
To the editor: There is a need to save Barack Obama's presidency? A presidency that has, as McManus mentions, "ended the Great Recession, brought two wars to a close and made health insurance available to millions"? ("Can Obama's presidency be saved?," Op-Ed, Nov. 8)
Reported by L.A. Times 15 hours ago.
↧
This Philly-Based Investment Adviser Has Become Obamacare's Digital Menace
WASHINGTON -- You could pardon Rich Weinstein for gloating. These past few days, he’s enjoyed the type of journalistic high that comes with unearthing a particularly meaty scoop.
Except Weinstein is no journalist. He’s a Philadelphia-based investment adviser approaching 50 who, until a half-year ago, was unknown to the political world. A set of videos he found of Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who played an important role in drafting the Affordable Care Act, changed all that. The videos have become rich context for a legal challenge to the law now heading to the Supreme Court, and they've made Weinstein the celebration of conservative circles.
“This is going to sound a little cocky and I don’t want it to be,” Weinstein told The Huffington Post Tuesday in one of the the media interviews he's given on his feat. “But I’m not partially responsible for finding those clips. I’m completely responsible.”
Weinstein’s story, in some respects, would be the stuff of a made-for-TV movie -- if the director is a member of the tea party and eager to dramatize the Affordable Care Act’s unraveling (those two points, admittedly, are redundant).
Weinstein, who runs his own company, and his family lost their health insurance after Obamacare forced higher standards for policies. On the exchange, the only plan with similar benefits was twice the cost of his old one. Irritated, he began looking into who put together the Affordable Care Act, searching Google with the term “ACA architects.” Days consumed with researching old videos became nights.
“Remember when the husbands used to come home at night in the '50s and '60s and grab a newspaper and read it?” said Weinstein. “Well, I’m like that with the iPad. It was a lot of time. For the past year, I put a lot of time into this.”
His break came last winter. An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Scott Pruitt, the attorney general of Oklahoma, outlined a long-shot legal argument that said a direct interpretation of Affordable Care Act precluded giving subsidies to people on federally run exchanges. Weinstein had seen that argument before, albeit from a different vantage point. Months earlier, he had stumbled across video of Gruber stating that the subsidies to help low-income Americans buy insurance are reserved for state-established exchanges, if only to give states an incentive to establish an exchange
Weinstein had a smoking gun, but no one to show it to.
“I’ve got the tinfoil hat," Weinstein said, excusing the reporters who ignored his early entreaties. "People in the media must be overwhelmed with idiots like me who think they have something.”
So he took time off -- three to four months -- and watched his kids play lacrosse. Then, in July, two conservative justices on a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the subsidies for those shopping on federally run exchanges were, indeed, illegal. People were talking about the issue again.
Weinstein dropped comments about his Gruber video onto The Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog. Eventually, Ryan Radia, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank, noticed and turned it into a blog post.
Dominos began to fall. Weinstein’s first video was included in the legal challenge to Obamacare. And that challenge -- King v. Burwell -- ended up making its way to the Supreme Court. “Which is crazy,” Weinstein said. “Crazy because I found it. Not crazy because it is a crazy legal case.”
This week, another of Weinstein's videos emerged. This one is of Gruber saying that a bit of budgetary deception helped Obamacare pass in Congress (“call it the stupidity of the American voter, or whatever,” said the professor). This, too, found its way into the mainstream conversation. Gruber on Tuesday went on MSNBC to apologize for his language, though he may have return. Weinstein said he has another video of a similar comment that he will soon release.
Should the Supreme Court ultimately rule against subsidies being available on federally run insurance exchanges, it would, in some ways, make the perfect ending to a conservative-inspired Horatio Alger story.
“I’m kind of a nobody,” said Weinstein. “And, I think, people who are out there, just the average person who gets hacked off about something or has an interest about something, I think I’m a perfect lesson that any one person can make a difference. Anybody. Even guy with the tinfoil hat in his mom’s basement.”
Except life and politics aren’t that simple. There is texture. Weinstein doesn’t live in his mom’s basement. He just says it for rhetorical flair. For those who would like to dismiss him as a knee-jerk partisan, he’s not that, either. He voted for Bill Clinton, he said, before he cast a ballot for Ross Perot and, most recently, Mitt Romney. Certainly, he’s no longer a “nobody” in the fight against Obamacare. Elements of the conservative movement have geared up to both promote and protect his work.
Phil Kerpen, who founded the group American Commitment and formerly was vice president for the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity, helped spread the second of Weinstein’s videos. Once Kerpen found out an article was in the works, he sent a tweet suggesting The Huffington Post was “doxxing” Weinstein for attacking Gruber. The tweet came just minutes after The Huffington Post asked Weinstein whether he had used an online alias before commenting on The Volokh Conspiracy.
But the real nuance is in the history and the policy details. Gruber was an architect of Obamacare. But he wasn’t the only architect. The staffs to former Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), among others, deserve their fair share of credit or blame, depending on one’s perspective.
On the issue of subsidies, the Gruber statement that Weinstein unearthed remains a gem for a reason. It’s because it’s rare (Gruber called it a “speak-o” -- like a typo). There has been one other instance unearthed of Gruber discussing tax incentives as a means of compelling a state to set up an exchange.
For defenders of the law, that’s still thin gruel compared with the widely accepted belief during and after the crafting of the bill that subsidies would be universal. (The IRS ruled this way in May 2012, five months after Gruber’s speech.)
For critics, it’s proof enough.
“I don’t think he misspoke at all. I don’t think he was taken out of context and I don’t think he misspoke,” said Weinstein.
And then there is the issue of practical outcomes. Weinstein became a digital archaeologist after the cost of his insurance went up two-fold. Should a lawsuit succeed in eliminating subsidies for those buying insurance on federally run exchanges, it would result in many people confronting similar, or worse, price hikes. It’s an outcome that Weinstein admitted weighs on him, even as he keeps scanning the Web for more Gruberisms.
“It does,” Weinstein said. “But the way you say it makes it sound like nothing else will happen. Like it is a straight line. Subsidies are taken away and the world ends. And I think that’s not fair. I think there will most certainly be a disruption. No doubt about it. I think some states will go build their own exchanges quickly. But, I think the markets would find a way to adjust.”
“It does bother me,” he added later. “I get it. I’m not an evil person. I just think people should see these videos. I just think people should know what’s going on. “ Reported by Huffington Post 15 hours ago.
Except Weinstein is no journalist. He’s a Philadelphia-based investment adviser approaching 50 who, until a half-year ago, was unknown to the political world. A set of videos he found of Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who played an important role in drafting the Affordable Care Act, changed all that. The videos have become rich context for a legal challenge to the law now heading to the Supreme Court, and they've made Weinstein the celebration of conservative circles.
“This is going to sound a little cocky and I don’t want it to be,” Weinstein told The Huffington Post Tuesday in one of the the media interviews he's given on his feat. “But I’m not partially responsible for finding those clips. I’m completely responsible.”
Weinstein’s story, in some respects, would be the stuff of a made-for-TV movie -- if the director is a member of the tea party and eager to dramatize the Affordable Care Act’s unraveling (those two points, admittedly, are redundant).
Weinstein, who runs his own company, and his family lost their health insurance after Obamacare forced higher standards for policies. On the exchange, the only plan with similar benefits was twice the cost of his old one. Irritated, he began looking into who put together the Affordable Care Act, searching Google with the term “ACA architects.” Days consumed with researching old videos became nights.
“Remember when the husbands used to come home at night in the '50s and '60s and grab a newspaper and read it?” said Weinstein. “Well, I’m like that with the iPad. It was a lot of time. For the past year, I put a lot of time into this.”
His break came last winter. An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Scott Pruitt, the attorney general of Oklahoma, outlined a long-shot legal argument that said a direct interpretation of Affordable Care Act precluded giving subsidies to people on federally run exchanges. Weinstein had seen that argument before, albeit from a different vantage point. Months earlier, he had stumbled across video of Gruber stating that the subsidies to help low-income Americans buy insurance are reserved for state-established exchanges, if only to give states an incentive to establish an exchange
Weinstein had a smoking gun, but no one to show it to.
“I’ve got the tinfoil hat," Weinstein said, excusing the reporters who ignored his early entreaties. "People in the media must be overwhelmed with idiots like me who think they have something.”
So he took time off -- three to four months -- and watched his kids play lacrosse. Then, in July, two conservative justices on a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the subsidies for those shopping on federally run exchanges were, indeed, illegal. People were talking about the issue again.
Weinstein dropped comments about his Gruber video onto The Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog. Eventually, Ryan Radia, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank, noticed and turned it into a blog post.
Dominos began to fall. Weinstein’s first video was included in the legal challenge to Obamacare. And that challenge -- King v. Burwell -- ended up making its way to the Supreme Court. “Which is crazy,” Weinstein said. “Crazy because I found it. Not crazy because it is a crazy legal case.”
This week, another of Weinstein's videos emerged. This one is of Gruber saying that a bit of budgetary deception helped Obamacare pass in Congress (“call it the stupidity of the American voter, or whatever,” said the professor). This, too, found its way into the mainstream conversation. Gruber on Tuesday went on MSNBC to apologize for his language, though he may have return. Weinstein said he has another video of a similar comment that he will soon release.
Should the Supreme Court ultimately rule against subsidies being available on federally run insurance exchanges, it would, in some ways, make the perfect ending to a conservative-inspired Horatio Alger story.
“I’m kind of a nobody,” said Weinstein. “And, I think, people who are out there, just the average person who gets hacked off about something or has an interest about something, I think I’m a perfect lesson that any one person can make a difference. Anybody. Even guy with the tinfoil hat in his mom’s basement.”
Except life and politics aren’t that simple. There is texture. Weinstein doesn’t live in his mom’s basement. He just says it for rhetorical flair. For those who would like to dismiss him as a knee-jerk partisan, he’s not that, either. He voted for Bill Clinton, he said, before he cast a ballot for Ross Perot and, most recently, Mitt Romney. Certainly, he’s no longer a “nobody” in the fight against Obamacare. Elements of the conservative movement have geared up to both promote and protect his work.
Phil Kerpen, who founded the group American Commitment and formerly was vice president for the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity, helped spread the second of Weinstein’s videos. Once Kerpen found out an article was in the works, he sent a tweet suggesting The Huffington Post was “doxxing” Weinstein for attacking Gruber. The tweet came just minutes after The Huffington Post asked Weinstein whether he had used an online alias before commenting on The Volokh Conspiracy.
But the real nuance is in the history and the policy details. Gruber was an architect of Obamacare. But he wasn’t the only architect. The staffs to former Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), among others, deserve their fair share of credit or blame, depending on one’s perspective.
On the issue of subsidies, the Gruber statement that Weinstein unearthed remains a gem for a reason. It’s because it’s rare (Gruber called it a “speak-o” -- like a typo). There has been one other instance unearthed of Gruber discussing tax incentives as a means of compelling a state to set up an exchange.
For defenders of the law, that’s still thin gruel compared with the widely accepted belief during and after the crafting of the bill that subsidies would be universal. (The IRS ruled this way in May 2012, five months after Gruber’s speech.)
For critics, it’s proof enough.
“I don’t think he misspoke at all. I don’t think he was taken out of context and I don’t think he misspoke,” said Weinstein.
And then there is the issue of practical outcomes. Weinstein became a digital archaeologist after the cost of his insurance went up two-fold. Should a lawsuit succeed in eliminating subsidies for those buying insurance on federally run exchanges, it would result in many people confronting similar, or worse, price hikes. It’s an outcome that Weinstein admitted weighs on him, even as he keeps scanning the Web for more Gruberisms.
“It does,” Weinstein said. “But the way you say it makes it sound like nothing else will happen. Like it is a straight line. Subsidies are taken away and the world ends. And I think that’s not fair. I think there will most certainly be a disruption. No doubt about it. I think some states will go build their own exchanges quickly. But, I think the markets would find a way to adjust.”
“It does bother me,” he added later. “I get it. I’m not an evil person. I just think people should see these videos. I just think people should know what’s going on. “ Reported by Huffington Post 15 hours ago.
↧
Egg-freezing parties come to the Bay Area
The fertility expert is hosting three informational events this week, called egg-freezing parties, at restaurants in the Bay Area. Eyvazzadeh, who calls herself “The Egg Whisperer,” is targeting tech workers as Silicon Valley firms have opted to make egg freezing a standard health benefit for a young workforce faced with the question of whether to delay parenthood. Party favors included Sugar Babies candy and soap shaped like a bird egg. Facebook already covers up to $20,000 for medical procedures, including egg freezing, as well as subsidized day care costs, four months of paid paternal leave and a $4,000 “baby cash” bonus for each child born or adopted. Apple’s health insurance policy will begin covering egg freezing and storage next year, the company said. “They are bringing a lot of these women who are graduating from college with very high-level coding degrees, and they really want them to work … during their younger years, knowing full well that once they get a family, the pressures on them are very different,” said Tim Bajarin, president of advisory services firm Creative Strategies. The procedure works something like this: A woman injects herself with hormones in her midsection every night for 10 nights, to increase egg production before the surgery. [...] it was easier to talk about such an important personal, medical and economic decision over a glass of wine instead of inside a doctor’s office. Each egg retrieved has about a 5 percent chance of yielding a successful birth, and collecting as many as a dozen eggs could only increase it to 50 percent, said Dr. David Adamson, CEO of Saratoga’s Advanced Reproductive Care, which offers a network of fertility specialists. Alec Levenson, a senior research scientist and labor economist at USC’s Marshall School of Business, called the egg-freezing parties “innovative.”
Reported by SFGate 15 hours ago.
↧
↧
Holt-Dimondale Agency Unveils Its New Custom Virtual Insurance Office and Digital Marketing Campaign
Local Michigan-based agency is excited to expand its reach and offer comprehensive insurance solutions to area residents and businesses.
Holt, Michigan (PRWEB) November 12, 2014
Michigan insurance agency, Holt-Dimondale Agency, is excited to announce the launch of its new website and interactive digital marketing campaign. This new and improved way of marketing is designed to advance the way the agency connects with, markets to, and serves its community.
Holt-Dimondale Agency has partnered with Astonish – an insurance digital marketing, technology, and sales training company that specializes in modernizing the way the local insurance industry does business – to create an innovative, new online marketing strategy. The agency’s new marketing strategy features an exclusive “Virtual Insurance Office” meant to improve consumer engagement as well as provide the visitor with a personalized experience.
The agency’s new website, http://www.holtdimondaleagency.com/, is divided into separate categories, making it simple for online insurance consumers to find exactly what they need. The ultimate goal is to make the online shopping experience both simple and educational for prospective and current clients.
Holt-Dimondale Agency has extensive knowledge and experience providing insurance solutions to Michigan residents and businesses. They not only serve personal insurance needs, but provide specialty coverage for business of all kinds. The relationship that they build with their clients allows them to tailor insurance policies directly to the clients’ needs.
To be a part of the agency’s exciting development, fill out a free quote form online or get social with the agents on various social media sites. Those interested can also give the agency a call by dialing (877) 319-4643. Holt-Dimondale Agency is excited to move forward with this initiative and looks forward to sharing the excitement and experience with the rest of its community!
About Holt-Dimondale Agency:
Holt-Dimondale has over 60 years of experience providing Michigan families and businesses with insurance solutions. They cover all personal needs – auto, home, life, and health insurance – and has specialized coverage for every business. Their friendly agents communicate on a one-to-one basis and Reported by PRWeb 8 hours ago.
Holt, Michigan (PRWEB) November 12, 2014
Michigan insurance agency, Holt-Dimondale Agency, is excited to announce the launch of its new website and interactive digital marketing campaign. This new and improved way of marketing is designed to advance the way the agency connects with, markets to, and serves its community.
Holt-Dimondale Agency has partnered with Astonish – an insurance digital marketing, technology, and sales training company that specializes in modernizing the way the local insurance industry does business – to create an innovative, new online marketing strategy. The agency’s new marketing strategy features an exclusive “Virtual Insurance Office” meant to improve consumer engagement as well as provide the visitor with a personalized experience.
The agency’s new website, http://www.holtdimondaleagency.com/, is divided into separate categories, making it simple for online insurance consumers to find exactly what they need. The ultimate goal is to make the online shopping experience both simple and educational for prospective and current clients.
Holt-Dimondale Agency has extensive knowledge and experience providing insurance solutions to Michigan residents and businesses. They not only serve personal insurance needs, but provide specialty coverage for business of all kinds. The relationship that they build with their clients allows them to tailor insurance policies directly to the clients’ needs.
To be a part of the agency’s exciting development, fill out a free quote form online or get social with the agents on various social media sites. Those interested can also give the agency a call by dialing (877) 319-4643. Holt-Dimondale Agency is excited to move forward with this initiative and looks forward to sharing the excitement and experience with the rest of its community!
About Holt-Dimondale Agency:
Holt-Dimondale has over 60 years of experience providing Michigan families and businesses with insurance solutions. They cover all personal needs – auto, home, life, and health insurance – and has specialized coverage for every business. Their friendly agents communicate on a one-to-one basis and Reported by PRWeb 8 hours ago.
↧
Freelancers Union Restructures Health Care Approach for 2015
With the Affordable Care Act in the mix, freelancers now have more options than ever to secure health insurance, and to stay competitive, one group restructured its approach to health care for 2015.
Reported by NY1 59 minutes ago.
↧
United States: Supreme Court To Determine Validity Of Federal Subsidies Of Health Insurance Purchased On Federally Established Exchanges - Littler Mendelson
Pursuant to the requirements of the ACA, each state has a Marketplace where individuals and small businesses can purchase healthcare coverage.
Reported by Mondaq 6 hours ago.
↧
United States: OCR Releases Ebola Bulletin - Reed Smith
The recent Ebola outbreak has prompted the US Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights ("OCR"), the agency responsible for enforcing the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"), to release a new bulletin for covered entities and business associates regarding their privacy obligations in emergency situations.
Reported by Mondaq 5 hours ago.
↧
↧
Health exchange hires companies to promote campaign
The New Mexico's Health Insurance Exchange has hired three New Mexico firms and a company from Minnesota to promote its Be Well New Mexico campaign. The Garrity Group Public Relations, K2MD Health, Research + Polling and Bluespire Marketing will provide public relations/communications, advertising, research and website/digital design services, according to a news release issued by the exchange. "We want to make sure we are using the best vendors to help us deliver the most relevant and effective…
Reported by bizjournals 3 hours ago.
↧
Faster Visa Processing Makes Ecuador an Even Better Overseas Retirement Destination – InternationalLiving.com
Mountains, beaches, rainforests, cities, and small towns…Ecuador offers something for everyone at a low-cost. And taking some of the sting out of applying for a visa makes it even more attractive, report the retire-overseas experts at InternationalLiving.com.
Baltimore, MD (PRWEB) November 12, 2014
Better weather and a low cost of living makes Ecuador a great option for retirement, and recent improvements to the immigration process now makes it even easier to gain residence in Ecuador.
Ecuadorian lawyer Santiago Andrade says: “President Correa’s administration has improved many of the bureaucratic processes, and business and immigration is not the exemption to this change. I have seen an improvement in the timing of the residence visa process. In the past a visa took around 30 to 45 days to be approved; now it takes two to three weeks.”
Streamlining of bureaucracy just adds to Ecuador’s appeal for U.S. and Canadian retirees and near-retirees looking for better weather and a lower cost of living.
A recent report, compiled by four InternationalLiving.com expat writers who live in Ecuador, offers first-hand information on the five best places to retire in Ecuador today.
Arguably, Ecuador offers the world’s best climate choices in its four distinct regions. The country has only two seasons: dry, from June to September, and wet, from October to May. On the coast, daytime temperatures typically range in the mid-80s and only occasionally reach into the mid-90s. In the Sierras, daily temperatures hover near 75 F.
This near-perfect weather in the Sierras contributes to a low cost of living in Ecuador where expats don’t need heat or air conditioning, bringing their utility costs down.
“Our electric bills are rarely more than $24,” says International Living editor Suzan Haskins who lives in the Andean village of Cotacachi. “The only heat we need is for hot water. We can easily live on less than $1,500 a month, and that includes local transportation and evenings out.”
Haskins’ budget doesn’t include health insurance, but that’s affordable in Ecuador, too. Private insurance typically costs one-half to one-fourth of that in the U.S. for instance. Ecuador’s national social security health care system costs about $70 a month.
“If you are over 65 and have a resident visa, you can take advantage of Ecuador’s retirement- benefits program. You can get discounts on domestic airfares and international airfares that originate in and return to Ecuador. You’ll be eligible for a free landline telephone, 50% off public transportation, admission to sporting and cultural events, reduced utility bills, and more,” Haskins reports.
The five top havens in the report cover a range of choices for retirees…from small-town mountain-living to large cities and coastal areas.
“Choosing where to live in Ecuador was no easy venture for my family,” says Wendy DeChambeau, InternationalLiving.com’s Ecuador highlands editor. “After ruling out large cities, which my husband doesn’t care for, and areas that were too warm for my northern blood, we settled on giving the small mountain village of Cotacachi a whirl. It wasn’t long before Cotacachi had completely captured our hearts.”
The colonial city of Cuenca remains amazingly affordable. A couple renting an unfurnished three-bedroom condo can enjoy an extremely comfortable lifestyle for less than $1,700 a month.
“Our life in Cuenca exceeds all expectations,” reports Edd Staton, who moved to Cuenca with his wife, Cynthia, four-and-a-half years ago. “The reasons we originally moved here haven’t changed: The low cost of living, great weather, outstanding health care, and our family in the States is still close.”
For beach-living, Salinas tops the list as the best coastal town. “Life here can be as slow and relaxed as a walk on the beach, or you can amp it up a notch with your choice of many water sports, including spending time at one of the area’s two major yacht clubs. In the evening, you can spend time in a lively restaurant or nightclub or join in the growing number of expat activities,” says Denver Gray.
Gray and his wife moved to Salinas in March 2013 and not only enjoy better weather and a lower cost of living, but are also enjoying much healthier lifestyles there.
The full report on the best retirement havens in Ecuador can be read here: The Best Retirement Havens in Ecuador.
Editor's Note: Members of the media have full permission to reproduce the article linked above once credit is given to InternationalLiving.com. Photos are also available.
Media Contact: For information about InternationalLiving.com content republishing, available source material or to book an interview for radio, TV or print with one of our experts, contact Associate Editor Carol Barron, 772-678-0287 (US), CBarron@InternationalLiving.com or visit the Media Center. For automatic updates on the most current stories, follow International Living Media on Twitter.
For more than 30 years, InternationalLiving.com has been the leading authority for anyone looking for global retirement or relocation opportunities. Through its monthly magazine and related e-letters, extensive website, podcasts, online bookstore, and events held around the world, InternationalLiving.com provides information and services to help its readers live better, travel farther, have more fun, save more money, and find better business opportunities when they expand their world beyond their own shores. InternationalLiving.com has more than 200 correspondents traveling the globe, investigating the best opportunities for travel, retirement, real estate, and investment.
### Reported by PRWeb 3 hours ago.
Baltimore, MD (PRWEB) November 12, 2014
Better weather and a low cost of living makes Ecuador a great option for retirement, and recent improvements to the immigration process now makes it even easier to gain residence in Ecuador.
Ecuadorian lawyer Santiago Andrade says: “President Correa’s administration has improved many of the bureaucratic processes, and business and immigration is not the exemption to this change. I have seen an improvement in the timing of the residence visa process. In the past a visa took around 30 to 45 days to be approved; now it takes two to three weeks.”
Streamlining of bureaucracy just adds to Ecuador’s appeal for U.S. and Canadian retirees and near-retirees looking for better weather and a lower cost of living.
A recent report, compiled by four InternationalLiving.com expat writers who live in Ecuador, offers first-hand information on the five best places to retire in Ecuador today.
Arguably, Ecuador offers the world’s best climate choices in its four distinct regions. The country has only two seasons: dry, from June to September, and wet, from October to May. On the coast, daytime temperatures typically range in the mid-80s and only occasionally reach into the mid-90s. In the Sierras, daily temperatures hover near 75 F.
This near-perfect weather in the Sierras contributes to a low cost of living in Ecuador where expats don’t need heat or air conditioning, bringing their utility costs down.
“Our electric bills are rarely more than $24,” says International Living editor Suzan Haskins who lives in the Andean village of Cotacachi. “The only heat we need is for hot water. We can easily live on less than $1,500 a month, and that includes local transportation and evenings out.”
Haskins’ budget doesn’t include health insurance, but that’s affordable in Ecuador, too. Private insurance typically costs one-half to one-fourth of that in the U.S. for instance. Ecuador’s national social security health care system costs about $70 a month.
“If you are over 65 and have a resident visa, you can take advantage of Ecuador’s retirement- benefits program. You can get discounts on domestic airfares and international airfares that originate in and return to Ecuador. You’ll be eligible for a free landline telephone, 50% off public transportation, admission to sporting and cultural events, reduced utility bills, and more,” Haskins reports.
The five top havens in the report cover a range of choices for retirees…from small-town mountain-living to large cities and coastal areas.
“Choosing where to live in Ecuador was no easy venture for my family,” says Wendy DeChambeau, InternationalLiving.com’s Ecuador highlands editor. “After ruling out large cities, which my husband doesn’t care for, and areas that were too warm for my northern blood, we settled on giving the small mountain village of Cotacachi a whirl. It wasn’t long before Cotacachi had completely captured our hearts.”
The colonial city of Cuenca remains amazingly affordable. A couple renting an unfurnished three-bedroom condo can enjoy an extremely comfortable lifestyle for less than $1,700 a month.
“Our life in Cuenca exceeds all expectations,” reports Edd Staton, who moved to Cuenca with his wife, Cynthia, four-and-a-half years ago. “The reasons we originally moved here haven’t changed: The low cost of living, great weather, outstanding health care, and our family in the States is still close.”
For beach-living, Salinas tops the list as the best coastal town. “Life here can be as slow and relaxed as a walk on the beach, or you can amp it up a notch with your choice of many water sports, including spending time at one of the area’s two major yacht clubs. In the evening, you can spend time in a lively restaurant or nightclub or join in the growing number of expat activities,” says Denver Gray.
Gray and his wife moved to Salinas in March 2013 and not only enjoy better weather and a lower cost of living, but are also enjoying much healthier lifestyles there.
The full report on the best retirement havens in Ecuador can be read here: The Best Retirement Havens in Ecuador.
Editor's Note: Members of the media have full permission to reproduce the article linked above once credit is given to InternationalLiving.com. Photos are also available.
Media Contact: For information about InternationalLiving.com content republishing, available source material or to book an interview for radio, TV or print with one of our experts, contact Associate Editor Carol Barron, 772-678-0287 (US), CBarron@InternationalLiving.com or visit the Media Center. For automatic updates on the most current stories, follow International Living Media on Twitter.
For more than 30 years, InternationalLiving.com has been the leading authority for anyone looking for global retirement or relocation opportunities. Through its monthly magazine and related e-letters, extensive website, podcasts, online bookstore, and events held around the world, InternationalLiving.com provides information and services to help its readers live better, travel farther, have more fun, save more money, and find better business opportunities when they expand their world beyond their own shores. InternationalLiving.com has more than 200 correspondents traveling the globe, investigating the best opportunities for travel, retirement, real estate, and investment.
### Reported by PRWeb 3 hours ago.
↧
Healthline Survey Reveals Majority of Consumers Would Forgo Medical Treatment Due to High Healthcare Costs
New Survey Explores Consumer Opinions about Affordable Care Act and State of U.S. Health Insurance
San Francisco, CA (PRWEB) November 12, 2014
Healthline, a leading provider of intelligent health information and technology solutions, today released results from a recent survey(1) exploring consumer thoughts about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and health insurance. Conducted ahead of the 2015 open enrollment season via Healthline.com, the survey examined important health insurance issues, including top factors impacting health plan selection, satisfaction with current plan options, consumer understanding of the ACA, perceived impact of the ACA, and overall thoughts about the U.S. health insurance system.
Healthline.com’s survey revealed interesting findings on the state of health insurance in the U.S.
Highlights include:· Cost trumps health when it comes to making health decisions – When asked whether consumers would pay a larger premium or a higher deductible for “better” health insurance, nearly 69 percent of respondents said they would not or are not sure. In fact, more than half of consumers (50.8 percent) reported they would forgo medical treatment due to high costs or coverage limitations from their health plans. Of those who would forgo medical treatment, 57 percent currently have health insurance through their employers.(2)
· Americans are still unclear about the ACA – A quarter of survey respondents, which is equivalent to almost 59 million Americans, indicated that they have a poor understanding or no understanding at all of the ACA and what it involves. Surprisingly, nearly 40 percent of those without health insurance(2) and 26 percent of those enrolled in an ACA plan(2) reported having a poor understanding or no understanding at all of the ACA. Less than a third of those surveyed (32 percent) feel that the ACA will actually have a positive impact on U.S. healthcare.
· There is a great deal of room for improvement – When asked to grade the U.S. health insurance and open enrollment system, approximately 82 percent gave it a “C” or below, including almost 20 percent who rated the system an “F.”
· Despite issues, most Americans are not planning to switch health plans – Nearly 77 percent of survey respondents indicated that they are satisfied with their current health insurance plan, with the majority (56.5 percent) finding the deductible in their current plan reasonable or inexpensive. Overwhelmingly, nearly 84 percent of those with an ACA plan(2) are satisfied with their current plan. Only about nine percent of consumers plan to switch to a different health insurance during the upcoming open enrollment season.
“These survey results highlight persisting consumer confusion about health plan enrollment in general and the Affordable Care Act in particular. With the ACA in full swing and open enrollment season approaching, it is critical for consumers to understand the impact that the ACA will have on their health coverage and prepare to make intelligent decisions around health plan options,” said Dean Stephens, CEO of Healthline. “Through Healthline.com’s survey, the issue of cost emerged as an important factor beyond health insurance selection decisions, playing a big role in medical and treatment decisions as consumers take on more responsibility for the cost of care. By arming consumers with the right information, they would be able to make more informed choices around low-cost healthcare.”
For additional survey data and an infographic illustrating key survey findings, visit http://www.healthline.com/health/open-enrollment.
About Healthline
Healthline provides intelligent health information and technology solutions that help healthcare organizations and everyday people make more informed healthcare decisions, improve outcomes and reduce costs. Powered by the world’s largest medical taxonomy platform, Healthline’s Data Solutions, Engagement Solutions and Marketing Solutions leverage advanced concept-mapping technology to deliver accurate, actionable insights. Additionally, the company’s consumer website, Healthline.com, delivers relevant, timely health information, news and resources to help consumers manage their health. Healthline is currently used by more than 25 million consumers per month and some of healthcare’s largest brands, including Microsoft, IBM, GE, AARP, Aetna, UnitedHealth Group and Elsevier. For more information, please visit corp.healthline.com and http://www.healthline.com.
(1) The survey was conducted among 490 U.S. consumers during October 24 – November 4, 2014. Statistical significance is 95% ± 5%.
(2) Indicates additional data segments can be used directionally. Reported by PRWeb 2 hours ago.
San Francisco, CA (PRWEB) November 12, 2014
Healthline, a leading provider of intelligent health information and technology solutions, today released results from a recent survey(1) exploring consumer thoughts about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and health insurance. Conducted ahead of the 2015 open enrollment season via Healthline.com, the survey examined important health insurance issues, including top factors impacting health plan selection, satisfaction with current plan options, consumer understanding of the ACA, perceived impact of the ACA, and overall thoughts about the U.S. health insurance system.
Healthline.com’s survey revealed interesting findings on the state of health insurance in the U.S.
Highlights include:· Cost trumps health when it comes to making health decisions – When asked whether consumers would pay a larger premium or a higher deductible for “better” health insurance, nearly 69 percent of respondents said they would not or are not sure. In fact, more than half of consumers (50.8 percent) reported they would forgo medical treatment due to high costs or coverage limitations from their health plans. Of those who would forgo medical treatment, 57 percent currently have health insurance through their employers.(2)
· Americans are still unclear about the ACA – A quarter of survey respondents, which is equivalent to almost 59 million Americans, indicated that they have a poor understanding or no understanding at all of the ACA and what it involves. Surprisingly, nearly 40 percent of those without health insurance(2) and 26 percent of those enrolled in an ACA plan(2) reported having a poor understanding or no understanding at all of the ACA. Less than a third of those surveyed (32 percent) feel that the ACA will actually have a positive impact on U.S. healthcare.
· There is a great deal of room for improvement – When asked to grade the U.S. health insurance and open enrollment system, approximately 82 percent gave it a “C” or below, including almost 20 percent who rated the system an “F.”
· Despite issues, most Americans are not planning to switch health plans – Nearly 77 percent of survey respondents indicated that they are satisfied with their current health insurance plan, with the majority (56.5 percent) finding the deductible in their current plan reasonable or inexpensive. Overwhelmingly, nearly 84 percent of those with an ACA plan(2) are satisfied with their current plan. Only about nine percent of consumers plan to switch to a different health insurance during the upcoming open enrollment season.
“These survey results highlight persisting consumer confusion about health plan enrollment in general and the Affordable Care Act in particular. With the ACA in full swing and open enrollment season approaching, it is critical for consumers to understand the impact that the ACA will have on their health coverage and prepare to make intelligent decisions around health plan options,” said Dean Stephens, CEO of Healthline. “Through Healthline.com’s survey, the issue of cost emerged as an important factor beyond health insurance selection decisions, playing a big role in medical and treatment decisions as consumers take on more responsibility for the cost of care. By arming consumers with the right information, they would be able to make more informed choices around low-cost healthcare.”
For additional survey data and an infographic illustrating key survey findings, visit http://www.healthline.com/health/open-enrollment.
About Healthline
Healthline provides intelligent health information and technology solutions that help healthcare organizations and everyday people make more informed healthcare decisions, improve outcomes and reduce costs. Powered by the world’s largest medical taxonomy platform, Healthline’s Data Solutions, Engagement Solutions and Marketing Solutions leverage advanced concept-mapping technology to deliver accurate, actionable insights. Additionally, the company’s consumer website, Healthline.com, delivers relevant, timely health information, news and resources to help consumers manage their health. Healthline is currently used by more than 25 million consumers per month and some of healthcare’s largest brands, including Microsoft, IBM, GE, AARP, Aetna, UnitedHealth Group and Elsevier. For more information, please visit corp.healthline.com and http://www.healthline.com.
(1) The survey was conducted among 490 U.S. consumers during October 24 – November 4, 2014. Statistical significance is 95% ± 5%.
(2) Indicates additional data segments can be used directionally. Reported by PRWeb 2 hours ago.
↧
Fight to keep canceled health plans continues in Virginia
Virginia’s Senate Majority Leader Tommy Norment has introduced two separate bills with the same goal — making sure heath insurance companies can continue health insurance plans otherwise discontinued by President Obama’s signature health care law.
Reported by FOXNews.com 2 hours ago.
↧
↧
"Peak Obamacare": Will Exchanges End With A Bang Or A Whimper?
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear King v. Burwell, an important case about Obamacare’s subsidies (tax credits) to health insurers. Plaintiffs argue that in the 36 states with federal Obamacare exchanges, subsidies cannot be paid legally. If no subsidies can be paid, neither the individual mandate to buy health insurance nor the employer mandate to offer insurance can be enforced. However, even if the Supreme Court allows the Administration to continue to unilaterally re-write the law, Obamacare’s exchanges – both state and federal - will likely end with a whimper in 2015 or soon after. Just look at how quickly the Administration began to roll back expectations for enrollment, immediately after the election.
Reported by Forbes.com 57 minutes ago.
↧
Ed Schultz Kind of Wishes Glenn Beck Well, Then Makes Case for Obamacare (Video)
MSNBC's Ed Schultz addressed Glenn Beck‘s health issues Tuesday, wishing his competitor well before contrasting the world-class health care Beck received to everyday Americans.
*Also read:* Glenn Beck Reveals He's Kept Serious Neurological Illness Secret for Years (Video)
“Glenn Beck found help because he can afford it,” Schultz said with a screen behind featuring Beck's face and “Best Wishes.” “Someone without insurance would not have the resources to see any doctors at all; now listening to Beck, can you imagine what that would be like?”
*Also read:* MSNBC's Ed Schultz Explodes at Caller: 'Get The F-- Out of Here!' (Audio)
On Monday, Beck revealed he's been suffering from years of severe immune issues and adrenal fatigue. Schultz linked Beck's health struggles to Obamacare, arguing against politicians who are trying to take away health insurance from people who now have it for the first time.
“I don't know Beck, I have no desire to know him, Schultz added. “I've had my battles with him over the years–no big deal, it's media mudslinging.”
*Also read:* Glenn Beck Talks Biggest Obama Regrets, Why the GOP-Democratic ‘Civil War’ Will End Tragically (Video)
“I hope that his story motivates those that think Obamacare is bad,” he said.
Watch the video:
*Related stories from TheWrap:*
Glenn Beck's The Blaze Talks to Time Warner About Replacing HLN
Glenn Beck Reveals Family History of Sexual Abuse in Response to Controversial Rape Skit (Video)
Jon Stewart Blasts Sean Hannity Over Ranch Standoff Support: 'Glenn Beck Is The Voice Of Reason!' (Video) Reported by The Wrap 2 hours ago.
*Also read:* Glenn Beck Reveals He's Kept Serious Neurological Illness Secret for Years (Video)
“Glenn Beck found help because he can afford it,” Schultz said with a screen behind featuring Beck's face and “Best Wishes.” “Someone without insurance would not have the resources to see any doctors at all; now listening to Beck, can you imagine what that would be like?”
*Also read:* MSNBC's Ed Schultz Explodes at Caller: 'Get The F-- Out of Here!' (Audio)
On Monday, Beck revealed he's been suffering from years of severe immune issues and adrenal fatigue. Schultz linked Beck's health struggles to Obamacare, arguing against politicians who are trying to take away health insurance from people who now have it for the first time.
“I don't know Beck, I have no desire to know him, Schultz added. “I've had my battles with him over the years–no big deal, it's media mudslinging.”
*Also read:* Glenn Beck Talks Biggest Obama Regrets, Why the GOP-Democratic ‘Civil War’ Will End Tragically (Video)
“I hope that his story motivates those that think Obamacare is bad,” he said.
Watch the video:
*Related stories from TheWrap:*
Glenn Beck's The Blaze Talks to Time Warner About Replacing HLN
Glenn Beck Reveals Family History of Sexual Abuse in Response to Controversial Rape Skit (Video)
Jon Stewart Blasts Sean Hannity Over Ranch Standoff Support: 'Glenn Beck Is The Voice Of Reason!' (Video) Reported by The Wrap 2 hours ago.
↧
Democrats Ran Away From, and Against, Everything
I woke up the Wednesday morning after the midterm elections feeling like the guy who had slept through a tornado, was now surveying the damage, and hearing third-hand what had happened. It's not as if, Tuesday night, I hadn't been refreshing Facebook incessantly while simultaneously glued to the three or four channels I was flipping between. I watched the results and they weren't unexpected. I fully expected the GOP to take the Senate and for the Democrats to stay home in record numbers and let it happen. After all, there wasn't much to vote for.
In an uncharacteristically positive tone I opined last week that should the GOP inevitably take both houses, they would be saddled with the unenviable task of actually having to do something for the next two years. After nearly six years of accomplishing little more than obstruction, they would actually have to legislate and govern. The roles would be reversed and they would have to go, hat in hand, to President Obama in order to prove to the voters that they could actually get some bills through Congress that Obama would sign.
Sure, the GOP would win this round but they would show voters that not only were they incapable of passing legislation, they would also prove to us that it was going to be more of the same. I also got some sick pleasure imagining what a blood bath the civil war within the GOP would look like. You thought The Game of Thrones' Red Wedding episode was bad? This was going to be a feeding frenzy. The next two years were going to be comedic gold and low-hanging fruit. The complete cluster eff that was to come would lock things up for Democrats in 2016.
Typically and historically the Democrats don't show up during the midterms. They've always had a bad habit of making a poor showing, but this election was pretty important and from what I was seeing on social media and in my circles, it looked like it was going to be bad, just not this bad.
The GOP swept the country. It took control of the Senate and added at least nine more seats to the House, giving it close to 245 seats -- the largest Republican majority since the Truman administration. Republicans will inhabit 65 percent of the governors mansions and they took control of 70 percent of the state legislatures.
Some of the people elected to these positions make Michele Bachmann and Louie Gohmert look like MENSA members. Jody Hice (Georgia), who was elected to the House, blamed the Sandy Hook shooting on "kicking God out of our schools," compared abortion to Hitler's murder of 6 million Jews, and thinks that Muslims don't deserve First Amendment protection. Joni Ernst (Iowa), who Chris Matthews has repeatedly referred to as "The Hog Castrator" due to an ad she ran in which she bragged about having castrated hogs for a living, has endorsed the impeachment of President Obama and slammed Medicaid recipients for not taking personal responsibility for their health. She also denies climate change and says she'd defend herself with her "beautiful little Smith & Wesson," from the government. Tom Tillis from North Carolina won in a close race but still managed to be elected to the Senate by wanting to abolish the minimum wage. He is a climate change denier and suggested that liberals plotted to use climate science "as a Trojan horse for their energy policy." Tillis also opposed a resolution apologizing for an 1898 massacre of African Americans in a North Carolina city, explaining that the amendment didn't sufficiently honor white Republicans.
On a local level voters elected a white supremacist in Maryland, a guy in Michigan who called anti-bullying measures a "Trojan horse of homosexual activists," and this guy who calls himself "Dr. Chaps." He wrote a book about how President Obama is possessed by demons and once performed an exorcism of Obama. Dr. Chaps also thinks that homosexuals may sexually abuse their own children. Those are just a few examples of who Americans elected to lead -- at least the ones who showed up and bothered to vote. Politico's Alex Isenstadt wrote a good piece about the onslaught of wingnuts coming to Congress, appropriately titled, "Animal House."
The Republican message this election, at least according to the ads, was that Ebola and ISIS are about to cross our border and Obama hasn't done a thing in six years. As for the message from the Democrats? They ran on three distinct issues: We're not the GOP or Obama; we're not really sure what we've accomplished in the last six years; and Barrack who? Alison Lundergan Grimes, who ran against McConnell in Kentucky, stopped short of denying Obama's existence -- she got fewer votes than the president did in her own state.
Over the course of the last six years, while Democrats were able to get stuff done, we've seen 63 straight months of economic expansion, a depression averted, a deficit reduced by two-thirds, a health care law that's working and lowering costs, two women on the Supreme Court, Osama bin Laden dead, the stock market at record heights, the unemployment rate reduced from 10.2 percent to 5.9 percent, and gas prices are down. The Democrats, rather than point any of that out, decidedly went with, "I'm not a wingnut. Don't vote for wingnuts."
And that's just past accomplishments.
In ballot questions and polling across the country, people showed support for progressive ideas: marijuana legalization, equal pay for women, raises in the minimum wage, paid sick leave, gun control and reproductive rights. Yet, Democrats avoided those issues as if they were some sort of flesh-eating bacteria. So when it came to voting in the legislators that would purportedly carry out the apparent will of the people, the people made some incredibly idiotic decisions -- they voted for the party who opposes all of these ideas.
Jon Stewart sums it up in this clip, in which he refers to the Democrats, appropriately, as chicken shit:Howard Dean, former DNC chair, also weighed in on Meet the Press, saying:
The Republican message was 'We're not Obama,' no substance whatsoever. What was the Democrats' message? 'Oh, we're not either.' You cannot win if you are afraid! Where was the Democratic party? You gotta stand for something if you're gonna win!
This same attitude permeates Facebook pages and groups with names like, Liberals are Us, I am Liberal, and Liberals Unite, among others. Tens of thousands of members and fans sharing and reposting articles, images, videos, and memes showing how crazy the right is. Little more than hapless Facebook users who seem to think reposting something constitutes civic involvement, pleading with everyone to not vote the crazies in. There's no policy to speak of, no candidate endorsed, no movement to get behind, just example after example of, "Look what that crazy rightwing lunatic said today."
Carl Gibson wrote "Open Letter to Democrats from a Disillusioned Young Voter," published on Reader Supported News last week, which is a good, though perhaps unintentional response to Democrats wanting to blame the loss on a poor turnout by younger voters -- 12 percent of this election.
Gibson writes:
The few of us who did show up to vote largely did it to support state ballot initiatives that actually mattered in our daily lives. We still voted to raise the minimum wage in 4 states to a slightly more respectable amount, and to $15 an hour in San Francisco. We voted for a week of paid sick days in Massachusetts, and for marijuana legalization in three more states (okay, well, DC isn't a state yet, but it definitely will be by the time we're grandparents). We voted to turn nonviolent drug offenses from felonies into misdemeanors in California. We even boosted high voter turnout in Michigan for Gary Peters, a Democrat who made climate change -- something we'll have to confront long after the boomers are gone -- his top issue. We just didn't vote for Democrats who haven't done anything for us since we voted for them in 2012, and who brazenly took our votes for granted this year.
He goes on to point out that the GOP actually had a message, that the Republican platform comes in easy-to-remember, tweet-sized sentences and even alludes to the fact that most people really don't pay attention to what actually goes on in Congress.
"We all know their buzzwords -- 'national security,' 'family values,' 'free markets.' That may translate to endless war, homophobia, and corporate feudalism for the better-informed, but for most people, those are catch phrases they can get behind," Gibson writes. He then offers some of his own to get the Democrats started, suggesting, "affordable education,""good jobs," and "healthy families," referring to Elizabeth Warren's 0.75 percent interest rate for student loans, single-payer health care, or a public health insurance option.
Gibson, who is 26 years old and more socially and politically active than most, received his fair share of attacks from liberals finally and uncharacteristically showing some sort of outrage and anger, if only from the comfort of their home and hiding behind screen names. "I am sick to death of your kind of shallow, selfish, short-sighted, ignorant extortion. What's in it for you, spoiled little boy," one commenter wrote.
One angry liberal even took the time out of their day to post a blog, "Responding To The Shallow Open Letter To Democrats From A Disillusioned Voter" publicly chastising Gibson. In typical fashion, it offered no real response, no solution, no reason for young people, or anyone to vote for a democratic candidate. It was posted on a site called Liberal America, and written by someone, unlike Gibson, who chose not to give their real name but instead hid behind the name "Anomaly." As with comments on articles, it's difficult to take anyone seriously who doesn't have the stones to tell us who they really are.
It's a bit naïve and self-serving for people like "Anomaly" to expect anyone to not vote in their own best interest. It's bordering on stupidity to expect people to vote simply because the other candidate is nuts. Gibson wrote a well-thought-out piece and even suggested some issues that would compel young voters to show up at the polls. Rather than accept this, commenters and "Anomaly" chose to alienate young voters even more with self-righteous and condescending garbage.
A large majority of voters are behind the ideas that Elizabeth Warren (MA-D) and Bernie Sanders (VT-I) are presenting. The very few candidates who stood behind progressive ideas and ran on them won. Al Franken won in Minnesota and Gary Peters, running in Michigan, leaned hard into liberalism and in a landslide victory claimed his seat in the Senate. Peters, unlike his colleagues, didn't shy away from talking about the accomplishments of the last six years. He didn't apologize or pretend that Obama didn't exist. He aptly pointed out that his party helped save the auto industry along with millions of jobs and the voters thanked him for it.
As for the candidates who didn't run on the accomplishments of the past six years, they allow the GOP the opportunity to take credit for all of it and take advantage of an electorate that has the attention span of a gnat.
The day after the election, The Daily Show ran this clip, in which commentator and Senior Political Analyst Jordan Klepper shows the GOP taking credit for it all:
Last night at approximately 11:27 Eastern Time, Republicans gained control of the US Senate and the results were almost immediate," said Jordan Klepper. "The economy now growing at a robust 3.5 percent. Gas this morning, under three bucks a gallon. Stock Market at record levels. Deficits cut in half. Ten million more Americans have health insurance. And unemployment sub six percent for the first time since we elected chairman Obama.
Klepper goes on to say, "If Democrats had accomplished all of that, they would have been out there bragging about it for months." It's a brilliant clip and worth watching in its entirety.
Yes, the GOP won big this round and there will be a lot to watch these next two years. The American people are fickle, for the most part ill-informed, and have short memories. Every couple of years these same ill-informed voters, who are unhappy with the way things are going, will vote the current bums out and whoever is in control will be at risk. Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, "Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of a democracy, therefore, is education."
It's up to either party to educate the public with regards to their respective platforms, courses of action, and vision of the future. And if they don't give us something to vote for, can they really expect us to keep voting against something else?
*Read more at nowitcounts.com* Reported by Huffington Post 1 hour ago.
In an uncharacteristically positive tone I opined last week that should the GOP inevitably take both houses, they would be saddled with the unenviable task of actually having to do something for the next two years. After nearly six years of accomplishing little more than obstruction, they would actually have to legislate and govern. The roles would be reversed and they would have to go, hat in hand, to President Obama in order to prove to the voters that they could actually get some bills through Congress that Obama would sign.
Sure, the GOP would win this round but they would show voters that not only were they incapable of passing legislation, they would also prove to us that it was going to be more of the same. I also got some sick pleasure imagining what a blood bath the civil war within the GOP would look like. You thought The Game of Thrones' Red Wedding episode was bad? This was going to be a feeding frenzy. The next two years were going to be comedic gold and low-hanging fruit. The complete cluster eff that was to come would lock things up for Democrats in 2016.
Typically and historically the Democrats don't show up during the midterms. They've always had a bad habit of making a poor showing, but this election was pretty important and from what I was seeing on social media and in my circles, it looked like it was going to be bad, just not this bad.
The GOP swept the country. It took control of the Senate and added at least nine more seats to the House, giving it close to 245 seats -- the largest Republican majority since the Truman administration. Republicans will inhabit 65 percent of the governors mansions and they took control of 70 percent of the state legislatures.
Some of the people elected to these positions make Michele Bachmann and Louie Gohmert look like MENSA members. Jody Hice (Georgia), who was elected to the House, blamed the Sandy Hook shooting on "kicking God out of our schools," compared abortion to Hitler's murder of 6 million Jews, and thinks that Muslims don't deserve First Amendment protection. Joni Ernst (Iowa), who Chris Matthews has repeatedly referred to as "The Hog Castrator" due to an ad she ran in which she bragged about having castrated hogs for a living, has endorsed the impeachment of President Obama and slammed Medicaid recipients for not taking personal responsibility for their health. She also denies climate change and says she'd defend herself with her "beautiful little Smith & Wesson," from the government. Tom Tillis from North Carolina won in a close race but still managed to be elected to the Senate by wanting to abolish the minimum wage. He is a climate change denier and suggested that liberals plotted to use climate science "as a Trojan horse for their energy policy." Tillis also opposed a resolution apologizing for an 1898 massacre of African Americans in a North Carolina city, explaining that the amendment didn't sufficiently honor white Republicans.
On a local level voters elected a white supremacist in Maryland, a guy in Michigan who called anti-bullying measures a "Trojan horse of homosexual activists," and this guy who calls himself "Dr. Chaps." He wrote a book about how President Obama is possessed by demons and once performed an exorcism of Obama. Dr. Chaps also thinks that homosexuals may sexually abuse their own children. Those are just a few examples of who Americans elected to lead -- at least the ones who showed up and bothered to vote. Politico's Alex Isenstadt wrote a good piece about the onslaught of wingnuts coming to Congress, appropriately titled, "Animal House."
The Republican message this election, at least according to the ads, was that Ebola and ISIS are about to cross our border and Obama hasn't done a thing in six years. As for the message from the Democrats? They ran on three distinct issues: We're not the GOP or Obama; we're not really sure what we've accomplished in the last six years; and Barrack who? Alison Lundergan Grimes, who ran against McConnell in Kentucky, stopped short of denying Obama's existence -- she got fewer votes than the president did in her own state.
Over the course of the last six years, while Democrats were able to get stuff done, we've seen 63 straight months of economic expansion, a depression averted, a deficit reduced by two-thirds, a health care law that's working and lowering costs, two women on the Supreme Court, Osama bin Laden dead, the stock market at record heights, the unemployment rate reduced from 10.2 percent to 5.9 percent, and gas prices are down. The Democrats, rather than point any of that out, decidedly went with, "I'm not a wingnut. Don't vote for wingnuts."
And that's just past accomplishments.
In ballot questions and polling across the country, people showed support for progressive ideas: marijuana legalization, equal pay for women, raises in the minimum wage, paid sick leave, gun control and reproductive rights. Yet, Democrats avoided those issues as if they were some sort of flesh-eating bacteria. So when it came to voting in the legislators that would purportedly carry out the apparent will of the people, the people made some incredibly idiotic decisions -- they voted for the party who opposes all of these ideas.
Jon Stewart sums it up in this clip, in which he refers to the Democrats, appropriately, as chicken shit:Howard Dean, former DNC chair, also weighed in on Meet the Press, saying:
The Republican message was 'We're not Obama,' no substance whatsoever. What was the Democrats' message? 'Oh, we're not either.' You cannot win if you are afraid! Where was the Democratic party? You gotta stand for something if you're gonna win!
This same attitude permeates Facebook pages and groups with names like, Liberals are Us, I am Liberal, and Liberals Unite, among others. Tens of thousands of members and fans sharing and reposting articles, images, videos, and memes showing how crazy the right is. Little more than hapless Facebook users who seem to think reposting something constitutes civic involvement, pleading with everyone to not vote the crazies in. There's no policy to speak of, no candidate endorsed, no movement to get behind, just example after example of, "Look what that crazy rightwing lunatic said today."
Carl Gibson wrote "Open Letter to Democrats from a Disillusioned Young Voter," published on Reader Supported News last week, which is a good, though perhaps unintentional response to Democrats wanting to blame the loss on a poor turnout by younger voters -- 12 percent of this election.
Gibson writes:
The few of us who did show up to vote largely did it to support state ballot initiatives that actually mattered in our daily lives. We still voted to raise the minimum wage in 4 states to a slightly more respectable amount, and to $15 an hour in San Francisco. We voted for a week of paid sick days in Massachusetts, and for marijuana legalization in three more states (okay, well, DC isn't a state yet, but it definitely will be by the time we're grandparents). We voted to turn nonviolent drug offenses from felonies into misdemeanors in California. We even boosted high voter turnout in Michigan for Gary Peters, a Democrat who made climate change -- something we'll have to confront long after the boomers are gone -- his top issue. We just didn't vote for Democrats who haven't done anything for us since we voted for them in 2012, and who brazenly took our votes for granted this year.
He goes on to point out that the GOP actually had a message, that the Republican platform comes in easy-to-remember, tweet-sized sentences and even alludes to the fact that most people really don't pay attention to what actually goes on in Congress.
"We all know their buzzwords -- 'national security,' 'family values,' 'free markets.' That may translate to endless war, homophobia, and corporate feudalism for the better-informed, but for most people, those are catch phrases they can get behind," Gibson writes. He then offers some of his own to get the Democrats started, suggesting, "affordable education,""good jobs," and "healthy families," referring to Elizabeth Warren's 0.75 percent interest rate for student loans, single-payer health care, or a public health insurance option.
Gibson, who is 26 years old and more socially and politically active than most, received his fair share of attacks from liberals finally and uncharacteristically showing some sort of outrage and anger, if only from the comfort of their home and hiding behind screen names. "I am sick to death of your kind of shallow, selfish, short-sighted, ignorant extortion. What's in it for you, spoiled little boy," one commenter wrote.
One angry liberal even took the time out of their day to post a blog, "Responding To The Shallow Open Letter To Democrats From A Disillusioned Voter" publicly chastising Gibson. In typical fashion, it offered no real response, no solution, no reason for young people, or anyone to vote for a democratic candidate. It was posted on a site called Liberal America, and written by someone, unlike Gibson, who chose not to give their real name but instead hid behind the name "Anomaly." As with comments on articles, it's difficult to take anyone seriously who doesn't have the stones to tell us who they really are.
It's a bit naïve and self-serving for people like "Anomaly" to expect anyone to not vote in their own best interest. It's bordering on stupidity to expect people to vote simply because the other candidate is nuts. Gibson wrote a well-thought-out piece and even suggested some issues that would compel young voters to show up at the polls. Rather than accept this, commenters and "Anomaly" chose to alienate young voters even more with self-righteous and condescending garbage.
A large majority of voters are behind the ideas that Elizabeth Warren (MA-D) and Bernie Sanders (VT-I) are presenting. The very few candidates who stood behind progressive ideas and ran on them won. Al Franken won in Minnesota and Gary Peters, running in Michigan, leaned hard into liberalism and in a landslide victory claimed his seat in the Senate. Peters, unlike his colleagues, didn't shy away from talking about the accomplishments of the last six years. He didn't apologize or pretend that Obama didn't exist. He aptly pointed out that his party helped save the auto industry along with millions of jobs and the voters thanked him for it.
As for the candidates who didn't run on the accomplishments of the past six years, they allow the GOP the opportunity to take credit for all of it and take advantage of an electorate that has the attention span of a gnat.
The day after the election, The Daily Show ran this clip, in which commentator and Senior Political Analyst Jordan Klepper shows the GOP taking credit for it all:
Last night at approximately 11:27 Eastern Time, Republicans gained control of the US Senate and the results were almost immediate," said Jordan Klepper. "The economy now growing at a robust 3.5 percent. Gas this morning, under three bucks a gallon. Stock Market at record levels. Deficits cut in half. Ten million more Americans have health insurance. And unemployment sub six percent for the first time since we elected chairman Obama.
Klepper goes on to say, "If Democrats had accomplished all of that, they would have been out there bragging about it for months." It's a brilliant clip and worth watching in its entirety.
Yes, the GOP won big this round and there will be a lot to watch these next two years. The American people are fickle, for the most part ill-informed, and have short memories. Every couple of years these same ill-informed voters, who are unhappy with the way things are going, will vote the current bums out and whoever is in control will be at risk. Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, "Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of a democracy, therefore, is education."
It's up to either party to educate the public with regards to their respective platforms, courses of action, and vision of the future. And if they don't give us something to vote for, can they really expect us to keep voting against something else?
*Read more at nowitcounts.com* Reported by Huffington Post 1 hour ago.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
