NEW YORK, Feb.18, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- Fraud is hardly a new phenomenon. In the recent years it has been getting more sophisticated and causing more serious damage. Factors such as increasingly powerful, easily accessible technology and the global economic downturn continue to push the...
Reported by PR Newswire 12 hours ago.
Fraud Mitigation Market in Non-Life Insurance Sector - Market Intelligence, General Insurance & Non-life Insurance, (Health Insurance, Vehicle, Disability, Liability, Property, Casualty Insurance, Accident & Insurance) Fraud Mitigation, Fraud Analys
↧
↧
ObamaCare Signups Reach Record Highs, But Still Lower Than Projected
ObamaCare Signups Reach Record Highs, But Still Lower Than ProjectedObamaCare Signups Reach Record Highs, But Still Lower Than Projected
Has Been Optimized
The nation’s controversial health care exchange has enrolled 11.4 million Americans in its second year of existence, according to figures released by the White House on Feb. 17.
The Obama administration’s initial figure target was 9 million, but significantly less than the 13 million the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated for the sophomore year of the legislation.
According to CNN, “consumers raced to apply before open enrollment ended Sunday, with more than a million people picking plans in the final nine days.”
However, falling short of the CBO’s previous estimates has signaled to some analysts that the health care exchange hasn’t been performing as well as many would have hoped by its second year.
The ObamaCare website has also seen a number of changes and improvements since the new Health and Human Services Secretary (HHS), Sylvia Mathews Burwell, took over the position from Kathleen Sebelius in the summer of 2014.
Under Sebelius, the Affordable Care Act’s website, HealthCare.gov, was routinely plagued with criticism for consistently failing to function or handle the amount of traffic that was being directed online. Moreover, Sebelius’ defense of her work, or lack thereof, allowed for numerous talking points for Republicans looking to use the disastrous rollout of the website as a tool against the administration.
Secretary Burwell took a different approach to advertising the legislation. She focused more television advertisements during highly rated NFL games, online radio stations like Pandora, and utilized popular celebrities, such as Kerry Washington, to promote the website and its message.
While the Obama administration is celebrating the enrollments, some lawmakers are pressuring the White House to create a grace period for those who still do not have health insurance but will start to pay the mandatory fines during the current tax season.
Sources: CNN, New York Times, the Hill
Photo Credit: Kevin Boreland/Flickr
Shares:
Combined FB:
Video Piece:
Regular Piece
OV in Depth: Reported by Opposing Views 12 hours ago.
↧
White House says health law sign-ups top 11 million
The White House estimates that more than 11 million people signed up for subsidized private health insurance under President Barack Obama's law this year.
Reported by WTHR 12 hours ago.
↧
Three Wrongs Don't Make the Right Right
Anyone can be wrong once. But it takes talent to be wrong twice. And genius to be wrong thrice.
Eight years ago, California passed AB 32, a landmark law combating climate change. In an effort to lower greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels, the law caps carbon emissions and provides incentives for green technology. Republicans and big oil lobbyists prophesied that AB 32 would spell doom and devastation for the Golden State.
They were wrong. Even spectacularly wrong. This article evaluates three of the most common predictions about AB 32 made by oil lobbyists and their politicians. Each prediction stands in stark contrast to California today.
When it comes to climate policy, legislators across the country continue to listen to the same people and corporations that predicted AB 32 would wreck California. Now more than ever, we should recognize Big Oil's tactics for what they are: a dangerous politics of Chicken Little and Cassandra. As states tackle legislation to combat climate change, they should listen to scientists, not unsound scare tactics.
*Prediction #1: Acting against climate change would cripple the California economy. *
California Republicans and oil lobbyists asserted that AB 32 would devastate California's economy. The law would lead California "off the cliff" and would drive the "final nail in the coffin" of California's economy. AB 32, they argued, would "ravage" the Golden State and be "economically catastrophic."
Consider the extreme rhetoric of California Assemblyman Dan Logue (R-Loma Rica), who led Republican opposition to the law. In 2010, he pontificated:
California will never recover jobs while AB 32 is in effect...AB 32 must be suspended before it suspends our funding for schools, law enforcement, parks, water storage, and any hope of economic recovery. At its most basic analysis - no private sector jobs - no economy - no economy - no tax revenues for the state for anything. We will be broke.
Flash forward to 2014. California has regained all of the 1.4 million jobs it lost during the recession. The State's annual growth in nonfarm payrolls (2.2 percent) is substantially higher than that of the nation as a whole (1.6 percent). Far from being broke, California now has a material surplus. In the last budget, Governor Brown increased spending on K-12 education, higher education, and health insurance for the poor.
And the State's fiscal environment is improving. In January 2010, Standard and Poor's (S&P) gave California a credit rating of A-. In January 2013, the same organization gave California an A. This past November, S&P revised their rating even higher, to an A+. A catastrophe, indeed.
*Prediction #2: Acting against climate change would provoke a mass exodus of businesses out of the Golden State. *
Big oil lobbyists and Republican politicians warned California that AB 32 would force businesses out of California. Take Assemblyman Dan Logue, again. With his distinctive hyperbole, Logue asserted "most businesses will have to fold up shop or relocate" because of AB 32. (Yes, he used the word "most".)
More reasonable voices echoed similar themes. The President of the California Chamber of Commerce predicted businesses would bolt to North Carolina and China if AB 32 were passed. Even Arthur Laffer, the high priest of Reaganomics and supply side economics, chimed in. He argued that businesses would flee California because "other states and countries, of course, don't have to follow AB 32."
Instead, businesses flocked to California. AB 32 and other state incentives have created a dynamic and flourishing clean energy economy. Eight years after the Legislature passed AB 32, California leads the nation in clean-energy venture capital investment and the creation of clean-energy companies.
For the fifth year in a row, California ranked first in Clean Edge's "U.S. Clean Tech Leadership Index," thanks to the State's "clean-tech prominence,""effective policy levers at every level of government," and "a green-minded populace." By some estimates, green energy is the fastest growing part of the Golden State's economy, in part due to an influx of cleantech businesses.
Businesses benefit directly from a healthier environment. As a consequence of AB 32, California's air is already cleaner. Carbon dioxide emissions are falling. And average Californians (think: potential customers) are spending less on transportation and energy.
*Prediction #3: Acting against climate change would be fruitless because climate change is a scam. *
Opponents of AB 32 disregarded economic evidence to make their case against the law. They also disregarded the science. According to Assemblyman Dan Logue (yet again), climate change was (and is) a "hoax." To quote Logue:
I think the issue of global warming is not solved. I do not think the science has been settled... This is a scam.
California Republican Dana Rohrabacher went further. He enlightened his constituents with this gem of wisdom:
Just so you'll know, global warming is a total fraud and it's being designed because... [liberals] want to create global government to control all of our lives.
In case you were wondering, Dana Rohrabacher currently serves in Congress, as Vice-Chairman of the Science Committee.
Since the passage of AB 32, we have not yet seen a "global government" set on controlling "all of our lives." But we have seen the tragic consequences of climate change. Faced with unprecedented droughts to record temperatures, claims that climate change is a "hoax,""scam," and "total fraud" are simply laughable. The science of climate change was sound and settled in 2006; it is even more so in 2015.
*Conclusion*
Sometimes the sky doesn't fall. It lifts. Acting on climate change is reaping incredible benefits for California. Ultimately, none of the AB 32 dooms-day scenarios came true.
The arguments made by Republicans and dirty energy lobbyists against AB 32 should sound familiar. They are strikingly similar to those made by conservatives across this country in opposition to environmental legislation. In the here and now, Congressional Republicans argue that capping carbon emissions would cripple the American economy and force businesses out of the United States. And they are also likely to question the science behind climate change; 53 percent of Republicans in the House and 70 percent of Republicans in the Senate are climate change deniers.
Now, more than ever, we should not buy into conservatives' Chicken Little politics on environmental policy. They were wrong in the past and they are wrong now. Reported by Huffington Post 10 hours ago.
Eight years ago, California passed AB 32, a landmark law combating climate change. In an effort to lower greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels, the law caps carbon emissions and provides incentives for green technology. Republicans and big oil lobbyists prophesied that AB 32 would spell doom and devastation for the Golden State.
They were wrong. Even spectacularly wrong. This article evaluates three of the most common predictions about AB 32 made by oil lobbyists and their politicians. Each prediction stands in stark contrast to California today.
When it comes to climate policy, legislators across the country continue to listen to the same people and corporations that predicted AB 32 would wreck California. Now more than ever, we should recognize Big Oil's tactics for what they are: a dangerous politics of Chicken Little and Cassandra. As states tackle legislation to combat climate change, they should listen to scientists, not unsound scare tactics.
*Prediction #1: Acting against climate change would cripple the California economy. *
California Republicans and oil lobbyists asserted that AB 32 would devastate California's economy. The law would lead California "off the cliff" and would drive the "final nail in the coffin" of California's economy. AB 32, they argued, would "ravage" the Golden State and be "economically catastrophic."
Consider the extreme rhetoric of California Assemblyman Dan Logue (R-Loma Rica), who led Republican opposition to the law. In 2010, he pontificated:
California will never recover jobs while AB 32 is in effect...AB 32 must be suspended before it suspends our funding for schools, law enforcement, parks, water storage, and any hope of economic recovery. At its most basic analysis - no private sector jobs - no economy - no economy - no tax revenues for the state for anything. We will be broke.
Flash forward to 2014. California has regained all of the 1.4 million jobs it lost during the recession. The State's annual growth in nonfarm payrolls (2.2 percent) is substantially higher than that of the nation as a whole (1.6 percent). Far from being broke, California now has a material surplus. In the last budget, Governor Brown increased spending on K-12 education, higher education, and health insurance for the poor.
And the State's fiscal environment is improving. In January 2010, Standard and Poor's (S&P) gave California a credit rating of A-. In January 2013, the same organization gave California an A. This past November, S&P revised their rating even higher, to an A+. A catastrophe, indeed.
*Prediction #2: Acting against climate change would provoke a mass exodus of businesses out of the Golden State. *
Big oil lobbyists and Republican politicians warned California that AB 32 would force businesses out of California. Take Assemblyman Dan Logue, again. With his distinctive hyperbole, Logue asserted "most businesses will have to fold up shop or relocate" because of AB 32. (Yes, he used the word "most".)
More reasonable voices echoed similar themes. The President of the California Chamber of Commerce predicted businesses would bolt to North Carolina and China if AB 32 were passed. Even Arthur Laffer, the high priest of Reaganomics and supply side economics, chimed in. He argued that businesses would flee California because "other states and countries, of course, don't have to follow AB 32."
Instead, businesses flocked to California. AB 32 and other state incentives have created a dynamic and flourishing clean energy economy. Eight years after the Legislature passed AB 32, California leads the nation in clean-energy venture capital investment and the creation of clean-energy companies.
For the fifth year in a row, California ranked first in Clean Edge's "U.S. Clean Tech Leadership Index," thanks to the State's "clean-tech prominence,""effective policy levers at every level of government," and "a green-minded populace." By some estimates, green energy is the fastest growing part of the Golden State's economy, in part due to an influx of cleantech businesses.
Businesses benefit directly from a healthier environment. As a consequence of AB 32, California's air is already cleaner. Carbon dioxide emissions are falling. And average Californians (think: potential customers) are spending less on transportation and energy.
*Prediction #3: Acting against climate change would be fruitless because climate change is a scam. *
Opponents of AB 32 disregarded economic evidence to make their case against the law. They also disregarded the science. According to Assemblyman Dan Logue (yet again), climate change was (and is) a "hoax." To quote Logue:
I think the issue of global warming is not solved. I do not think the science has been settled... This is a scam.
California Republican Dana Rohrabacher went further. He enlightened his constituents with this gem of wisdom:
Just so you'll know, global warming is a total fraud and it's being designed because... [liberals] want to create global government to control all of our lives.
In case you were wondering, Dana Rohrabacher currently serves in Congress, as Vice-Chairman of the Science Committee.
Since the passage of AB 32, we have not yet seen a "global government" set on controlling "all of our lives." But we have seen the tragic consequences of climate change. Faced with unprecedented droughts to record temperatures, claims that climate change is a "hoax,""scam," and "total fraud" are simply laughable. The science of climate change was sound and settled in 2006; it is even more so in 2015.
*Conclusion*
Sometimes the sky doesn't fall. It lifts. Acting on climate change is reaping incredible benefits for California. Ultimately, none of the AB 32 dooms-day scenarios came true.
The arguments made by Republicans and dirty energy lobbyists against AB 32 should sound familiar. They are strikingly similar to those made by conservatives across this country in opposition to environmental legislation. In the here and now, Congressional Republicans argue that capping carbon emissions would cripple the American economy and force businesses out of the United States. And they are also likely to question the science behind climate change; 53 percent of Republicans in the House and 70 percent of Republicans in the Senate are climate change deniers.
Now, more than ever, we should not buy into conservatives' Chicken Little politics on environmental policy. They were wrong in the past and they are wrong now. Reported by Huffington Post 10 hours ago.
↧
Why Some Democrats Are Longing For The Bush Years
WASHINGTON -- On May 2, 2007, President George W. Bush issued only the second veto of his presidency, sending back to Congress a bill that would have appropriated $124 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan War while including a deadline for withdrawal from the former. In July, Senate Democrats took a whack again, this time introducing a bill that would have imposed a 120-day deadline for the start of combat troop withdrawals. The bill couldn't clear a filibuster. They pushed additional measures to revoke the initial war authorization, amendments to cut off funding by early 2008, and more bills to begin an expedited timeline for withdrawal.
None of it became law. Along the way, the party made concessions. They passed supplemental bills to keep military operations going, even as Congress continued to debate the war. And by the end of the year Democrats caved entirely, passing a budget bill that included funding for Iraq.
Eight years later, those war debates are being revisited, not so much because America's withdrawal from Iraq has come under scrutiny in light of the rise of the Islamic State, but because those debates provide a contrast for how an opposition Congress interacts with the president. Unlike today's Republicans, Democrats argue, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) knew that some cliffs were too important to send one's party over.
"No matter how much he might not have agreed with the execution of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, he wasn't going to cut off funding and leave troops out on the field without armor. That wasn't going to happen. And there were people on the left that couldn't get that point," said Rodell Mollineau, Reid's former staff director, during a recent episode of The Huffington Post's "Drinking and Talking."
Nostalgia for the debates of the later Bush years may seem odd to those who lived through them. The politics of 2007 and 2008 were defined by bitter exchanges over the war, investigations into White House misconduct, and a chaotic response to a historic market collapse.
"Obviously it was rough," Tony Fratto, a former Bush spokesman, told HuffPost a few months back. "We weren't just dealing with difficulty in getting legislation done that we wanted, but [Democrats] had also begun lots of investigations and oversight that we knew was coming and that would be on their agenda."
But was that smoother than the current political landscape? Democrats say they have a case to make. Not even two months into the new Congress, lawmakers seem less intimidated by policy cliffs -- expiration dates for tax cuts, looming budget cutoffs, or court cases that could invalidate laws -- and more invested in gaming out how best to manage the fallout.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Sunday that he is "certainly" ready to see funding for the Department of Homeland Security expire, as it is scheduled to do at the end of this month, rather than budge on his insistence that any funding bill end the president's executive actions on immigration. The president's veto threats outnumber the actual pieces legislation sent to him for his signature one way or the other. Transportation advocates have publicly encouraged lawmakers to find a solution to a soon-to-expire highway trust fund, but privately they fret no resolution will be reached. Republicans have set the stage for a cut in Social Security Disability insurance that could happen absent an agreement on reforms to that program. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is the lone Republican to say he would vote for Loretta Lynch as attorney general, even though his entire caucus wants to see an end to the tenure of the man she would replace.
It's not quite mutually assured self-destruction, since each party believes the other will eventually cave. And certainly there is the chance that lawmakers' bravado will fade as deadlines near. There also have been some areas of progress. While Lynch's nomination lingers, Ash Carter has been confirmed as the next secretary of defense, and an early push to pass additional sanctions against Iran has seemingly been put on pause at the president's request.
But the current mood suggests that, in the final stretch of the Obama era, both parties are invested in what best can be described as strategic inaction. And although Republicans may argue that the stakes of any single issue don't rise to the level of, say, Iraq combat operations, lives are still at risk.
Just weeks before the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments challenging the legality of subsidies issued by federally run health insurance exchanges, Republicans have made it clear that they don't intend to lift a finger to fix the law should those subsidies be invalidated.
"No," said House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) last week when asked if Republicans had a contingency plan for a court decision that works within the confines of Obamacare. "[T]he idea is not to make Obamacare work better or to actually authorize Obamacare. The idea is to show what our alternative to Obamacare looks like in these states."
At a breakfast briefing last week with reporters, one prominent Republican House member was even more unequivocal about the potential loss of subsidies. "[People] were never entitled to them," said the member, who spoke candidly with reporters on condition of anonymity.
Asked if he'd amend the language in Obamacare's controversial clause in exchange for other Republican priorities, the member didn't skip a beat. "It's not a question of compromise," he said. "Obamacare has failed ... If the president and the Congress that passed this on a partisan-only basis did it wrong, then they hoist themselves on their own petard." Reported by Huffington Post 10 hours ago.
None of it became law. Along the way, the party made concessions. They passed supplemental bills to keep military operations going, even as Congress continued to debate the war. And by the end of the year Democrats caved entirely, passing a budget bill that included funding for Iraq.
Eight years later, those war debates are being revisited, not so much because America's withdrawal from Iraq has come under scrutiny in light of the rise of the Islamic State, but because those debates provide a contrast for how an opposition Congress interacts with the president. Unlike today's Republicans, Democrats argue, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) knew that some cliffs were too important to send one's party over.
"No matter how much he might not have agreed with the execution of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, he wasn't going to cut off funding and leave troops out on the field without armor. That wasn't going to happen. And there were people on the left that couldn't get that point," said Rodell Mollineau, Reid's former staff director, during a recent episode of The Huffington Post's "Drinking and Talking."
Nostalgia for the debates of the later Bush years may seem odd to those who lived through them. The politics of 2007 and 2008 were defined by bitter exchanges over the war, investigations into White House misconduct, and a chaotic response to a historic market collapse.
"Obviously it was rough," Tony Fratto, a former Bush spokesman, told HuffPost a few months back. "We weren't just dealing with difficulty in getting legislation done that we wanted, but [Democrats] had also begun lots of investigations and oversight that we knew was coming and that would be on their agenda."
But was that smoother than the current political landscape? Democrats say they have a case to make. Not even two months into the new Congress, lawmakers seem less intimidated by policy cliffs -- expiration dates for tax cuts, looming budget cutoffs, or court cases that could invalidate laws -- and more invested in gaming out how best to manage the fallout.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Sunday that he is "certainly" ready to see funding for the Department of Homeland Security expire, as it is scheduled to do at the end of this month, rather than budge on his insistence that any funding bill end the president's executive actions on immigration. The president's veto threats outnumber the actual pieces legislation sent to him for his signature one way or the other. Transportation advocates have publicly encouraged lawmakers to find a solution to a soon-to-expire highway trust fund, but privately they fret no resolution will be reached. Republicans have set the stage for a cut in Social Security Disability insurance that could happen absent an agreement on reforms to that program. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is the lone Republican to say he would vote for Loretta Lynch as attorney general, even though his entire caucus wants to see an end to the tenure of the man she would replace.
It's not quite mutually assured self-destruction, since each party believes the other will eventually cave. And certainly there is the chance that lawmakers' bravado will fade as deadlines near. There also have been some areas of progress. While Lynch's nomination lingers, Ash Carter has been confirmed as the next secretary of defense, and an early push to pass additional sanctions against Iran has seemingly been put on pause at the president's request.
But the current mood suggests that, in the final stretch of the Obama era, both parties are invested in what best can be described as strategic inaction. And although Republicans may argue that the stakes of any single issue don't rise to the level of, say, Iraq combat operations, lives are still at risk.
Just weeks before the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments challenging the legality of subsidies issued by federally run health insurance exchanges, Republicans have made it clear that they don't intend to lift a finger to fix the law should those subsidies be invalidated.
"No," said House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) last week when asked if Republicans had a contingency plan for a court decision that works within the confines of Obamacare. "[T]he idea is not to make Obamacare work better or to actually authorize Obamacare. The idea is to show what our alternative to Obamacare looks like in these states."
At a breakfast briefing last week with reporters, one prominent Republican House member was even more unequivocal about the potential loss of subsidies. "[People] were never entitled to them," said the member, who spoke candidly with reporters on condition of anonymity.
Asked if he'd amend the language in Obamacare's controversial clause in exchange for other Republican priorities, the member didn't skip a beat. "It's not a question of compromise," he said. "Obamacare has failed ... If the president and the Congress that passed this on a partisan-only basis did it wrong, then they hoist themselves on their own petard." Reported by Huffington Post 10 hours ago.
↧
↧
Only 4% of Georgians opt for ObamaCare in second year of Open Enrollment
Only 4 percent of Georgians and 8 percent of metro Atlantans opted for ObamaCare last year, according to the latest data from the federal government. On Feb. 15, the second year of Open Enrollment came to a close with 536,929 Georgia consumers (out of 10,097,343) selecting a plan or being automatically reenrolled through the Health Insurance Marketplace, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services reported. Here's how Georgia compares to a few other Southeastern states. Florida has 1,600,006…
Reported by bizjournals 10 hours ago.
↧
Latest Obamacare numbers: More than a quarter million N.J. residents enrolled
Another 91K Garden State residents have signed up for a health insurance plan through the federal website, beating the Feb. 15 deadline to have coverage or face a fine.
Reported by NJ.com 10 hours ago.
↧
Late surge boosted Affordable Care Act sign-ups in North Carolina, Triad
Not that we're a nation of procrastinators, but the final day to enroll in a health insurance plan through marketplaces created by the Affordable Care Act was, of course, the busiest. By the close of this year's open enrollment period on Feb. 15, about 11.4 million people nationwide had purchased plans through the state- and federally run insurance marketplaces that offer subsidized coverage as mapped out by the health care reform law. Within North Carolina, 559,473 customers purchased plans or…
Reported by bizjournals 9 hours ago.
↧
Florida has highest number of enrollees under health law
(AP) — Florida has eclipsed California to become the state with the highest number of consumers buying health insurance in both the state and federal exchange under the Affordable Care Act. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 3.8 million of Florida's 19.5 million residents were without health insurance, making it the third-highest in the nation at 19.5 percent.
Reported by SeattlePI.com 8 hours ago.
↧
↧
Could uninsured Americans get a second chance to avoid a fine?
Obamacare requires adults to buy health insurance or pay a tax penalty, but the administration is mulling a reprieve
Reported by CBS News 8 hours ago.
↧
Illinois Governor Unveils Bleak Budget Plan With Billions Of Dollars In Cuts
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) -- Illinois' new Republican governor called Wednesday for deep spending cuts to Medicaid, pensions and other programs to fix the state's budget mess without raising taxes - a pitch met with quick opposition from Democrats who control the Legislature.
Delivering his first budget address since winning office last fall, Gov. Bruce Rauner said his plan would end "the irresponsible and reckless practices of the past." He said lawmakers must be willing to make politically unpopular decisions to close a more than $6 billion budget hole next year.
"This is our last, best chance to get our house in order," Rauner said.
According to budget documents released Wednesday afternoon, Rauner is recommending $1.5 billion in cuts.
Rauner's budget blueprint is among the first concrete tests of whether the Republican first-time officeholder can begin to bring the change he has promised to one of the last Democratic strongholds in the Midwest.
The multimillionaire former private equity investor follows other Republican governors who've taken over states and attempted to make them more business-friendly by shrinking government and taxes.
But Rauner, who was seen as a rock star for winning the governor's office in Barack Obama's home state, faces an even greater challenge in a post-recession state where Democrats have super-majorities in both chambers.
They criticized Rauner's plan as disproportionately hurting working families while leaving corporate tax "loopholes" in place.
"He's putting lives and livelihoods in jeopardy by treating our state's most vulnerable people like burdens," said state Sen. Mattie Hunter, a Chicago Democrat.
Many Democrats want to raise Illinois' income tax rate, which dropped on Jan. 1 from 5 percent to 3.75 percent, to avoid some spending cuts. House Speaker Michael Madigan, a Chicago Democrat, said he believes the state needs a mix of spending cuts and new revenue. He also renewed a call for an additional tax on incomes over $1 million.
The bleak budget picture has led major credit agencies to give Illinois the worst credit rating of any state in the U.S. It also has the nation's worst-funded public pension system, with a shortfall of $111 billion.
Rauner said Illinois could save more than $2 billion by moving all state workers to a less-generous pension system lawmakers approved in 2010 for employees hired after Jan. 1, 2011. Workers also would have the option of moving to a 401(k)-style plan. He said firefighters and police would be able to keep their current benefits.
Projected savings from any pension changes aren't likely to be realized in the next fiscal year, however. Even if Rauner could get a bill through the Legislature, the state's powerful labor unions - with whom Rauner has clashed repeatedly since taking office - would challenge it in court.
Those unions and retirees already have sued over a 2013 pension overhaul that cut benefits. A lower court found the measure unconstitutional, and the Illinois Supreme Court is considering the case.
Rauner said he wants "significant" cuts in Medicaid, though he didn't give a specific dollar amount. He also called for an "aggressive" review of eligibility for enrollees in the health insurance program for low-income and disabled people.
The governor also proposed increasing spending for K-12 education by about $300 million but cutting funding for higher education. And he proposed cutting state aid to local governments. Reported by Huffington Post 8 hours ago.
Delivering his first budget address since winning office last fall, Gov. Bruce Rauner said his plan would end "the irresponsible and reckless practices of the past." He said lawmakers must be willing to make politically unpopular decisions to close a more than $6 billion budget hole next year.
"This is our last, best chance to get our house in order," Rauner said.
According to budget documents released Wednesday afternoon, Rauner is recommending $1.5 billion in cuts.
Rauner's budget blueprint is among the first concrete tests of whether the Republican first-time officeholder can begin to bring the change he has promised to one of the last Democratic strongholds in the Midwest.
The multimillionaire former private equity investor follows other Republican governors who've taken over states and attempted to make them more business-friendly by shrinking government and taxes.
But Rauner, who was seen as a rock star for winning the governor's office in Barack Obama's home state, faces an even greater challenge in a post-recession state where Democrats have super-majorities in both chambers.
They criticized Rauner's plan as disproportionately hurting working families while leaving corporate tax "loopholes" in place.
"He's putting lives and livelihoods in jeopardy by treating our state's most vulnerable people like burdens," said state Sen. Mattie Hunter, a Chicago Democrat.
Many Democrats want to raise Illinois' income tax rate, which dropped on Jan. 1 from 5 percent to 3.75 percent, to avoid some spending cuts. House Speaker Michael Madigan, a Chicago Democrat, said he believes the state needs a mix of spending cuts and new revenue. He also renewed a call for an additional tax on incomes over $1 million.
The bleak budget picture has led major credit agencies to give Illinois the worst credit rating of any state in the U.S. It also has the nation's worst-funded public pension system, with a shortfall of $111 billion.
Rauner said Illinois could save more than $2 billion by moving all state workers to a less-generous pension system lawmakers approved in 2010 for employees hired after Jan. 1, 2011. Workers also would have the option of moving to a 401(k)-style plan. He said firefighters and police would be able to keep their current benefits.
Projected savings from any pension changes aren't likely to be realized in the next fiscal year, however. Even if Rauner could get a bill through the Legislature, the state's powerful labor unions - with whom Rauner has clashed repeatedly since taking office - would challenge it in court.
Those unions and retirees already have sued over a 2013 pension overhaul that cut benefits. A lower court found the measure unconstitutional, and the Illinois Supreme Court is considering the case.
Rauner said he wants "significant" cuts in Medicaid, though he didn't give a specific dollar amount. He also called for an "aggressive" review of eligibility for enrollees in the health insurance program for low-income and disabled people.
The governor also proposed increasing spending for K-12 education by about $300 million but cutting funding for higher education. And he proposed cutting state aid to local governments. Reported by Huffington Post 8 hours ago.
↧
Florida Has Highest Number Of Enrollees Under Health Law
Florida has become the state with the highest number of people buying health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.
Reported by cbs4.com 8 hours ago.
↧
Gay Marriage Is Good For Your Health -- Even If You're Not Gay
Last week, Alabama's Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore joined a long, pathetic line-up on the wrong side of history when he tried to defy the US Supreme Court by ordering Alabama court officials to continue denying marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. Some writers correctly compared the stand-off to a previous shameful chapter of Alabama history, when Governor George Wallace tried to defy US Supreme Court rulings about segregation. What I would like to add to all of this dialogue are the benefits to health justice when we recognize same-sex marriages. Given the network of mutuality in which we live, the health of our whole society improves when we uphold the rights for our LGBT brothers and sisters.
For many of us, access to health care depends on the legal recognition and standing of our relationships. When a person is covered by her or his spouse's employer-based health insurance, that coverage depends on the marriage being legally recognized in their state. Similarly, when a person wants to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapacitated spouse, having a legally recognized marriage supports the authority of patients and families. These are basic components of health care access and delivery for all of us, regardless of our sexual orientation. As a physician, I believe patients and their families have enough to deal with from illness and injury. It is an unjust and unnecessary burden to require couples and families to defend the validity of their relationships when seeking health care. I am not alone in this line of thinking. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Psychiatric Association have all issued unequivocal statements of support for marriage equality for same-sex couples.
Regardless of our fields of expertise, health care providers should be glad to see the progress made at the federal level to build equality for same-sex married couples. For federally-funded health care programs (including all of the health insurance exchanges set up by the federal government in 30 states), the Affordable Care Act prohibits basing coverage eligibility, benefits, and insurance premiums on gender identity, sexual orientation, or sex stereotyping. The health insurance exchanges set up by state governments are similarly prohibited from discriminating based on sexual orientation. When the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 2013, there were a variety of positive outcomes for access to and delivery of health care. Since that ruling, same-sex spouses have been able to use benefits under Medicare Advantage and the Veterans Administration.
However, as Americans we are governed by an interplay of federal and state laws. Defeating DOMA was a major step in the right direction, but the journey is hardly over. The US Department of Health and Human Services must defer to state governments to recognize same-sex marriages when determining Medicaid eligibility. One can imagine how much harder it is for low-income LGBT Americans (almost 40 percent earn less than $30,000 per year) to get health insurance coverage when they live in a state that neither expands Medicaid nor legalizes their marriages. Additionally, for same-sex couples living in states that do not recognize their marriage, they can not readily use provisions of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to bond with a newborn, to welcome a newly adopted child to their home, or to care for a sick family member. This system of double standards contributes to disparities in health care for our LGBT brothers and sisters, especially when we look at HIV and mental health burdens.
When any of us live as second-class citizens, none of us can truly thrive. By taking such contrasting policy paths for marriage and health, our state governments are turning America into a place where access to basic equality and health rights depends on what we earn, who we love, and where we live. Crossing state lines can transform whether we are insured, whether we can participate in medical decisions for our families, whether we can take time away from our jobs to prioritize health needs, and so on. As a physician, these conditions are not part of the Hippocratic Oath I took, and as an American, this patchwork of discrimination undermines "liberty and justice for all." I do not have to be gay to realize that we are all vulnerable as individuals, but we can draw strength from communities united under common values of health justice. We can do better. We must do better. Let's start acting like Americans and manifest equality for all of us, regardless of who we love. Reported by Huffington Post 7 hours ago.
For many of us, access to health care depends on the legal recognition and standing of our relationships. When a person is covered by her or his spouse's employer-based health insurance, that coverage depends on the marriage being legally recognized in their state. Similarly, when a person wants to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapacitated spouse, having a legally recognized marriage supports the authority of patients and families. These are basic components of health care access and delivery for all of us, regardless of our sexual orientation. As a physician, I believe patients and their families have enough to deal with from illness and injury. It is an unjust and unnecessary burden to require couples and families to defend the validity of their relationships when seeking health care. I am not alone in this line of thinking. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Psychiatric Association have all issued unequivocal statements of support for marriage equality for same-sex couples.
Regardless of our fields of expertise, health care providers should be glad to see the progress made at the federal level to build equality for same-sex married couples. For federally-funded health care programs (including all of the health insurance exchanges set up by the federal government in 30 states), the Affordable Care Act prohibits basing coverage eligibility, benefits, and insurance premiums on gender identity, sexual orientation, or sex stereotyping. The health insurance exchanges set up by state governments are similarly prohibited from discriminating based on sexual orientation. When the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 2013, there were a variety of positive outcomes for access to and delivery of health care. Since that ruling, same-sex spouses have been able to use benefits under Medicare Advantage and the Veterans Administration.
However, as Americans we are governed by an interplay of federal and state laws. Defeating DOMA was a major step in the right direction, but the journey is hardly over. The US Department of Health and Human Services must defer to state governments to recognize same-sex marriages when determining Medicaid eligibility. One can imagine how much harder it is for low-income LGBT Americans (almost 40 percent earn less than $30,000 per year) to get health insurance coverage when they live in a state that neither expands Medicaid nor legalizes their marriages. Additionally, for same-sex couples living in states that do not recognize their marriage, they can not readily use provisions of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to bond with a newborn, to welcome a newly adopted child to their home, or to care for a sick family member. This system of double standards contributes to disparities in health care for our LGBT brothers and sisters, especially when we look at HIV and mental health burdens.
When any of us live as second-class citizens, none of us can truly thrive. By taking such contrasting policy paths for marriage and health, our state governments are turning America into a place where access to basic equality and health rights depends on what we earn, who we love, and where we live. Crossing state lines can transform whether we are insured, whether we can participate in medical decisions for our families, whether we can take time away from our jobs to prioritize health needs, and so on. As a physician, these conditions are not part of the Hippocratic Oath I took, and as an American, this patchwork of discrimination undermines "liberty and justice for all." I do not have to be gay to realize that we are all vulnerable as individuals, but we can draw strength from communities united under common values of health justice. We can do better. We must do better. Let's start acting like Americans and manifest equality for all of us, regardless of who we love. Reported by Huffington Post 7 hours ago.
↧
↧
Healthcare.gov Isn't Consumer-Friendly Enough, Experts Say
Health and marketing experts are calling for Healthcare.gov tweaks to help people in the federal health insurance marketplace.
Reported by IBTimes 6 hours ago.
↧
Experts To Obama: Tweak Healthcare.gov
Health and marketing experts are calling for Healthcare.gov adjustments to help people in the federal health insurance marketplace.
Reported by IBTimes 6 hours ago.
↧
Sign-ups for state's health insurance marketplace are on the mark, officials say
More than 407,000 New Yorkers signed up for private health plans on the state's insurance exchange, and the state is considering a special enrollment period to those still without health insurance facing a tax penalty, according to Donna Frescatore, executive director of NY State of Health.
Reported by Newsday 6 hours ago.
↧
Oregon Sues Oracle Over Health Insurance Site
Oregon has filed a new lawsuit against Oracle Inc. saying the company is planning to pull the plug on hosting the state’s Medicaid system, which could jeopardize health insurance enrollment for thousands.
Reported by Wall Street Journal 6 hours ago.
↧
↧
Survey: Americans' worst retirement fears
A survey by Bankrate.com shows what Americans are worried about most when it comes to retirement. As Anthony Mason reports, affording health insurance is a major concern.
Reported by CBS News 5 hours ago.
↧
385,000 Virginians sign up for insurance under Affordable Care Act
Almost 385,000 Virginians enrolled in private health insurance through the Affordable Care Act's marketplace, healthcare.gov, by the Feb. 15 deadline for coverage in 2015. That surpasses the goal of enrolling an additional 160,000 over last year, set by Gov. Terry McAuliffe at the outset of...
Reported by dailypress.com 3 hours ago.
↧
53% of Uninsured Americans Didn’t Know They Were Eligible for Health Coverage
More than 11 million people signed up for subsidized health insurance by the Feb. 15 deadline, according to the White House on Tuesday. It was 11.4 million more or less, and President Barack Obama did a small victory dance.He … Reported by Epoch Times 3 hours ago.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
