As New York debates a new tax on health insurance to help pay for the Affordable Care Act, federal regulators say a website attached to the law is improving. That is according to the new report from the Government Accountability Office, which outlined management of HealthCare.gov, the website handling the federal Affordable Care Act marketplaces, called exchanges. Meanwhile, New York is among the 16 states that run their own exchange website, NYstateofhealth.ny.gov. Gov. Andrew Cuomo has proposed…
Reported by bizjournals 3 hours ago.
HealthCare.gov improving as New York seeks $69M tax for Affordable Care Act website
↧
↧
Florida Senate president pushes plan that would insure low-income residents
Pointing to a need to provide affordable health care to low-income residents, Senate President Andy Gardiner, R-Orlando, sent a memo to senators touting a plan that would set up a new state "marketplace" for insurance coverage. The memo was dated Thursday, the same day the Senate Health Policy Committee filed a 49-page bill to create what is called the Florida Health Insurance Affordability Exchange, or FHIX, program. The program would rely heavily on federal funds to offer private health insurance…
Reported by bizjournals 2 hours ago.
↧
Can Bureaucrats Rewrite Laws? Latest Obamacare Supreme Court Case Could Let Them Do Just That
Does the law mean what it says, or whatever government officials want it to mean? That is the fundamental question confronting the Supreme Court in King v. Burwell, the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act. While the answer would be uncontroversial in an ordinary case, nothing involving Obamacare is uncontroversial. It will take a Court committed to the principle of judicial engagement to say what the law is, rather than what the executive branch thinks it ought to be.
King concerns the IRS's interpretation of a section of the ACA concerning tax credits for buying health insurance from government-operated insurance exchanges. Wishing states to set up their own exchanges but lacking constitutional authority to force them to do so, Congress used a carrot-and-stick approach, authorizing tax credits to help qualifying individuals purchase health insurance "through an Exchange established by the State." As a failsafe, the ACA required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to create federally operated exchanges in states that declined to set up their own. When 34 states declined to establish their own exchanges, the IRS decided that it would issue tax credits through federal exchanges, despite a lack of explicit authorization in the ACA's text. It has been doing so since January 1st, 2014. The question is whether the ACA actually permits it to do so.
Why did the IRS think that it had such authority? In finalizing its rule, the IRS stated that its interpretation of the ACA was "consistent with the language, purpose, and structure of section 36B [of the ACA] and the Affordable Care Act as a whole." The IRS invoked "statutory language" and "legislative history" as supporting its position without specifying what statutory language or legislative history supported its position. Thus, the IRS did not provide a reasoned explanation for its actions--it acted arbitrarily.
Despite the government's efforts to paint the relevant text of the ACA as ambiguous, the meaning of the text is in fact clear. The law says the tax credits go only to people to purchase insurance on an "Exchange established by the State." The ACA expressly provides that "'State' means each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia." Congress knew how to provide that non-state entities be treated as states--in fact, it did so elsewhere in the ACA, providing that a federal territory that establishes an exchange "shall be treated as a state." It did not do so in this context. As Justice Alito put it at oral argument on Wednesday, "If Congress did not want the phrase 'established by the State' to mean what that would normally be taken to mean, why did they use that language?" Seeking to defend the IRS's rule, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli bobbed and weaved but could not give a satisfactory answer, leading Justice Kennedy to observe that his arguments "seem(ed)... to go in the wrong direction."
The Supreme Court has consistently held that agencies cannot rewrite congressionally enacted statutes under the pretense of implementing them. Last year, in Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, the Court refused to engage in a "holistic" interpretation of the Indian Gaming Regulations Act to allow the state of Michigan to enjoin illegal gambling that did not take place on Indian lands. As Justice Kagan put it, writing for the Court, "This Court has no roving license, in even ordinary cases of statutory interpretation, to disregard clear language." The language at issue in King, considered in context, is clear, and that meaning should prevail.
Why does it matter that the ACA be taken to mean what it says? What is at stake? Nothing less than the rule of law--the existence of a legal order characterized by a clear, non-contradictory, and stable rules that are general in scope and bind government officials no less than ordinary citizens. If written laws can be revised after the fact by unelected bureaucrats who do not treat them as imposing any genuine constraints, we do not have the rule of law; instead, government officials can simply employ whatever reasoning they like (or none at all, as the IRS appears to have done here) in order to further whatever ends they think desirable. To allow the current administration to transform "X" into "not X" is to move us closer to that precipice. The "victors" today will be victims of unchecked government power tomorrow.
In order to defend the rule of law, the Supreme Court must engage with the law as written. It must seek the truth concerning the political choices and tradeoffs manifested in the ACA itself. As Thomas Paine once put it, "In America, the law is king." In King, the Court must make plain where the authority lies. Reported by Huffington Post 44 minutes ago.
King concerns the IRS's interpretation of a section of the ACA concerning tax credits for buying health insurance from government-operated insurance exchanges. Wishing states to set up their own exchanges but lacking constitutional authority to force them to do so, Congress used a carrot-and-stick approach, authorizing tax credits to help qualifying individuals purchase health insurance "through an Exchange established by the State." As a failsafe, the ACA required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to create federally operated exchanges in states that declined to set up their own. When 34 states declined to establish their own exchanges, the IRS decided that it would issue tax credits through federal exchanges, despite a lack of explicit authorization in the ACA's text. It has been doing so since January 1st, 2014. The question is whether the ACA actually permits it to do so.
Why did the IRS think that it had such authority? In finalizing its rule, the IRS stated that its interpretation of the ACA was "consistent with the language, purpose, and structure of section 36B [of the ACA] and the Affordable Care Act as a whole." The IRS invoked "statutory language" and "legislative history" as supporting its position without specifying what statutory language or legislative history supported its position. Thus, the IRS did not provide a reasoned explanation for its actions--it acted arbitrarily.
Despite the government's efforts to paint the relevant text of the ACA as ambiguous, the meaning of the text is in fact clear. The law says the tax credits go only to people to purchase insurance on an "Exchange established by the State." The ACA expressly provides that "'State' means each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia." Congress knew how to provide that non-state entities be treated as states--in fact, it did so elsewhere in the ACA, providing that a federal territory that establishes an exchange "shall be treated as a state." It did not do so in this context. As Justice Alito put it at oral argument on Wednesday, "If Congress did not want the phrase 'established by the State' to mean what that would normally be taken to mean, why did they use that language?" Seeking to defend the IRS's rule, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli bobbed and weaved but could not give a satisfactory answer, leading Justice Kennedy to observe that his arguments "seem(ed)... to go in the wrong direction."
The Supreme Court has consistently held that agencies cannot rewrite congressionally enacted statutes under the pretense of implementing them. Last year, in Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, the Court refused to engage in a "holistic" interpretation of the Indian Gaming Regulations Act to allow the state of Michigan to enjoin illegal gambling that did not take place on Indian lands. As Justice Kagan put it, writing for the Court, "This Court has no roving license, in even ordinary cases of statutory interpretation, to disregard clear language." The language at issue in King, considered in context, is clear, and that meaning should prevail.
Why does it matter that the ACA be taken to mean what it says? What is at stake? Nothing less than the rule of law--the existence of a legal order characterized by a clear, non-contradictory, and stable rules that are general in scope and bind government officials no less than ordinary citizens. If written laws can be revised after the fact by unelected bureaucrats who do not treat them as imposing any genuine constraints, we do not have the rule of law; instead, government officials can simply employ whatever reasoning they like (or none at all, as the IRS appears to have done here) in order to further whatever ends they think desirable. To allow the current administration to transform "X" into "not X" is to move us closer to that precipice. The "victors" today will be victims of unchecked government power tomorrow.
In order to defend the rule of law, the Supreme Court must engage with the law as written. It must seek the truth concerning the political choices and tradeoffs manifested in the ACA itself. As Thomas Paine once put it, "In America, the law is king." In King, the Court must make plain where the authority lies. Reported by Huffington Post 44 minutes ago.
↧
Florida Bill Would Create State Health Insurance Exchange
A new bill, proposed in the Senate, would offer an alternative to Medicaid expansion and would use federal funding to insure nearly 1 million low-income Floridians.
Reported by cbs4.com 1 hour ago.
↧
Expanding the Conversation on STEM
Open a newspaper or turn on the TV today and you'll be hard pressed to ignore the steady drumbeat of an improving economy. Unemployment rates are at pre-recession levels. Private sector jobs are growing at the fastest pace since 1997. The number of Americans without health insurance has fallen by nearly 30 percent. In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts we added over 60,000 jobs last year alone, pushing our unemployment rate down to 5.5 percent.
But this rosy picture is only half the story. Here's the other half: In Massachusetts, the unemployment rate is over 60 percent higher for black residents than for white and 110 percent higher for Hispanics. Just as alarming, the poverty rate for black families in our state is 144 percent higher than for their white neighbors and 273 percent higher for Hispanics.
These numbers reveal the ugly undercurrent to our economic recovery; we are leaving people behind.
With this in mind, I joined the Latino STEM Alliance last month for a discussion about Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education. Around the table were business owners, vocational school educators, nursing professionals and other public officials who share my concern that we are building an economy that too many families in our country can't access.
Here's the way I see it. Across the country innovation industries are reorienting our economy around sectors like health care, advanced manufacturing, IT, clean energy and robotics. Over the next ten years, jobs in STEM-related fields are expected to grow by over 17 percent compared with just nine percent growth in other fields. That means that if we want to set up our kids for success in a modern economy, we need to ensure they have access to the education, training and skills that those jobs require. That's where STEM comes in.
The problem, however, is that federal and state STEM efforts to date have failed to reach three notable groups: women, minorities and low-income communities. Today only 26 percent of all STEM jobs in our country are held by women; 13 percent is held by Hispanics and African-Americans combined.
By 2020 there will be an estimated one million unfilled computer programming jobs. But in 2013 there were 11 states where not a single African-American student took the computer science AP test. The numbers weren't much better for Hispanic or female students.
This is a massive disconnect; a shortcoming that threatens to put these populations at an economic disadvantage for generations to come and keeps their potential on the sidelines at a time when our country needs it most.
We need to dramatically expand our efforts around STEM. Down in Washington, I've introduced a piece of legislation called the STEM Gateways Act, which would help direct federal resources to state and local STEM initiatives that specifically target women, minorities and economically disadvantaged communities. As Congress debates several major updates to education policy in the weeks ahead, I will be working hard to push this key piece forward.
Our failure to set up all students for success in an increasingly technology-driven economy is not just limiting their futures. It's limiting our country's future as well.
From renewable energy to medical research to cybersecurity, there is no shortage of challenges facing us that can and will be addressed by the students sitting in our classrooms today. Each of those students, regardless of skin color, zip code or gender, should be given the chance to make an impact. Reported by Huffington Post 4 minutes ago.
But this rosy picture is only half the story. Here's the other half: In Massachusetts, the unemployment rate is over 60 percent higher for black residents than for white and 110 percent higher for Hispanics. Just as alarming, the poverty rate for black families in our state is 144 percent higher than for their white neighbors and 273 percent higher for Hispanics.
These numbers reveal the ugly undercurrent to our economic recovery; we are leaving people behind.
With this in mind, I joined the Latino STEM Alliance last month for a discussion about Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education. Around the table were business owners, vocational school educators, nursing professionals and other public officials who share my concern that we are building an economy that too many families in our country can't access.
Here's the way I see it. Across the country innovation industries are reorienting our economy around sectors like health care, advanced manufacturing, IT, clean energy and robotics. Over the next ten years, jobs in STEM-related fields are expected to grow by over 17 percent compared with just nine percent growth in other fields. That means that if we want to set up our kids for success in a modern economy, we need to ensure they have access to the education, training and skills that those jobs require. That's where STEM comes in.
The problem, however, is that federal and state STEM efforts to date have failed to reach three notable groups: women, minorities and low-income communities. Today only 26 percent of all STEM jobs in our country are held by women; 13 percent is held by Hispanics and African-Americans combined.
By 2020 there will be an estimated one million unfilled computer programming jobs. But in 2013 there were 11 states where not a single African-American student took the computer science AP test. The numbers weren't much better for Hispanic or female students.
This is a massive disconnect; a shortcoming that threatens to put these populations at an economic disadvantage for generations to come and keeps their potential on the sidelines at a time when our country needs it most.
We need to dramatically expand our efforts around STEM. Down in Washington, I've introduced a piece of legislation called the STEM Gateways Act, which would help direct federal resources to state and local STEM initiatives that specifically target women, minorities and economically disadvantaged communities. As Congress debates several major updates to education policy in the weeks ahead, I will be working hard to push this key piece forward.
Our failure to set up all students for success in an increasingly technology-driven economy is not just limiting their futures. It's limiting our country's future as well.
From renewable energy to medical research to cybersecurity, there is no shortage of challenges facing us that can and will be addressed by the students sitting in our classrooms today. Each of those students, regardless of skin color, zip code or gender, should be given the chance to make an impact. Reported by Huffington Post 4 minutes ago.
↧
↧
Expanding the Conversation on STEM
Open a newspaper or turn on the TV today and you'll be hard pressed to ignore the steady drumbeat of an improving economy. Unemployment rates are at pre-recession levels. Private sector jobs are growing at the fastest pace since 1997. The number of Americans without health insurance has fallen by nearly 30 percent. In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts we added over 60,000 jobs last year alone, pushing our unemployment rate down to 5.5 percent.
But this rosy picture is only half the story. Here's the other half: In Massachusetts, the unemployment rate is over 60 percent higher for black residents than for white and 110 percent higher for Hispanics. Just as alarming, the poverty rate for black families in our state is 144 percent higher than for their white neighbors and 273 percent higher for Hispanics.
These numbers reveal the ugly undercurrent to our economic recovery; we are leaving people behind.
With this in mind, I joined the Latino STEM Alliance last month for a discussion about Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education. Around the table were business owners, vocational school educators, nursing professionals and other public officials who share my concern that we are building an economy that too many families in our country can't access.
Here's the way I see it. Across the country innovation industries are reorienting our economy around sectors like health care, advanced manufacturing, IT, clean energy and robotics. Over the next ten years, jobs in STEM-related fields are expected to grow by over 17 percent compared with just nine percent growth in other fields. That means that if we want to set up our kids for success in a modern economy, we need to ensure they have access to the education, training and skills that those jobs require. That's where STEM comes in.
The problem, however, is that federal and state STEM efforts to date have failed to reach three notable groups: women, minorities and low-income communities. Today only 26 percent of all STEM jobs in our country are held by women; 13 percent is held by Hispanics and African-Americans combined.
By 2020 there will be an estimated one million unfilled computer programming jobs. But in 2013 there were 11 states where not a single African-American student took the computer science AP test. The numbers weren't much better for Hispanic or female students.
This is a massive disconnect; a shortcoming that threatens to put these populations at an economic disadvantage for generations to come and keeps their potential on the sidelines at a time when our country needs it most.
We need to dramatically expand our efforts around STEM. Down in Washington, I've introduced a piece of legislation called the STEM Gateways Act, which would help direct federal resources to state and local STEM initiatives that specifically target women, minorities and economically disadvantaged communities. As Congress debates several major updates to education policy in the weeks ahead, I will be working hard to push this key piece forward.
Our failure to set up all students for success in an increasingly technology-driven economy is not just limiting their futures. It's limiting our country's future as well.
From renewable energy to medical research to cybersecurity, there is no shortage of challenges facing us that can and will be addressed by the students sitting in our classrooms today. Each of those students, regardless of skin color, zip code or gender, should be given the chance to make an impact. Reported by Huffington Post 1 day ago.
But this rosy picture is only half the story. Here's the other half: In Massachusetts, the unemployment rate is over 60 percent higher for black residents than for white and 110 percent higher for Hispanics. Just as alarming, the poverty rate for black families in our state is 144 percent higher than for their white neighbors and 273 percent higher for Hispanics.
These numbers reveal the ugly undercurrent to our economic recovery; we are leaving people behind.
With this in mind, I joined the Latino STEM Alliance last month for a discussion about Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education. Around the table were business owners, vocational school educators, nursing professionals and other public officials who share my concern that we are building an economy that too many families in our country can't access.
Here's the way I see it. Across the country innovation industries are reorienting our economy around sectors like health care, advanced manufacturing, IT, clean energy and robotics. Over the next ten years, jobs in STEM-related fields are expected to grow by over 17 percent compared with just nine percent growth in other fields. That means that if we want to set up our kids for success in a modern economy, we need to ensure they have access to the education, training and skills that those jobs require. That's where STEM comes in.
The problem, however, is that federal and state STEM efforts to date have failed to reach three notable groups: women, minorities and low-income communities. Today only 26 percent of all STEM jobs in our country are held by women; 13 percent is held by Hispanics and African-Americans combined.
By 2020 there will be an estimated one million unfilled computer programming jobs. But in 2013 there were 11 states where not a single African-American student took the computer science AP test. The numbers weren't much better for Hispanic or female students.
This is a massive disconnect; a shortcoming that threatens to put these populations at an economic disadvantage for generations to come and keeps their potential on the sidelines at a time when our country needs it most.
We need to dramatically expand our efforts around STEM. Down in Washington, I've introduced a piece of legislation called the STEM Gateways Act, which would help direct federal resources to state and local STEM initiatives that specifically target women, minorities and economically disadvantaged communities. As Congress debates several major updates to education policy in the weeks ahead, I will be working hard to push this key piece forward.
Our failure to set up all students for success in an increasingly technology-driven economy is not just limiting their futures. It's limiting our country's future as well.
From renewable energy to medical research to cybersecurity, there is no shortage of challenges facing us that can and will be addressed by the students sitting in our classrooms today. Each of those students, regardless of skin color, zip code or gender, should be given the chance to make an impact. Reported by Huffington Post 1 day ago.
↧
So That Happened: Scott Walker's Union Bust Delivered Behind A Wall Of Gaffes
So, that happened. This week, let's talk about you. What kind of stuff do you like to read on this site, and how do we provide it when Congress takes off a day early to avoid a snow storm? Senior Politics Editor Paige Lavender explains.
*Listen to this week's "So, That Happened" below:*
* * *Some highlights from this week:
*“We have an audience that loves to read about politics affecting actual human beings, and not just hearing about goings-on from the Hill. Whenever we have 'real-people stories,' we feature those pretty heavily.” -- Paige Lavender*
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court took up a challenge to Obamacare. If you like your health insurance, will you get to keep it? We talked to health care reporter Jeff Young about how nine people in robes could become the Affordable Care Act's final death panel.
*“John Roberts had a chance to kill this thing three years ago. He chose not to, and went to great lengths to do so and made a lot of people very upset. So why do it now in such a weird way over such an arcane dispute?” -- Jeff Young*
Finally, you might have heard that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) doesn't know whether President Barack Obama is a Christian, but did you know Walker kicked labor unions right in the collective bargaining unit this week? Labor reporter Dave Jamieson tells us all about it.
*“Here’s the thing. Walker has called private sector unions his partner in economic development. A lot of people thought he didn’t want this, and the reason is that he’s already famous for breaking unions.” -- Dave Jamieson** * *"So, That Happened" is available on iTunes. We've been working to create an eclectic and informative panel show that's constantly evolving, a show that's as in touch with the top stories of the week as it is with important stories that go underreported. We'll be here on a weekly basis, bringing you the goods.
Never miss an episode: Subscribe to "So, That Happened" on iTunes, and if you like what you hear, please leave a review. We also encourage you to check out other HuffPost Podcasts: HuffPost Comedy's "Too Long; Didn't Listen," the HuffPost Weird News Podcast, HuffPost Politics' "Drinking and Talking," HuffPost Live's "Fine Print" and HuffPost Entertainment's Podcast.
This podcast was edited by Ibrahim Balkhy and engineered by Brad Shannon, with assistance from Christine Conetta and Adriana Usero.
Have a story you'd like to hear discussed on "So, That Happened"? Email us at your convenience! Reported by Huffington Post 11 hours ago.
*Listen to this week's "So, That Happened" below:*
* * *Some highlights from this week:
*“We have an audience that loves to read about politics affecting actual human beings, and not just hearing about goings-on from the Hill. Whenever we have 'real-people stories,' we feature those pretty heavily.” -- Paige Lavender*
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court took up a challenge to Obamacare. If you like your health insurance, will you get to keep it? We talked to health care reporter Jeff Young about how nine people in robes could become the Affordable Care Act's final death panel.
*“John Roberts had a chance to kill this thing three years ago. He chose not to, and went to great lengths to do so and made a lot of people very upset. So why do it now in such a weird way over such an arcane dispute?” -- Jeff Young*
Finally, you might have heard that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) doesn't know whether President Barack Obama is a Christian, but did you know Walker kicked labor unions right in the collective bargaining unit this week? Labor reporter Dave Jamieson tells us all about it.
*“Here’s the thing. Walker has called private sector unions his partner in economic development. A lot of people thought he didn’t want this, and the reason is that he’s already famous for breaking unions.” -- Dave Jamieson** * *"So, That Happened" is available on iTunes. We've been working to create an eclectic and informative panel show that's constantly evolving, a show that's as in touch with the top stories of the week as it is with important stories that go underreported. We'll be here on a weekly basis, bringing you the goods.
Never miss an episode: Subscribe to "So, That Happened" on iTunes, and if you like what you hear, please leave a review. We also encourage you to check out other HuffPost Podcasts: HuffPost Comedy's "Too Long; Didn't Listen," the HuffPost Weird News Podcast, HuffPost Politics' "Drinking and Talking," HuffPost Live's "Fine Print" and HuffPost Entertainment's Podcast.
This podcast was edited by Ibrahim Balkhy and engineered by Brad Shannon, with assistance from Christine Conetta and Adriana Usero.
Have a story you'd like to hear discussed on "So, That Happened"? Email us at your convenience! Reported by Huffington Post 11 hours ago.
↧
Where the jobs are now
Getting a job in America is a lot easier now.
The economy has added nearly 3.3 million jobs in the past year. In February alone, 295,000 jobs were created -- beating expectations soundly.
And it gets even better: the U.S. has been adding jobs in many industries -- another sign that things are moving in the right direction.
If you're looking for employment, it's helpful to think about what fields are growing and where the highest wages are.
In the past year, retail, health care and service jobs such as lawyers and accountants saw the most job growth. On the downside, employment in the energy sector is slowing down after years of gains.
Here's a rundown of what could happen in 2015:
Foodie boom: The kale, quinoa and craft beer craze might explain why restaurants and bars are big job drivers. The food sector added 59,000 jobs in February, and it's gained almost 450,000 jobs in just the past 12 months.
But it's no secret waiters and waitresses earn low wages and rely on tips. Although the job growth is good, it exemplifies one of the job market's biggest problems: the quality of new jobs. Workers earning low wages can't spend much.
Despite that warning flag, one promising sign for high-quality job growth is your local tax man.
The service economy: Accountants may not be supermodels, but they are illustrating an important shift for America's economy. Businesses such as law, engineering and accounting are now the big drivers of growth, reinforcing the narrative that the U.S. is a service economy and no longer a manufacturing one.
The country added over 700,000 service jobs last year, and continued that tear in February, notching another 51,000 new positions. These are mostly well-paid jobs that are expanding in numbers quickly. Look for the service sector to play an increasing role in the identity and progress of the country's economy.
Health care: Love or hate Obamacare, lots of new jobs are arriving at hospitals and health centers across the country. Since Obamacare became law in March 2010, health care has gained about 1.2 million jobs. The industry is helping to drive U.S. job growth.
But there's a catch to Obamacare: while it's spurring new health jobs, it's also causing companies to cut back hours on their part-time employees.
A new provision of the law that began in January stipulates that companies must offer health insurance to employees working 30 hours or more a week. Big box stores like Walmart and Home Depot are reducing hours for part-time employees to less than 30 a week, most likely to avoid health care costs.
The number of part-time workers who want full-time jobs is still 40% higher now than when the recession began in December 2007.
Still, health care's job growth is an overall positive for the economy.
Energy: Where it isn't going so well is the energy sector. Most Americans love that a gallon of gas costs about a dollar less now than a year ago, but that cheap gas is also costing the country some jobs, at least in certain fields.
Falling gas prices are forcing energy companies to cut back on high-paying jobs. This negatively impacts many Midwest towns whose businesses -- from home building to new schools -- rely on the oil business. The cheap gas that many Americans benefit from hurts the employment picture in these towns.
Energy jobs tumbled for the second straight month in February. Although the drop was modest, it's a concerning sign since they drove a lot of economic activity in the Midwest the past few years.
The U.S. economy already has a lack of new jobs that offer high wages. The slowdown in good gas jobs reinforces concerns that America has a quality of jobs problem.
The good news: if energy employment continues to fall, other industries that benefit from cheap gas such as manufacturing and trnasportation might pick up the slack. Reported by Click Orlando 2 hours ago.
The economy has added nearly 3.3 million jobs in the past year. In February alone, 295,000 jobs were created -- beating expectations soundly.
And it gets even better: the U.S. has been adding jobs in many industries -- another sign that things are moving in the right direction.
If you're looking for employment, it's helpful to think about what fields are growing and where the highest wages are.
In the past year, retail, health care and service jobs such as lawyers and accountants saw the most job growth. On the downside, employment in the energy sector is slowing down after years of gains.
Here's a rundown of what could happen in 2015:
Foodie boom: The kale, quinoa and craft beer craze might explain why restaurants and bars are big job drivers. The food sector added 59,000 jobs in February, and it's gained almost 450,000 jobs in just the past 12 months.
But it's no secret waiters and waitresses earn low wages and rely on tips. Although the job growth is good, it exemplifies one of the job market's biggest problems: the quality of new jobs. Workers earning low wages can't spend much.
Despite that warning flag, one promising sign for high-quality job growth is your local tax man.
The service economy: Accountants may not be supermodels, but they are illustrating an important shift for America's economy. Businesses such as law, engineering and accounting are now the big drivers of growth, reinforcing the narrative that the U.S. is a service economy and no longer a manufacturing one.
The country added over 700,000 service jobs last year, and continued that tear in February, notching another 51,000 new positions. These are mostly well-paid jobs that are expanding in numbers quickly. Look for the service sector to play an increasing role in the identity and progress of the country's economy.
Health care: Love or hate Obamacare, lots of new jobs are arriving at hospitals and health centers across the country. Since Obamacare became law in March 2010, health care has gained about 1.2 million jobs. The industry is helping to drive U.S. job growth.
But there's a catch to Obamacare: while it's spurring new health jobs, it's also causing companies to cut back hours on their part-time employees.
A new provision of the law that began in January stipulates that companies must offer health insurance to employees working 30 hours or more a week. Big box stores like Walmart and Home Depot are reducing hours for part-time employees to less than 30 a week, most likely to avoid health care costs.
The number of part-time workers who want full-time jobs is still 40% higher now than when the recession began in December 2007.
Still, health care's job growth is an overall positive for the economy.
Energy: Where it isn't going so well is the energy sector. Most Americans love that a gallon of gas costs about a dollar less now than a year ago, but that cheap gas is also costing the country some jobs, at least in certain fields.
Falling gas prices are forcing energy companies to cut back on high-paying jobs. This negatively impacts many Midwest towns whose businesses -- from home building to new schools -- rely on the oil business. The cheap gas that many Americans benefit from hurts the employment picture in these towns.
Energy jobs tumbled for the second straight month in February. Although the drop was modest, it's a concerning sign since they drove a lot of economic activity in the Midwest the past few years.
The U.S. economy already has a lack of new jobs that offer high wages. The slowdown in good gas jobs reinforces concerns that America has a quality of jobs problem.
The good news: if energy employment continues to fall, other industries that benefit from cheap gas such as manufacturing and trnasportation might pick up the slack. Reported by Click Orlando 2 hours ago.
↧
Indiana has a lot at stake in health care subsidy lawsuit
Nearly 200,000 Indiana residents who purchased health insurance through a federal health exchange could lose the subsidies that help them afford the coverage under a case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Reported by WTHR 6 hours ago.
↧
↧
Jeb Bush: Replace 'Monstrosity' Of Obamacare
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) denounced the Affordable Care Act and its health insurance exchanges on Saturday, calling instead for a "market-oriented" alternative in line with what many in his party support.
"We've created a monstrosity of consolidating power in Washington, D.C., suppressing wages, making it uncertain for investment. In fact, the greatest job suppressor in the so-called recovery that we've gone through is Obamacare. And I think replacing Obamacare with a market-oriented approach -- that is, where local and state input starts to drive the policies away from this top-down system -- is something I think we ought to be doing," Bush said at the Iowa Ag Summit, a forum on agriculture issues that also drew several other would-be presidential hopefuls.
Republicans have been promising an Obamacare alternative for years, without any success in coalescing around a single proposal in Congress or on the campaign trail. The latest measure, drawn up by three House Republicans -- Paul Ryan (Wis.), John Kline (Minn.) and Fred Upton (Mich.) -- promises to offer some type of temporary relief should the Supreme Court decide to strike down subsidies provided to state insurance exchanges later this summer.
In his remarks in Iowa, Bush endorsed the idea of a government-sponsored safety net for people who don't have insurance.
"The effort by the state, by the government, ought to be to try to create catastrophic coverage, where ... if you have a hardship that goes way beyond your means of paying for it, that you have -- the government is there or an entity is there to help you deal with that," he said.
Bush's criticism of Obamacare as "the greatest job suppressor in the so-called recovery" is interesting, given that the country is experiencing the greatest period of job growth in two decades. On Friday, the Labor Department announced that the economy gained 295,000 more jobs in February, ticking the unemployment rate down to 5.5 percent. Reported by Huffington Post 5 hours ago.
"We've created a monstrosity of consolidating power in Washington, D.C., suppressing wages, making it uncertain for investment. In fact, the greatest job suppressor in the so-called recovery that we've gone through is Obamacare. And I think replacing Obamacare with a market-oriented approach -- that is, where local and state input starts to drive the policies away from this top-down system -- is something I think we ought to be doing," Bush said at the Iowa Ag Summit, a forum on agriculture issues that also drew several other would-be presidential hopefuls.
Republicans have been promising an Obamacare alternative for years, without any success in coalescing around a single proposal in Congress or on the campaign trail. The latest measure, drawn up by three House Republicans -- Paul Ryan (Wis.), John Kline (Minn.) and Fred Upton (Mich.) -- promises to offer some type of temporary relief should the Supreme Court decide to strike down subsidies provided to state insurance exchanges later this summer.
In his remarks in Iowa, Bush endorsed the idea of a government-sponsored safety net for people who don't have insurance.
"The effort by the state, by the government, ought to be to try to create catastrophic coverage, where ... if you have a hardship that goes way beyond your means of paying for it, that you have -- the government is there or an entity is there to help you deal with that," he said.
Bush's criticism of Obamacare as "the greatest job suppressor in the so-called recovery" is interesting, given that the country is experiencing the greatest period of job growth in two decades. On Friday, the Labor Department announced that the economy gained 295,000 more jobs in February, ticking the unemployment rate down to 5.5 percent. Reported by Huffington Post 5 hours ago.
↧
Oregon abolishes its hopelessly bungled health insurance exchange
A bill dissolving Cover Oregon, the state's dysfunctional health insurance exchange, has been signed by Gov. Kate Brown.
Reported by L.A. Times 3 hours ago.
↧
Health insurance for 319,000 Virginians hangs in the balance
When Tommy Bennett lost his job, he also lost his health insurance.
Reported by dailypress.com 3 hours ago.
↧
You Can't Make the Congress Do Anything
This article originally appeared in The Washington Spectator.
By Scott Lemieux
The United States is a separation-of-powers system within which the chief executive has substantially less power over domestic policy than, say, a British prime minister. Despite this, legislation passed by the United States Congress tends to be associated very strongly with the president who signed the bills. The Affordable Care Act -- addressing what has been a major liberal priority since at least the Truman administration and heavily influenced by many legislators -- is becoming almost universally known as "Obamacare." This tendency only increases over time -- 20 years from now, schoolchildren are much more likely to have heard of Barack Obama than Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid.
When legislation endures, this is a good deal for presidents, but when they're in the White House, it's a double-edged sword. Not only a president's enemies, but his sometimes allies, are likely to compare even an accomplished president unfavorably with his predecessors, whose failures and compromises tend to be forgotten. The ACA might be a major improvement, but shouldn't the U.S. have universal health care comparable to other liberal democracies? Couldn't Obama have gotten a trillion-dollar stimulus passed? Why didn't Congress address climate change? A more forceful leader, like FDR or LBJ, surely would have done whatever it takes to get Congress to do what was necessary.
Except that they probably wouldn't have.
Hospitable to LiberalismLast year, Ira Katznelson's tour de force Fear Itself showed that the New Deal was heavily dependent on segregationist Southern Democrats, who made the New Deal's key social welfare provisions both more limited and egregiously racially discriminatory. And now, Julian Zelizer's similarly useful account of the Great Society, The Fierce Urgency of Now, shows that the remarkably flurry of legislation passed in the three years following the assassination of John F. Kennedy was much less dependent on Lyndon Johnson's unique leadership skills than is conventionally assumed.It is tempting to explain the unusual progressive successes of the Great Society by depicting LBJ giving a hapless legislator "The Treatment," and assuming that Johnson had ruthless leadership skills recent Democratic presidents lack.None of this is to deny LBJ his due credit for the Great Society, just as Obama deserves substantial credit for the passage of the ACA, a process that could have failed at numerous points without his determination. And Zelizer makes it clear when and how LBJ's leadership mattered. Johnson's strong basic commitment to New Deal liberalism--not necessarily evident at the time of his ascension to the White House--was important in setting the national agenda. Having almost singlehandedly made the position of Senate majority leader a consequential one, he was better prepared than most presidents to deal with Congress from day one. (Bill Clinton, for example, made errors in his crucial first year in dealing with Congress that LBJ almost certainly would not have.) If a crucial vote of a Senate committee chairman could be bought off by reaching into the pork barrel, LBJ knew about it and would make the deal.
So it is tempting to explain the unusual progressive successes of the Great Society by depicting LBJ giving a hapless legislator "The Treatment," and assuming that Johnson had ruthless leadership skills recent Democratic presidents lack. But the effect of these leadership tools, Zelizer shows, tends to be overrated in retrospect. LBJ did have some unique abilities that mattered at the margin. But the biggest factor in his legislative success was the simple fact that he was briefly working in a legislative environment that was unusually hospitable to liberalism.
With a Deft HandWhere LBJ probably deserves the most credit is with respect to passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While the statute had been proposed by JFK, when Johnson took office the smart money would definitely have been against its passage before the 1964 election, despite the increasing prominence of the civil rights movement. But LBJ played his hand effectively. He prevented Congress from holding a crucial tax-cut bill hostage by persuading his cabinet and liberal Democratic leadership to accept an arbitrary cap on federal spending demanded by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Harry Byrd. And Johnson played a key role in creating a movement toward a discharge petition, which discouraged Virginia Democrat Howard Smith, the powerful segregationist chairman of the House Rules Committee, from bottling up the legislation in committee or allowing it to be larded with poison pill amendments.
It's also important to note that to secure the support of Republican minority leader Everett Dirksen, Johnson agreed to substantially weaken the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. The fact that the Illinois senator felt a responsibility to pass legislation and to compromise is one reason that the passage of Great Society legislation isn't terribly relevant to the challenges faced by contemporary presidents.
Already on Your SideBut the most crucial factor working for Johnson was that congressional majorities didn't have to be persuaded to favor civil rights. With the violence necessary to sustain American apartheid being revealed by the civil rights movement, not only liberals but moderates on both sides of the aisle supported the key provisions of the Civil Rights Act, making it easier to break the logjam created by a minority of Southern segregationists. Overcoming this minority obstruction was far from a trivial accomplishment, but it's much more easily done when large majorities of Congress and the public are already on your side. And powerful social movements are much more likely to persuade recalcitrant legislators than are presidential blandishments.
LBJ wasn't the only 1964 presidential candidate responsible for the substantial achievements of the 89th Congress. Barry Goldwater deserves some credit for the progressive legislation Johnson signed into law, including Medicare, Medicaid, and major federal educational and anti-poverty spending. Johnson's crushing defeat of Goldwater brought with it huge and unusually liberal Democratic congressional majorities. The Republicans who survived "were profoundly shaken by the election returns and believed they could no longer afford to obstruct Johnson's proposals."
Zelizer also shows that Medicare was not imposed top-down by Johnson, but its shape was largely determined by negotiations within Congress, with LBJ frequently taking a hands-off role. (And the decision not to pursue universal health care reform was in itself a major compromise, particularly since the decision to provide health insurance to those over 65 made getting the necessary support for European-style health care effectively impossible.)
The liberals who built the Great Society also derived some political capital from a darker source: the escalating disaster in Vietnam. Unlike Nixon, who was willing to sign almost any legislation a Democratic Congress put on his desk if it left him free to conduct foreign policy, Johnson is portrayed in The Fierce Urgency of Now as a president with little interest in foreign policy beyond a standard commitment to Cold War liberalism. He was willing to allow the war to continue, because ending it might have limited his ability to expand the New Deal, with ultimately disastrous consequences.
Severely LimitedWe don't have to speculate how effective LBJ's leadership would be without a rare functioning liberal majority in Congress. After suffering major losses in the 1966 midterms, Johnson's legendary leadership capabilities were of little value. In his final two years in office, he was forced to accept huge cuts to domestic spending, and could only pass a watered-down version of the Fair Housing Act as rioting broke out in cities across the country in the wake of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. Just as FDR was helpless to stop the conservative coalition of Republicans and Southern Democrats from effectively taking over Congress, LBJ wasn't able to sustain the liberal momentum created by his 1964 landslide.Clearly written and brimming with telling historical details and sharp insights, The Fierce Urgency of Now is essential reading not only for those who want to understand the Great Society but for everyone concerned with how it might be preserved or expanded. The occupant of the White House matters, but without both willing collaborators in Congress and grassroots pressure, the ability of presidents to move the legislative needle will always be severely limited. --------------------Scott Lemieux is a professor of political science at the College of Saint Rose. He is a frequent contributor to The Guardian and The American Prospect, and he blogs for Lawyers, Guns and Money. Reported by Huffington Post 4 hours ago.
By Scott Lemieux
The United States is a separation-of-powers system within which the chief executive has substantially less power over domestic policy than, say, a British prime minister. Despite this, legislation passed by the United States Congress tends to be associated very strongly with the president who signed the bills. The Affordable Care Act -- addressing what has been a major liberal priority since at least the Truman administration and heavily influenced by many legislators -- is becoming almost universally known as "Obamacare." This tendency only increases over time -- 20 years from now, schoolchildren are much more likely to have heard of Barack Obama than Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid.
When legislation endures, this is a good deal for presidents, but when they're in the White House, it's a double-edged sword. Not only a president's enemies, but his sometimes allies, are likely to compare even an accomplished president unfavorably with his predecessors, whose failures and compromises tend to be forgotten. The ACA might be a major improvement, but shouldn't the U.S. have universal health care comparable to other liberal democracies? Couldn't Obama have gotten a trillion-dollar stimulus passed? Why didn't Congress address climate change? A more forceful leader, like FDR or LBJ, surely would have done whatever it takes to get Congress to do what was necessary.
Except that they probably wouldn't have.
Hospitable to LiberalismLast year, Ira Katznelson's tour de force Fear Itself showed that the New Deal was heavily dependent on segregationist Southern Democrats, who made the New Deal's key social welfare provisions both more limited and egregiously racially discriminatory. And now, Julian Zelizer's similarly useful account of the Great Society, The Fierce Urgency of Now, shows that the remarkably flurry of legislation passed in the three years following the assassination of John F. Kennedy was much less dependent on Lyndon Johnson's unique leadership skills than is conventionally assumed.It is tempting to explain the unusual progressive successes of the Great Society by depicting LBJ giving a hapless legislator "The Treatment," and assuming that Johnson had ruthless leadership skills recent Democratic presidents lack.None of this is to deny LBJ his due credit for the Great Society, just as Obama deserves substantial credit for the passage of the ACA, a process that could have failed at numerous points without his determination. And Zelizer makes it clear when and how LBJ's leadership mattered. Johnson's strong basic commitment to New Deal liberalism--not necessarily evident at the time of his ascension to the White House--was important in setting the national agenda. Having almost singlehandedly made the position of Senate majority leader a consequential one, he was better prepared than most presidents to deal with Congress from day one. (Bill Clinton, for example, made errors in his crucial first year in dealing with Congress that LBJ almost certainly would not have.) If a crucial vote of a Senate committee chairman could be bought off by reaching into the pork barrel, LBJ knew about it and would make the deal.
So it is tempting to explain the unusual progressive successes of the Great Society by depicting LBJ giving a hapless legislator "The Treatment," and assuming that Johnson had ruthless leadership skills recent Democratic presidents lack. But the effect of these leadership tools, Zelizer shows, tends to be overrated in retrospect. LBJ did have some unique abilities that mattered at the margin. But the biggest factor in his legislative success was the simple fact that he was briefly working in a legislative environment that was unusually hospitable to liberalism.
With a Deft HandWhere LBJ probably deserves the most credit is with respect to passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While the statute had been proposed by JFK, when Johnson took office the smart money would definitely have been against its passage before the 1964 election, despite the increasing prominence of the civil rights movement. But LBJ played his hand effectively. He prevented Congress from holding a crucial tax-cut bill hostage by persuading his cabinet and liberal Democratic leadership to accept an arbitrary cap on federal spending demanded by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Harry Byrd. And Johnson played a key role in creating a movement toward a discharge petition, which discouraged Virginia Democrat Howard Smith, the powerful segregationist chairman of the House Rules Committee, from bottling up the legislation in committee or allowing it to be larded with poison pill amendments.
It's also important to note that to secure the support of Republican minority leader Everett Dirksen, Johnson agreed to substantially weaken the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. The fact that the Illinois senator felt a responsibility to pass legislation and to compromise is one reason that the passage of Great Society legislation isn't terribly relevant to the challenges faced by contemporary presidents.
Already on Your SideBut the most crucial factor working for Johnson was that congressional majorities didn't have to be persuaded to favor civil rights. With the violence necessary to sustain American apartheid being revealed by the civil rights movement, not only liberals but moderates on both sides of the aisle supported the key provisions of the Civil Rights Act, making it easier to break the logjam created by a minority of Southern segregationists. Overcoming this minority obstruction was far from a trivial accomplishment, but it's much more easily done when large majorities of Congress and the public are already on your side. And powerful social movements are much more likely to persuade recalcitrant legislators than are presidential blandishments.
LBJ wasn't the only 1964 presidential candidate responsible for the substantial achievements of the 89th Congress. Barry Goldwater deserves some credit for the progressive legislation Johnson signed into law, including Medicare, Medicaid, and major federal educational and anti-poverty spending. Johnson's crushing defeat of Goldwater brought with it huge and unusually liberal Democratic congressional majorities. The Republicans who survived "were profoundly shaken by the election returns and believed they could no longer afford to obstruct Johnson's proposals."
Zelizer also shows that Medicare was not imposed top-down by Johnson, but its shape was largely determined by negotiations within Congress, with LBJ frequently taking a hands-off role. (And the decision not to pursue universal health care reform was in itself a major compromise, particularly since the decision to provide health insurance to those over 65 made getting the necessary support for European-style health care effectively impossible.)
The liberals who built the Great Society also derived some political capital from a darker source: the escalating disaster in Vietnam. Unlike Nixon, who was willing to sign almost any legislation a Democratic Congress put on his desk if it left him free to conduct foreign policy, Johnson is portrayed in The Fierce Urgency of Now as a president with little interest in foreign policy beyond a standard commitment to Cold War liberalism. He was willing to allow the war to continue, because ending it might have limited his ability to expand the New Deal, with ultimately disastrous consequences.
Severely LimitedWe don't have to speculate how effective LBJ's leadership would be without a rare functioning liberal majority in Congress. After suffering major losses in the 1966 midterms, Johnson's legendary leadership capabilities were of little value. In his final two years in office, he was forced to accept huge cuts to domestic spending, and could only pass a watered-down version of the Fair Housing Act as rioting broke out in cities across the country in the wake of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. Just as FDR was helpless to stop the conservative coalition of Republicans and Southern Democrats from effectively taking over Congress, LBJ wasn't able to sustain the liberal momentum created by his 1964 landslide.Clearly written and brimming with telling historical details and sharp insights, The Fierce Urgency of Now is essential reading not only for those who want to understand the Great Society but for everyone concerned with how it might be preserved or expanded. The occupant of the White House matters, but without both willing collaborators in Congress and grassroots pressure, the ability of presidents to move the legislative needle will always be severely limited. --------------------Scott Lemieux is a professor of political science at the College of Saint Rose. He is a frequent contributor to The Guardian and The American Prospect, and he blogs for Lawyers, Guns and Money. Reported by Huffington Post 4 hours ago.
↧
↧
Health coverage in limbo for many workers
About a half-million Washingtonians get health insurance through associations or trusts. But the future of plans sold this way is under review by the state, and so far many of the plans have been disapproved.
Reported by Seattle Times 13 hours ago.
↧
IPA Family, LLC Seeks to Fill Area and Regional Leadership Roles
Health insurance career opportunities with IPA are now available in select markets, and qualified candidates have the ability to participate in wealth accumulation plan.
Tampa, FL (PRWEB) March 09, 2015
IPA Family, LLC (IPA), an American Independence Corp. company and member of The IHC Group, is pleased to announce that additional business opportunities are now available nationwide. To accommodate this surge, IPA hopes to fill area and regional leadership positions in select markets as soon as possible.
IPA President and Chief Operating Officer David Keeler attributes the company’s strong performance to its integrity-driven sales force and leadership team. “For us it is about serving others while earning significant wealth for today, tomorrow, and well into retirement,” Mr. Keeler said. “At IPA you have a true opportunity to be in business for yourself but not by yourself.”
Qualified candidates will possess the following skill-set: a minimum three years of industry experience and current possession of a life, accident, and health insurance license; decision-making and problem-solving abilities; active listening skills; critical thinking skills; experience influencing and motivating sales teams; sales experience; strong time-management skills; and a highly ethical predisposition. Selected candidates will be provided with a complete and comprehensive leadership package that promotes their personal and professional success.
This leadership package includes, but is not limited to, the following:· Compensation programs with overwrites
· Residual income and monthly bonuses
· Lifetime vesting schedules
· Wealth accumulation plan
· Free sales leads and lead-management systems
· Ongoing training and business education using state-of-the art technologies
· Many other performance-based programs and incentives
“We believe integrity is the first step to true greatness. At IPA, honesty and integrity come above everything else. They are the core values of our company, and are the most important assets we have,” said Roxanne Huggins, who currently serves on IPA’s board of directors and leads its Heartland Center of Excellence as Area Performance Leader.
To be considered for one of the select area or regional leadership positions and participate in a professional and confidential interview process, please direct inquiries with resume to IPA Family, LLC through their website contact page.
Due to a culture of continuous growth and market expansions, IPA is currently accepting inquiries for existing and new markets. For more information about IPA Family and the companies it represents, visit http://www.ipafamily.com or call 800-772-8667 and indicate you saw our press release.
About IPA Family, LLC (IPA)
IPA Family, LLC is a national marketing organization that distributes major medical insurance plans and other health insurance plans and consumer benefit association membership programs across the nation. IPA’s trained professional sales associates, referred to as the “IPA Family,” provides information and a product portfolio that can meet the needs of most small business owners and self-employed individuals and families. Headquartered in Tampa, Fl., IPA is accredited and has an excellent reputation with the Better Business Bureau (bbb.org) and is a member company of The IHC Group.
About American Independence Corp.
AMIC, through Independence American Insurance Company and its other subsidiaries, offers pet insurance, non-subscriber occupational accident, international coverages, and short-term medical. AMIC provides to the individual and self-employed markets health insurance and related products, which are distributed through its subsidiaries IPA Family, LLC, healthinsurance.org, LLC, IPA Direct, Inc. and IHC Specialty Benefits, Inc. AMIC markets medical stop-loss through its marketing and administrative company IHC Risk Solutions, LLC.
About The IHC Group
The IHC Group is an organization of insurance carriers and marketing and administrative affiliates that has been providing life, health, disability, medical stop-loss and specialty insurance solutions to groups and individuals for over 30 years. Members of The IHC Group include Independence Holding Company, American Independence Corp, Standard Security Life Insurance Company of New York, Madison National Life Insurance Company, Inc. and Independence American Insurance Company. Each insurance carrier in The IHC Group has a financial strength rating of A- (Excellent) from A.M. Best Company, Inc., a widely recognized rating agency that rates insurance companies on their relative financial strength and ability to meet policyholder obligations. (An A++ rating from A.M. Best is its highest rating.) Collectively, the companies in The IHC Group provide insurance coverage to more than one million individuals and groups. For more information about The IHC Group, visit http://www.ihcgroup.com. Reported by PRWeb 15 hours ago.
Tampa, FL (PRWEB) March 09, 2015
IPA Family, LLC (IPA), an American Independence Corp. company and member of The IHC Group, is pleased to announce that additional business opportunities are now available nationwide. To accommodate this surge, IPA hopes to fill area and regional leadership positions in select markets as soon as possible.
IPA President and Chief Operating Officer David Keeler attributes the company’s strong performance to its integrity-driven sales force and leadership team. “For us it is about serving others while earning significant wealth for today, tomorrow, and well into retirement,” Mr. Keeler said. “At IPA you have a true opportunity to be in business for yourself but not by yourself.”
Qualified candidates will possess the following skill-set: a minimum three years of industry experience and current possession of a life, accident, and health insurance license; decision-making and problem-solving abilities; active listening skills; critical thinking skills; experience influencing and motivating sales teams; sales experience; strong time-management skills; and a highly ethical predisposition. Selected candidates will be provided with a complete and comprehensive leadership package that promotes their personal and professional success.
This leadership package includes, but is not limited to, the following:· Compensation programs with overwrites
· Residual income and monthly bonuses
· Lifetime vesting schedules
· Wealth accumulation plan
· Free sales leads and lead-management systems
· Ongoing training and business education using state-of-the art technologies
· Many other performance-based programs and incentives
“We believe integrity is the first step to true greatness. At IPA, honesty and integrity come above everything else. They are the core values of our company, and are the most important assets we have,” said Roxanne Huggins, who currently serves on IPA’s board of directors and leads its Heartland Center of Excellence as Area Performance Leader.
To be considered for one of the select area or regional leadership positions and participate in a professional and confidential interview process, please direct inquiries with resume to IPA Family, LLC through their website contact page.
Due to a culture of continuous growth and market expansions, IPA is currently accepting inquiries for existing and new markets. For more information about IPA Family and the companies it represents, visit http://www.ipafamily.com or call 800-772-8667 and indicate you saw our press release.
About IPA Family, LLC (IPA)
IPA Family, LLC is a national marketing organization that distributes major medical insurance plans and other health insurance plans and consumer benefit association membership programs across the nation. IPA’s trained professional sales associates, referred to as the “IPA Family,” provides information and a product portfolio that can meet the needs of most small business owners and self-employed individuals and families. Headquartered in Tampa, Fl., IPA is accredited and has an excellent reputation with the Better Business Bureau (bbb.org) and is a member company of The IHC Group.
About American Independence Corp.
AMIC, through Independence American Insurance Company and its other subsidiaries, offers pet insurance, non-subscriber occupational accident, international coverages, and short-term medical. AMIC provides to the individual and self-employed markets health insurance and related products, which are distributed through its subsidiaries IPA Family, LLC, healthinsurance.org, LLC, IPA Direct, Inc. and IHC Specialty Benefits, Inc. AMIC markets medical stop-loss through its marketing and administrative company IHC Risk Solutions, LLC.
About The IHC Group
The IHC Group is an organization of insurance carriers and marketing and administrative affiliates that has been providing life, health, disability, medical stop-loss and specialty insurance solutions to groups and individuals for over 30 years. Members of The IHC Group include Independence Holding Company, American Independence Corp, Standard Security Life Insurance Company of New York, Madison National Life Insurance Company, Inc. and Independence American Insurance Company. Each insurance carrier in The IHC Group has a financial strength rating of A- (Excellent) from A.M. Best Company, Inc., a widely recognized rating agency that rates insurance companies on their relative financial strength and ability to meet policyholder obligations. (An A++ rating from A.M. Best is its highest rating.) Collectively, the companies in The IHC Group provide insurance coverage to more than one million individuals and groups. For more information about The IHC Group, visit http://www.ihcgroup.com. Reported by PRWeb 15 hours ago.
↧
Member Satisfaction Significantly Increases as Health Plans Take Customer-Centric Approach
WESTLAKE VILLAGE, Calif., March 9, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- Following a year filled with negative news coverage about health insurance, a bumpy start to the launch of the Affordable Care Act, and an atmosphere of fear, member satisfaction with health plans has increased significantly as plan...
Reported by PR Newswire 14 hours ago.
↧
Florida Senate considering new health exchange
Looking for ways to expand health-care coverage, a Senate committee next week is slated to consider a wide-ranging proposal that would set up a new insurance-exchange program, according to documents filed Thursday. The proposal (SPB 7044) would create what is dubbed the Florida Health Insurance Affordability Exchange Program, or FHIX, as a "marketplace" for enrolling people in private insurance coverage. It comes as senators and a variety of interests, including business and hospital groups, seek…
Reported by bizjournals 13 hours ago.
↧
↧
Study Commissioned by The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Shows Benefits of Limiting Out-of-Pocket Costs for Patients Purchasing Prescription Drugs
WHITE PLAINS, N.Y., March 9, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new study finds that capping the cost-sharing for prescription drugs on individual policies in the health insurance marketplace would reduce patients' annual out-of-pocket healthcare spending, and have a small effect on...
Reported by PR Newswire 12 hours ago.
↧
The New Health Care: A Roadmap for How Many People Could Lose Their Health Insurance
The number of uninsured Americans will probably rise by about eight million in 2016 if the Supreme Court rules for the King plaintiffs.
Reported by NYTimes.com 9 hours ago.
↧
Supreme Court Sends Notre Dame Contraception Mandate Challenge To Lower Court
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON, March 9 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday threw out an appeals court decision that went against the University of Notre Dame over its religious objections to the Obamacare health law's contraception requirement.
The justices asked the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision in favor of the Obama administration in light of the June 2014 Supreme Court ruling that allowed closely held corporations to seek exemptions from the provision.
The court's action means the February 2014 appeals court ruling that denied the South Bend, Indiana-based Roman Catholic university an injunction against the requirement has been wiped out.
The 2010 Affordable Care Act, known widely as Obamacare, requires employers to provide health insurance policies that cover preventive services for women including access to contraception and sterilization.
In the 2014 ruling, the high court said that Hobby Lobby Stores Ltd could, on religious grounds, seek exemptions from the contraception provision.
Days later, in a case similar to the Notre Dame dispute, the Supreme Court allowed a college in Illinois a temporary exemption while litigation continues.
Catholic groups say they should not have to pay for or facilitate access to contraception or abortion because of religious objections.
But courts that have considered the issue since then have found that a compromise aimed at nonprofits with religious affiliations, issued in 2013 and amended in August 2014, did not impose a substantial burden on the plaintiffs' religious beliefs. Religious rights are protected under a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The Notre Dame case was the only appeals court decision on that issue that pre-dated the Hobby Lobby ruling.
The compromise allows the groups to certify they are opting out, which then forces insurers to pick up the tab.
Notre Dame says the certification process still essentially forces the groups to authorize the coverage for its employees, even if they are not technically paying for it. Religious institutions are exempt from the contraception coverage requirement.
The case is Notre Dame v. Burwell, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 14-392. (Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham) Reported by Huffington Post 10 hours ago.
WASHINGTON, March 9 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday threw out an appeals court decision that went against the University of Notre Dame over its religious objections to the Obamacare health law's contraception requirement.
The justices asked the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision in favor of the Obama administration in light of the June 2014 Supreme Court ruling that allowed closely held corporations to seek exemptions from the provision.
The court's action means the February 2014 appeals court ruling that denied the South Bend, Indiana-based Roman Catholic university an injunction against the requirement has been wiped out.
The 2010 Affordable Care Act, known widely as Obamacare, requires employers to provide health insurance policies that cover preventive services for women including access to contraception and sterilization.
In the 2014 ruling, the high court said that Hobby Lobby Stores Ltd could, on religious grounds, seek exemptions from the contraception provision.
Days later, in a case similar to the Notre Dame dispute, the Supreme Court allowed a college in Illinois a temporary exemption while litigation continues.
Catholic groups say they should not have to pay for or facilitate access to contraception or abortion because of religious objections.
But courts that have considered the issue since then have found that a compromise aimed at nonprofits with religious affiliations, issued in 2013 and amended in August 2014, did not impose a substantial burden on the plaintiffs' religious beliefs. Religious rights are protected under a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The Notre Dame case was the only appeals court decision on that issue that pre-dated the Hobby Lobby ruling.
The compromise allows the groups to certify they are opting out, which then forces insurers to pick up the tab.
Notre Dame says the certification process still essentially forces the groups to authorize the coverage for its employees, even if they are not technically paying for it. Religious institutions are exempt from the contraception coverage requirement.
The case is Notre Dame v. Burwell, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 14-392. (Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham) Reported by Huffington Post 10 hours ago.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
