Marilyn Tavenner, a key Obama administration health official overseeing the country's largest health insurance programs, announced Friday that she's resigning from her position as administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services next month. Reported by Washington Post 1 day ago.

In an effort to support its local community, AmeriLife, the nation’s premier annuity, life and health insurance marketing organization, has partnered with the Clearwater Free Clinic as a Dali sponsor for the organization’s 2015 Martinis & Matisse fundraising event to be hosted on January 24, 2015.

Clearwater, FL (PRWEB) January 16, 2015

In an effort to support its local community, AmeriLife, the nation’s premier annuity, life and health insurance marketing organization, has partnered with the Clearwater Free Clinic as a Dali sponsor for the organization’s 2015 Martinis & Matisse fundraising event to be hosted on January 24, 2015.

Committed to providing access to free medical care for low-income, uninsured adults and children living in the Clearwater community, the Clearwater Free Clinic provided nearly 14,000 office visits and dispensed over 34,000 courses of medication in 2013. As the organization relies on community support, grants and fundraising to operate, the annual Martinis and Matisse is vital to raising money for the volunteer-driven non-profit, non-government medical facility.

“We’re proud to support our local community,” explains AmeriLife CEO Timothy O. North. “It warms my heart to know that our contributions are going right back to the programs that the clinic offers, allowing it to continue to bring needed services to the Clearwater community in 2015.”

The Clearwater Free Clinic Martinis & Matisse function is a unique opportunity for guests to enjoy unique art, local chef specialties, cool martinis, fine wines, and live music, all while supporting an organization committed to providing vital services to the community.

About AmeriLife
AmeriLife is the nation’s premier insurance marketing group. Founded in 1971, AmeriLife represents more than 30 national insurance carriers, has 15 individual national marketing organizations, 33 career agency branch locations and works with thousands of independent insurance agents across the country.

For additional information about AmeriLife or its community involvement, please contact AmeriLife Marketing Communications at Media(at)AmeriLife(dot)com. Reported by PRWeb 1 day ago.

Gov. Chris Christie has signed into law S. 562, which, as its title states, "Requires health insurance carriers to encrypt certain information." Reported by Mondaq 1 day ago.

Since its passage in 2009, ferocious opposition to the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare)  had proven a devastatingly effective electoral strategy for Republicans. In 2010, they gained a net 63 seats and control of the House of Representatives. They gained control of 11 additional state governments, bringing their total to 25. When the ACA went into effect virtually all 25 were refusing to expand Medicaid, a decision they were permitted to make by a June 2012 Supreme Court ruling overturning the mandatory expansion provision in the law.

In October 2013, in the midst of a Republican-led government shutdown designed to stop the implementation of the ACA, I invited President Obama to embrace a bold strategy: Let the red states secede from Obamacare, under three conditions.

First, states must withdraw from all benefits. (e.g. children being able to be on parents insurance up to age 26, insurance companies no longer being allowed to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, etc.) They couldn't pick and choose.

Second, Congress must move forward the date states would be given great latitude in designing their own system from 2017 to 2014, thus allowing blue states to experiment with insurance systems like single payer.

Third, and most importantly for the future of the ACA and the Democratic Party, state legislatures must ask their citizens to vote directly on Obamacare.

I argued then that the downside of letting the red states secede would be modest. The red states had already decided not to expand Medicaid, dramatically restricting the ACA's direct benefits. In Kentucky, for example, a state often viewed as a model for aggressive and competent ACA implementation, 400,000 people, 9 percent of the entire population signed up under Medicaid expansion; only 80,000 signed up for health plans through Kynect, the state exchange.

A single issue election would have allowed an engaged and focused discussion impossible in a general election. Which would have allowed a considered response to some of the Republicans most effective 20-second sound bites. For example, their insistence that the ACA established government panels that will make life and death decisions. When Republicans called them "death panels" Democrats quickly scuttled the provision, lending credence to the Republican claim that that's what they were. Indeed, according to a recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation, some 41 percent of Americans continue to believe this.

In 2014 in Kentucky, as elsewhere, Obamacare was a key issue. The New York times reports that Kentuckian Amanda Mayhew enrolled in Medicaid and had been to the dentist five times to begin salvaging her neglected teeth, had visited a dermatologist to remove a mole and had received medication for her depression, all free. "I am very, very thankful that Medicaid does cover what I need done right now," Ms. Mayhew said but pointedly added, "I don't love Obamacare....There are things in it that scare me and that I don't agree with...would I gladly give up my insurance today if it meant that some of the things that are in the law were not in place? Yes, I would." She was referring to death panels.

A single-issue election would have given Democrats the opportunity to go from defense to offense. They could have explained that the provision Republicans vigorously opposed actually offered money to doctors so they could spend time with terminally ill patients discussing end of life issues. And Democrats could have used the opportunity to educate the public about the widespread need for such discussions, and their value.

In his new book, Being Mortal, physician Atul Gawande describes the results of one large-scale study about the impact of such conversations.Two thirds of the terminal cancer patients...reported having had no discussion with their doctors about their goals for end-of-life care, despite being, on average, just four months from death. But the third who did have discussions were far less likely to undergo cardiopulmonary resuscitation or be put on a ventilator or end up in an intensive care unit...They suffered less, were physically more capable, and were better able, for a longer period, to interact with others. In addition, six months after these patients died, their family members were markedly less likely to experience persistent major depression.   In other words, people who had substantive discussions with their doctors about their end-of-life preferences were far more likely to die at peace and in control of their situation and to spare their family anguish.In a single-issue referendum Democrats could have engaged the Republican claim that the wave of cancellations of individual health policies in 2013 was a result of Obamacare. In October 2013 the Associated Press estimated 4.8 million persons with individual coverage had their policies cancelled because of the ACA. The estimate was widely quoted. But any referendum on the ACA would have been held in mid to late 2014 by which time more realistic estimates had dramatically reduced the number of persons affected to 1.6-1.9 million persons. More importantly, they could have explained that in pre-Obamacare America most individual health policies were for one year and the normal churn rate is remarkably high. One study found that only 27 percent continued to have individual coverage after two years.

Democrats could also have responded to the almost weekly horror story issued by Republicans about dramatic price hikes in premiums under Obamacare (most of which proved untrue) by noting that health insurance companies had been hiking premiums and deductibles for a long time. Insurance premiums rose by 50 percent between 2003 and 2010 and the average deductible had soared by 145 percent. In 2013 average insurance premiums represented 20 percent of median income in 37 states, up from 2 in 2003.

Democrats could have responded to the Republican's horror stories about price hikes with their own far more numerous and heartrending stories about the bankruptcies, deaths, and sicknesses caused by insurance companies denying or rescinding coverage. Rather than Democrats having to defend Obamacare, Republicans would have had the unenviable task of defending giant health insurance companies' treatment of often-helpless individuals.

Obama ignored my advice. And in the 2014 election most Democrats refused to defend Obamacare. In Kentucky for much of the campaign Alison Grimes ran neck and neck with Mitch McConnell but when the issue of Obamacare came up she ran for the hills. As did virtually all Kentucky Democrats. According to Kantar Media's Campaign Media Analysis Group, Republicans ran more than 10,000 broadcast television spots attacking the ACA in that state from January 2013 to November 2014. Kantar found only one positive television ad, from a Congressional Democratic candidate. Nationwide Senate Republican candidates ran 36,000 anti-Obamacare ads just from October 6-26.

In November 2014 Republicans gained control of the U.S. Senate. The number of Republican governors swelled to 31. The Republican Party won control of 67 state chambers, five more than their previous record in the modern era. In 24 states they gained total control, winning both the governor's mansion and both chambers of the state legislature (Nebraska's unicameral legislature is technically nonpartisan, but in practice Republicans control the chamber by a wide margin).

Would the 2014 election outcome have been different if the red states had held health care referenda? No one can tell. Certainly the election demonstrated that when given the opportunity to vote on issues rather than candidates Americans are often quite liberal. For example, voters approved every initiative to raise the minimum wage, including in red states (Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska, South Dakota).

Democrats would still have had to overcome the cognitive dissonance of people like Robin Evans, a warehouse worker earning $9 an hour who after signing up for Medicaid is being treated for high blood pressure and Graves' disease, an autoimmune disorder, after years of being uninsured and rarely seeing doctors. "I'm tickled to death with it," she told the New York Times. "It's helped me out a bunch." But the Times adds, "Ms. Evans scowled at the mention of President Obama -- 'Nobody don't care for nobody no more, and I think he's got a lot to do with that,' she explained -- and said she would vote this fall for Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and minority leader, who is fond of saying the health care law should be "pulled out root and branch."   To summarize: The Democrats helped Mr. Evans "a bunch". But under the Democrats nobody cares for nobody. So he will vote for Republicans who have railed against Democrat sponsored measures that would help him.

OK, it would have been a challenge. But it would have presented a wonderful opportunity as well.

And then there is the distinct possibility that Republicans would have rejected an offer by President Obama to secede if they had to ask their voters to approve. They might have realized that a genuine public debate on the Affordable Care Act could make Americans wonder what else they were lying about.

  Reported by Huffington Post 23 hours ago.

Filed under: Health Care, U.S. Government, Scandals and Lawsuits, Health Insurance

*Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP*Medicaid Administrator Marilyn Tavenner testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington last September.

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR

WASHINGTON -- Medicare's top administrator unexpectedly resigned Friday, becoming the latest casualty in the turmoil over the president's health care law, which is still struggling for acceptance even as millions benefit from expanded coverage.

Marilyn Tavenner's departure underscores the uncertainty overshadowing President Barack Obama's health care law nearly five years after its party-line passage by a then-Democratic-led Congress. The Supreme Court will hear a challenge to the legality of the law's financial subsidies this spring, and a new Republican Congress is preparing more repeal votes.

A former intensive care nurse with a businesslike approach to a divisive area of public policy, Tavenner told staff in an email that she's stepping down at the end of February with "sadness and mixed emotions." Her chief of staff is also leaving.

Tavenner, 63, survived the technology meltdown that initially paralyzed HealthCare.gov. She remained in place even as her boss, former Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius, left office following signals of White House unhappiness.

*Embarrassing Testimony*

But Tavenner was embarrassed last fall when she testified to Congress that 7.3 million people were fully enrolled for private coverage under the health law. That number turned out to be an over-count that exaggerated the total by about 400,000 people. The error, discovered by Republican congressional staff, was termed "unacceptable" by new HHS Secretary Sylvia M. Burwell.

Tavenner had a played a key role in the 2013 decision to go live with HealthCare.gov, signing a required cybersecurity clearance after technology professionals under her balked because testing was incomplete. The website later passed security tests and received full authority to operate.

In her farewell message, Tavenner termed the health law's online insurance markets "a success." But she also said her job, which involves oversight of Medicare and Medicaid as well, was a "huge and complex responsibility" and "we had many additional challenges put before us" because of Obama's health law. Roughly 1 in 3 Americans are covered by health insurance programs run by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
She has proven herself to be a strong leader and a straight shooter who brought in much-needed private sector sensibility into the agency.

Despite Tavenner's close association with "Obamacare," some senior Republicans in Congress said they were sorry to see her leave.

"She has proven herself to be a strong leader and a straight shooter who brought in much-needed private sector sensibility into the agency," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said in a statement. "I truly appreciate her service and wish her the very best in her next adventure."

But former House oversight chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said, "Tavenner had to go." The over-count, discovered by his staff, "was a deplorable example of an agency trying to scam the American people," Issa said. The administration insists it was only a mistake, resulting from a double-count of people with dental coverage.

In her own message to the department, current HHS Secretary Burwell called Tavenner "one of our most esteemed and accomplished colleagues" and said the decision to leave was Tavenner's.

*Career Health Professional*

Tavenner joined HHS shortly before the passage of the Affordable Care Act. She came from state government, having served as Virginia's health secretary under former Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine.

Although she started out directly caring for patients, most of her career was spent in hospital administration. She rose through the ranks to become a top executive of Hospital Corporation of America.

Andy Slavitt, a former technology executive who played a leading role in the rescue operation to get HealthCare.gov working last year, will take over as acting Medicare administrator. The website is the online portal to subsidized private coverage for people who don't have health insurance on the job.

Slavitt had impressed the White House with his mix of technology and management skills. He stayed on after HealthCare.gov stabilized, serving as Tavenner's principal deputy, responsible not only for HealthCare.gov but also for key Medicare and Medicaid issues as well.

A permanent replacement requires Senate confirmation, and any presidential health care nominee could face rough going in the new Republican-led Senate. There was no immediate word on whether the White House would submit Slavitt's name for confirmation.

*Millions More Insured*

Since the health care law's big coverage expansion began last year, at least 10 million uninsured Americans have gained coverage through a combination of subsidized private insurance and expanded Medicaid eligibility. A study this week also documented significant declines in the numbers of people who forego needed care because of costs, and who struggle to pay medical bills.

But the Affordable Care Act has yet to find the public acceptance enjoyed by its federal forebears: Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program.

This year's Supreme Court case looms as a crucial test.

Plaintiffs in the case argue that the law as written only allows the federal government to subsidize coverage in states that have set up their own insurance markets. Supporters of the law say that while its wording may be confusing, Congress intended for subsidies to be available across the country, regardless of state actions.

Since Washington is currently running the insurance markets in 37 states, a ruling favoring the plaintiffs would unravel much of the gain in coverage.

-Associated Press writers Alan Fram and Nedra Picker contributed to this report.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments Reported by DailyFinance 22 hours ago.

2014 was the year the U.S. discovered that race is still an issue in this allegedly "color-blind" society, among other things. It's become so obvious that it even got noticed during last Sunday's Golden Globe Awards, when co-host Tina Fey got one of the biggest laughs of the night by noting that "the movie Selma is about the American civil rights movement -- that totally worked and now everything's fine."

We're finally starting to notice that everything is not fine.

Just to speak the names of Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin and Tamir Rice says more about pain and injustice than we should ever need to say, but these tragedies represent just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Despite some recent gestures toward penal reform, the United States incarcerates a higher proportion of our blacks than apartheid South Africa did. And when New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio dared to say that he felt the need to counsel his mixed-race son to be extra careful in encounters with the police, NYPD officers responded with repeated shows of blatant disrespect.

Although the unemployment rate is lower today than in recent years, that positive statistic masks some grim trends. Job growth has been fueled in part by some workers trading good-paying jobs lost during the recession for lower-paying positions that are all they can find today.

This has no doubt contributed to our ongoing racial wealth gap, which remains stubbornly entrenched. For every dollar of wealth a white family has, the median Asian family has about 81 cents (a figure that masks pockets of real poverty within some Asian communities), the median Latino family has 7 cents and the median black family has less than 6 cents.

Questions of race also hit the NBA, where league officials struggled to clean up the mess created by the offensive comments of Donald Sterling, who owned the L.A. Clippers.

And questions of race and diversity finally caught the attention of Silicon Valley, where women, blacks and Latinos continue to make up a shockingly small percentage of the workforce, particularly in tech-related positions, management and the executive suite. We finally got a taste of what's really going on when Laszlo Bock, Google's S.V.P. of People Operations, told Gwen Ifill on the PBS NewsHour, "We like people who are like us, who watch the same shows, who like the same food, who have the same backgrounds. So we bring this unconscious bias to everything we do."

At least he was honest about it. And being honest about these unconscious biases is an essential first step toward remedying them.

If the recent controversies around police shootings have taught us anything, it's that we can't be afraid to tackle the racial and ethnic implications of America's problems -- or their solutions.

Happily, I see glimmers of hope. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, more Americans of all demographic groups now have health insurance. And while black and Latino uninsured rates remain far higher than whites', the gap is narrowing. From the end of 2013 to the end of 2014, the overall uninsured rate dropped by 4.2 percentage points, while the uninsured rate for Latinos dropped by 6.3 points and the uninsured rate for African Americans dropped a full seven points. That very happy news deserves more attention than it's gotten.

I'm glad to say that my own state of California has led the way in aggressively and effectively implementing Obamacare, dropping our uninsured rate by half in the first year. Because health is so important to everything we do, this sort of progress will impact the racial wealth gap over time.

So will something else my state is doing. While there's been some national news coverage of California's laws to combat climate change and promote clean energy, there's more to these policies than most people know. An important feature of California's climate law guarantees that a quarter of carbon fees collected from industrial polluters will go to projects that uplift disadvantaged communities -- cutting pollution, promoting clean energy, helping consumers, and bringing jobs and investment to neighborhoods that need both, often neighborhoods populated by people of color that for too long were used as toxic dumping grounds.

These positive models point the way. They can lead us away from the bad old days of "redlining" -- deliberate disinvestment from communities of color -- to what we call "greenlining": a conscious effort to bring opportunity, investment and justice to those long-ignored communities. The question for America in 2015 is: Do we have the will to do it? Reported by Huffington Post 20 hours ago.

Manila, Philippines, Jan 16, 2015 / 01:32 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Remarking on Pope Francis' strong words against the threats which “ideological colonization” poses to the family, the Vatican's spokesman told journalists Friday that same-sex marriage falls within this category.

In an  address to more than 1,000 Filipino families in Manila on Jan. 16, Pope Francis decried the “new ideological colonization that tries to destroy the family.”

The Pope also warned against increasing efforts “to redefine the very institution of marriage, by relativism, by the culture of the ephemeral, by a lack of openness to life.”

The Holy Father made similar statements in defense of marriage earlier in the day, as he said Mass in Manila's cathedral: “Proclaim the beauty and truth of the Christian message to a society which is tempted by confusing presentations of sexuality, marriage and the family.”

He then warned the faithful against “powerful forces which threaten to disfigure God’s plan for creation and betray the very values which have inspired and shaped all that is best in your culture.”

The Jan. 16 Mass in Manila's Cathedral of Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception, followed by the encounter families in Manila's main sports arena, were among the key events on the agenda of Pope Francis' tour of Sri Lanka and the Philippines, which runs Jan. 12-19.

During a press briefing later that evening the head of the Holy See press office, Fr. Federico Lombardi, confirmed to  journalists that this “colonization” of which Pope Francis spoke refers in part to gay marriage.

“I think that it is well-known that the perspective of the Church about the family is that the family is based on the union of the marriage of a man and a woman.”

For Catholics, the family is “the union of the man and the woman, and the children that come from this union,” the spokesman added. “If there are persons that desire to have community in other ways… this is not for us a family.”

Cardinal Luis Tagle of Manila, who was on the panel at the press briefing, cited concerns raised during last October's Synod on the Family by bishops and laypeople, particularly from Africa, about the attempt to use foreign aid to impose Western views of marriage and sexuality.

According to these bishops, foreign aid is “oftentimes is linked to some measures that the receiving country is somehow forced to accept,” the cardinal said.  “Some of the conditions for the aid seem to be an acceptance or a welcoming of some views regarding marriage, or sexuality, or what, which could be alien to the vision of the receiving country or culture.”

Citing Pope Francis' statement listing the “lack of openness to life” as one of the threats against the family, Cardinal  Tagle addressed the Church's efforts with regard to the Philippines' recent legislation on contraception.

Signed in 2013 by the Philippine's president Benigno Aquino, the reproductive health law requires government-sanctioned sex education for adults, middle school and high school students.

The law also requires fully subsidized contraceptives under government health insurance. The Filipino bishops have been vocal opponents of the law.  

“We will continue preaching what the Church teaches,” Cardinal Tagle told journalists. “With or without the law, we continue our mission.”

The cardinal added that the criteria applied to contraception could carry through in addressing the problem of divorced and remarried Catholics during this year's Synod of Bishops on the Family.

There was widespread media attention during last year's Synod on the Family, a precursor to the upcoming gathering this year on the same theme, regarding the pastoral care for divorced and remarried couples.

Much of the speculation centered on whether civilly remarried couples  could be admitted to Communion without having received an annulment.

The cardinal noted that during last October's gathering, which dealt with a broad range of issues relating to the family, the bishops “were given a wider picture of the various cases, particular contexts, of marriage”.

Looking at the pastoral response in the context  of Church teaching, Cardinal Tagle added that, in this year's Synod  on the family, the Church's approach to contraception “can be carried through to other concerns or other questions regarding the family.” Reported by CNA 20 hours ago.

Over the past year, as marriage equality rulings swept across the country, the U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly declined to step in. Now that the justices have agreed to hear marriage cases this term, many advocates of equality are optimistic that the Court will affirm that state marriage bans are unconstitutional.

That would be great news for LGBT Americans, and for all Americans who cherish equality. But even while we imagine those celebrations, we should keep in mind the damage that has been done by the Roberts court. Even if the Justices uphold Equal Protection and deliver a victory to same-sex couples, it will still be the same Court whose 5-4 far-right majority regularly diminishes the legal rights of women, workers, voters, people of color, religious minorities, and, yes, gays and lesbians.

It was only a few months ago that the Court, through the Hobby Lobby decision, handed anti-gay conservatives a powerful new weapon to wield in their efforts to keep LGBT people outside the protections of the law. While the case involved contraception and health insurance, the transformation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act effected by the 5-4 majority has immense implications for LGBT equality. RFRA was passed in 1993 as a shield to protect individuals' ability to exercise their religion. But in Hobby Lobby, the Roberts Court transformed it into a sword wielded to deny other people their legal rights, equating religious offense to a substantial burden on religious exercise. This is a radical transformation of the concept of religious liberty, one that threatens to filter down to the state level, where many states either have or are considering their own versions of RFRA.

So even where laws prohibit discrimination against LGBT people, those most likely to engage in such discrimination are wielding "religious liberty" as a rationale to not have to obey those laws. A court interpreting a state RFRA and following the Hobby Lobby logic could easily equate a business owner's being religiously offended by a gay employee or customer's "lifestyle choice" with a significant burden on their religious liberty, thereby undermining existing and hard-won anti-discrimination protections.

Justice Ginsburg's dissent pointed out the risk to a variety of types of anti-discrimination laws posed by the majority decision. Tellingly, Justice Alito responded that laws prohibiting race-based discrimination should not be affected, but did not extend that assurance to other categories.

Hobby Lobby is just one of many 5-4 decisions where far-right Justices bend logic and the law in order to achieve their conservative policy goals. Citizens United and related cases gave wealthy corporate interests far more influence over our elections; Shelby County severely weakened the Voting Rights Act and opened the door to new wave of state disenfranchisement laws; Harris v. Quinn undermined union organizing ... Unfortunately, the list goes on and on.

Next year, we have a chance to elect a president who is dedicated to restoring a Supreme Court that will protect all of our constitutional and legal rights. All it would take is one progressive Justice replacing a conservative. We should not have to suffer more damaging 5-4 rulings.

As for the marriage case now before the Court, the outcome could well have been decided on November 4, 2008, when Americans elected Barack Obama and not John McCain. Had Justices Souter and Stevens been replaced, not by Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, but by "justices like Roberts and Alito" as McCain promised, the outcome of the marriage case would be in little doubt ... and it would not be good.

So even if the Court does the right thing in the marriage case, and agrees that there is no gay exception to the Constitution's promise of equality under the law, we should remember that the Roberts Court remains a dangerously conservative force endangering our most important rights - and that we as voters will decide the Court's direction when we vote for president in 2016. Reported by Huffington Post 18 hours ago.

Maternal & Family Health Services, Inc. announced Affordable Care Act enrollment services will be available to residents of Northeastern Pennsylvania during the open enrollment period. Appointments are strongly encouraged and can be made by calling 1-800-367-6347 (ext. 244).

Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania (PRWEB) January 16, 2015

Maternal & Family Health Services, Inc. (MFHS) announced Affordable Care Act enrollment services will be available to local residents throughout Northeastern Pennsylvania during the open enrollment period. Appointments are strongly encouraged and can be made by calling 1-800-367-6347 (ext. 244).

As part of the Affordable Care Act, trained enrollment counselors serve as guides to help people gain access to high quality, affordable health coverage through the health insurance marketplace. Many people who did not qualify for financial assistance earlier may now qualify through the Healthy PA expansion launched on November 15th. The open enrollment period for signing up for health insurance through the Affordable Care Act ends Feb. 15th.

MFHS enrollment assistants will be at their offices in Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, Hazleton, Hawley and Pottsville. Special enrollment days have also been scheduled with community partners such as Volunteers in Medicine and Planned Parenthood.

Attendees should bring their Social Security numbers or document information for immigrants with satisfactory status; driver’s license or other photo ID; employer and income information for everyone in the family; and federal tax information. Attendees may determine their eligibility for tax credits and sign up for an insurance plan that day.

For more information on ACA enrollment and to see the full list of enrollment dates and locations, please visit http://www.mfhs.org or call 1-800-367-6347 (ext. 244).

Maternal and Family Health Services is a non-profit health and human service organization working to improve the health of Pennsylvania women and children by offering programs the prevent disease, promote wellness, and empower individuals to make healthy lifestyle choices. The agency oversees a network of health and nutrition centers in 16 Pennsylvania counties serving over 115,000 individuals each year through the following core programs: WIC Nutrition Program, Family Planning Program, Healthy Woman Cancer Screening Program, Nurse-Family Partnership, and the Healthy Beginnings Plus Prenatal Program. For more information call 1-800-367-6347, or visit http://www.mfhs.org or http://www.safeteens.org. Reported by PRWeb 19 hours ago.

Celebrating the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. as a federal holiday pays due respect to someone who "answered the call" and dedicated his life to extending the American values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of justice for African Americans and countless other individuals who are too often overlooked. Leading multi-faith activists in peaceful, nonviolent civil disobedience, King put a mirror on systemic racism in the US and compelled many Americans to face their white privilege.

We have certainly made progress since 1954, when the Supreme Court first declared that separate was unequal. But racial inequality has defied easy eradication. However notable and important, progress is not measured by the successes achieved by individuals - the first black general, the first black opera singer, or the first black president. Slavery and segregation were all-encompassing, and their legacy of racism is one we cannot overlook or cast aside as history. Racism in this country must be demolished by changing policies, perspectives, and behavior.

Since the upheaval in Ferguson, MO, after an unarmed black teenager was killed by a white police officer, there have been renewed governmental efforts to address racism in our system of justice. Justice Department investigations, body-worn cameras, and expanded training for law enforcement are important. The President is taking steps in the right direction, but the repercussions of systemic injustice in law enforcement began in the aftermath of social unrest in the 1960s. To have to begin again in 2014 shows how much our efforts have languished.

In the wake of heightened media attention to needless black deaths at the hands of law enforcement, NCJW joined Bend the Arc and other Jewish social justice groups to lift our voices in support of #BlackLivesMatter and the national demands put forward by Ferguson Action. Among other things, these include limiting the transfer and use of military equipment to local law enforcement; supporting community based alternatives to incarceration; and holding a Congressional hearing that investigates the criminalization of communities of color, racial profiling, and police abuses. Some say that singling out the importance of black lives in this effort is problematic; NCJW holds that while all lives and human rights matter, using too broad an umbrella neglects the unique persecution and obstacles to justice and equality that different groups - in this instance, black people in America - face.

But achieving a just society cannot fall solely on the shoulders of police officers and sheriffs. After all, law enforcement is an extension of self-governance and therefore stems from the foundation of a democratic society - voting. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was supposed to protect each individual's right to cast a ballot, but the Supreme Court recently undermined the most effective and widely used tool to combat the discriminatory practices that prevent otherwise eligible voters from casting a ballot or having it count. Alongside other civil and voting rights groups, NCJW has worked for passage of the Voting Rights Amendment Act - a bill that would establish common-sense, nationwide standards of transparency and protections for voters in every state. But Congress has failed to take steps to advance this bill, while people of color across the country are disproportionately denied access to the ballot box by burdensome voter ID laws, redistricting and at-large representation, and cuts to early or weekend voting.

NCJW has also launched a new reproductive justice initiative to lift up the intersections of race, income, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, immigration status, ability, and geography into our long-standing work to advance reproductive health and rights. The reproductive justice framework, developed by women of color, goes beyond the basic legal right to access key reproductive health services and seeks to address how multiple identities and factors affect a person's ability to shape their reproductive life. For example, until black women in America have the basic human right to parent their children without fear that they will be targeted or killed by police, there can be no reproductive justice. We are proud to work as allies to the reproductive justice movement, and that means saying loud and clear: black lives matter.

As Jews, we particularly understand what it means to be targeted because of our religion. But, too many of us living in America have allowed the glaring disparities of income, education, health care, and the administration of justice to fester. As American Jews, we have historically stood in solidarity with oppressed groups, including black people in the Civil Rights movement; but by the same token, the privilege of skin color that many of us have today only makes the mandate of Tzedek, the pursuit of justice, all the more imperative.

When a black woman walks into a store and is assumed to be a thief; when a working mother who obtains health insurance through a government program is denied abortion care; when a 12-year-old boy is killed for wielding a toy gun in a park - we cannot remain silent. We must join in demanding change, accountability, demanding justice. If we don't, we are part of the system that exacts these daily tragedies. On this year's birthday of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., together let's answer the call to pursue racial justice. Reported by Huffington Post 18 hours ago.

Fourteen thousand children in Arizona lost their health insurance at the end of January 2014 when the state ended its KidsCare program for low-income children, becoming the only state in the country without an active Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Today we released two new reports on how those cuts to children's coverage impacted Arizona families and what lessons can be learned from Arizona's experience for the upcoming national debate on the future of CHIP.

"Living Without KidsCare: Insights from Parents of Children Who Lost Their Health Coverage When Arizona Scaled Back Its Children's Health Insurance Program" is based on focus group research and interviews conducted by PerryUndem Research and Communications. The study found that Arizona families experienced chaos, confusion and disruptions in care for their children. It also underscored how the loss of health care coverage - even if only temporary - can have adverse impacts on children's health. These gaps in coverage not only cause children unnecessary suffering but they impact their ability to attend school and build a brighter future.
Here are a few of the consequences of Arizona's decision to dismantle its CHIP program that were brought to light by families participating in the study:

- A child with Lupus and heart and respiratory ailments was hospitalized because her family could not afford the doctor visits and medications she required;
- The mother of a child with ADHD could no longer afford needed medication and saw her daughter's condition spiral downward making it difficult for her to maintain the focus needed in school.

The second report, "Children's Coverage in Arizona: A Cautionary Tale for the Future of the Children's Health Insurance Program," authored by my colleague Elisabeth Burak, examines the Arizona experience from a national perspective. The report finds that the problems experienced by Arizona families in recent years could become more widespread if CHIP is not funded quickly, or if substantial policy changes are made to the program that do not prioritize children's health. The report also noted that Arizona's extremely poor performance with respect to insuring children (Arizona ranks 49th nationwide for percent of uninsured children) is likely tied to its rejection of CHIP.

As policymakers debate the future of CHIP, it's important for them to keep Arizona's experience in mind. Prolonged uncertainty over the future of CHIP could wreak havoc on successful state CHIP programs across the country. Even small policy changes and delays in funding can cause substantial confusion and ultimately gaps in coverage for children. These gaps in coverage can have very serious consequences for children's health and success in school.

Keeping the successful CHIP and Medicaid programs strong for children as the health care landscape continues to evolve will help provide families with the peace of mind of knowing their children can get the health care they need to succeed. Reported by Huffington Post 18 hours ago.

Salt Lake City, Utah- (ABC 4 Utah) – When the General Session gets started in a little more than a week there will be a new face sitting in the most powerful seat in the Utah House of Representatives.

Incoming speaker, Greg Hughes was raised in Pennsylvania by his single mother and his grandmother.

He says his mom faced challenges and went through a lot to raise him.

Hughes believes that experience gives him a unique perspective on public policy, one that will be put to the test right away.

After 12 years in the legislature this time around he'll oversee the legislative process in the house.

"I think that this house and this term and this upcoming session, we're committed to doing some pretty important things. Things that need to be done for the constituents that we represent here in Utah," said Hughes.

One of those will be the governors Healthy Utah Plan, an alternative to Medicaid expansion to provide health insurance for thousands of Utahns.

Hughes says something needs to be done, but he questions the sustainability of the plan.

"It won't do any good to today declare we are going to expand healthcare coverage and then in a number of years have to pull that back."

He's also concerned about it eating away at other programs, but he is confident the legislature and governor can work together on a solution.

Another big item on the agenda is education.

Hughes says there is certainly room for improvement.

"I believe that we aren't providing what our children expect, what they are most familiar with in terms of technology inside our classrooms and in the experience of our education."

Then there is prison relocation.

The proposal has created a fire storm of opposition from residents who don't want it anywhere near them.

Hughes says the input will lead to a better decision, but insists the time has come for the prison to find a new home once and for all.

"In the end of the day it went from Sugar House to Draper, we'd like to see a move where you are not seeing encroachment onto that site."

Hughes also says the current gas tax isn't working.

He supports a proposal to change the set 24.5 cents per gallon to a percentage of the cost.

The idea is to tie the tax to the economy and protect against inflation.

The session begins Monday January 26, 2015. Reported by abc4 16 hours ago.

This was a busy week in politics, as the Republicans in the new Congress began a bout of legislating and President Obama ramped up his agenda in preparation for next Tuesday's big speech to Congress and the country. So let's just dive in to the week that was, shall we?

Let's begin with the most serious news, about terrorism and other stupidity. In non-partisan fashion, we must absolutely condemn the Ohio bartender who was arrested this week for threatening to kill John Boehner. Now, we're not fans of Boehner by a long shot, but violence to solve political problems (in general) and assassination (in particular) should always be universally condemned by all, no matter the political figure involved.

Also worth condemning is a story that has so far gotten little media attention -- today will be the second weekly flogging of a Saudi Arabian blogger, for the crime of criticizing his government and (supposedly) Islam. During his trial, not only was he sentenced to a heavy fine, a long jail term, and 1,000 lashes with a cane, his lawyer was also sentenced to 15 years in prison just for attempting to defend his client. It should need no pointing out that Saudi Arabia is supposed to be one of America's closest allies in the region, and yet we routinely ignore stories like this about our so-called friends. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink is speaking out about it, but precious few others are doing the same.

Last weekend, there was an enormous street protest over the Charlie Hebdo killings in Paris. The United States was represented by our ambassador to France. Apparently, this wasn't good enough for some Republicans. Although not a single French government official or media outlet complained about the absence of President Obama at the march, Republicans here at home (none of whom attended the march either, by the way) tried to make it some sort of international snub of epic proportions. One Republican even went out of his way to compare Obama -- unfavorably -- to Hitler. That this makes no sense at all was largely ignored, as the media largely went along for this ride (although at least one conservative writer had sense enough not to board the crazy train, to her credit).

This is yet another example of Republicans attempting to hold Obama to a standard that no former president has ever before met, trying to make a scandal out of absolutely nothing. What other American president has ever, in the past century, joined in a street march? None, to the best of my knowledge, have ever done so. Ever. Neither J.F.K. nor L.B.J. ever marched with Martin Luther King, or any other Civil Rights protest. Not one. No sitting president ever marched for women's suffrage, for labor rights, for gay rights, against any war, against nuclear weapons, for or against abortion, against apartheid, against Wall Street, or for any other reason. The closest historical event was a bizarre attempt by Richard Nixon to reach out to anti-war protestors at the Lincoln Memorial, at 4:00 in the morning. That's the only one we're aware of, and it doesn't really come close to "joining in a march in support," really. If there were a long history of presidents attending marches, if there had been one single Republican there, or if (at the very least) the French themselves had complained, then this might have been some sort of gaffe or faux pas. Since none of those things were true, it simply wasn't. I ranted further on this subject earlier in the week, if you're interested in reading more.

Back on Capitol Hill, the House began its session with a flurry of activity, starting off with muscling through a change which might slash Social Security benefits for disabled people by 20 percent by the end of the year. Rand Paul even took the time to gratuitously insult the disabled, by basically calling all of them scam artists with fake back pain. Compassionate conservatism strikes again!

The House also found the time to give Wall Street a big wet kiss and a present wrapped up in a bow. No surprise there, really. They're also working on a bill to change the Obamacare requirement for businesses to provide workers with health insurance if they work more than 30 hours a week. If they really wanted to help workers, they would have voted to lower this bar, but instead they're going to raise it to 40 hours a week -- which would add over $50 billion to the deficit they're usually so worried about. But stories like that may be a thing of the past soon, because the House also voted to start using their own special brand of voodoo math to score all their proposals, meaning "tax cuts will pay for themselves" and unicorns farting rainbows will soon be flying over the United States Capitol.

House Republicans also passed a bill to not only stop Obama from his new immigration plan, but also to strip all the children in D.A.C.A. (what used to be called the DREAM Act kids) of their new status as well. But the saner Republicans have realized that now might not be the time to threaten shutting down the Homeland Security Department, meaning an enormous battle is about to be fought between House and Senate Republicans. This time around, John Boehner is freed up to take the Tea Party's very hardline stance, and then try to shift all the blame for any compromise to Mitch McConnell. In other words, February should be a fun month to watch Republicans badmouth each other.

As we said, congresscritters have been busy little beavers in the past few weeks. Outside of Capitol Hill, a guy in Arizona got a bill passed forcing all schoolchildren to pass the same civics test (with a laughably low bar of only 60 percent correct) that immigrants have to pass to become United States citizens. I'm all for this idea, which is being pushed in every state. My wife took this test to become a citizen, and I think every high school student should be able to answer these questions before graduation, personally (when she became a citizen, my wife wrote a guest article for my site which has 20 of these questions at the bottom, if you're curious what's actually covered by the test). So I guess I'm biased on the issue.

In Drug War news, Mexican cartels have all but stopped smuggling marijuana across the border, because they simply can't compete with legal weed or medicinal weed. They've taken up smuggling meth and heroin instead. The exit of the drug cartels from the marijuana business was indeed predicted by pro-legalization activists as a positive result of legalization, so it's good to see that prediction come true.

And finally, in religious news, the Satanists won a symbolic victory down in Florida. Reacting to a school district's ruling which allowed religious texts (including Bibles) to be distributed to children, the Satanic Temple offered to hand out their coloring book The Satanic Children's Big Book Of Activities. The school district is now rethinking its policy and has put the distribution of any religious texts on hold. That is what is known as equality before the law -- if one religion is allowed access, then all religions have to also be allowed in. A clear victory for the freedom of religion!

 

We have three *Honorable Mention* awards to hand out before we get to the main prize. First up was President Obama who has been busy teasing individual policies that will doubtlessly be prominently featured in the State Of The Union address next Tuesday. We've summarized the two big ones from this week as talking points, below. Obama's poll numbers have also been impressively rising in the past week or so.

Our next *Honorable Mention* goes to Senator Elizabeth Warren, for successfully leading the fight against a Wall Street nominee considered odious to the populists and progressives in the Democratic Party. The more these populist muscles get flexed, the easier it'll be to use them in the future, and Warren (as usual) is taking the lead.

And lastly, Representative Chris Van Hollen deserves an *Honorable Mention* for his new plan to give the middle class a few tax breaks. This is a bold new populist tax plan that Democrats should really adopt as the centerpiece of their party platform, and he deserves all the praise and credit he's been getting for it.

Any one of these three might have won this week's *Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week* award, if it weren't for late-breaking news from the Justice Department. Today, Attorney General Eric Holder abruptly announced the end to a Drug War program that has become nothing short of "legalized highway robbery by the police." It's a federal program called "asset seizure," where a cop pulls you over, searches your car, and then confiscates all your cash because he thinks you got it from selling drugs. No, seriously -- this sort of thing does indeed happen right here in America. The Washington Post deserves a lot of credit for shining a spotlight on the rampant abuses of this program, devoting an entire Pulitzer-worthy series to the story. This spurred a few lawmakers to write to Holder urging him to end the program, and today Holder agreed to do just that.

From the story:



Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Friday barred local and state police from using federal law to seize cash, cars and other property without proving that a crime occurred.

Holder's action represents the most sweeping check on police power to confiscate personal property since the seizures began three decades ago as part of the war on drugs.

Since 2008, thousands of local and state police agencies have made more than 55,000 seizures of cash and property worth $3 billion under a civil asset forfeiture program at the Justice Department called Equitable Sharing.

The program has enabled local and state police to make seizures and then have them "adopted" by federal agencies, which share in the proceeds. The program allowed police departments and drug task forces to keep up to 80 percent of the proceeds of the adopted seizures, with the rest going to federal agencies.

"With this new policy, effective immediately, the Justice Department is taking an important step to prohibit federal agency adoptions of state and local seizures, except for public safety reasons," Holder said in a statement.



What he means by "public safety" is that cops will still be able to seize things like firearms, ammunition, and child pornography, which according to the Post, "have accounted for only a tenth of 1 percent of the total seizures since 2008."

Eric Holder has already resigned, but in no way can he be seen as any sort of "lame-duck chair-warmer" while his replacement is vetted by Congress. He is still making bold moves to dismantle the worst aspects of the "War On (Some) Drugs," and at this pace maybe he'll even deschedule marijuana on his last day in office. For now, though, and for taking such an important step towards ending this practice of legalized highway robbery by police, Eric Holder is without question the *Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week*.

[Attorney General Eric Holder doesn't have a public comment page, so you'll have to contact his boss via the White House contact page, to let him know you appreciate Holder's efforts.]

 

In the most bizarre story of the week (and that's saying something, this week), a Virginia politician was just re-elected to his seat in the state government even though he's serving a six-month sentence in jail, "which stemmed from his relationship with a 17-year-old receptionist at his law office." But he ran as an Independent (he's an ex-Democrat), so he doesn't really qualify for any of our awards, however deserved they may be.

Out in California, Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom disappointed many Democrats this week with his announcement that he wasn't interested in running for the Senate seat being vacated by Barbara Boxer. He seems more interested in moving up to replace Governor Jerry Brown, from his remarks. But he would have made a fine senator indeed, hence the disappointment.

The two House Democrats who voted for the Republican "Deport them all!" bill certainly deserve at least a *(Dis-)Honorable Mention* award this week. Even in news reports which meticulously listed all the Republicans who voted against the bill (H.R. 240), few bothered to name the Democrats breaking party ranks. We went to the bill's official roll call to find them, just to set this dishonorable record straight: Brad Ashford (Nebraska's 2nd district) and Collin Peterson (Minnesota's 7th district). Their constituents should feel free to contact them to let them know what you think of their vote.

But our *Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week* was Senator Dianne Feinstein, who reacted to the news that former general David Petraeus is in hot water for allegedly leaking classified information to the woman he was having an affair with by saying "the man has suffered enough," which was truly the height of hypocrisy for Feinstein. I wrote extensively about this on Monday, for those unfamiliar with the details.

Feinstein is usually the one out there breathing fire and demanding that the entire book be thrown at such leakers. She certainly has no sympathy for the likes of Edward Snowden, just to name one example. For her to go all softhearted for Petraeus stinks to the skies of "it shouldn't be a crime when my friends do it" elitism.

There are only two honorable positions to hold on the legal matter of leaking classified information to journalists: both Petraeus and Snowden should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, or neither of them should. To pick and choose is simply not an honorable option.

For her moral relativism, Dianne Feinstein is the *Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week*. She's certainly not the only one showing a double standard on the issue, but she was the most prominent this past week.

[Contact Senator Dianne Feinstein on her Senate contact page, to let her know what you think of her actions.]

 

*Volume 332* (1/16/14)

Before we get started here, we have to draw attention to a very interesting article in Salon on the subject of political messaging. Edwin Lyngar, a self-described "former right-winger," has some tips for lefties about the importance of framing your message in a "story."

While we don't agree 100 percent with everything he says, it is a great read because he makes such a forceful case about how bad Democrats are at this sort of thing. Democrats need to heed his advice.

With that as an intro, let's move right along to this week's suggested talking points for Democrats everywhere (whether at the water cooler or on a Sunday morning political chatfest) to use in the coming week. Of course, next week will likely be overwhelmed by the State Of The Union, so these may be rather short-lived this week (as better talking points will doubtlessly appear in response to Obama's upcoming speech). For now, we've got some positive ones and a few snarky negative ones, so let's get on with it.

 *   Have you noticed?*Sometimes our talking points get a little long-winded to be called true "talking points." This one's an exception, as it is meant to be used as an aside -- in other words, it can be tossed into any political conversation at just about any point.

"Have you noticed that, since the midterms, Obama's poll numbers have been climbing? Looks like even before the big speech his public approval is on the rise."

 *   Free community college*These next two were the big "laundry list" items we can all expect will have top billing on Tuesday night.

"I fully support Obama's call to provide two free years of community college to any student who can maintain a decent grade average. This is such a commonsense idea, in fact, that it's hard to see how anyone could oppose it. It's good for the country, and it should be a completely non-partisan issue. Who could be against free college for all?"

 *   Paid sick leave*Another one we'll hear about in a big way next Tuesday.

"I also fully support Obama's push for guaranteed paid sick leave and paid maternity leave. How can anyone call themselves 'pro-family' or 'pro-worker' and not support such an idea? Over 40 million workers currently get no paid sick leave at all. That's a disgrace. Obama has called for everyone to get seven paid sick days per year, and I enthusiastically support the policy."

 *   Obamacare scores another win*Beat this drum each and every time good news comes in.

"Did you see the new statistics showing that fewer people are struggling to pay for medical bills now that Obamacare has been fully implemented? This was one of the biggest reasons why the Affordable Care Act passed, because so many people were going into bankruptcy to cover unexpected illnesses. So it's good to see it's beginning to lift that burden from millions of American families."

 *   What are Republicans so terrified of?*It's just way, way too easy to get snarky about this one.

"I see that the Republican National Committee is desperately trying to cut down on the number of presidential candidate debates held this time around. They are trying to force their candidates not to participate in debates that they have not sanctioned, and they say they want only half of the debates as last time. This makes perfect sense, because the more the public hears from Republican candidates about what their true plans are, the less people want to vote for them. The R.N.C. even wants to hand-choose tame moderators for these debates, so that the candidates don't get asked real questions. I don't blame them for wanting to shut their own candidates up, so the public learns as little as possible about what they want to do to the country if elected."

 *   Boxcars? Really?*This one's so easy, you can even do a double-reverse outrage twist on it, since it originated among the Republicans themselves.

"I think it is absolutely reprehensible what some Republicans have begun calling others in their own party, in the midst of their intraparty fight on immigration policy. Reportedly, the more realistic Republicans -- those who realize the political fact that 11 million undocumented immigrants simply cannot be instantly deported -- have taken to calling the Tea Party immigration absolutists 'boxcar Republicans.' This grossly offensive imagery is meant to conjure up not just how horrendous deporting 11 million people would be in this country, but also to hearken back to the way the Nazis treated the Jews in World War II. Normally, when Republicans are badmouthing each other, I tend to stand aside and watch the frenzy with amusement, but this time I just have to speak out. The term 'boxcar Republican' is just downright disgraceful and highly offensive, even if they are only referring to members of their own party. I call on all Republicans to immediately cease using the word 'boxcar' in political debate, in fact."

 *   We love... um... boycotts?*This is the only possible answer to Republicans whining about Obama not appearing at the Charlie Hebdo march.

"I'm sorry, but you're complaining that Obama doesn't love the people of France enough? Really? France?!? I'm sorry, but I thought you guys hated France. A decade ago, you were in such a snit you were pouring out French wine into the gutter and demanding we all start saying 'freedom fries,' but now France is, quote, 'our oldest and first ally'? Really? If any Republican honestly thought America wouldn't be properly represented in the march, then why didn't they appear themselves? It's hard to take Republicans' newfound love of France seriously, especially when Bill O'Reilly is still selling a 'Boycott France' bumpersticker on his website. I mean, get your stories straight, guys."

 

Chris Weigant blogs at:Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on Huffington Post
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com
All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank

  Reported by Huffington Post 15 hours ago.

Filed under: Taxes, Personal Finance, Income Tax, IRS, State Income TaxThroughout January, workers are getting W-2 tax forms from their employers. To help you decipher the often-obscure codes and numbers you'll find on your form, below we've provided a box-by-box description of what you should expect to see on your W-2.

*Boxes a-f: Personal and Business Information*

Each W-2 includes information about your employer, including its name, address and tax identification number. It will also have your name, address, and Social Security number. It's important to check this information to ensure accuracy. Because a copy of your W-2 goes to the Social Security Administration to establish your work history and eligibility for Social Security benefits, mistaken Social Security numbers can lead to lower monthly payments in retirement or even denial of benefits entirely.

*Box 1: Wages, Tips, and Other Compensation*

Box 1 includes the figure that you'll include on your income tax form as taxable compensation. The number in Box 1 excludes benefits that aren't subject to tax, such as amounts you have withheld to pay your share of health-insurance premiums or contributions to employer-sponsored retirement plans.

*Box 2: Federal Income Tax Withheld*

Box 2 shows how much money your employer took out of your paycheck to cover your income tax liability. You'll include this on your tax return as well, and if it's larger than what you owe in taxes, then you'll get a refund for the difference.

*Boxes 3 and 4: Social Security Wages and Tax Withheld*

Boxes 3 and 4 show how much of your wages were subject to Social Security tax and how much tax your employer actually took out of your paycheck. This wage amount can differ from what's in Box 1 because many items that are deductible for income-tax purposes aren't exempt from Social Security tax. For instance, you still have to pay Social Security taxes on 401(k) and other employer-plan contributions. Also, if you earn more than the maximum amount on which Social Security charges payroll taxes -- $117,000 for 2014 -- then Box 3 will be capped at that amount.

*Boxes 5 and 6: Medicare Wages and Tips and Tax Withheld*

Similarly, Boxes 5 and 6 show the same calculations for Medicare taxation. The primary difference here is that there's no upper limit on income subject to Medicare taxes, so the Box 5 figure will be higher than Box 3 for high-income earners.

*Boxes 7 and 8: Social Security Tips and Allocated Tips*

For those who work in jobs with substantial tip income, Box 7 will show what tips you reported to your employer. They're already included in Box 1, so no additional work is necessary on your part. But if you have an entry in Box 8, your employer likely didn't report enough tip income for you and other employees. As a result, you'll have to add this amount to your taxable income in Box 1 and also file Form 4137 to report and pay additional payroll taxes on your tip income.

*Box 9: Nothing to See Here*

One oddity you'll notice is that your W-2 skips over Box 9. This area was once used to reflect any advance payments of Earned Income Tax Credits your employer made to you. Under current law, though, employers no longer make such payments, and so many W-2s simply have a blank area of the form where Box 9 used to be.

*Box 10: Dependent Care Benefits*

Those who get financial assistance for caring for children or other dependents will have the amount received in Box 10. You'll need this number to help calculate your Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit properly, as well as the amount you paid out of your own pocket for care.

*Box 11: Non-qualified Plans*

Some employees receive money from non-qualified deferred compensation plans, and for most employees, any amount here will already included in Box 1. But if your employer contributes to such a plan for services in prior years, it will be included here and in Boxes 3 and 5 but not necessarily in Box 1. Moreover, government employees who participate in Section 457 plans might have amounts here that won't be included elsewhere on the W-2.

*Box 12: Catchall Area*

Your employer can put several items in Box 12. An explanation of each code is on the back of your W-2, and you can also find a list of codes on page 27 of these IRS instructions. Essentially, though, things you find here will give you information about the particular compensation or benefits you received, and in many cases, you'll need these numbers elsewhere in your tax return to account properly for certain items.

*Box 13: For Certain Workers*

In Box 13, certain workers will have the boxes marked if they are statutory employees, participate in a company-sponsored retirement plan or receive sick pay from someone other than your employer. This information can determine eligibility for certain tax benefits, and it can also help the IRS identify individuals who would otherwise be treated as independent contractors.

*Box 14: Other*

This box is available for any other information an employer needs to give employees, such as union dues, payments for educational assistance, or taxes withheld for state disability insurance.

*Boxes 15-20: State and Local Tax Information*

Finally, Boxes 15 to 20 provide information that state and local tax authorities need to determine what you owe in state and local taxes. Income amounts will appear in Boxes 16 and 18, and any taxes you have withheld will appear in Boxes 17 and 19. You'll want to use those figures in preparing your state or local returns.

Motley Fool contributor Dan Caplinger is one of those rare people who actually enjoys talking about tax forms. You can follow him on Twitter @DanCaplinger or on Google Plus. To read about our favorite high-yielding dividend stocks for any investor, check out our free report.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments Reported by DailyFinance 5 hours ago.

A newly-enacted law signed by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie requires health insurance carriers in that state to adequately protect the personal information of individuals, with failure to do so being classified as a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA). Reported by Mondaq 5 hours ago.

Affordable health insurance and the Small Business Administration have helped everyday Americans fulfill their potential, the president said. Reported by IBTimes 3 hours ago.

Rising Medicaid enrollment provides significant tailwinds for health insurance providers in 2015. Reported by Motley Fool 1 hour ago.

Submitted by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform blog,

Government data reports are so funny. The blaring headlines today tells us that prices dropped in December. *We are all saving billions from the drop in oil and gas. Hallelujah!!!*

The corporate MSM never digs into the numbers to get the real truth. These reports and their distribution to the sheep are designed to keep you sedated and calm. Facts are not necessary. How this data pertains to your everyday life is not important to the .1% who control the flow of information.

Here is a link to the detailed inflation numbers by category. We already know they massage these numbers to achieve a happy ending, but even the massaged numbers tell an entirely different story than the one peddled to the masses by the government and corporate media.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.t07.htm

Below are the annual price increases for items that might impact your life on a daily basis:



Food at home – 3.7%

 

Food away from home – 3.0%

 

Meat – 12.7%

 

Fish and seafood – 5.6%

 

Eggs – 10.7%

 

Milk – 5.2%

 

Fruits & vegetables – 4.1%

 

Coffee – 4.2%

 

Butter – 22.5%

 

Natural gas – 5.8%

 

Footwear – 2.8%

 

Prescription drugs – 6.4%

 

Newspapers & magazines – 4.8%

 

College textbooks – 5.0%

 

Cigarettes – 3.1%

 

Apartment rent – 3.4%

 

Owners equivalent rent – 2.6%

 

Hotels – 7.3%

 

Water & sewer – 5.6%

 

Medical care -2.4%

 

Hospital care – 4.9%

 

College tuition – 3.4%

 

Postage – 4.1%

 

Tax preparation – 6.1%



*I don’t know about you, but the costs listed above account for a significant amount of my budget. Do those price increases jive with the message being spewed by the government controlled media?*

The credibility of their numbers is highly questionable in that they say health insurance accounts for .75% of a person’s annual budget. They actually have the balls to say health insurance fell by 0.5% over the last year. I’d love to hear from anyone out there whose health insurance premiums fell in the last year. Mine went up by 20%.

*Your government keepers will continue to drown you in propaganda and misinformation. But the average person should know they are being lied to. They see how much money they have left over at the end of every month. If any.* Reported by Zero Hedge 17 minutes ago.

Even when there's good news for health insurance prices, workers still can't catch a break.

 
 
 
 
 
 
  Reported by USATODAY.com 17 hours ago.

Last year was not a kind year. Deadly serious issues confronted the nation. It did not go well. Several arenas epitomized these issues more than most.

*Healthcare*

Cancer in the extended family was our introduction to the US civilian healthcare system and the providers and patients who populate the top tiers of US healthcare. Heroes are everywhere. From case workers striving to piece together some plan that allows a chance for treatment both to ease the pain and to attack the disease to the healthcare providers struggling to care for patients in the worst of health, many of whom will not survive the season.

While I write, across the room sits a prosperous looking patient being stressed by health insurance concerns. Waiting for her chemotherapy treatment to begin, she is told her insurance company claims her healthcare coverage lapsed. The staff worked their magic and righted that wrong. Horrendous, that it is necessary to wage war with insurance companies while desperately fighting the cancer eating you alive. I think of a friend, former congressman Chris Carney, who voted for Obama's healthcare bill knowing it meant he would lose re-election; this type of situation inspired his courage.

Heroes are the professional healthcare providers and support staff, most being paid salaries that will never make them wealthy. They cheerfully provide care to the country's high and low. At the end of the day, the Medicaid patient and the extremely well off share the same fate. Oh, the wealthy may be coddled more in 'nicer rooms' but if they want the best treatment, they will be here.

*Police and Justice*

Race, militarized police and violence tore the country. Ferguson, Missouri, was the catalyst but the problem was brewing. The militarization of US police forces followed the end of the Vietnam War with similar results. A subtle shift of the police focus from 'serve and protect' to 'defend and suppress' can distract some local police in to forgetting they are part of their community.

The entire Ferguson fiasco went down in 90 seconds. Chaos reigned. Long ago, I was a city cop. My experience leans toward an ill-trained cop that panicked and disaster occurred. But, if a police department loses ties to its community, it becomes an occupying force. This clearly happened in Ferguson. Communities must always evaluate their police. The honest citizens who take to the streets are heroes for demanding justice and they are not alone. Good citizens must seek justice, in the street if necessary.

It takes a special type of person to go out day after day and often see the worst of peoples' lives. Most cops are heroes; they do not want bad cops. Putting cameras on every uniform cop will help good cops two ways: protecting them from false accusations and eliminating bad cops. Good cops predominate. But cowards make heroes' jobs more difficult.

*Heroes*

Heroes are every individual who goes to work every day and does the best they can to improve the life of neighbors and society. You disagree, uttering they are 'just' doing their job? The secret is how they do their job.

Occasionally, heroes are defined by one significant act such as rescuing wounded comrades or bystanders. As heroic, are those whose daily effort against constant odds aids people and society. Years ago, while a patient at Walter Reed, I realized how nearly insurmountable was the healthcare provider's daily task of caring for our seriously wounded. It takes a very special kind of hero. For example, one who hesitated to write concerning prisoner healthcare because she feared public attacks.
"...I've put off writing about prisoner-patients because I imagined the overwhelming response from readers would be anger at the idea of convicted criminals' receiving free health care that many Americans cannot get or afford, even under the Affordable Care Act..."
The very core of a hero is the sense of selflessness and the urge to help people live or live better.

*Cowards abound*

Remember when we would all die from Ebola? Politicians and media talking heads called for closed borders and sold great fear. These timid and frightened people even demanded quarantining real healthcare heroes caring for the sick in Africa. "Lock them up" seemed to be their terrified screech.

When did American leadership become so timid and fear ridden? Where was the call for finding a cure and defeating the disease? Where were the political, media and religious leaders stepping forward to call for less fear and more courage?

Healthcare professionals, knowing the risks, still continued to work. I wager with a smile on most faces and a joke on their breath. Professional, everyday heroes showing up doing jobs that needed doing. Yet daily, politicians and media talking heads spread fear and hysteria every step of the way. Blocking progress and impeding their betters.

Timidity and fear spread to the weakest in our society where it often metastases into hate. When did our political, military and religious leadership fail their flocks? Was it the gospel of abundance seemingly adopted by all of them? These same timid and frightened 'leaders' inflamed identical false overblown fears of terrorism. 'What Would Today's American Insecurity Look Like to Someone From 1963?', January 9, 2015, by Tom Engelhardt summed up the failure of national leadership well:
"...In describing all this to that visitor from another America, you would, however, have to add that the Global War on Terror, in which giant ambitions met the most modest of opponents any great power had faced in hundreds of years, didn't work out so well..."
Follow real heroes' example, embrace commitment to others and begin the difficult task of discovering real solutions to real challenges. No strong nation ever long succeeded by embracing the mantra of fear and timidity. Reported by Huffington Post 22 hours ago.