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

Question Before the Court: Can Corporations Betray Retirees?

$
0
0
At a chemical plant called Point Pleasant in a town named Apple Grove in a state John Denver labeled almost heaven, a man known as Freel Tackett helped negotiate three collective bargaining agreements that provided raises and decent benefits for workers and retirees.

Heaven ended in 2007 for Tackett and other retired Point Pleasant workers. That’s when the corporation that now owns the plant betrayed them by refusing to continue paying the full cost of retiree health benefits. These days, it’s almost hell for retirees. For seven years they’ve lived under a dark shadow, as if Point Pleasant’s most infamous denizen, the monster Mothman, immortalized in the book and movie *The Mothman Prophesies*, had returned.**

The United Steelworkers (USW) union told the U.S. Supreme Court last week that these workers had labored a lifetime to earn retiree health benefits. The court should forbid the company from rescinding earned benefits, the USW argued. The corporation, M&G Polymers, asked the court to validate its reneging on its pledge to workers because, it contended, the collective bargaining agreement is insufficiently specific. M&G insisted that vagueness gives it carte blanche to shift costs to workers. 
M&G Polymers is Point Pleasant's new Mothman

“I think a lot of corporations these days are doing the same thing,” Tackett said.  “I am just hoping the Supreme Court will prohibit it,” added Tackett, who is one of three named plaintiffs representing the class of 492 Point Pleasant plant retirees and spouses. Workers at the West Virginia plant are members of the USW. 

Tackett talked about the appeal as he prepared to go to a funeral for a friend from his days in the plant. That man will never know the ultimate outcome of the case that the retirees won at both the trial and appeals levels. The man’s widow is struggling financially and told Tackett she thinks she will be forced to sell her home to cover the cost of her husband’s unpaid medical bills. Tackett urged her to try to hold out for the high court’s decision.

Tackett told her that if the justices rule for the retirees, then M&G Polymers will likely have to reimburse her the nearly $20,000 that her husband and other retirees paid to maintain their company health insurance until the trial court ordered M&G Polymers to resume paying the full premiums.**

“We have several people who passed away,” as they awaited the outcome, Tackett said. “We just don’t know how many of them died as a result of not going to the doctor when needed or not getting medication they needed" because they couldn't afford the insurance, he said.

Court records show that as of Dec. 14, 2011, only 96 of the retirees were still paying the costs imposed by M&G Polymers to cover themselves and their spouses. Some retirees quit the company plan because they found less expensive insurance elsewhere. Others, the court records show, went without coverage.

The fees M&G charged retirees rose dramatically each year. For those old enough to receive Medicare, the initial cost was $144.44 a month. But for younger retirees, it was $856.22 a month. By 2011, those charges rose to $452.01 a month for the Medicare eligible and $957.92 a month for the others.

“It is a huge amount of money when you are on a fixed income,” Tackett said, “I had to spend a big part of my pension on health insurance.”

Tackett started working at the plant when Goodyear owned it. He negotiated contracts and served for four years as president of the local union in the late 1970s and early 1980s, before Goodyear sold the plant to Shell in 1992. Shell sold it to M&G in 2000.

Throughout that time, Tackett said, he believed that language in the collective bargaining agreement guaranteed the company would pay the total cost of health benefits for workers who were eligible for full pensions when they retired. The lawsuit quotes the collective bargaining agreements as saying that workers earning a full pension “will receive a full Company contribution toward the cost of [health care] benefits.”

And the collective bargaining agreement says that if a retiree dies before his or her spouse, then the spouse remains entitled to health benefits until death or remarriage.

The agreement never says the retiree loses the benefit after so many years or must pay a portion of the costs. It also doesn’t say benefits earned by retirees over their work lives end with the expiration of any given collective bargaining agreement.

Even conservative Justice Antonin Scalia seemed to agree with the retirees on that point, saying during the arguments, “It is a reasonable assumption, call it a presumption if you like, that any promise to pay those benefits continues after the termination of the union contract.”

The fact that the collective bargaining agreement never specifically says the benefits must be paid in full by the company for the retiree’s lifetime is not unusual. A law firm with no financial interest in the outcome of the case reviewed collective bargaining agreements providing health insurance for retirees and reported to the Supreme Court that only 26 percent contained at least one clause suggesting that the benefit must be paid for life, while 14 percent contained ambiguous language and 16 percent were silent on the issue.

Previous owners of the plant never questioned the obligation and paid the benefits in full until the retiree and spouse died. In addition, M&G’s demands of Shell show that it knew the obligation was not limited.

When Goodyear sold the plant to Shell, it retained responsibility for the workers who retired during its ownership. Shell did not want to do that. So M&G hired actuaries to calculate the cost of the benefits that would be owed to the workers who retired in the eight years Shell owned the plant. That would include costs for Tackett who retired in 1996.

Shell allowed M&G to subtract that amount from the price of the Point Pleasant plant.  As a result, Shell paid M&G the costs for those retirees. Now M&G is trying to get paid a second time by demanding those Point Pleasant retirees pay part of their premiums. 

Tackett, who lives in Bidwell, Ohio, started work at the plant in 1966. That, coincidentally, is the year that Mothman began terrifying local residents.

As Mothman did, M&G has stricken hundreds of families in this rural West Virginia region with fear. They’re scared they won’t be able to afford health insurance they believed they’d earned. A decision by the Supreme Court affirming the lower courts’ rulings would relieve retirees like 78-year-old Tackett and restore justice in Point Pleasant.

  Reported by Huffington Post 5 hours ago.

Washington State Health Exchange Shuts Down on First Day of Open Enrollment

$
0
0
Washington State Health Exchange Shuts Down on First Day of Open Enrollment Washington state’s online insurance exchange, Washington Healthplanfinder, shut down its site Saturday morning at 10:30 a.m. on the first day of the second round of open enrollment. 

At the onset of the day, the site seemed to be working, but then the automatic quality-control system alerted the exchange that the site was having problems with 2015 tax-credit estimates for customers wishing to enroll. By Saturday afternoon, the exchange listed a response saying, “Thank you for your patience as we work to ensure that customers receive correct information from Healthplanfinder.”

The exchange later issued a statement saying the problem should be fixed by 8 a.m. Sunday.

Washington Healthplanfinder had problems with its site in August; state Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler intervened by creating a limited special enrollment period so customers could obtain health coverage outside the exchange by opting for another health plan with the same carrier or choosing another carrier. That period lasted from Aug. 27 to Nov. 14. 

Kreidler said at the time, “This is a problem that has been around since the end of December. I am cautiously optimistic that the exchange is doing a much better job right now to resolve the problems, but there is no guarantee that they’re going to be gone as we go into open enrollment.”

The period for open enrollment for health insurance lasts until Feb. 15. Reported by Breitbart 5 hours ago.

HUFFPOLLSTER: Perspectives on Polling Error

$
0
0
Post election discussions and analysis turn to polling accuracy. We summarize several different perspectives. And Gallup takes the measure of the ACA as enrollment opens again. This is HuffPollster for Monday, November 17, 2014.

*'THE GOP'S NUMBERS PROBLEM'* - Steven Shepard on grumbling among some Republicans that their internal numbers missed again: "For two years, Republicans had been working to correct one of the party’s greatest embarrassments of recent years: the flawed polling that led so many in the party to believe Mitt Romney was on the cusp of victory in 2012. But after dramatically underestimating Democratic turnout in 2012, it was now obvious that the GOP had erred in the other direction in 2014. *Their pollsters had understated Republicans’ leads in a number of states*, causing the RNC and GOP campaign committees to pour money into places where it wasn’t needed and hold money back from places where it might have made a difference — such as Virginia, where Republican Ed Gillespie lost by less than a percentage point. 'It’s just as bad to be wrong by being too conservative,' said [Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Mike] Shields. 'It’s just as big a mistake to tell a client that you’re only winning by one point when they’re winning by eight. Especially at the party committee level, there are just too many decisions being made … That money can be used elsewhere.' Republicans, it turned out, weren’t the only ones with polling problems: *The Democratic internals and public polls also overestimated the Democratic turnout*. But the GOP, in particular, had spent months refining its methods just to avoid this problem." [Politico]

-*Brendan Nyhan*: "Not sure I understand this piece - sounds like GOP polls missed in same places everyone did like KY & VA... Not like ‘12" [@BrendanNyhan]

*Rothenberg asks about 'hot' polls for GOP* - Forecaster Stu Rothenberg, at a Gallup post-election forum on Thursday: “It’s all about the weighting. The problem is, from my point of view, that there’s just so much weighting going on…it’s all about the weighting, it’s all about the modeling, it’s all about the assumptions of turnout. And for me, I don’t think we know what the turnout’s going to be. I said to one Republican media consultant, ‘how many polls did you guys do in this race?’ And he gave me a number. And I said, *‘well why didn’t you just look at ‘em unweighted and see if you were getting indications that one side was dramatically more motivated than the other before you started weighting?’*And he said, ‘well, maybe…we had all these different polls and they were all coming back hot for the Republicans, they were all coming back hot.’ Maybe there is more enthusiasm on the Republican side and maybe the models and weighting should reflect that.”

*Republican pollster McInturff responds'* - McInturff, also speaking at Gallup, offered a response to a similar line of criticism: "We’re getting to the point where, essentially, *if you want to predict an election, it’s trying to figure out the party composition, because there are no more swing voters*. They’re gone....What it means is...the only thing that matters are two questions: What’s the composition, are you a Republican or a Democrat, and by what margin are independents voting for one party or another and does that make a difference?...But *I will just tell you as a pollster…you might think things are ‘hot’ [in the final week] but you better be very careful*. If your numbers tell you that it’s minus two Democrat and [you] say, ‘I know what’s going to happen,’ you start getting into la-la land in terms of guessing wrong. And by the way, we do look at unweighted numbers every day and they are directional, but you’re a lot better off as a pollster putting out your numbers and saying ‘yea, I think it’s a Democrat electorate plus two, we’re up one or two,’ then trying to outguess numbers. because in the long run, outguessing numbers is a terrifying way to make a living”

*PUBLIC POLLING WAS WORSE ON AVERAGE*- Kyle Kondik and Geoffrey Skelley offer 14 "quick takes" on the election results including this: "The polls really were worse than usual. This cycle featured the largest average miss by the two major poll aggregators, RealClearPolitics and HuffPost Pollster, in recent competitive Senate races. This isn’t a slight toward them — after all, they simply use the data that’s available, and it seems the data may be getting worse. *While the median miss has been somewhat up and down, the average has increased relatively consistently cycle-to-cycle*. Why? Prior to this cycle, neither average had missed a race by double-digits, but this time at least one average missed the Arkansas, Kansas, and Virginia races by at least 10 points. Below you’ll find the median and average miss per election cycle from 2006-2014 for both major poll averages." [Sabato's Crystal Ball]

*SILVER: EVIDENCE OF 'HERDING'* - Nate Silver: "*It’s not the inaccuracy of the polling average that should bother you* — Iowa was one of many states where the polls overestimated how well Democrats would do — *so much as the consensus around such a wrong result*. This consensus very likely reflects herding. In this case, pollsters herded toward the wrong number....As the election season wore on, new polls hewed somewhat more closely to the polling averages. But the change was marginal until the final week or two of the campaign, when they started to track it much more closely. By the eve of the election, new polls came within about 1.7 percentage points of the polling average. Perhaps you could construct some rationale, apart from herding, for why the polls behaved this way. Maybe it became easier to predict who was going to vote and that made methodological differences between polling firms matter less. As a more technical matter, the volume of polling increased as the election approached...But there are two dead giveaways that herding happened. One is the unusual shape of the curve. *Rather than abiding by a linear progression, it suddenly veers toward zero in the final week or so of the campaign*. What happened during this period? It’s when pollsters were releasing their final polls of the campaign — the ones they think posterity will judge them by. These polls were included in the final Real Clear Politics averages and received a heavy weight in the final FiveThirtyEight forecast. The impolite way to put it is that this was CYA (cover-your-ass) time for pollsters. Some that had produced 'outlier' results before suddenly fell in line with the consensus." [538]

*DEMS LOST BUT THEIR TURNOUT EFFORTS 'LOOK SUCCESSFUL'* - Nate Cohn: Democrats lost but did their effort to "mobilize the young and nonwhite voters who do not usually participate in midterm elections" succeed in targeted states? "The preliminary and qualified answer is that the Democratic field effort was probably a success. An analysis of precinct and county-level returns, supported by exit polls and limited voter file data, suggests that *the turnout in key Senate battlegrounds was generally more favorable for Democrats than it was in 2010*. When it wasn’t, the Democratic turnout still seemed impressive when compared with the states where they did not make significant investments, like Virginia or Maryland. The evidence for a fairly successful Democratic turnout effort is straightforward. *Whether judged by county or by precinct where available, turnout tended to increase most over 2010 levels in Democratic-leaning counties in core battleground states*. The drop-off in Democratic counties and precincts compared with 2012 — a presidential year, when turnout is higher — was generally more modest in the Senate battlegrounds than elsewhere. This judgment is preliminary because it does not yet reflect the best available data on voter turnout: the voter files, which allow us to see who voted and who stayed home. Turnout in counties or precincts is an imperfect proxy for changes in partisan turnout, even when the data is fairly clear." [NYT]

*GALLUP MEASURES THE ACA AS ENROLLMENT OPENS AGAIN* - Justin McCarthy: As the Affordable Care Act's second open enrollment period begins, *37% of Americans say they approve of the law*, one percentage point below the previous low in January. Fifty-six percent disapprove, the high in disapproval by one point. Americans were slightly more positive than negative about the law around the time of the 2012 election, but they have consistently been more likely to disapprove than approve of the law in all surveys that have been conducted since then.” [Gallup]

*Newly insured give coverage good marks* - Frank Newport: “Over seven in 10 Americans who bought new health insurance policies through the government exchanges earlier this year rate the quality of their healthcare and their healthcare coverage as "excellent" or "good." These positive evaluations are generally similar to the reviews that all insured Americans give to their health insurance. Among those who bought new health insurance policies through the exchanges, *the majority are about as satisfied with their coverage and healthcare as are other Americans* -- suggesting that the end result of the exchange enrollment process is a generally positive one for those who take advantage of it.” [Gallup]

*More than half of uninsured plan to get coverage* - Jeffrey Jones: More than half of uninsured Americans say they plan to sign up for health coverage, a promising sign as the open enrollment period for obtaining health insurance through state and federal exchanges opens. Specifically, 55% of Americans who currently lack insurance say they plan to sign up for coverage while 35% of the uninsured say they will not get insurance and instead pay the fine as required by the Affordable Care Act, also known as ‘Obamacare.’..Most uninsured Americans, 70%, say they are aware of the requirement to have health insurance or pay a fine, the "individual mandate" provision of the 2010 healthcare law that the Supreme Court upheld in a 2012 ruling. However, that leaves *nearly 30% who were not aware they must have insurance or pay a fine*...Uninsured Americans' familiarity with the exchanges is low, with 46% saying they are "not familiar at all" with the exchanges, and another 19% claiming they are ‘not too familiar’ with the exchanges. Eight percent say they are ‘very familiar’ and 22% are ‘somewhat familiar.’” [Gallup]

*SUPPORT FOR NET NEUTRALITY DEPENDS ON FRAMING OF THE QUESTION* - HuffPollster: “Americans across the political spectrum agree on some of the basic concepts of net neutrality, but their ideas about government regulation to enforce it are considerably more mixed -- perhaps understandably, since most still haven't even heard of it….Fifty-five percent of Americans, including two-thirds of those who'd heard about net neutrality, said they'd oppose allowing Internet service providers to strike deals in which some companies pay to have their online content load faster than other content. *In a rare showing for American politics, there wasn't much of a divide along partisan lines*: 57 percent of Democrats, 51 percent of independents and 59 percent of Republicans were opposed….In the HuffPost/YouGov poll, the spirit of bipartisanship largely vanishes as soon as the focus moves from Internet service providers' power to the actual government regulation that could curtail it. Just 34 percent of Americans support government regulations to achieve net neutrality, with 28 percent opposed and 38 percent unsure. Democrats were more than twice as likely to support regulation as to oppose it, while Republicans were twice as likely to oppose it as to support it.” [HuffPost]

*HUFFPOLLSTER VIA EMAIL!* - You can receive this daily update every weekday morning via email! Just click here, enter your email address, and and click "sign up." That's all there is to it (and you can unsubscribe anytime).

*MONDAY’S 'OUTLIERS'* - Links to the best of news at the intersection of polling, politics and political data:

-Glen Bolger (R) contrasts five straight "wave" elections with the calm of the mid 90s and early 00s. [CrystalBall]

-Wendy Davis' campaign was bad, says Harry Enten, but that probably didn't matter. [538]

-Karthick Ramakrishnan looks at what 2014 does and doesn’t say about Asian Americans’ voting. [WashPost]

-Tom Bonier moves from Clarity Labs to CEO of Democratic data firm Target Smart Communications. [Politico]

-Brent Benson covers a HuffPollster talk on the midterm results. [Commonwealth]

-Jeanne Zaino asks if we can trust the polls in 2016. [HuffPost]

-Esther Inglis-Arkell explains how to use dice to stop people from lying on surveys. [io9 via @LoveStats] Reported by Huffington Post 4 hours ago.

POLL: A New Low For Obamacare

$
0
0
POLL: A New Low For Obamacare More Americans disapprove of President Barack Obama's signature healthcare reform than ever before, according to a new Gallup poll released Monday.

The survey found 56% of Americans said they disapproved of the law, the Affordable Care Act also known as Obamacare, while just 37% said they approved.

That's a seven-point shift from October, when Gallup found 53% of the US public disapproved of the law and 41% approved.

The latest numbers come as the new healthcare system begins its second enrollment period, which began Saturday. The first enrollment period last year was marred by widespread technical glitches with the government's main healthcare website.

However, it's possible that the healthcare law may ultimately get more popular. According to a Gallup survey released last Friday, over seven in 10 Americans who signed up for their healthcare in the new system rated the coverage as "good" or "excellent."

"Among those who bought new health insurance policies through the exchanges, the majority are about as satisfied with their coverage and healthcare as are other Americans — suggesting that the end result of the exchange enrollment process is a generally positive one for those who take advantage of it," Gallup said.

* Click here to read more about Gallup's latest poll.*

Join the conversation about this story » Reported by Business Insider 4 hours ago.

Marcel’s Culinary Experience, Glen Ellyn, Ill., Receives Housewares Industry’s Highest Honor, Recognized as the U.S. Independent Retailer of the Year

$
0
0
Marcel’s Culinary Experience, Glen Ellyn, Ill., has been selected by The Gourmet Retailer, a trade magazine covering the specialty food and kitchenware retail industry, as its Kitchenware Retailer of the Year and the U.S. Global Innovator Award winner.

(PRWEB) November 17, 2014

Marcel’s Culinary Experience (http://www.marcelsculinaryexperience.com) of Glen Ellyn, Ill., has been selected by The Gourmet Retailer (http://www.gourmetretailer.com), a trade magazine covering the specialty food and kitchenware retail industry, as its Kitchenware Retailer of the Year and the U.S. Global Innovator Award (gia) winner (http://www.housewares.org/gia/retail.aspx).

The Gourmet Retailer, a co-sponsor of the U.S. gia for independent kitchenware retailers, selected Marcel’s as the U.S. winner after soliciting and reviewing nominations from the industry.

“While a relative newcomer to the kitchenware retailing industry, Jill Foucré and her team have created a successful and thriving concept that combines the best brands of the housewares industry in a space that is warm and welcoming,” says Anna Wolfe, Editor-in-Chief of The Gourmet Retailer. “In addition to being active in the community, Marcel’s has also met a need amongst its customers -- helping them develop their cooking skills -- all while having fun. Marcel’s Culinary Experience is proof that it is possible for independent retailers to thrive in today’s competitive marketplace.”

The International Home + Housewares Show (IH+HS) and International Housewares Association (IHA), primary sponsors of gia, will recognize Marcel’s and other 2014-2015 winners from more than 20 countries at the 15th annual gia awards in Chicago on March 8.

Combining her love of cooking and entertaining with her family heritage, Foucré launched Marcel’s Culinary Experience in September 2011 after a 30-year career in health insurance. Marcel’s is named after her grandfather, a French chef and restaurateur. Foucré and her team have curated a compelling retail space stocked with top cookware brands, professional tools, tableware, local and specialty foods alongside one-of-a kind items. The 3,200-square-foot store has a state-of-the-art kitchen where cooks of all skill levels can learn and enjoy hands-on classes and demonstrations.

In Marcel’s first calendar year of business, the company exceeded more than $1 million in revenue and reported an operating profit in year two.

The Gourmet Retailer’s Kitchenware Retailer of the Year and U.S. gia awards are the most recent achievements on Marcel’s long list of accolades. The Glen Ellyn Chamber of Commerce recognized Marcel’s for best holiday window display in 2013, and it has won two Le Creuset display contests. Earlier this year, for her innovative business practices and bottom-line success, Foucré received the Innovation Award from the Daily Herald Business Ledger in Arlington Heights, Ill. Marcel’s and Foucré have been featured in The Wall Street Journal and Money Magazine.

“It’s an honor to be selected for this prestigious award, particularly in our first year of eligibility,” says Foucré. “We have a terrific team at Marcel’s and everyone contributes to our success, including our committed customers. We hope to serve the community and the Chicago area for many years to come.”

Marcel’s Culinary Experience will be profiled in the February/March issue of The Gourmet Retailer magazine.

About the gia competition:

Honoring excellence in housewares retailing, the gia program was created by the International Housewares Association in 1999 to showcase housewares retailing innovation and merchandising distinction worldwide.

The gia competition is structured both on a national and global level to honor independent and multiple location housewares retailers for excellence in several business categories including mission, layout and design, visual merchandising, marketing, customer service, staff training and innovation.

Each national winner will travel to the IH+HS where the global gia jury -- consisting of four experts representing Asia, Europe and the Americas, plus a rotating group of co-sponsoring trade publication editors -- will select five global gia honorees.

From March 7-10 at McCormick Place in Chicago, IH+HS show attendees will be able to see photo displays of the gia winners from more than 20 countries. The gia Showcase in the Grand Concourse Lobby will feature visual displays of each store’s award-winning efforts.

Banners for the 20+ winning retailers will be hung in the walkway that connects the Grand Concourse and the Lakeside Center. More information about gia is available at http://www.housewares.org/gia/. Reported by PRWeb 3 hours ago.

First Draft: Billions of Dollars Mend Health Insurers’ Rift With Obama

$
0
0
Once a favorite political punching bag for President Obama, the health insurance industry has reaped big benefits from the Affordable Care Act. Reported by NYTimes.com 2 hours ago.

No Title

$
0
0
The average monthly premiums for mid-range health insurance plans under the Affordable Care Act increased as much as 20 percent in Florida, but also decreased slightly in one county, year over year. Reported by WEAR ABC 3 1 hour ago.

Miami-Dade Only County In FL To See ACA Premium Decrease

$
0
0
While many counties in Florida saw increases in the average monthly premiums for mid-range health insurance plans under the Affordable Care Act, Miami-Dade County saw a decrease in premiums. Reported by cbs4.com 1 hour ago.

Americans don't like Obamacare

$
0
0
Obamacare gets low approval ratings from Americans as health insurance exchanges open for second year of enrollment. Reported by CNNMoney 14 minutes ago.

Stupid Is as Stupid Does

$
0
0
When I saw the news coverage of White House health care adviser Jonathan Gruber's remarks, in which he essentially called Americans stupid, I thought of the old saying, "With friends like that, who needs enemies?"

My next thought was, who's being stupid here?

Gruber is an MIT health economist who worked on health care reform with both Mitt Romney, when he was governor of Massachusetts, and the Obama administration. In fact, he's one of the reasons Obamacare looks so much like Romneycare, which Massachusetts lawmakers enacted in 2006.

During remarks he made at the Health Economists Conference at the University of Pennsylvania last year, Gruber claimed that the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats had no choice but to keep the public in the dark, and even mislead folks, about certain aspects of the reform bill as it was being written.

"The lack of transparency is a huge political advantage," Gruber said. "And basically call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever but basically that was really, really critical to getting this thing to pass... "

The White House hired Gruber in 2009 to help figure out the economic consequences of various health care proposals. Considering how inept the Democrats have been from the beginning in explaining how the reform law would benefit all of us -- and why it was structured the way it was -- I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if we found out Gruber had also been hired to provide PR advice on how to sell the law to the public.

The Democrats' strategy seems to have been to say as little as possible both about why reform was needed and how the final law would protect us from insurance industry abuses. Which, fortunately, it does. The problem is that most Americans have forgotten that it does -- if they ever knew about it in the first place.

The reason I decided to advocate for reform after I quit my industry job in 2008 was because of those abuses. When he was running for president, Obama often cited those abuses, but after he became president, he and those around him seemed to forget the importance of constantly reminding the public why reform was necessary.

I got so frustrated at what appeared to be the absence of a communications strategy that I even went so far as to call the White House in the summer of 2009 to offer some unsolicited ideas. I was thanked for my interest but essentially told, "don't worry, we've got this figured out."

A few weeks later, I thought maybe that was true. In an address to a joint session of Congress on September 9, 2009, Obama did indeed remind the public about why reform was needed. He made a pretty compelling case. Here's how he laid it out:

" ... But the problem that plagues the health care system is not just a problem for the uninsured. Those who do have insurance have never had less security and stability than they do today. More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you'll lose your health insurance too. More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care. It happens every day.

"What this plan will do is make the insurance you have work better for you," he said. "Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it the most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime ... "

He also cited a few other provisions of the plan that would provide Americans with "more security and more stability."

I was encouraged because I thought the White House and Congressional reform advocates had once again realized what Americans needed to hear. I thought sure they would develop a communications strategy around those very points.

I thought wrong. The White House and Congressional Democrats let their opponents define the law. And those opponents did a superb job of developing and implementing a communications strategy to turn the public against what they decided to call "Obamacare." That campaign has been so successful it has almost completely obscured the fact that the law actually benefits each and every one of us.

I can only guess that Obama's team was persuaded that a lack of transparency, even about the good the law does, would be better than going to the trouble of trying to explain it.

Now that, in my opinion, is what's really stupid. Reported by Huffington Post 13 minutes ago.

A.M. Best Special Report: As Medicaid Expands, Location Is Key Factor for U.S. Health Insurers’ Related Growth  

$
0
0
A.M. Best Special Report: As Medicaid Expands, Location Is Key Factor for U.S. Health Insurers’ Related Growth   OLDWICK, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Medicaid has been one of the material sources of the health insurance industry’s growth in recent years and, given the recent expansion of the program by many states, it will continue to help the segment develop, according to a Best’s Special Report titled “Location Is a Crucial Factor for U.S. Health Insurers’ Growth from Medicaid Expansion.” During the past decade, the number of eligible individuals under traditional Medicaid income eligibility requirements has Reported by Business Wire 23 hours ago.

Covered California says website will work as open enrollment begins

$
0
0
Covered California is poised for a boom in new business. Open enrollment for insurance coverage in 2015 began at 12:01 a.m. Nov. 15 and runs through Feb. 15, 2015. Benefits will begin Jan. 1 for those who sign up by Dec. 15. The state health benefit exchange website has been upgraded, more workers are available to answer call-center phones and brokers are geared up to help. Program officials hope to add more than 500,000 new members in 2015. If consumers who bought health insurance this year sit… Reported by bizjournals 22 hours ago.

Health care shoppers, beware of scams

$
0
0
With open enrollment for health insurance now underway, the FTC has tips consumers can use to protect themselves Reported by CBS News 19 hours ago.

Why Don't More Men Walk the Talk on Work-Family?

$
0
0
When surveyed, dads overwhelmingly say that they would prefer to share childcare and housework relatively equally with their spouses, and would prefer to use flexibility and parental leave to better balance work and family. However, the data show that while men have made significant progress on both fronts, our actions do not match our intentions -- leaving us more "locked into" work and less involved at home than we'd like.

I am lucky that my career, paternity leave experience and family dynamics are conducive to my being a very involved dad

There are a few reasons for this mismatch. While corporate cultures and lack of societal support are major problems, it is also true that we sometimes get in our own way. Here's a quick rundown of the barriers today's dads face, including some advice on how we may be able to change our situations.

*1. The Workplace*

It is well-established that many workplaces don't see work-life balance for their employees as a priority. They want employees to be "all in" for work, even at the risk of chronically overworking their employees, risking burnout and turnover. Most companies that have made some progress in work-life still conceive of flexibility and leave policies as interventions to retain working women.As a result, few men make visible accommodations of their work for families, and for good reason -- men who visibly do so face additional "flexibility stigma." Therefore, even in companies where policies like flextime, telework or paternity leave are offered, few working dads take full advantage of them.

*2. The Family*

While it is true that women are increasing their share of household earnings, about 85 percent of dual-income households rely on the husband for the sole or primary income. This financial pressure prevents many working dads from accommodating work to family, changing employers or downshifting their careers. In addition, health insurance, retirement plans and other financial considerations create "golden handcuffs" that keep employees locked into their employers.

In addition, the lack of available (or used) paternity leave often sets up a gendered family dynamic -- which constrains both men and women. When a dual-career, egalitarian couple has a baby, it will often fall to the mom to take a long leave -- after all, she is offered a more generous policy and the dad's career prospects will be crushed if he's the one talking a long leave from work. Thus, his career continues, hers takes a pause (and a resultant hit to her career progress). This further reinforces the dynamic that leads women with career ambitions to drop out of the workforce and pushes men (even those who wish to be very involved dads) to support the family by doubling down on work. Both partners find themselves stuck in roles that make it harder to live out their full set of priorities.

Finally, research shows that when men and women experience to transition to parenting in the same way- say if they each have a long parental leave and equally do diapers, etc., they tend to parent more equally in the long-term. Dads who have been able to take long paternity leaves are more involved parents throughout their kids' childhoods and those kids do better in school (among other positive outcomes). In contrast, when the mom stays home and becomes expert in parenting while the dad dives into work, family dynamics drift to where the mom is the "parent" and the dad is just the "occasional helper" (who may or may not be seen as particularly competent). This, obviously creates a vicious cycle and can be exacerbated by maternal gatekeeping.

*3. Society*

Society sends odd and conflicting signals about fatherhood. Involved fathers are either ignored or overly-praised as being "superdads." Until very recently, TV, advertising and other media depicted dads almost exclusively as incompetent or as overgrown kids themselves. This lowers the bar for the next generation of dads and implicitly tells women that they need to be responsible for everything.

Dads are often eyed with suspicion if they are with children in public settings, especially during typical work hours. There are lots of "mommy groups" and other supports for mothers (and this is a good thing!), but not as many resources for dads (the City Dads Group movement is a big step in the right direction). One small but telling indicator of society's views: lots of restaurants have changing tables in the women's room, but not in the men's.

Finally, traditional gender roles often encourage men to be "manly" -- prioritizing work and money, being aggressive as opposed to nurturing, etc. This manifests itself in career choices and resultant family dynamics. It is brave to defy traditional gender expectations and become an at-home dad, downshift one's career, choose more "feminized" careers like education, social work or health care (of course feminized professions are undervalued and pay less, but that's a whole other story), or opt-out of demanding career paths.

*4. We Do It To Ourselves*

Finally, as much as frustrated dads can pin blame on demanding and unsupportive employers, parenting dynamics skewed by access to parental leave and signals from society -- the fact is, we also contribute to our own predicament.

How many of us have really thought through our life priorities while assessing both family and career concerns? How many of us have reassessed the career paths we chose way before spouse and baby made three? How many of us take a very hard look at our finances and simplify our commitments to allow for downshifting or more time for life? How many recognize our uneven family dynamics and struggle for more involvement (as opposed to resigning ourselves to settle for less)? How many push back against employer expectations (or have we bought into "corporate idolatry")? How many of us stay connected 24/7 to work, even during family time? How many of us say, "I'll have more time for family next year... and next year... and next year"?

*So, How Can We Improve Our Situations?*

This is a daunting list, but I see the beginnings of positive change in all areas. Many workplaces are starting to respond to fathers' work-family concerns through better access to paternity leave, culture change and role-modeling by male leadership. We need to do our part to accelerate these changes. If we don't, who will?

More families are attempting more egalitarian approaches to dual careers and shared care. The road is not easy, but constant communication, realistic expectations and financial prioritization can all help. Finally, remember that you and your spouse chose each other to be partners and teammates. Having some difficult conversations to get things back to parity can get you back to the partnership to which you initially aspired.

We need to push back when the media portrays dads and less-than, and support brands that promote realistic and positive portrayals of fatherhood.

We need to examine our choices -- there is always time for course-correction. We also need to support our fellow working dads, both at the workplace and in our friendship networks (can I interest you in a "beer fire"?). We need to be brave in our life choices -- do what is right for us and our families and forget what others may think.

Finally, we need to embrace the new possibilities that have opened up for fathers. Work-family juggles are hard, but allow us for deeper, more intimate relationships with our kids and more fulfilling lives. The effort is worth it.

-

What do you think about the challenges fathers face in balancing work and family? Any experiences you'd like to share? Let's discuss in the comments.

*Like the article? Think it would make for a good facebook, reddit or twitter conversation? Then please share it using the buttons above. You can also follow my blog on working fathers' issues, or me on **facebook **or **twitter**. Thanks!*

Scott Behson, Ph.D., is a Professor of Management at Fairleigh Dickinson University, a busy involved dad and an overall grateful guy. As a national expert in work and family issues, Scott was a featured speaker at the recent White House Summit on Working Families. Scott also founded and runs the popular blog Fathers, Work and Family, writes regularly for the Harvard Business Review Online, Huffington Post and Good Men Project, and has written for Time and the Wall Street Journal. Scott has appeared on MSNBC, Fox News, CBS This Morning, NPR Morning Edition and Bloomberg Radio. Reported by Huffington Post 21 hours ago.

Noncompliance fines increase significantly under the Affordable Care Act in 2015

$
0
0
Salt Lake City, Utah- (ABC 4 Utah) – Open enrollment on the Affordable Care Act website is off and running, with much better results than last year's roll out debacle.

For those that don't sign up for insurance this time around, there will be steeper fines.

In its first year more than 7,000,000 Americans, including more than 84,000 Utahns signed up for a health insurance plan under the ACA.

"The Affordable Care Act is really trying to help out people who buy their own insurance. They are self employed, they work for themselves or they've just never been able to afford their employer based insurance," said Jason Stevenson, with Utah Health Policy Project.

Some opted for the fine instead of paying for insurance in 2014.

In 2015, those who do the same will be paying even more.

The penalty jumps from $95 to $325 for adults and from $47.50 to $162.50 for children with a family maximum of $975 dollars. Up from $285 in 2014.

Or 2% of the yearly household income, which ever is higher. That is up from 1% in 2014.

Those fines are assessed on income taxes the following year.

Stevenson says there are some exceptions.

"If you are under 100% of poverty and you don't qualify for Utah Medicaid you are not going to get fined. And there are a lot of exemptions for people who have had some hardships in their lives," said Stevenson.

We asked what you think about the fine increase on the ABC 4 Utah Facebook page.

Beth Lott Morris said: “People would love to have insurance but sometimes it is a choice between food, housing, heat, clothing and other essentials. Insurance is not and cannot be at the top of that list.”

Jon Stratton adds: “I absolutely refuse to get health care not because I am healthy and don't need it but because my government cannot tell me that i have to carry health care.”

The fine is set to go up every year under the ACA. In 2016 it's 2.5% of income and $695 for adults. After that it will adjust to inflation. Reported by abc4 20 hours ago.

A Tax System That Works for Donald Trump (and Nobody Else)

$
0
0
New York is America's wealthiest city. But it is also one of America's most unequal. For every town car on Madison Avenue, there is a single mother struggling to pay for milk in the Bronx. For every sleek, palatial apartment that rises above Central Park, there are doormen who cannot afford health insurance. New York is home to Donald Trump, David Koch and Michael Bloomberg. And it is also home to Burger King employees who make $15,002 a year, hardworking maids earning minimum wage and homeless New Yorkers who have no choice but to sleep on the sidewalk of 5th Avenue.

Enter Bill de Blasio. In his campaign for Mayor, de Blasio recognized that this pernicious inequality imperiled the social fabric, cohesion and intergenerational mobility of America's biggest city. His responded to this crisis with an audacious proposal: universal pre-school funded by a .5 percent increase in marginal taxes on the wealthiest New Yorkers. And once the campaign ended, he delivered on part of his campaign promise. Thanks to de Blasio, over 50,000 four year olds went to pre-school this September. 20,000 more will start in September 2015. Parents, social scientists, teachers and kids love the pre-kindergarten program.

Yet the rich also love the program. After a public and contentious battle with Governor Cuomo last spring, de Blasio agreed to fund his signature initiative with $300 million from the State of the New York. Meaning: no new taxes on the wealthy. The richest 40,000 New Yorkers never saw their top marginal rate rise from 3.9 percent to 4.4 percent. Millionaires and billionaires, who had denounced de Blasio's original tax proposal as an "offensive,""absurd" and "Soviet" form of "eugenics," celebrated. (Note to the 1 percent: comparisons between progressive taxes and totalitarianism are getting a little tired).

The de Blasio Administration has recently pivoted to other vital policy priorities, notably affordable housing and criminal justice reform. Yet the Administration should not concede on fighting for fair taxation. Indeed, progressive taxes in New York are needed now more than ever.

America's income inequality problem pales in comparison to that of New York. In 1980, the wealthiest 1 percent of New Yorkers took home 12 percent of the city's income; in 2012, the top 1 percent garnered around 40 percent of the city's income. Last month, the Census found that no other county in America had a larger income gulf than Manhattan, where the richest 5 percent garnered incomes 88 times greater than the bottom 20 percent. New York City's Gini Coefficient (a measure of inequality) is higher than those of the United States, Hong Kong Zambia and Mexico. As succinctly phrased by Institute for Policy Studies, New York "has become the most unequal major city of the world's most unequal major nation."

Conservatives claim Mayor de Blasio wants to redistribute income. Yet unregulated market forces are already redistributing income in New York, as wealth trickles up from the middle and working class to the rich. Consider a recent report from the Fiscal Policy Institute. From 2000 to 2010, "the median income of the city's eight wealthiest neighborhoods jumped 55 percent," as the median income declined "3 percent in middle-income areas and 0.2 percent in the poorest neighborhoods." According to the CUNY Graduate Center, the median income over the past 20 years of the top 1 percent of New Yorkers skyrocketed from $452,415 to $716,625, an increase of nearly 60 percent. The top decile also thrived; their median household incomes climbed from $205,193 to $262,010, growth of around 30 percent. But the bottom ten percent of New Yorkers were shut out of this prosperity. Their incomes rose at a rate slower than inflation, inching up to $9,455 from $8,468. And an annual income of $9,455 is simply insufficient to cover basic human needs and raise a family in New York City.

Conservatives will counter that progressive taxes would hamper economic growth, disincentive private investment and incite a mass exodus of town cars and their Birkin bag-toting passengers from the Big Apple. No, no and no. As noted by Standard and Poor's, United States income inequality hampers growth by "discouraging trade, investment and hiring" and by limiting social mobility and the development of a highly educated workforce. You don't need an economist at S&P to understand a basic truth: to grow the economy, we must reduce income inequality. And reasonable progressive taxes and transfers have a long, successful track record in reducing wealth disparities. Ultimately, Mayor de Blasio's original proposal is modest. Rich New Yorkers paid higher marginal tax rates (4.46 percent and 4.45 percent) under two recent Mayors (David Dinkins and Michael Bloomberg) than they would under the proposal. And evidence that the affluent will depart en masse is scant, at best.

Increasing marginal tax rates on the richest New Yorkers is an effective, direct and symbolic way to combat inequality. The Mayor should also supplement this change with a tax pied-à-terre surcharge on second homes in New York City valued at over $5 million, which would ensure non-New Yorkers who use municipal services contribute to the city. Because of archaic budget rules, de Blasio must get Albany's blessing before implementing a fair taxation system. He should not give up in getting this approval. The Speaker of the New York Assembly, a strong majority of voters, even some upstate Republicans favor letting New York City raise taxes on New York City residents. Mayor's Mayor de Blasio won with a mandate to fight inequality, and he should spend his political capital. Reported by Huffington Post 20 hours ago.

How to find health insurance for immigrant seniors

$
0
0
*How to find health insurance for immigrant seniors*

*Q.* My 71-year-old mother-in-law recently immigrated to the U.S. to live with our family here in Michigan. Health insurance from my job takes care of me, my wife, and our two kids, but won’t cover her even though we will be supporting her financially. I looked on HealthCare.gov for insurance but it seems they only sell to people under 65, and she also can’t get Medicare right now. What can we do to find health insurance for immigrant seniors?

*A. *Actually, she CAN get insurance through HealthCare.gov (or any Health Insurance Marketplace), although until quite recently it looked like she couldn’t. When you went window shopping for insurance on HealthCare.gov a few weeks ago, you had to select the applicant’s age from a drop-down menu that topped out at age 64. That was highly, highly misleading because anyone who’s not on Medicare can buy insurance through the Marketplace at any age and always has been able to.

(If you’re curious, the reason it topped out at 64 was because that’s the age at which premiums, which rise steadily with age, max out. In other words, the premium for a 71-year-old is the same as for a 64-year-old. Still, that’s no excuse for a user interface that led many people, including you, to a wrong conclusion.)

The updated window-shopping tool corrects that problem. I just obtained a premium quote in Michigan for a 71-year-old with no problem whatsoever.

Here’s the deal for people who move to the U.S. when they are over 65. Like all “lawfully present” residents, they must have health insurance or face a fine—not to mention that at that age, they’re running a terrible financial risk by going uninsured.

However, they aren’t eligible for Medicare until they’ve lived in the U.S. for at least five years. So in the meantime they can purchase Marketplace health insurance just like anybody else.

After the five years are up, they can join Medicare. But having never paid payroll taxes during their working years, they’re going to have to pay a premium for Part A, which is normally free. And it’s a substantial one: $407 a month in 2015, on top of the $105 a month that everyone pays for Part B.

At this juncture, they have a choice. They can either drop their Marketplace plan and enroll in Medicare. Or they can keep their Marketplace plan indefinitely. When your mother-in-law reaches that point, you’ll have to run the numbers to see which option is more affordable.

Now, a word about her Marketplace application. Because you’re supporting her, you’re going to be declaring her as a dependent on your 2015 tax return. That means that when she applies, she should tell the Marketplace she lives in a household of five people, but check the boxes that say that everyone but her gets coverage through an employer. The Marketplace will then calculate her individual premium tax credit, if any, based on your whole household’s income, and show her a list of available plans that she can enroll in.

Premium tax credits are available for someone in a five-person household if its Modified Adjusted Gross Income will be less than $111,640 in 2015. (Here’s more information about how all of this works.)

P.S. Prior to health reform, it was essentially impossible for a person over 65 to buy non-Medicare-related health insurance on the private market at any price.

*Submit a question to Consumer Reports' health insurance expert. Be sure to include the state you live in so we can provide a more-detailed answer.*

*See our complete health insurance information
*

To find out how to apply for, select, and use health insurance, including Medicare, visit our main health insurance page.

*Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers on this website. Copyright © 2006-2014 Consumers Union of U.S.*

*Subscribe now!*
Subscribe to *ConsumerReports.org* for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.
--------------------
Update your feed preferences Reported by Consumer Reports 17 hours ago.

Editorial: In Mr. Obama’s own words, acting alone is ‘not how our democracy functions’

$
0
0
DEMOCRATS URGING President Obama to “go big” in his executive order on immigration might pause to consider the following scenario:

It is 2017. Newly elected President Ted Cruz (R) insists he has won a mandate to repeal Obamacare. The Senate, narrowly back in Democratic hands, disagrees. Mr. Cruz instructs the Internal Revenue Service not to collect a fine from anyone who opts out of the individual mandate to buy health insurance, thereby neutering a key element of the program. It is a matter of prosecutorial discretion, Mr. Cruz explains; tax cheats are defrauding the government of billions, and he wants the IRS to concentrate on them. Of course, he is willing to modify his order as soon as Congress agrees to fix what he considers a “broken” health system. Reported by Washington Post 18 hours ago.

When a Real Kansas Marriage Turns Into a Legal One

$
0
0
When Courtney and Denise asked me to marry them, I said, "Sure, but you know, I'm not legal to marry anyone."

"Duh," said Denise, giggling.

"Like it matters," added Courtney.

At the time, in early 2001, gay marriage was so small a glimmer of possibility, something we all thought might happen in our lifetime, maybe when we were passing around pictures of our grandchildren. Making do without being able to make up for this injustice was all we had.

We got to know Denise in her job at Free State Credit Union and through the Merc, and Courtney when she was a para for our oldest son when he was in fifth grade. Over the 1990s, we become close friends, the kind who can take naps on one another's couches or leave a dinner conversation to do something on the computer for work, no explanation needed. It was as if we had been family for decades before we actually met, and we hang out together, in I Love Lucy terms, not like Ricky, Lucy, Fred and Ethel, but more like Ricky and three Lucys.

So on May 6, 2001, we gathered at Ken's and my house south of Lawrence and gleefully paraded with family and friends alongside the woods to the southeast corner of a field. Denise was crying and swirling in her wide-swinging white dress, while Courtney was laughing and rolling her eyes. They held hands, looked at each other, Denise giggling and crying at once, as they came to the exact place where I would marry them.

So of course I could be a pretend rabbi, acting in faith that this was a real marriage, and one day the world would catch up to Courtney and Denise. They had been together for years, and all of us had just been through Denise's thyroid cancer together when Courtney had to endure the insult of fighting to see her beloved in the hospital because they were both women.

The wedding happened at dusk in a slim gap of sunlight on an afternoon of rain. The whole wedding party stood in a circle around the bride and bride, my daughter Natalie excited to be ring bearer in her white pants and rainbow shirt, my sons and husband wrapped close, smiling and crying with joy like all the other guests there.

In the 13 years since the not-real real wedding, Courtney and Denise had a son, Marek, born during a very joyous if long labor at the Topeka Birthing Center. Denise decided to become a nurse, and after two years of prerequisite classes, she got accepted into the prestigious nursing program at Baker University, graduated with flying colors, and now works at Stormont-Vail Medical Center. Courtney was finally able to leave her job at the post office to throw her immense energy into Homestead Ranch, where they raise goats, chickens and other critters; grow immense amounts of vegetables; and handcraft the best goat-milk soaps and lotions on the planet. Marek is close to 10 years old and excels at karate and making holiday ornaments to sell at the farmer's market, and he plays a mean game of Apples to Apples. The whole family has run a booth at the farmer's market, waking in the dark and wee hours every Saturday from May through November, for years, and cater to a loyal following.

A family business and farm. A child and his education. A home full of dogs, cats and tree frogs. A rich life with plenty of bouts of Guitar Hero and other games to play together. Spectacular turkey dinners with all the trimmings on Thanksgiving and beyond. And now land where they plan to build their dream house in coming years.

Throughout the years, we've come to know each other's extended families and shared the sorrow of a close friend's sudden passing and the loss of fathers and mothers, birthday parties and bar mitzvahs, and an outrageous amount of spaghetti-and-meatball dinners. Those in our family who, at first, had complaints about a lesbian couple, like much of America, softened their position over the years, eventually dissolving away such complaints. Courtney and Denise effectively, simply by being who they are and being around, changed the minds of people in our extended families as well as people they met through work, kids' activities and the farmer's market, about gay rights.

Yet it took until July 2013 for Courtney and Denise to get legally married, and they had to travel out of state to Sidney, Iowa, for the ceremony because our home state doesn't recognize marriage between two women. They also had to work long and hard to get Courtney covered on Denise's health insurance, and they still can't file taxes jointly. Our dear friends live and love a lot like us, yet they have to wait in the background for the light of equality to slowly reach them and other-than-hetero-identified people.

The butt of most jokes in the '70s, when I was growing up, was either gay men or Poles, and the word "lesbian" was so exotic and hushed-up that it seemed utterly mythological. For years, I've watched gay, lesbian and, in the last decade, trans friends struggle with how much of themselves to hide, who not to tell, how to say it to those they felt they could tell, and, moreover, the damaging weight of our societal silencing and shaming of them.

The advancement of gay marriage has moved a million times faster than I ever dreamed when I was growing up, watching gay or lesbian friends or acquaintances cast as exotic at best, repugnant at worst. Yet when it comes to my friends and so many other Kansans who have waited years, decades, lifetimes, to be able to simply say "my wife" or "my husband" and reap other legal, economic, religious and social benefits, the wait is excruciatingly slow.

When it comes to my beloved and chosen home state of Kansas, where I've lived since 1983, in love with the big sky's parade of weather and color, I couldn't imagine marriage equality landing here until the end of its reign across the rest of America. Kansas is one of the reddest of red states, where so many very good people continue to vote into office extremist right-wing politicians who work against the needs, hopes and dreams of these good people, so it's no wonder that my friends and I would regularly joke about whether Kansas would be the 49th or 50th state to stand on the side of the love. Strangely and wonderfully enough, thanks to the court systems, an excellent marriage-equality campaign here, and the down-home common sense of most Kansans, here we are, gay and lesbian marriages happening in mid-November right here in the heartland.Soon Courtney and Denise's marriage in Iowa will be recognized in Kansas, but for now, they, along with other couples, are battling to get the tax refund they are due from filing jointly last year. The courts in Kansas are also active with confusion and warring arguments about when to recognize the legal marriages of gay and lesbian couples who are marrying right now in Kansas or have already married out of state, such as Courtney and Denise. As has gone the way of marriage equality in all other states where it is now recognized, we know that in the next several weeks or months, Kansas will not be the 49th state to embrace marriage equality but probably the 30th-something state.

In the meantime, 13 years after Courtney and Denise vowed to love each other with all their heart and soul for their lifetimes, we're talking about a party, long unimaginable and longer overdue, to celebrate the love of justice and the justice of love. Reported by Huffington Post 18 hours ago.

The Problem of 'Stupid' in Economics

$
0
0
M.I.T. Professor Jonathan Gruber has inadvertently become a YouTube celebrity as a result of a video of him referring to the public as "stupid." The immediate point of reference was the complexity of the design of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which Gruber was describing as being necessary politically in order to deceive the public. With the right-wing now in a state of near frenzy after the Republican election victories, the Gruber comment was fresh meat in their attack on the ACA.

Apart from merits of the ACA, there is something grating about seeing a prominent economist refer to the American public as "stupid." After all, the country and the world have suffered enormously over the last seven years because the leading lights of the economic profession were almost completely oblivious to the largest asset bubble in the history of the world.

While it should have been easy to recognize an $8 trillion housing bubble in the United States, prices had diverged sharply from their long-term trend with no plausible basis in the fundamentals of the housing market. In particular, rents had only risen in step with inflation, indicating there had not been a sudden upturn in the demand for housing.

It also should not have been surprising that the loss of this wealth when the bubble burst would lead to a severe economic downturn and have a major impact on the financial sector. After all, it was easy to see that the bubble was driving the economy in the last business cycle. Residential construction had hit a record as a share of GDP and the ephemeral bubble wealth led to an unprecedented boom in consumption.

Since mortgages are a heavily leveraged asset even in normal times, and became considerably more leveraged during the bubble years, it should hardly have been a surprise that there were large numbers of defaults and foreclosures. And, given the leverage of the banking system, the fact that a large number of bad loans would put many banks in danger also should not have been a surprise.

In spite of the huge yellow warning lights flashing all over the sky, nearly all the world's top economists were caught by surprise by the collapse of the housing bubble. People in my profession should be very cautious in the use of the word "stupid."

There is some truth to Gruber's comment in that most people are ill-informed about major public policy issues, including health insurance. This is in large part due to the fact that, unlike Gruber, most people have day jobs. They put in their shift at work and then often have child care and other family responsibilities. Most of them probably don't have much time to read the Congressional Budget Office's latest report on the health care system.

But even worse, when people do take the time to get informed, the media let them down badly. Stories even in the best of outlets, like the New York Times and National Public Radio, often present information in ways that are misleading and often meaningless to nearly all readers.

The New York Times gave us a great example of misleading reporting this weekend in an article headlined, "Cost of Coverage Under the Affordable Care Act to Increase in 2015." The piece then highlighted a number of plans which are increasing premiums by large amounts in 2015.

Anyone reading this article would likely get the impression that most people are seeing big insurance price increases in 2015. This is 180-degrees at odds with reality. The Kaiser Family Foundation found that the average cost of benchmark plans in the ACA exchanges actually fell slightly in 2015. (The chart accompanying the New York Times article would show a story of declining prices or modest increases.) This is remarkable given the fact that insurance costs have been rising sharply for the last half century. Rather than highlighting the fact that for most people in the exchanges premiums are rising little or actually falling, the New York Times decided to highlight that some people will pay more, if they don't change plans.

In the same vein, the media routinely report huge numbers without giving any context that would make these numbers meaningful to their audience. AP gave us a great example of this practice when it reported that the Social Security Disability program paid out $2 billion in benefits, to people who should have not been eligible, over the last seven years.

This article likely gave people the impression that abuse in the program is widespread. Since the program paid out close to $900 billion in benefits over this period, the improper payments came to just over 0.2 percent of payments over this period. While it would be nice if no money was improperly paid (and that no proper claims were denied), no program will be perfect. If only 0.2 percent of payments were improper, that it would be an exceptionally good track record.

The amazing aspect to this manner of reporting is that no one will defend it with a straight face. Every reporter and editor knows that next to no one can make any sense of these big numbers without some context. Yet the practice continues.

Given the quality of reporting on major issues, it is not surprising that the public is often poorly informed. It is not clear who is being stupid in this picture. Reported by Huffington Post 17 hours ago.
Viewing all 22794 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images