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

Interactive Map Shows Where People With HIV Live In America

$
0
0
We don't hear too much about HIV these days. Treatment is helping people live longer and healthier lives, and some even don't need to continue taking medication if they are treated early enough. There's talk of scientists being on the "brink of a cure" for the virus.

But the truth is 15,000 people die from AIDS every year in the U.S., and over a million people are currently living with the disease. The stunning AIDSVu maps, created by the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University, help us understand what those numbers really mean. North and South Dakota are grayed out because the states didn't release their data to AIDSVu:

You can see the information by state and county too. Here's New York:

San Francisco:
And Miami, where the rate is a stunning 1,208 people per 100,000:

You can also filter the maps using different factors, like age, race, and sex and even social determinants of health, like eduction, income, and health insurance. Go to AIDSVu to play around with the maps.

*Find Us On Facebook — Business Insider: Science*

Join the conversation about this story »

 
 
 
  Reported by Business Insider 9 hours ago.

HHS mandate for religious employers finalized with few changes

$
0
0
Washington D.C., Jun 28, 2013 / 12:10 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The Obama administration announced on June 28 that it has finalized its regulations on the federal contraception mandate as it applies to religious employers.

A statement by the Department of Health and Human Services said that the final rule regarding the mandate’s application to many religious groups “is similar to, but simpler than” a previous proposal in February.

Issued under the Affordable Care Act, the mandate requires employers to offer health insurance plans covering contraception, including some drugs that can cause early abortion, as well as sterilizations.

In the months that followed its release, the mandate became the subject of lawsuits by more than 200 plaintiffs across the nation who claimed that it forced them to violate their deeply-held religious beliefs.

Faced with a wave of protest from objecting religious organizations, the Obama administration announced in early 2012 that it intended to modify the mandate. It issued a one-year “safe harbor” delaying the implementation of the mandate for these organizations while it considered various proposals for an “accommodation” for their right to religious liberty.

Over the following months, the administration engaged in a multi-step process of revising the mandate. That process was completed with the release of the final rule on June 28.

The final rule maintains the definition of “religious employer” proposed in February, which allows a full exemption from the mandate for those employers that fall under Internal Revenue Code, Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii), which “refers to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious order.”

The administration has said that this “would primarily include churches, other houses of worship, and their affiliated organizations.”

Religious groups have voiced concerns that faith-based organizations – such as soup kitchens, hospitals and schools – that are not affiliated with a specific house of worship would not be exempt.

For these religious groups that object to the mandate but do not qualify for the exemption, the administration has finalized an “accommodation.”

Earlier suggestions for this accommodation had involved separate health insurance policies for contraceptive coverage that would be given for free by the objecting organizations’ health insurance issuers.

The final rule changes this slightly, simplifying the process to instead require insurance issuers to directly “provide payments for contraceptive services” purchased by women working for religious employers who oppose such products.

Self-insured religious employers will work with a third party administrator, which will act in place of an insurance issuer to provide or arrange for the “no-cost payments” for employees’ contraception.

“Issuers are prohibited from charging any premium, fee, or other charge to eligible organizations or their plans, or to plan participants or beneficiaries, for making payments for contraceptive services, and must segregate the premium revenue collected from eligible organizations from the monies they use to make such payments,” the rule said.

“In making such payments, the issuer must ensure that it does not use any premiums collected from eligible organizations.”

This places the burden of payment for the objectionable products on the insurance issuers themselves.

Asked during a press call how the insurance issuers would be reimbursed for these payments, an HHS official responded that they would not need to do so because paying for birth control is “cost-neutral” for them, due to the resulting decline in childbirth costs and the other “health benefits” afforded by contraception.

However, the idea that contraceptives can be offered free of cost was rejected by pharmacy directors in a national survey shortly after the accommodation was initially announced last year.

Religious freedom advocates initially responded to the announcement of the final rule – which was more than 100 pages in length – by indicating a desire to examine it more closely in order to see whether it adequately addresses the religious freedom concerns that had been raised.

Among these concerns was the complaint that religious employers under the “accommodation” would still be facilitating the objectionable coverage because the plans that they offer are necessary to “trigger” the contraception coverage or funding.

Some critics of the mandate also warned that insurance companies would find that contraception was not actually “cost-neutral” any may ultimately end up funding it by raising the cost of the objecting employers’ premiums.

The question of religious individuals running for-profit businesses had also been discussed. More than a dozen for-profit companies have filed lawsuits over the mandate, including arts and crafts giant Hobby Lobby and several other manufacturers, publishers, medical groups and other employers. However, the final rule does not allow any accommodation for these employers. Reported by CNA 6 hours ago.

A Year Later, Obamacare Still Constitutional, The Nation Still Hasn't Imploded

$
0
0
A year ago today, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, ruling that the individual mandate provision of Obamacare was constitutional. The news sent a shockwave through the political world, and for many on the right, that shockwave was apocalyptic. The end of freedom, and perhaps the entire nation, was near, many warned. With that day a year in the rearview, here are a few predictions and statements that have fallen short.

*Congress hasn't repealed Obamacare.*

The immediate reaction from many conservatives was to encourage Republicans in Congress to press even harder for a legislative repeal of the law. Having already attempted unsuccessfully to repeal the law on 31 different occasions at the time, what were a few more? Over the past year, they've tried at least five more times. It hasn't worked.

*Republicans were not moved to victory.*

Some Republicans responded by announcing that the only way to right the supposed injustice of the judicial branch doing what the judicial branch is designed to do was to ensure that Mitt Romney defeated Barack Obama last November. American Conservative Union President Al Cardenas determined that the Supreme Court's ruling would be "our most significant rallying cry for a November victory." The momentum didn't last. While Republicans fared well in House races -- thanks in large part to redistricting efforts spurred by their successful victories in state elections years prior -- Obama won decisively, ensuring that Romney would not have the opportunity to dismantle his health care law.

*Liberty hasn't vanished from America.*

Some were quick to respond to the court's decision with eulogies mourning the end of a great nation. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) tweeted, “This is a dark day for the American people, the Constitution, and the rule of law. This is a dark day for American liberty.” Ben Shapiro of Breitbart took a similar tone with a tweet declaring that “This is the greatest destruction of individual liberty since Dred Scott. This is the end of America as we know it. No exaggeration.” Since then, the liberty police have not been deployed to round up all the freedom and lock it in cages. In fact, considering other developments that have come to light in recent months, our health care freedoms are looking pretty good right about now.

*A second Civil War hasn't been started.*

For Matt Davis, former spokesman for the Michigan Republican Party, armed rebellion seemed like a good option:

If government can mandate that I pay for something I don’t want, then what is beyond its power? If the Supreme Court’s decision Thursday paves the way for unprecedented intrusion into personal decisions, then has the Republic all but ceased to exist? If so, then is armed rebellion today justified?

Luckily for the rest of the nation, the concept of making people purchase health insurance has apparently not proven a good-enough reason to take up arms against their government.

*The Supreme Court still gets to decide if things are constitutional.*

Perhaps to chagrin of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Here's how he reacted to the court's ruling:

Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right.

While he can argue about right and wrong, the Supreme Court does get to rule on the constitutionality of laws. This power remains within the court's purview even when its decisions upset us.

*Obamacare isn't "failing to curb health care costs."*

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) lamented the survival of Obamacare last year, saying that it was "both failing to curb health care costs and forcing up to 35 million Americans to lose their employer-provided health insurance."

Putting aside the rampant skepticism about Obamacare causing employers to drop their employees' health insurance, recent reports have shown the overhaul actually succeeding in slowing the growth of health care costs.

Annie Lowrey breaks down the findings of a CBO report from earlier this year:

In figures released last week, the Congressional Budget Office said it had erased hundreds of billions of dollars in projected spending on Medicare and Medicaid. The budget office now projects that spending on those two programs in 2020 will be about $200 billion, or 15 percent, less than it projected three years ago. New data also show overall health care spending growth continuing at the lowest rate in decades for a fourth consecutive year.

*"Socialist cancer" is neither socialist nor cancerous.*

Before torpedoing his career with statements about "legitimate rape" and reproductive magic, Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) was hating on the Obamacare ruling.

"Today America is threatened with a stage three cancer of socialism, and Obamacare is exhibit 1," Akin said in his response to the court's decision. The problem with Akin's diagnosis is that this "socialist cancer" has been absolutely terrible at redistributing wealth, which is supposed to be one of its primary symptoms. In fact, according to a recent study, the top 1 percent of households by income captured 121 percent of all income gains between 2009 and 2011. Perhaps we shouldn't expect too much medical accuracy from a man who claimed that women had the power to terminate pregnancies at will.

*Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio).*

Schmidt has since moved on from Congress, but her shrill and short-lived celebration over what she mistakenly thought was Obamacare being ruled unconstitutional will survive, much like the law itself, as a tax. On your ears.

Jason Linkins contributed to this piece. Reported by Huffington Post 6 hours ago.

Sarah R. Boonin: A Law Professor's Perspective on the Supreme Court's DOMA Case

$
0
0
As a law professor, I read a lot of court cases, from the technical and obscure to the epic and revolutionary. Rarely do I sit down to read a case that I know will, upon its publication, change my life dramatically. Shortly after 10:00 a.m. this past Wednesday, I had that experience. I am not a constitutional law scholar. I am a law professor who practices and teaches in the areas of mental health law and women's health. But I am also a woman who is married to another woman, who happens to be a federal employee. We have a two-year old daughter. For me and my family, this week's Supreme Court Opinion in U.S. v. Windsor, striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and mandating federal recognition of same-sex marriages like mine, was a game-changer.

I, like many of my colleagues and students, rushed to download the opinion as soon as it was released. I immediately started pouring over the more than 70 pages of text as quickly as I could. As a lawyer, I am trained in the dispassionate exploration and analysis of difficult legal questions. As a law professor, I teach this skill to my students. But in reading the Windsor opinion earlier this week, gone went my dispassion and objectivity.

By the time I got to the middle of page 22 of Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in Windsor, I stopped reading. I picked up the phone, called my wife at work, and resumed reading aloud to her each word, slowly and carefully. I started off by reading these words,

"DOMA's principal effect is to identify a subset of state sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality.... Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person."

As I continued reading the opinion to her, my phone began to buzz and beep and twitch. I was bombarded with calls, texts, Facebook posts, and emails from family, friends, students, and colleagues. What does the opinion mean? Was the opinion what you expected? What was the Court's rationale? What's going to happen next? I held off answering their questions as long as I could.

Finally I reached what, to me, was the most powerful passage in the Court's opinion:

"By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA ... undermines both the public and private significance of state sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells [same-sex] couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition... And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives."

After taking a few moments to reflect with my wife on the significance of these words, I began returning those calls and texts and emails from my friends and family, and here is what I said in answer to their questions.

*What does the opinion mean?* In short, a great deal to a great many people. First, there is the legal explanation: U.S. v. Windsor was a case about the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA is a federal law signed by President Clinton in 1996 that, among other things, created a federal definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. In effect, DOMA meant that couples like my wife and me, who were lawfully married in one of the roughly dozen states in the U.S. that permit same sex marriage (in our case, Massachusetts), could receive all state protections that flow from marriage but none of the federal protections associated with marriage. And the same distinction applied to the legal responsibilities of marriage. Over 1,000 federal laws were re-written by DOMA to be discriminatory, and there are same-sex couples throughout our country who have been impacted by nearly all of those laws. Yesterday, a bare majority of the U.S. Supreme Court (5 of the 9 Justices), led by Justice Kennedy, declared this definitional provision of DOMA to be unconstitutional. In short, the opinion means that same-sex couples who live and marry in states that permit same-sex marriage will now enjoy full state and federal recognition of their marriages, like any other married couple in their state.

*But what does it really mean?* Let's take my family for an example. My wife has a family health insurance plan through her federal employer that covers her and our daughter. Before this historic opinion, I was not allowed to be on the family health plan. In the eyes of her employer, the federal government, my wife and I were legal strangers. As a result, we paid for her family plan while I carried a separate insurance plan to cover myself through my University. I could have carried my wife and daughter on my plan (my employer is not a federal agency and recognizes our marriage under Massachusetts law), but the federal government would have taxed me for my employer's contribution toward that plan, as if that contribution were a holiday bonus. After Windsor, I can now drop my extra health plan and join in my family's plan. Perhaps more importantly, if ever I am unemployed (for example due to illness or to stay home and parent our daughter), I will be able to maintain my wife's health insurance.

Before this historic opinion, my wife and I had to file our taxes as married for state purposes but were forbidden to do so for federal purposes. This created a mess each April involving no fewer than four tax returns for two people! We filed two individual federal returns denying our marriage and reporting ourselves as single, which required cover letters explaining this legal fiction. We then filed a joint state return acknowledging our married status, which, in turn, required the preparation of a fake or "shadow" joint federal return (which we needed in order to calculate our Massachusetts taxes but which we could not submit). Also under DOMA, my wife and I had to decide which one of us would claim our daughter as a dependent for tax purposes. I assure you that felt like both an indignity and a falsehood. After Windsor, we will be proud to submit one joint federal return and one joint state tax return and to declare our joint support for our daughter.

Before this historic opinion, we engaged in careful and costly estate planning to compensate for the fact that, should something happen to my wife, I could not collect her pension like other federal spouses. Now, like all heterosexual married federal spouses, I will be automatically named a beneficiary on her plan.

Before this historic opinion, I could not take Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave to care for my wife if she were ill. Now I have that right too.

About three weeks before this historic opinion, my wife and I travelled to Florida for a vacation with our daughter. We brought bathing suits, lots of sunblock, things to keep our daughter occupied on her first plane ride, and of course hard copies and a jump drive containing our wills, our healthcare proxies, our durable powers of attorney, our marriage certificate, and the adoption papers for our daughter (my wife gave birth to our daughter but we had to adopt her jointly to ensure I would be treated as her legal parent when we traveled out of the state). I don't know many heterosexual couples whose packing list reads like a probate court docket. To be clear, the Windsor opinion doesn't fix this problem. Its holding does not require other states to recognize my Massachusetts marriage, but only requires the federal government to recognize it. That said, the fact that the federal government sanctions our family unit adds a layer of protection when we travel within the U.S. Until we have total marriage equality throughout the U.S., we will always be cautious when traveling outside of marriage equality states. From now on, however, we will feel at least a small measure of comfort.

Still, the ways in which DOMA affected my family were miniscule in comparison to other gay families, such as service members who spouses were denied housing, health benefits, and survivor's benefits; immigrants who married U.S. citizens but were unable to live with them in the United States; elderly widows denied Social Security survivor's benefits; seriously ill spouses who lacked adequate treatment for their illnesses because they were shut out of their partners' health insurance policies; and Eddie Windsor, the Plaintiff in the Windsor case, who loved and cared for her wife for decades under the shadow of unequal treatment.

For a comprehensive guide to the far-reaching impacts of the fall of DOMA, I highly recommend a joint publication by GLAD and several other LGBTQ-rights organizations entitled, "After DOMA: Guide for Same-Sex Couples."

*Was the opinion what you expected?* Yes and no. I, like many advocates for LGBTQ equality, expected a closely divided Supreme Court, led by Justice Kennedy, to strike down Section 3 of DOMA (the federal definition of marriage), which is precisely what happened. What came as more of a surprise was precisely how Justice Kennedy came to this conclusion. The Court could have relied solely on "federalism" arguments, saying that the federal government lacks the authority to buck state marriage laws, since marriage has always been a matter of state law. Instead, the Court went in a different direction, relying on the legal doctrine of "equal protection" to strike down the law. In essence, Justice Kennedy, speaking for the Court, said that the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the federal government from treating same-sex marriages differently than heterosexual marriages. He wrote:

"By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage."

*So what? Who cares how the Court got there, as long as they got there!* I care, and I would guess many other gay and lesbian families do too. By analyzing DOMA through an equal protection lens, the Court exposed to the nation and the world what we saw all along as the discriminatory motivation behind DOMA. Justice Kennedy laid out for all to see that the sole purpose of this law was to "impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and [] a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages... " For those living in DOMA's shadow, those words were extraordinarily validating.

In declaring an equal protection interest in same-sex marriages, the Court accomplished what it could not have had it relied on mere federalism principles. The Court openly affirmed the dignity of the hundreds of thousands of same sex families in the U.S. and weighed in on the side of our common humanity. The Court got it right here. In my world, the Court's opinion in Windsor was about far more than my taxes, my health insurance, and my financial rights in marriage. The Court's opinion was about feeling a little safer getting on a plane and leaving Massachusetts with my family. It was about how my wife and I will answer our daughter's questions about our family. It was about, for the first time, feeling equal in the eyes of my government.

*What's going to happen next?* A whole bunch of litigation and advocacy! The Court very clearly attempted to narrow the impact of its ruling by limiting its holding to only those marriages recognized by the 13 states and D.C. that allow same-sex couples to marry. (Significantly, California became the 13th state after the Supreme Court left the District Court's ruling in place in the companion case of Hollingsworth v. Perry.) The Court in Windsor very intentionally did not require states that forbid same-sex marriage to legalize same-sex marriage or to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. The fundamental problem with the Court's attempt to narrow the impact of the opinion, is that the very principles of equality it relied on in striking down DOMA cannot ultimately sustain the weight of different (i.e., unequal) treatment by different states.

Pretty soon, someone like me -- perhaps a teacher with a same-sex federally employed spouse -- will need to move for his or her job. He or she will move with his or her family to Colorado, or Texas, or Wisconsin or any of the 36 states that prohibit same-sex marriage by state law or state constitutional amendment. Having lived with both federal and state marriage recognition, what will then happen to the couple's marriage in the eyes of the law? Their new home state will refuse to recognize their marriage (that's nothing new -- that happens already). What's more interesting is that the federal recognition guaranteed by the Supreme Court in Windsor will break apart at the seams. Some federal programs will look to the new state's laws and cease to recognize the marriage, while other federal programs will look to the laws of previous state and continue to recognize the marriage. That couple, when faced with a confusing and contradictory mix of federal recognition and rejection of their marriage, combined with a loss of state recognition, will sue. As many are predicting, under the very principles articulated by the Court this week, that couple ultimately will win.

In the meantime, we can expect an explosion of legislative activity on the issue of same sex marriage, with advocates focusing their energies on those states they feel they can win. For example, advocates will seek to overturn state constitutional amendments that ban same-sex marriage in states like Oregon, and they will work to achieve legislative victories in states like Illinois, Hawaii, and New Jersey.

Not surprisingly, Justice Scalia wrote a scathing dissent (disagreeing opinion) in Windsor, critiquing the Court's opinion in virtually every respect. Among his primary fears about the majority's opinion is that it lays the foundation for a future ruling that would declare all state prohibitions on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. He writes,

"the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today's opinion. ... How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.... As far as this Court is concerned, no one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe."

It is rare that I agree with Justice Scalia, but I am not alone among gay-rights advocates in thinking his prediction is spot on. Unlike Scalia, we are thrilled by the prospect that this is just the beginning for marriage equality. So what's next you ask? The other shoe... Reported by Huffington Post 6 hours ago.

Health Care Surveillance: Citizens' Council for Health Freedom States That HIPAA is a Grand Deception

$
0
0
CCHF Airs Week of Radio Programs on Government Intrusion into Private Health Information

St. Paul, MN (PRWEB) June 28, 2013

Twila Brase, president and co-founder of Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom, wants Americans to know what she believes is another government intrusion into their private health data. And she will share this information through a week-long series of radio programs that will air on more than 300 radio stations across the country from July 1-5.

Brase will talk about the HIPAA privacy rule, published June 14, 2013—and what CCHF believes is the deception behind it.

“People think that the HIPAA privacy rule protects privacy, but it’s just the opposite,” Brase states. “The rule allows millions of people and organizations to access patients’ private health information. Before HIPAA was implemented, doctors couldn’t share patients’ medical information without a specific law, a court order or written consent. That would have been illegal. But today, because of HIPAA, personal medical information can be broadly shared without consent. And it’s only gotten worse with the enactment of HITECH in the stimulus bill and Obamacare.”

The HIPAA law (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) was enacted in 1996 and the HIPAA Privacy Rule became effective April 14, 2003. In 2009, the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) was enacted with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. As a direct result of HIPAA and HITECH Twila Brase believes that:

•2.2 million entities can access Americans’ personal medical records
•Patient control of information has been all but eliminated
•The government now has broad access to private medical records
•Interoperable computerized medical records are essentially mandated, allowing data to be shared by insurance companies and the government
•State Health Insurance Exchanges (HIEs) are created to share personal medical records statewide
•HIEs are becoming interconnected to share health information nationally through “eHealth Exchanges,” and there are now 40 partners nationwide in this system.

“Contrary to popular belief,” Brase continued, “I believe that signing the HIPAA form does not provide patients with any privacy or consent rights, and it could be used against Americans if they ever declare that privacy rights have been violated. If signed, the clinic or hospital could simply point to the signature and tell patients that they knew that private data was going to be broadly shared. It’s just another way that the government and a flawed health care system are deceiving patients.

“Many people don’t know that patients are not required to sign a HIPAA ‘Privacy Form’ at hospitals or clinics, even if the clinics insist,” Brase said. “I believe that the form has nothing to do with consent or health privacy. It is actually just an acknowledgment that patients have received and understood the clinic or hospital’s ‘Notice of Privacy Practices,’ and that they understand how broadly data can be shared.”

To protect privacy, Brase suggests that patients:

•Ask state legislators to act. Under HIPAA, state legislatures are allowed write true privacy protection laws which must be followed. Legislatures must also resist and avoid state laws conforming to HIPAA.
•Take a stand at their clinic. Assert the right to refuse to sign the HIPAA notice. Patients may also cross out the Notice of Privacy Practices section and refuse to sign it or, if coerced, file a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Online HHS documents informing patients of their right not to sign can be found at the bottom of CCHF’s home page (http://www.cchfreedom.org).
•Talk to CCHF. If a clinic or hospital refuses to treat patients because they refuse to sign the form, patients can notify CCHF in writing with the details of the encounter. CCHF is collecting stories from patients on their attempts to assert their right to refuse. Stories include patients whose clinics won’t provide treatment or sent in insurance claims if the patient refuses to sign the form.

CCHF has previously issued “National Patient ID,” a report on the ongoing attempts by government officials and corporate executives to create a unique national tracking number to link and access an individual’s entire lifetime of medical records without the individual’s consent and despite a long-standing statutory prohibition from Congress.

In addition, CCHF offers a list of the “Top Ten Terribles of Health Insurance Exchanges,” which include higher costs, privacy intrusions, more red tape, and poor care and coverage. The full list is available on the CCHF web site at Ten Terribles.

Twila Brase, a public health nurse and health freedom advocate, has been called one of the “100 Most Powerful People in Health Care” and one of “Minnesota’s 100 Most Influential Health Care Leaders.” She shares health care-related news and commentary with the American public in her daily, 60-second radio feature, Health Freedom Minute. The Minute airs on nearly 350 stations daily, including the entire American Family Radio Network, with more than 150 stations nationwide, in addition to Bott Radio Network with over 80 stations nationwide. During the daily features, listeners can learn more about the agenda behind proposed health care initiatives, the ramifications of proposed policies and actions that can be taken to protect their health care choices, rights and privacy. Health Freedom Minute is sponsored by the Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom, a patient-centered national health freedom organization based in St. Paul, Minn. CCHF supports patient and doctor freedom, medical innovation and the right of citizens to a confidential patient-doctor relationship.

For more information or to interview Twila Brase, president and co-founder of Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom, contact Deborah Hamilton, Hamilton Strategies, 215.815.7716, 610.584.1096, DHamilton(at)HamiltonStrategies(dot)com. Reported by PRWeb 5 hours ago.

Should Smokers Be Barred From The Workplace?

$
0
0
By Dave Warner
PHILADELPHIA, June 28 (Reuters) - With just days to go before two of the city's most prestigious hospitals refuse to hire smokers, the ban has relit a debate about the wisdom of regulating workers' behavior away from the workplace.
Both the highly rated University of Pennsylvania Health System, which includes the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, as well as the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, named by US News and World Report as America's top children's hospital this year, will join dozens of hospitals across the country when they implement their policy on Monday, July 1.
The move has generated criticism among civil liberties activists, hospital employees and even doctors who fear that smokers will lie about their habit - and therefore become less likely to seek help in stopping it.
"It's not all slopes that are slippery, but this one really is," said Lewis Maltby, a former American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who now runs the National Workrights Institute in Princeton, N.J. He is critical of an employer's intrusion into the private time of employees.
"What you do in your own home on your own time is none of your boss's business unless it affects your work," he said.
Maltby noted that drinking alcohol, eating lots of junk food and not exercising are also bad for you. "Virtually everything you do in your private life affects your health," he said, wondering what other kinds of hiring restrictions could come to pass.
Desonia Mapp, 52, who has worked as a nursing assistant at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania for 13 years, said she was "dumbfounded. I couldn't believe they were doing this," she said as she took a cigarette break in the shade near bicycle racks outside the hospital last week. "If I drank, if I do whatever I do outside of the workplace, where does it end?" Mapp will not be affected by the new policy, which only applies to new hires.
Dr. Michael Siegel, a professor at the Boston University School of Public Health, also has serious doubts about the policy. "It is blatant employment discrimination," he said. "Employment decisions should be made based on a person's qualifications for a position.
"Once you step over that line and you start making decisions based on the group to which a person belongs that has no bearing on their actual qualifications, I think that's really dangerous," he said.
Ralph Muller, the chief executive of the sprawling University of Pennsylvania Health System, said the system was focusing on the health ills of smoking rather than issues like obesity because of the "50 years of science" behind smoking research.
The policy at Penn, with more than 28,000 employees, will extend to all of the university's health centers, including three large city hospitals, a center for advanced medicine, and six other clinics and medical practices. UPenn's clinics and offices in New Jersey will not be affected, because New Jersey is among 29 states and the District of Columbia that have passed smoker-protection laws preventing employers from discriminating against employees or job applicants because they do or do not smoke.
Penn and the children's hospital, which are affiliated but run as separate corporate entities, will have similar programs, with one exception. Penn will rely on an applicant's word on tobacco use, while the children's hospital will test applicants to determine if they're smokers. Those who admit to having started smoking after hiring would be offered a smoking-cessation program but would also have to pay higher health insurance premiums - about $30 more a month, said Robert Croner, senior vice president for human resources at the children's hospital, known locally as CHOP.
Whether the policy will shrink the available labor pool so that hospitals end up with vacancies they cannot fill does not seem to be much of an issue. CHOP has some 12,000 employees.
"It is something we have on our minds, but we don't think it will have that disruptive of an impact," Croner said of the applicant issue. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 43.8 million adults (19 percent) in the U.S. were smokers in 2011.
The Cleveland Clinic, with 42,000 employees, said that fears of a shrinking labor pool had proved unfounded when it became one of the first and biggest medical centers to impose its no-smokers policy in September of 2007.
"It really never reduced our pool," said Dr. Paul Terpeluk, the Cleveland Clinic's medical director for employee services.
Statistics on how many hospitals nationwide have the policy are hard to come by, but Boston's Siegel estimates the number at 50-60 health care systems around the country.
"I definitely believe it is a trend," he said. "It may reach the point where it is pretty much everybody doing this." (Reporting by Dave Warner; Editing by Arlene Getz and Prudence Crowther) Reported by Huffington Post 4 hours ago.

ObamaCare May Chase Entertainment Productions Out of U.S.

$
0
0
ObamaCare May Chase Entertainment Productions Out of U.S. Some of Hollywood's biggest players rallied around President Barack Obama's re-election, a leader whose signature first-term initiative was the health care overhaul known as ObamaCare.

Hollywood is expected to play a role in ObamaCare's rollout, with several celebrities being asked to promote the already passed legislation in the months to come and industry players potentially adding pro-ObamaCare plots into their stories.

Now that industry types have read some of the fine print, they're realizing Obama's health reform may chase productions out of the country.



One of the unintended consequences, say some industry insiders, is that it could lead to productions running to foreign countries, given that ACA doesn't apply to U.S. citizens working abroad. Some also say the number of production days in the U.S. are likely to be cut due to ACA because there's a 90-day waiting period before productions must either pay a penalty or offer health insurance to full-time workers. That rule provides big incentives for a production to wrap in less than three months. While big-budget movies and season-long TV shows might not have such a luxury, smaller films or TV pilots could easily rush their schedules to make sure they come in at under 90 days.



 
 
 
  Reported by Breitbart 3 hours ago.

GOP To Sports Leagues: Don't Play With Obamacare

$
0
0
WASHINGTON -- The Senate's Republican leader is telling major league sports: Don't play with "Obamacare."

Following news that the administration has approached the NFL and other sports leagues to help promote new insurance coverage under President Barack Obama's health care law, Sen. Mitch McConnell fired off a letter Friday crying foul.

The Kentucky Republican wrote that leagues risk damaging their inclusive and apolitical brand and could be seen as taking sides in a highly polarized debate,.

The letter went to the NFL, MLB, the NBA, the NHL, the PGA and NASCAR.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said this week the administration is talking with the NFL and other groups to help promote the benefits of health insurance.

Uninsured people can start signing up Oct. 1 under the health care law. Reported by Huffington Post 4 hours ago.

Religious freedom groups worried over final HHS mandate

$
0
0
Washington D.C., Jun 28, 2013 / 05:31 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Despite assurances from the Obama administration that the finalized version of the contraception mandate accounts for freedom of conscience, some religious liberty advocates are still concerned.

“The final rule,” explained Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, “is not very different from the inadequate rule that was proposed back in February.”

While the final rule “tinkered with some of the mechanisms” regarding the mandate’s implementation, Rassbach said in a June 28 teleconference, it did not address “the mandate’s fundamental religious freedom questions.”

The Becket Fund is a law firm specializing in religious freedom litigation, and is representing numerous plaintiffs who have filed suit against the contraception mandate.

Issued under the Affordable Care Act, the mandate requires employers to offer health insurance plans that include contraception, sterilizations and some drugs that can cause early abortions. More than 200 plaintiffs have filed lawsuits challenging mandate, arguing that it violates their right to religious freedom by forcing them to violate their consciences.

In response to the widespread objections, the Obama administration announced that it would modify the mandate to account for the religious liberty of objecting employers. During the months that followed, the admiration took multiple steps to make changes to the mandate, which was finalized on June 28.

The final version of the regulation offers an exemption to religious employers that fall under Internal Revenue Code, Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii), which “refers to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious order.”

The administration has said that this “would primarily include churches, other houses of worship, and their affiliated organizations.”

Religious groups such as hospitals, schools and charitable agencies that object to the mandate but are not affiliated with houses of worship may not qualify for the exemption. Instead, they are offered an “accommodation” under which their insurance issuers will directly “provide payments for contraceptive services” purchased by their employees.

Self-insured employers will go through a similar process with a third party administrator providing or arranging for the payments.

Insurance issuers must ensure that they are not using money paid by the employers to fund the contraception and related products. According to the administration, the insurance companies can pay for these products with no reimbursement because funding contraception is “cost-neutral” for them, due to the reduced pregnancy costs and the health benefits that result from contraceptive use.

Critics, however, have warned that the products will not be cost-neutral and that the insurance companies may end up funding them through increased premiums charged to the objecting employers.

Rassbach stated that the final rule still contains several threats to religious liberty. He explained that non-profit organizations must still act as “gatekeepers” who facilitate the controversial products, since their insurance plans are necessary to trigger the contraceptive payments from the insurance companies.

He added that religious owners of for-profit businesses are given no relief from the mandate at all. They are required to provide the coverage, even if they object, and could face potentially crippling fines if they refuse.

“I don’t buy the government’s attempt to discriminate between a non-profit and a for-profit,” he said. “They’re trying to turn it into a status protection, rather than a protection of religious exercise.”

“The easy way to resolve this would have been to exempt sincere religious employers completely, as the Constitution requires,” he argued. “Instead this issue will have to be decided in court.”

Brian Walsh, executive director of the American Religious Freedom Program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, also voiced concerns over the finalized regulation.

“The administration continues to refuse to include in its mandate the sort of robust exemptions that have been understood since the founding of this nation to be necessary to protect religious liberty,” he told CNA.

Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York, president of the U.S. bishops’ conference, explained in a statement shortly after the finalized mandate was released that the 110-page regulation is “complex” and will require “careful analysis” by the bishops before a response can be issued.

Cardinal Dolan had previously stressed the importance of religious liberty for all people, including owners of for-profit businesses.

“In obedience to our Judeo-Christian heritage, we have consistently taught our people to live their lives during the week to reflect the same beliefs that they proclaim on the Sabbath,” he said in a February analysis. “We cannot now abandon them to be forced to violate their morally well-informed consciences.”

Lawyers for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reaffirmed this point in March, stating in a document that “(t)he identity of the person or group having the religious freedom objection should not matter; what should matter instead is whether the person or group faces government coercion to violate conscience.” Reported by CNA 1 hour ago.

Sunscreen, Sandals… Health Insurance Card?

$
0
0
Sunscreen, Sandals… Health Insurance Card? INDIANAPOLIS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Summer travel tips: be prepared for medical emergencies while traveling. Pack your health insurance card and protect your health and your wallet. Reported by Business Wire 3 days ago.

Experient Health to Offer Health Care Reform Seminar in Orange County

$
0
0
Seminar is open to the community and will focus on Health Care Reform questions for families and small businesses.

Richmond, VA (PRWEB) June 27, 2013

Experient Health will host a Health Care Reform 101 community seminar Thursday, August 15 from 6:30 to 8 p.m. on the lower level of the Orange County Farm Bureau building at 13438 James Madison Highway in Orange, Va.

New health care reform laws that go into effect in 2014 mandate that individuals carry health insurance or, in most cases, pay a fine. Consumers will have to purchase plans with comprehensive benefits that meet minimum coverage requirements.

The free seminar is meant to provide an open forum to ask questions about, among other health care reform topics, online marketplaces (formerly referred to as exchanges), tax credits, essential health benefits, pre-existing conditions and network requirements.

Planning to attend? RSVP to Pat Twyman at Experient Health at 540.672.3447. Register for the seminar online here.

Can’t attend? Visit http://www.experienthealth.com to request a private consultation.

ABOUT EXPERIENT HEALTH:

For years, Experient Health has helped people find the right insurance coverage and get the most for their health care dollars. The Richmond, Va.-based group is dedicated to providing high quality health insurance options to customers in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington DC. As a result, its consultants, with an average of more than 20 years experience, are intimately familiar with the states’ provider networks, products and regulations.

Representing the top national insurance carriers, Experient Health provides customers with multiple policy options designed to meet wellness needs and financial requirements.

Experient Health is a “hometown agency” in that it operates a network of more than 100 offices. However, it boasts the resources and technology of larger firms.

Consultants are available online, via phone and through their offices.

Learn more at http://www.experienthealth.com, utilize the online health insurance quote calculator or contact a consultant directly at 855.677.6570. Reported by PRWeb 3 days ago.

Congress contemplating small tweaks to help small businesses weather health care reform

$
0
0
An effort to repeal a tax on insurance companies in the new healthcare reform law is gaining momentum in Congress, fueled by concerns that the fee would hit small businesses particularly hard.

The legislation would eliminate a fee on health insurance companies scheduled to take effect when the law goes into full effect next year. The fee, commonly referred to as the health insurance tax (HIT tax), will be calculated based on the plans insurers sell directly to individuals and companies, known as the fully insured market, and excludes plans set up and managed by firms themselves, called the self-insured market.

Read full article >>

 
 
 
  Reported by Washington Post 3 days ago.

Brazil's Middle Class Struggle To Stay Afloat

$
0
0
IRAJA, Brazil (AP) — On paper, the Cavalcantes are a Brazilian success story, a solidly middle class Rio de Janeiro family with a car, a four-bedroom, four-bath house and a full schedule of extra-curriculars for the kids.

But like millions of others who have taken to the streets over the past weeks to protest woeful government services and rampant corruption here, the Cavalcantes say they're struggling to keep their heads above water.

There are months when the generous family income can't be stretched to cover their basic expenses, which include not only the ever-rising cost of food, transport and electricity, but also expensive private alternatives to Brazil's poor public schools and health services.

"We're among the fortunate ones and we're suffering," said 49-year-old Paulo Cavalcante, a public servant with Rio's City Hall. "We've been completely abandoned by our government."

The family lives far from the glitz and glamour of Rio's showcase beachfront neighborhoods in the distant suburb of Iraja, where festering piles of uncollected trash dot the uneven sidewalks and the staccato of gunfire from nearby "favela" slums is so familiar the children can identify the weapons.

Here, Paulo and Adela, his wife of 16 years, their 15-year-old daughter Maria and 10-year-old son Antonio live all but cloistered in their cozy but spartan 340 square meter (3,700 square foot) house. With the specter of stray bullets ever-present, the children aren't allowed to ride bikes in the neighborhood, and because there's little policing, the family avoids leaving home after dark.

They can't drink the tap water, must elbow their way onto packed public transit every morning and drill the children on how to react in case of a carjacking or armed robbery because, Paulo figures, "it's only a matter of time before the violence that's all around us comes knocking on our door."

The protests began several weeks ago over a 10-cent hike in metro and subway fares in the economic capital, Sao Paulo, and mushroomed into a massive, nationwide movement unlike anything seen in Brazil since mass demonstrations helped lead to the 1992 impeachment of then-President Fernando Collor. Though protesters continue to hit the streets in record numbers to push for a broad swath of demands, their core complaint boils down to the disconnect between the high taxes people pay and the poor services they receive in return.

"We're killing ourselves to provide our kids with what the government doesn't," said Paulo, who campaigned for President Dilma Rousseff but now says he's disillusioned with the governing leftist Workers' Party.

The past decade of galloping economic growth, fueled largely by China's appetite for Brazilian natural resources, was kind to the Cavalcantes. They are among the estimated 40 million Brazilians lifted out of poverty during the boom — and now watching many of their hard-earned gains wither away under the weight of inept government and a cripplingly high cost of living.

The family moved out of Vigario Geral, the slum where Paulo and Adela were raised and which gained nationwide notoriety after a 1993 massacre. They moved into a cramped apartment in Iraja, and then traded up for their current home, a two-story cinder-block house protected by a towering wrought-iron fence.

A flat-screen television presides over their tidy living room kitted out with two overstuffed leather couches. Upstairs, the three bedrooms are similarly neat, and only the rec room, where impish Antonio wiles away afternoons playing with toys and videogames, is anything less than spotless. A rooftop terrace is covered with the saplings that Paulo grows from seed and looks out over three nearby "favelas," all as yet untouched by the government's pacification program, which has seen police take over dozens of slums ahead of next year's World Cup soccer tournament and the 2016 Olympics.

The Cavalcantes bought the house five years ago, just before Rio's real estate market went into overdrive, sending property prices here soaring by around 170 percent. The monthly payment on their 20-year mortgage is just $670.

But despite their low housing cost, Paulo's enviable public servant salary barely sustains the family's modest lifestyle. (Adela, a former elementary school teacher, quit when Maria was born because it would have cost more than her salary to put the baby in day care.)

First, there's the $2,000 in income taxes and social security contributions that are deducted each month from Paulo's paycheck — among the highest tax burdens in the world.

Then comes the $670 they pay for health insurance, so they can steer clear of Brazil's beleaguered public hospitals and clinics - known for their chronic shortage of doctors, medicines, beds and even sheets. The insurance allows the Cavalcantes to see private doctors who routinely charge around $250 per consultation. But their plan excludes dental care, anesthesia and a host of other procedures. They shell out another $530 a month in hospital insurance for Paulo's aging parents.

"I wish we could rely on the public health system, but people literally die in the emergency room waiting to see a doctor," said Adela. "So obviously that's not a realistic option."

The family budgets around $700 a month for food, a category that's been hit hard by Brazil's 6.67 percent inflation.

"Each month the bill gets bigger and our cart gets smaller," said Adela, who shops at a wholesale produce market and clips coupons. She's stopped buying tomatoes, which more than doubled in price over the past year, provoking an online consumer backlash that was a harbinger for this month's Facebook-organized protests.

Then there's the $220 the Cavalcantes spend on transportation each month — not including gas because the traffic in greater Rio has gotten so bad they rarely take their Volkswagen hatchback out of the garage. For Paulo, who takes the subway to his job in downtown Rio, public transit is the lesser of two evils, despite a rush-hour crush so tight commuters sometimes faint. The hot buses are no better, he says.

"I'd rather spend 20 minutes packed in the subway like a sardine than nearly two hours each way in the inferno that is gridlock traffic," Paulo said. It does give him pause to walk past the drug dealers standing sentry at a slum on his way to the subway, the police stand across the street always empty.

There's also the $1,550 in monthly fees for the kids' private school and twice-weekly English lessons - the single bill the Cavalcante parents say they "pay with a smile."

"When you're born poor in Brazil, you know the only way out is to rob or to get an education," said Paulo, who overcame his "worthless" elementary and secondary education to earn two bachelor's degrees and is currently in law school part time.

"I'm such a shy person that I knew I couldn't rob," he said with a straight face, "so I've really applied myself to getting an education."

Tack on the phone and electricity bills, property taxes, shoes, clothing, school supplies and incidentals and there's literally nothing left at the end of the month, Paulo said, adding they've occasionally had to take out short-term loans.

"We have to cut costs, but where?" asked Adela. "We almost never go to the movies, almost never travel, and pizza is only once a month."

Even the maid, long a fixture in middle class household, has been scrapped. She quit three years ago after they couldn't meet her demand for a raise, and they never replaced her.

Though Paulo took Maria to a demonstration last Thursday that brought an estimated 300,000 people into downtown Rio and plans to keep protesting, he's cynical about the prospects for the kind of systemic changes people are calling for.

"I'm completely jaded, but as a father I can't pass on my dark vision of things to my kids," he said, shaking his head. "I have no hope, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't.

"We're a persistent family. We never give up. But in this system, no matter how persistent you are and how hard you work, you can't get ahead." Reported by Huffington Post 2 days ago.

The Expendables: How The Temps Who Power Corporate Giants Are Getting Crushed

$
0
0
It's 4:18 a.m. and the strip mall is deserted. But tucked in back, next to a closed-down video store, an employment agency is already filling up. Rosa Ramirez walks in, as she has done nearly every morning for the past six months. She signs in and sits down in one of the 100 or so blue plastic chairs that fill the office. Over the next three hours, dispatchers will bark out the names of who will work today. Rosa waits, wondering if she will make her rent.

In cities all across the country, workers stand on street corners, line up in alleys or wait in a neon-lit beauty salon for rickety vans to whisk them off to warehouses miles away. Some vans are so packed that to get to work, people must squat on milk crates, sit on the laps of passengers they do not know or sometimes lie on the floor, the other workers' feet on top of them.

This is not Mexico. It is not Guatemala or Honduras. This is Chicago, New Jersey, Boston.

The people here are not day laborers looking for an odd job from a passing contractor. They are regular employees of temp agencies working in the supply chain of many of America's largest companies 2013 Walmart, Macy's, Nike, Frito-Lay. They make our frozen pizzas, sort the recycling from our trash, cut our vegetables and clean our imported fish. They unload clothing and toys made overseas and pack them to fill our store shelves. They are as important to the global economy as shipping containers and Asian garment workers.

Many get by on minimum wage, renting rooms in rundown houses, eating dinners of beans and potatoes, and surviving on food banks and taxpayer-funded health care. They almost never get benefits and have little opportunity for advancement.

Across America, temporary work has become a mainstay of the economy, leading to the proliferation of what researchers have begun to call "temp towns." They are often dense Latino neighborhoods teeming with temp agencies. Or they are cities where it has become nearly impossible even for whites and African-Americans with vocational training to find factory and warehouse work without first being directed to a temp firm.

In June, the Labor Department reported that the nation had more temp workers than ever before: 2.7 million. Overall, almost one-fifth of the total job growth since the recession ended in mid-2009 has been in the temp sector, federal data shows. But according to the American Staffing Association, the temp industry's trade group, the pool is even larger: Every year, a tenth of all U.S. workers finds a job at a staffing agency.

The proportion of temp workers in the labor force reached its peak in early 2000 before the 2001 slump and then the Great Recession. But as the economy continues its slow, uneven recovery, temp work is roaring back 10 times faster than private-sector employment as a whole 2013 a pace "exceeding even the dramatic run-up of the early 1990s," according to the staffing association.

The overwhelming majority of that growth has come in blue-collar work in factories and warehouses, as the temp industry sheds the Kelly Girl image of the past. Last year, more than one in every 20 blue-collar workers was a temp.

Several temp agencies, such as Adecco and Manpower, are now among the largest employers in the United States. One list put Kelly Services as second only to Walmart.

"We're seeing just more and more industries using business models that attempt to change the employment relationship or obscure the employment relationship," said Mary Beth Maxwell, a top official in the Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division. "While it's certainly not a new phenomenon, it's rapidly escalating. In the last 10 to 15 years, there's just a big shift to this for a lot more workers 2013 which makes them a lot more vulnerable."

The temp system insulates the host companies from workers' compensation claims, unemployment taxes, union drives and the duty to ensure that their workers are citizens or legal immigrants. In turn, the temps suffer high injury rates, according to federal officials and academic studies, and many of them endure hours of unpaid waiting and face fees that depress their pay below minimum wage.

The rise of the blue-collar permatemp helps explain one of the most troubling aspects of the phlegmatic recovery. Despite a soaring stock market and steady economic growth, many workers are returning to temporary or part-time jobs. This trend is intensifying America's decades-long rise in income inequality, in which low- and middle-income workers have seen their real wages stagnate or decline. On average, temps earn 25 percent less than permanent workers.

Many economists predict the growth of temp work will continue beyond the recession, in part because of health-care reform, which some economists say will lead employers to hire temps to avoid the costs of covering full-time workers.

* The Rise of 'Temp Towns' *

Rosa, a 49-year-old Mexican immigrant with thin glasses and a curly bob of brown hair, has been a temp worker for the better part of 12 years. She has packed free samples for Walmart, put together displays for Sony, printed ads for Marlboro, made air filters for the Navy and boxed textbooks for elite colleges and universities. None of the work led to a full-time job.

Even though some assignments last months, such as her recent job packaging razors for Philips Norelco, every day is a crapshoot for Rosa. She must first check in at the temp agency in Hanover Park, Ill., by 4:30 a.m. and wait. If she is lucky enough to be called, she must then take a van or bus to the worksite. And even though the agency, Staffing Network, is her legal employer, she is not paid until she gets to the assembly line at 6 a.m.

In Kane County, Ill., where Rosa lives, one in every 16 workers is a temp. Such high concentrations of temp workers exist in Grand Rapids, Mich.; Middlesex County, N.J.; Memphis, Tenn.; the Inland Empire of California; and Lehigh County, Pa. In New Jersey, white vans zip through an old Hungarian neighborhood in New Brunswick, picking up workers at temp agencies along French Street. In Joliet, Ill., one temp agency operated out of a motel meeting room once a week, supplying labor to the layers of logistics contractors at one of Walmart's biggest warehouses. In Greenville County, S.C., near BMW's U.S. manufacturing plant, one in 11 workers was a temp in 2011. A decade before, it was one in 22.

In temp towns, it is not uncommon to find warehouses with virtually no employees of their own. Many temp workers say they have worked in the same factory day in and day out for years. José Miguel Rojo, for example, packed frozen pizzas for a Walmart supplier every day for eight years as a temp until he was injured last summer and lost his job. (Walmart said Rojo wasn't its employee and that it wants its suppliers to treat their workers well.)

In some lines of work, huge numbers of full-time workers have been replaced by temps. One in five manual laborers who move and pack merchandise is now a temp. As is one in six assemblers who work in a team, such as those at auto plants.

To be sure, many temp assignments serve a legitimate and beneficial purpose. Temp agencies help companies weather sudden or seasonal upswings and provide flexibility for uncertain times. Employees try out jobs, gain skills and transition to full-time work.

"I think our industry has been good for North America, as far as keeping people working," said Randall Hatcher, president of MAU Workforce Solutions, which supplies temps to BMW. "I get laid off by Employer A and go over here to Employer B, and maybe they have a job for me. People get a lot of different experiences. An employee can work at four to five different companies and then maybe decide this is what I want to do."

Companies like the "flexibility," he added. "To be able to call someone and say, 'I need 100 people' is very powerful. It allows them to meet orders that they might not otherwise."

But over the years, many companies have upended that model and stretched the definition of "temporary work."

At least 840,000 temp workers are like Rosa: working blue-collar jobs and earning less than $25,000 a year, a ProPublica analysis of federal labor data found. Only about 30 percent of industrial temp jobs will become permanent, according to a survey by Staffing Industry Analysts.

By 4:52 a.m., the chairs at Rosa's temp agency are filled, and workers line the walls, clutching plastic bags that contain their lunches. From behind the tall white counter, the voice of an unseen dispatcher booms like a game-show host, calling out the first batch of workers: ___ Mendoza, ___ Rosales, ___ Centeno, ___ Martinez, ...

It is a practice that George Gonos, a sociologist at SUNY-Potsdam who has spent his career studying the temp industry, calls the modern version of the "shape-up" 2013 a practice in which longshoremen would line up in front of a boss, who would pick them one by one for work on the docks.

The day after Thanksgiving 1960, Edward R. Murrow broadcast a report called "Harvest of Shame," documenting the plight of migrant farmworkers. Temp workers today face many similar conditions in how they get hired, how they get to work, how they live and what they can afford to eat. Adjusted for inflation, those farmworkers earned roughly the same 50 years ago as many of today's temp workers, including Rosa. In fact, some of the same farm towns featured in Murrow's report have now been built up with warehouses filled with temps.

As before, the products change by the season. But now, instead of picking strawberries, tomatoes and corn, the temp workers pack chocolates for Valentine's Day, barbecue grills for Memorial Day, turkey pans for Thanksgiving, clothing and toys for Christmas.

African-Americans make up 11 percent of the overall workforce but more than 20 percent of temp workers. Willie Pearson, who is African-American, has been a full-time worker at BMW's South Carolina plant for 14 years. But since at least 2005, he said, he hasn't seen anyone who's "been hired straight on. It's all been through temporary agencies." The company says "after six months they can hire them," he said, "but I'd say it's only one out of five" who actually lands a full-time job.

BMW did not return calls for this story.

Latinos make up about 20 percent of all temp workers. In many temp towns, agencies have flocked to neighborhoods full of undocumented immigrants, finding labor that is kept cheap in part by these workers' legal vulnerability: They cannot complain without risking deportation.

* Labor Sharks and Kelly Girls *

Many people believe that the use of temp workers simply grew organically, filling a niche that companies demanded in an ever-changing global economy. But decades before "outsourcing" was even a word, the temp industry campaigned to persuade corporate America that permanent workers were a burden.

The industry arose after World War II as the increase in office work led to a need for secretaries and typists for short assignments. At the time, nearly every state had laws regulating employment agents in order to stop the abuses of labor sharks, who charged exorbitant fees to new European immigrants in the early 1900s. Presenting temp work as a new industry, big temp firms successfully lobbied to rewrite those laws so that they didn't apply to temp firms.

In the 1960s, agencies such as Kelly Services and Manpower advertised their services as women's work, providing "pin money" to housewives, according to Erin Hatton, a SUNY Buffalo sociologist and author of The Temp Economy. And they marketed the advantages of workers that the host company wasn't responsible for -- a theme that continues today.

One 1971 Kelly Girl ad that Hatton found, called "The Never-Never Girl," featured a woman biting a pencil. The copy read:

Never takes a vacation or holiday. Never asks for a raise. Never costs you a dime for slack time. (When the workload drops, you drop her.) Never has a cold, slipped disc or loose tooth. (Not on your time anyway!) Never costs you for unemployment taxes and social security payments. (None of the paperwork, either!) Never costs you for fringe benefits. (They add up to 30% of every payroll dollar.) Never fails to please. (If our Kelly Girl employee doesn't work out, you don't pay. We're that sure of all our girls.)

Carl Camden, the current chief executive of Kelly Services, said the anachronistic language was a response to the chauvinistic attitude of the time. "It wasn't typical to see women working," he said. "So you had that work often positioned as not real work. The way the media could sell it as sociologically acceptable was making money for Christmas, something you were doing on the side for your family." (Manpower didn't return calls for this story.)

Gradually, temp firms began moving into blue-collar work. At the end of the 1960s -- a decade in which the American economy grew by 50 percent -- temp agencies began selling the idea of temping out entire departments. Relying on temps only for seasonal work and uncertain times was foolish, the agencies told managers over the next two decades. Instead, they said companies should have a core of, say, five employees supplemented by as many as 50 temps, Hatton wrote.

The temp industry boomed in the 1990s, as the rise of just-in-time manufacturing drove just-in-time labor. But it also gained by promoting itself as the antidote to bad publicity over layoffs. If a company laid off a large portion of its workforce, it could make big news and leave customers feeling sour. But if a company simply cut its temps, it was easy to write it off as seasonal -- and the host company could often avoid the federal requirement that it notify workers of mass layoffs in advance.

More recently, temp firms have successfully lobbied to change laws or regulatory interpretations in 31 states, so that workers who lose their assignments and are out of work cannot get unemployment benefits unless they check back in with the temp firm for another assignment.

* 'You Are Not Driving Goats' *

Rosa lives in the living room of an old Victorian boarding house. There is a cheap mattress on the floor, and a sheet blocks the French doors that separate her room from the hallway. The rent is $450 a month, which she splits with her boyfriend who works as a carpet installer. She shares a kitchen and bathroom with another family. A trap by her door guards against the rats that have woken her up at night.

Rosa came to the United States in 1997 from Ecatepec, Mexico, where she struggled to raise two sons on her own as a street vendor of beauty supplies. When she found out a neighbor had hired a coyote to help her cross the border, Rosa joined her, leaving her children with family and taking a bus to the frontera. They walked for three days across the desert to a meeting point, where a bus took them to a safe house in Phoenix and then to Cullman, Ala.

By the time she arrived in Cullman, Rosa recalled, her shoes were so full of holes that her first mission was to go to a strip mall and dig through a clothing donation bin for a new pair.

"I worked in a poultry plant and a restaurant at the same time so I could get enough money to send back to Mexico," she said. Like Rosa, many undocumented immigrants who spoke for this story landed full-time jobs when they first arrived in the 1990s. But many of them lost their jobs when factories closed during the recent recession and have since found only temp work.

Another temp worker, Judith Iturralde, traced the shift back even earlier, to the immigration crackdowns after 9/11. She said that after she returned to work from surgery in 2002, the compact-disc warehouse she worked at told her it could no longer employ her because she didn't have papers. They directed her to a temp firm, she said, and a few years later, she returned to the same warehouse, still undocumented.

After raising enough money, Rosa returned to Mexico and brought her two teenage sons across the desert and back to Alabama, where they worked full-time at a lumberyard. After her son got hurt on the job, they moved to Chicago, hoping for a better life.

But the only work Rosa was able to find was at temp agencies.

It is now 5:03 a.m. at Staffing Network, and the first batch of workers waits outside to board the school bus for Norelco. The agency said it offers complimentary transportation for its employees' benefit. But worker advocates say vans help the temp agencies by ensuring they provide their corporate clients with the right number of workers at the right time.

Many metro areas don't have adequate transportation from the working-class neighborhoods to the former farmland where warehouses have sprouted over the past 15 years. So a system of temp vans has popped up, often contracted by the agencies. Workers in several cities said they feel pressured to get on the vans or lose the job. They usually pay $7 to $8 a day for the round trip.

Workers describe the vans as dangerously overcrowded with as many as 22 people stuffed into a 15-passenger van. In New Jersey, one worker drew a diagram of how his temp agency fit 17 people into a minivan, using wooden benches and baby seats and having three workers crouch in the trunk space.

"They push and push us in until we get like cigarettes in a box," said one Illinois worker. "Sometimes I say, 'Hey, you are not driving goats!'"

Several workers said the temp agency had left them stranded at times. Vicente Ramos, a father of six who lives in New Jersey, recalled how several years ago he and other workers walked for three hours one night after the van failed to show up.

"We were getting hungry and thirsty, and we could barely walk, and our feet were hurting," Ramos said. "They still charged us for the ride."

* A New Temp Ecosystem *

It is now 5:20 a.m., and a second batch of workers has been called for Norelco. Dispatchers are starting to tap workers for Start Sampling, which provides free samples of items like shampoos, coffee and cat food on behalf of retailers and consumer product companies.

The dispatchers have called several other workers named Rosa. Each time, her ears perk up, but it is always another last name. She goes to the counter and asks the dispatchers if they think there will be work today. They tell her there's not much but to wait a little longer in case a company calls to say they need more bodies.

Two months before, in November, Rosa walked into the temp agency with something to say. She had been attending meetings of the Chicago Workers' Collaborative, a nonprofit that advocates for temp workers and is funded by various religious and anti-poverty foundations. Though Rosa became increasingly active, her only source of income is temp jobs.

"My name is Rosa Ramirez," she said, flanked by leaders of the workers collaborative, who recorded the speech on a cellphone. "We wanted to read some points that we want to change here in this office."

"Stop forcing workers to wait without pay before the work shift," Rosa said, standing in the center of the room and reading from a paper she had brought.

"Allow workers to go directly to the worksite, because some people have children, and they can't find care that early."

The workers sitting in the bucket chairs looked down nervously, not sure what would happen next.

Rosa read on. "Don't force employees to wait outside of the office until transportation arrives during the winter months."

"We don't want to be loaded into trucks or vans," Rosa said. "Because they carry us like sardines."

Looking back on that day, Rosa said she feels empowered at times but at other times defeated.

"I no longer could stand the abuses," Rosa said. "I see people accepting them, and so I thought by standing up and speaking, I was hoping that people would join me and would agree and would stand up for themselves. But unfortunately, the majority of the people did not."

Staffing Network said in a statement that workers weren't required to come to the branch office. Many workers, it said, get hired by calling about job opportunities and then go directly to their worksites.

"Our track record of being a fair and lawful employer is evidenced by the fact that more than 65 percent of the temporary employees we hire and place have worked with Staffing Network for one year or more," the company wrote. "We provide all employees opportunities to voice any questions or concerns about any aspects of their jobs -- without any retaliation."

Unions, on the ropes nationwide, have historically done little for temp workers. The temp industry initially won union backing by promising never to cross picket lines. But in 1985, the Federal Trade Commission ruled that the trade association could not force its members to honor that pledge; so they didn't.

"Unions have had two souls when it comes to temp workers," said Harley Shaiken, a longtime labor economist at the University of California, Berkeley. One is to try to include them, he said, but "the other is circle the wagons, protect the full-time workers that are there."

Will Collette, who led an AFL-CIO campaign against the temp firm Labor Ready in the early 2000s, said it was nearly impossible to organize workers with such a high turnover.

And recent rulings have tied union hands. A 2004 order by the National Labor Relations Board barred temp workers from joining with permanent workers for collective bargaining unless both the temp agency and the host company agree to the arrangement.

Some temp firms have even promoted themselves as experts at maintaining a union-free workplace. In a proposal for the off-road vehicle maker Polaris, the temp agency Westaff, a division of the Select Family of Staffing Companies, said its team was specially trained to spot early warning signs of union activity, such as "groups of workers huddling, then quieting when managers appear."

Meanwhile, a whole ecosystem of contractors and subcontractors benefits from the flexibility of just-in-time labor. For example, Walmart's two largest warehouse complexes are southwest of Chicago and in the Inland Empire east of Los Angeles. Both are managed by Schneider Logistics, which in turn subcontracts to an ever-changing cast of third-party logistics firms and staffing companies.

Such layers of temp agencies have helped Walmart avoid responsibility when regulators have uncovered problems or when workers have tried to sue, accusing the company of wage or safety violations. For example, when California inspected Walmart's Inland Empire warehouse in 2011 and found that workers were being paid piece-rate according to how many shipping containers they unloaded, rather than by the hour, regulators issued more than $1 million in fines against the subcontractors for failing to show how the pay was calculated. Neither Walmart nor Schneider faced penalties.

Asked if the layers of subcontracting allow Walmart to escape blame, spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan said, "Absolutely not."

"We work very hard to abide by the law," she said, "and we expect all the businesses that we do business with and that they do business with to comply with the law."

Schneider treats its associates with "dignity and respect," spokeswoman Janet Bonkowski wrote in an email. "Our suppliers are independent," she said. "When we utilize third-party vendors, we contractually require full compliance with all required laws and that all parties conduct business ethically."

As work is downsourced through a cascade of subcontractors, some workers have been paid wages below the legal minimum or seen their incomes decline over the years.

Berto Gutierrez, who has worked several stints at the Walmart warehouse in Elwood, Ill., provided ProPublica with a copy of a 2011 paycheck from subcontractor Eclipse Advantage. The check shows he was paid only $57.81 for 12.5 hours of work, or $4.62 an hour. Neither Eclipse, Schneider nor Walmart provided an explanation for Gutierrez's paycheck.

In 2007, Leticia Rodriguez was hired directly by Simos, the logistics contractor running the online part of Walmart's Elwood warehouse. She said she worked as a supervisor on an annual contract for $49,500 a year, with health insurance. In 2009, when she declined to come in on what she described as a long-awaited day off, she was fired.

Rodriguez returned to the warehouse six months later, this time starting at the bottom, loading trucks for one of Schneider's staffing companies. She said she was paid $15 an hour, but within a year the staffing company lost the contract.

Eclipse Advantage took over, and Rodriguez went to work for that company. There, she said, she got paid piece-rate, averaging about $9.50 an hour. But six months later, Eclipse left, and she and all the other workers lost their jobs. Rodriguez has since interned at the union-backed campaign Warehouse Workers for Justice, earning $12,000.

Eclipse's president, David Simono, declined to comment. Simos didn't return calls. Walmart said it couldn't comment on the specifics of a subcontractor's employee but said it provides all its workers opportunities for growth.

* 'We've Seen Just Ghastly Situations' *

The growing temporary sector does little to sustain workers' standard of living. Temp agencies consistently rank among the worst large industries for the rate of wage and hour violations, according a ProPublica analysis of federal enforcement data. A 2005 Labor Department survey, the most recent available, found that only 4 percent of temps have pensions or retirement plans from their employers. Only 8 percent get health insurance from their employers, compared with 56 percent of permanent workers. What employers don't provide, workers get from the social safety net, i.e., taxpayers.

And don't look for Obamacare to fix it. Under the law, employers must provide health coverage only to employees who average 30 hours a week or more. After pressure from the temp industry and others, the IRS ruled that companies have up to a year to determine if workers qualify.

With the major provisions of health-care reform set to take effect in 2014, there's growing evidence that 2013 is becoming a boom year for temping out. TempWorks, which sells software that keeps track of payroll and worker orders, says sales to staffing agencies have been going through the roof and that temp firms tell them the uptick is because of Obamacare.

Unlike the way it monitors nearly every other industry, the government does not keep statistics on injuries among temp workers. But a study of workers compensation data in Washington state found that temp workers in construction and manufacturing were twice as likely to be injured as regular staff doing the same work.

In April, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration announced an initiative to get better information on temp-worker safety. "Employers, we think, do not have the same commitment to providing a safe workplace, to providing the proper training, to a worker who they may only be paying for a few weeks." OSHA director David Michaels said in an interview. "I mean, we've seen just ghastly situations."

In December 2011, a Chicago temp worker died after he was scalded by a citric acid solution. The skin cream and shampoo factory he was assigned to failed to call 911 even as his skin was peeling from his body. In August 2012, a Jacksonville temp was crushed to death on his first day of work at a bottling plant when a supervisor told him to clean glass from underneath a machine that stacks goods onto pallets -- a job that OSHA said he wasn't trained to do. And in January, a temp was killed at a paper mill outside Charlotte, N.C., when he was overcome by toxic fumes while cleaning the inside of a chemical tank.

"There's something going on here that needs direct intervention," Michaels said.

* A Temp Worker Bill of Rights *

Members of Congress have introduced a handful of bills protecting temp workers in the past two decades. None have made it out of committee. Efforts on the state level have met similar resistance.

But worker advocates and some temp agencies say the Massachusetts Temporary Workers Right-to-Know Law, which took effect in January, provides a model for other states.

That law requires temp agencies to give workers written notice of the basics: whom they will work for, how much they'll be paid and what safety equipment they'll need. The law limits transportation costs and prohibits fees that would push workers' pay below minimum wage. Agencies must also reimburse the worker if they are sent to a worksite only to find out there is no job for them there.

Similar state bills have passed in New Jersey and Illinois in the past few years. But while the American Staffing Association has a code of ethics containing similar guidelines, it has fought against such laws and blocked them in California and New York. "All laws that apply to every other employee apply to temporary workers," said Stephen Dwyer, the group's general counsel. "We thought that heaping new laws on top of existing laws would not be effective."

Even in states that have them, the laws are honored mostly in the breach. For example, Illinois prohibits temp agencies from charging for transportation. But many have gotten around the law by using so-called raiteros, who act as neighborhood labor brokers for the agencies and charge for transportation. The law also requires an employment notice stating the name of the host company, the hourly wage and any equipment needed. Out of more than 50 Chicago-area workers interviewed for this story, only a handful had ever received one.

Passing through Chicago's working-class suburbs recently, Rosa pointed out the car window to a row of small redbrick homes.

"I've always dreamed of having a little house, a really small, little house," she said.

Asked if she thought she'd ever be able to buy one, Rosa laughed.

"Earning $8.25 an hour?" she said. "I don't think I'll ever be able to do that."

Back at the temp agency, Rosa continues to wait with about 50 other people.

Around 6 a.m., she again inquires if there will be any work. The dispatcher tells her to give it 15 more minutes.

Then he breaks the news: There is no work today.

*Get Involved: *Is this happening in your community? What should be done about it? Join our discussion by tweeting us your questions and comments with #TempLand, or send us a tip. Reported by Huffington Post 2 days ago.

Poll Signals Tough News For Obamacare

$
0
0
By Susan Heavey
WASHINGTON, June 27 (Reuters) - A majority of Americans say President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul will make things worse for their families and the nation overall, a poll released on Thursday found, highlighting the challenges his administration still faces in winning over the public.
Overall, the survey of nearly 2,050 adults showed 52 percent disapprove of the 2010 law aimed at expanding access to health insurance for millions of people, according to Gallup. Another 44 percent said they back the changes.
Among those polled, 42 percent said it would make their family's healthcare situation worse while 33 percent said it would have little impact. Just 22 percent said they thought it would help, the poll showed.
In terms of the country's healthcare system, 47 percent said the law would have a negative impact while 16 percent saw no difference. Thirty-four percent said it would make it better, according to Gallup's survey taken June 20 through Monday.
The findings from nonpartisan polling firm come as the Obama administration ramps up efforts to educate the public about the law known as "Obamacare," including health insurance exchanges set to offer subsidized health plans to consumers in each state in October.
While some aspects of the law have already taken effect, the main provisions, including one requiring people to have health insurance coverage, begin in January.
"As the full implementation of the 2010 Affordable Care Act nears, Americans remain wary of the law and of what kind of impact it will have on their family's healthcare situation and the nation's overall healthcare situation," Gallup said.
Not surprisingly, responses fell largely along political divides, with nearly 90 percent of Republicans opposing the law and about three-quarters of Democrats supporting it.
Whether people were insured or not was also key.
While 54 percent of those who already have health coverage rejected the overhaul, just as many of those without insurance said they supported it, according to the telephone poll, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
"It is possible that once Americans start to learn more about the law - and see it in action, with the uninsured able to start shopping for coverage Oct. 1 - they will change their perspective on its potential impact," Gallup wrote. (Editing by Michele Gershberg and Doina Chiacu) Reported by Huffington Post 2 days ago.

National Briefing | Washington: N.F.L. Won’t Promote Enrollment in Health Insurance Under New Law

$
0
0
The National Football League is not participating in an effort with the Obama administration to help promote enrollment in health insurance plans under the new health care law.

 
 
 
  Reported by NYTimes.com 22 hours ago.

Experient Health to Offer Health Care Reform Seminar at the Pulaski County Farm Bureau in Virginia

$
0
0
Experient Health, a Virginia Farm Bureau company, will address community questions on the impact of Health Care Reform on families and small businesses.

Richmond, VA (PRWEB) June 29, 2013

Experient Health will host a Health Care Reform 101 community seminar for Virginia Farm Bureau Wednesday, July 10 from 5:30 to 7 p.m. at the Pulaski County Farm Bureau located at 5828 Northwind Place in Dublin, Virginia.

New health care reform laws that go into effect in 2014 mandate that individuals carry health insurance or, in most cases, pay a fine. Consumers will have to purchase plans with comprehensive benefits that meet minimum coverage requirements.

The free seminar is meant to provide an open forum to ask questions about, among other health care reform topics, online marketplaces (formerly referred to as exchanges), tax credits, essential health benefits, pre-existing conditions and network requirements.

Planning to attend? RSVP to Faith Bentley at 540.674.5119. Register online here.

Can’t attend? Visit http://www.experienthealth.com to request a private consultation.

About Experient Health:

For years, Experient Health, a Virginia Farm Bureau company, has helped people find the right insurance coverage and get the most for their health care dollars. The Richmond, Virginia-based group is dedicated to providing high quality health insurance options to customers in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington DC. As a result, its consultants, with an average of more than 20 years' experience, are intimately familiar with the states’ provider networks, products and regulations.

Representing the top national insurance carriers, Experient Health provides customers with multiple policy options designed to meet wellness needs and financial requirements.

Experient Health grew out of Virginia Farm Bureau and is a “hometown agency” in that it operates a network of more than 100 offices. However, it boasts the resources and technology of larger firms.

Consultants are available online, via phone and through their offices.

Learn more at http://www.experienthealth.com, utilize the online health insurance quote calculator or contact a consultant directly at 855.677.6570. Reported by PRWeb 19 hours ago.

Zane Benefits Publishes New Information on the Cost of Standalone HRAs

$
0
0
The cost of a Standalone HRA is set by the small business

Park City, Utah (PRWEB) June 29, 2013

Today, Zane Benefits, the online alternative to group health insurance, published new information on the cost of standalone HRAs.

According to Zane Benefits’ website, offering a stand-alone health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) allows any small business the ability to offer health insurance that helps recruit and retain key employees. With a stand-alone HRA, a small business offers employees a tax-free HRA allowance to purchase their own individual health insurance and other medical expenses. A stand-alone HRA is like a business expense account for health care.

According to Zane Benefits’ website, if a small business wants to contribute any amount to employee health benefits, they can afford the cost of offering a stand-alone HRA. This is because the cost of a standalone HRA is completely set by the small business. If a small business wants to contribute any amount to employees' health care costs, the small business can afford a standalone HRA.

Click here to read full article.

--

About Zane Benefits
Zane Benefits was founded in 2006 to provide a revolutionized SaaS (Software-as-a-Service) administration platform ("ZaneHRA") for Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs) and defined contribution health care. The flagship software provides a 100% paperless administration experience to small businesses and insurance professionals that want to offer better health benefits without a traditional group health insurance plan at lower costs. For more information about ZaneHRA, visit http://www.zanebenefits.com. Reported by PRWeb 13 hours ago.

India Network Visitor Health Insurance Announces Availability of Insurance Cover During Travel Time from Home Country to the United States, Canada or Mexico

$
0
0
India Networks offers accident, sickness, and pre-existing condition health insurance plans for visitors to United States, Canada, and Mexico. The coverage now extends to travel from home country for any accidents and medical emergencies.

Orlando, FL (PRWEB) June 29, 2013

India Network announced today that all policy holders of India Network Health Insurance programs would be automatically covered for accidents and medical problems during their travel from home country to the United States, Canada or Mexico. Policy holders must purchase the insurance on or before they embark on their journey to avail this coverage. Typically, visitors traveling from India start the coverage one or two days before their arrival in the United States, Canada or Mexico to avail this benefit.

India Network offers comprehensive insurance plans that limit individual exposure by availing network negotiated rates for services and pay 80% for such covered service. The second set of plans are known as scheduled benefit plans or fixed benefit plans that reimburse policy holders or provides a predetermined amount for each covered service. A special feature of India Network Health Insurance programs is that they also cover pre-existing conditions for both inpatient services and outpatient services.

Dr. KV Rao, President, India Network Foundation, said that the travel coverage is becoming very important as visitors traveling to the United States are getting older and airlines have been sloppy in handling elderly air travel passengers. Recently, an elderly person was injured while in the care of an airline employee in Europe. ACE American Insurance Company, the underwriter of India Network programs is helping the policy holder just because they choose to purchase the plan covering the travel date.

Life Expectancy in India is slowly increasing. Life expectancy at birth for women was 67.7 years and it was 64.6 years for men (Registrar General of India, 2012). Longer post retirement time creates several health problems for elderly visitors. Several health conditions such as diabetes, blood pressure, etc. go undetected for years. India Network today offers plans to cover pre-existing conditions to help those elderly with medical conditions that they may or may not know. Many other insurance plans often reject any claims for these elderly visitors under pre-existing medical coverage exclusions.

India Network advises everyone traveling to the United States to take the best medical coverage possible as the health care in the United States is very expensive. Hospitals exploit people without medical insurance by charging the highest amount imaginable. For example, a recent report in http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/os-beth-kassab-health-care-prices-20130628,0,3189425.column survey showed that a standard colonoscopy procedure cost $421 to $3249 in one city. Only proper medical insurance, such as India Network Health Insurance can help visitors cope with negotiated pricing under comprehensive plans.

About India Network Foundation
India Network Foundation, established as a US non-profit organization, has been helping the Asian Indian community in North America with programs and grants to academics from India for more than two decades. India Network Foundation sponsors visitor health insurance to tourists, students, temporary workers (H1 visa holders) and their families. All insurance products are administered by India Network Services.

For more information, visit http://www.indianetwork.org.

About India Network Health Insurance

India Network Services is a US based company that administers visitor health insurance to visiting parents, transient residents, tourists, students, temporary workers and their families. Cashless Visitor health insurance plans are offered for all age groups with network based comprehensive coverage and with pre-existing condition coverage
.
For more information, visit http://www.kvrao.org. Reported by PRWeb 9 hours ago.

White House Weighs In On Contraception

$
0
0
The Obama administration announced the final rules under the Affordable Care Act on Friday requiring most employer health insurance plans to cover employees' contraception without a copay.

“The health care law guarantees millions of women access to recommended preventive services at no cost,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in a statement. “Today’s announcement reinforces our commitment to respect the concerns of houses of worship and other non-profit religious organizations that object to contraceptive coverage, while helping to ensure that women get the care they need, regardless of where they work.”

The rule, which goes into effect August 1 for religious non-profits after a year-long grace period, completely exempts houses of worship and makes accommodations for many religiously affiliated schools, hospitals and charities. Under the accommodation, religious non-profits can avoid having to pay for contraception directly by having the third-party insurance provider foot the bill for that specific coverage.

A number of for-profit companies that are owned by religious people, including the craft supply chain Hobby Lobby, have sued the administration over the birth control rule, arguing that the accommodation does not go far enough to exempt religious employers from having to pay for services to which they morally object. Hobby Lobby and some other religious employers believe that emergency contraception, which is covered under the rule, induces abortions.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Hobby Lobby on Thursday, ruling that companies shouldn't have to pay millions of dollars in fines while their legal objections to the birth control rule are being considered.

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, applauded the final rule in a statement on Friday.

“This means that women will have access to birth control at no cost, no matter where they work," Richards said. "This is a historic moment for women’s health and economic security. Birth control is basic health care for women, and this policy treats it like any other kind of preventive care. Throughout history, birth control has had a transformative impact on women’s health, education, and economic opportunities, and this policy expands access to birth control like never before."

She added, “It’s appalling that we still have to fight for access to birth control in 2013."

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates. Reported by Huffington Post 3 days ago.
Viewing all 22794 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images