A new multi-purpose website was unveiled by Colgrove Financial, LLC in order to make finding insurance easier for clients in Arizona. This intuitive website provides helpful features that can be utilized from any personal computer or mobile device.

CHANDLER, AZ (PRWEB) April 17, 2015

Colgrove Financial, LLC has launched a new, multi-purpose website to better support customers in Phoenix, Chandler and neighboring locations, which you can now visit at http://www.colgrovefinancial.com. The website was designed to be easy to navigate and includes many beneficial resources in order to make insurance easy, speedy and effective.

People can now utilize many tools, as well as request free business, garage keepers, salon, assisted living and group health insurance quotes, from the comfort of home. These resources browsing our glossary to learn more about insurance terms and reading the helpful content in our blog. The new website works to heighten Colgrove Financial LLC’s reputation for offering cost-effective business insurance and exceptional customer service.

“The goal of our new site is to make purchasing insurance easier than ever, while upholding the personal approach of customer service,” said Craig Colgrove, owner of Colgrove Financial, LLC. “We want our consumers to feel confident in their understanding of insurance topics and their choices when buying insurance, and our staff of premier agents is there to deliver support whenever possible.”

By visiting http://www.colgrovefinancial.com, customers can generally find the answers they seek about business, garage keepers, salon, assisted living and group health insurance and other frequently asked questions without the need to pick up the phone. However, human interaction cannot be substituted and educated agents remain available to assist customers.

About Colgrove Financial, LLC

Colgrove Financial, LLC is a family-run independent insurance agency, serving people throughout Arizona. Colgrove Financial, LLC weighs the needs of clients and searches for insurance policies on their behalf in order to offer remarkable coverage and customer service. To learn more, visit our site at http://www.colgrovefinancial.com. Reported by PRWeb 20 hours ago.

So what do the many current and pending Republican presidential candidates have to say to the country about why they should be president in these challenging times at home and abroad?

I must say, there is one thing that impresses me so far: Their remarkable unity about one Big Idea.

Have they told us how they would provide for health care for millions of uninsured everyday Americans in the U.S.? Or guarantee that those with pre-existing conditions won't lose their health insurance and face bankruptcy in case of serious illness? No.

Have they told us what they would do about more than 11 million undocumented U.S. residents? Nope.

Have they told us what they would do to close the huge gap between the incomes of everyday Americans while the super-rich get richer and the poor get poorer? Not at all.

Have they told us how they will relieve young Americans who have substantial debts from student loans or offered them a program that would enable them to repay these debts? They have not.

Are they willing to close tax loopholes that permit highly paid corporate executives to pay less in taxes than their secretaries? Not even close.

So what have they told us? What is their Big Idea so far, the one that unifies them and that they ask the American people to rally behind, as a reason to vote for one of them to be our next president?

The answer: Bash Hillary Clinton.

That's their Big Idea. That's it.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), in his first major media buy, will air a 60-second spot planned to run in the four early primary states that says that Clinton "represents the worst of the Washington machine, the arrogance of power, corruption and cover-up."

Just one day before Clinton announced her candidacy, Paul launched a new website. What did he decide to name it, "IdeasToSolveAmerica'sProblems.com"? No. Instead, he picked the name "LibertyNotHillary.com."

Former Hewlett-Packard executive Carly Fiorina, fired for incompetence by her company and rejected by California voters in 2010 by a landslide margin in her bid to be a U.S. senator, has spent virtually all of her air time attacking Clinton's character, apparently her main rationale for running for president. Really?

Even Jeb Bush, whom I admire and respect for his usually decent approach to politics, couldn't resist criticizing Clinton on the emails issue, even though he too used his own private email address and server, mixing personal and private emails, over eight years as Florida governor.

And how about that exciting announcement speech from Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio (R.-Fla)? Did he spell out his vision for the country, offering solutions and specifics on the major issues facing the country?

Here's the summary of what I heard him say: Golly gee -- I am so young and fresh, and fresh and young, I sure am. Golly gee, I mean, I am new generation. Yes I am. Yes I am.

And Clinton? She's so "yesterday."

Rubio forgot to mention that what is "yesterday" was his position on immigration reform, before he flip-flopped when he was for it before he was against it.

We don't want to go back to 1999, Senator Rubio said. Really? What about 23 million new jobs, low inflation, and a hundreds of millions of dollars of budget surplus don't you like?

So there you have it: The one thing these GOP presidential candidates agree on is to attack Hillary Clinton.

What a great platform!

Great, that is, if you are someone like me -- someone who believes in the future, who wants solutions and bipartisan, purple cooperation in Washington, and, therefore, wants Clinton to be our next president because she offers both.

Will the American people be attracted to vote for a Republican candidate who offers mostly nastiness and personal attacks? Will they be persuaded by such attacks against a woman who has spent most of her life dedicated to public service for the public good, someone who has served her country with hard work as first lady for eight years in the White House, for eight years in the U.S. Senate, and for four years as secretary of State, leaving office with America's positive ratings substantially higher all over the world than when she began her tenure?

I don't think so. Stay tuned.

Mr. Davis is a weekly columnist for The Hill newspaper, writing under the name, "Purple Nation." This column appears first and weekly in The Hill and the Hill.com.

Davis served as special counsel to former President Clinton and is principal in the Washington, D.C. law firm of Lanny J. Davis & Associates, and is Executive Vice President of the strategic communications firm, LEVICK. He is the author of a recently published book, Crisis Tales: Five Rules for Coping with Crises in Business, Politics, and Life (Threshold Editions/Simon and Schuster).

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 19 hours ago.

Sen. Marco Rubio Backed Health Care Plan That Covers 80 People
Sen. Marco Rubio Backed Health Care Plan That Covers 80 People
Health
Politics
MarcoRubio
Has Been Optimized

Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida has been a strong advocate of repealing Obamacare, which provides about 16 million Americans with health coverage.

However, Marco supported a voluntary health insurance plan/exchange, Florida Health Choices, when he was the speaker of the Florida House in 2008.

“It’s about competition, it’s about choice, and it’s about the marketplace,” Marco told The Palm Beach Post in 2008, notes Politico.

The Tampa Bay Times reported in 2014 that the state of Florida, which refuses to expand Medicaid for poor people, spent $900,000 to educate Floridians on how to find the website for Florida Health Choices.

MSNBC notes that Florida has spent a total of $2.6 million on Florida Health Choices.

After all that investment, Florida Health Choices has 80 people covered in the Sunshine State, while Obamacare has provided coverage to 1.6 million people in Florida.

Politico notes that Rubio, who recently declared he was running for president in 2016, has not included Florida Health Choices in his plan to repeal and replace Obamacare.

Rubio also didn't mention Florida Health Choices on his recent Fox News op-ed: “My three part plan for the post-Obamacare era.”

Rubio writes, "These consumer-centered reforms will advance that goal the only way it can be advanced: by channeling the power of our free market."

However, Rubio didn't explain why the free market drove the U.S. to be dead last among developed nations for affordability and patient access in a study that was taken before Obamacare was implemented, noted MedicineNet.com

Rubio spokeswoman Brooke Sammon told Politico that Rubio still supports a “true free-market exchange,” and added:



What’s in Obamacare is neither free-market or truly an exchange. It is unfortunate that this disastrous health care law is impacting the Florida Health Choices program, which is exactly the kind of consumer-based health care solution Americans are looking for.



If Americans are truly looking for a "consumer-based health care solution" it's not clear why less than 100 people, per their own free will, have signed up for Florida Health Choices.

Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, told Politico, “The notion of promoting coverage in a way that does not enable people to get one of the significant benefits of the Affordable Care Act … is really harmful and would cause millions of people to be far worse off than they are today.”

Sources: Politico, Tampa Bay Times, MedicineNet.com, Fox News, MSNBC
Image Credit: Gage Skidmore

 

1
Comments: 
Likes: 
Shares: 
Combined FB: 
Video Piece: 
Regular Piece
OV in Depth:  Reported by Opposing Views 19 hours ago.

HuffPost Hill turns five this weekend, meaning Boehner might finally put us on appropriations. Marco Rubio’s healthcare program only covers 80 people, but to be fair, that doesn’t include all the patients in gay conversion therapy. And James Carville filmed a pilot for a TV courtroom program titled “Carville’s Court.” Here’s hoping someone will pick up John Podesta’s cooking pilot, “We Could Really Use Your Support Senator, Now, What Do You Think Of My Walnut Sauce?” This is HUFFPOST HILL for Friday, April 17th, 2015:

*HUZZAH: HUFFPOST HILL TURNS FIVE* - Sunday, April 19th is the fifth anniversary of us inexplicably not launching on 4/20 (We were young and stupid, and we apologize). For whatever reason, this compendium of granular political news and cat videos has done quite well, and we're grateful to [DEL: each and every one :DEL]... [DEL: *most* :DEL]... *a healthy portion* of our 100,000-ish readers: Carl Hulse and his fixation on our quip about a Five Guys-catered fundraiser ("evacuate your wallet and your bowels"); the House staffer who writes us a pissy note every time we refer to his place of work as "the Lower Chamber;" and, of course, the Paranoid Self-Loathing GOP Lobbyist, who is currently constructing a system of pneumatic tubes in his underground panic room to have his American Banker subscription delivered from the outside world. Thanks to Ryan Grim and Nico Pitney for conceiving of HuffPost Hill; to Arthur, for providing a keen editorial eye and bottomless well of depressing stories about the economically downtrodden; to Arianna, who got me a cake one time; and to all of my HuffPost colleagues. HPH is now only a tiny barnacle on the good ship Huffington Post, so rather than bloviate further, I'm just going to steal a "Huffington Post"-branded mug from the kitchen and go home early. See you Monday. - Eliot

One last bloviation: Washingtonian Magazine published an article about our 5th birthday

*JEB BUSH LOVES DEATH PANELS* - The important thing is that his proposal is a market-based solution to throwing old people off cliffs. Maggie Haberman: "Jeb Bush, defending his efforts to keep alive Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged woman, when he was governor of Florida, *suggested on Friday that patients on Medicare should be required to sign advance directives dictating their care if they become incapacitated*. A similar proposal by President Obama -- that doctors should be paid to advise patients on end-of-life decisions -- became a political firestorm in 2009, when Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and vice-presidential candidate, claimed that the legislation would give bureaucrats the power to decide if some frail or disabled people were deserving of medical care. The assertion was shown to be false." [NYT]

*LYNCH NOMINATION: OBAMA CAN'T EVEN* - "Put her in place. Let her do her job. This is embarrassing, a process like this," is also what we mutter to ourselves while waiting in line at CVS and several of the cash registers are unmanned. Jen Bendery: "President Barack Obama said Friday that Senate dysfunction has hit a new low with Republicans' continued delays in confirming U.S. attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch, who has waited more than five months for a vote. *'Call Loretta Lynch for a vote. Get her confirmed. Put her in place. Let her do her job. This is embarrassing, a process like this,' Obama said during a White House press conference*. Lynch, who is currently the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, has been waiting since November to be confirmed. Republican leaders recently tied her confirmation to passage of an unrelated sex trafficking bill that's hit a snag. As long as that bill isn't moving, neither is Lynch...Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Thursday that he plans to bring up the trafficking bill next week, which, if it can pass, would set up Lynch for a vote afterward. There's still no deal on moving that bill forward though. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) warned Thursday that if Republicans don't schedule Lynch's vote soon, he'll use procedural maneuvers to force a vote." [HuffPost]

*Oh man, this*: "Asked Thursday if he had heard any concerns from constituents about the delay in Lynch’s nomination when he was back in his home state, Graham said: 'The only thing I heard was people wanting me to vote against her.'" [The Hill]

*INSTANT CLASSIC CHRIS DODD LETTER* - Lion of the Senate. Lee Fang: "On January 28, 2014, Dodd emailed executives from major motion picture studios to share two news articles. One revealed that Google had shifted its campaign donation strategy, giving more to Republican lawmakers, and another projected that the GOP would likely perform well in the midterm elections that year. *The articles, Dodd wrote, 'underscore the point I’ve been trying to make, which I’m sure you all understand -- while loyalty to a person and/or party is admirable*, we also need to be smarter about being supportive of those who are and will be in positions to make decisions that affect this industry.'" [Firstlook.org]

Remember when Chris Dodd said he wouldn't become a lobbyist? That was not a very strategic thing for him to say.

*DAILY DELANEY DOWNER* - We thought people were too mean about Gwyneth Paltrow's food stamp challenge until she unveiled her absurdly dainty food stamp recipes. Get a load of the instructions for brown rice, kale, and roasted sweet potato saute: "Add the zest of two limes, the juice of one lime, and the chopped cilantro. Toss everything together, divide between four plates, and top each plate with a poached egg." That's yummy and all, but not very economical, you know?

Does somebody keep forwarding you this newsletter? Get your own copy. It's free! Sign up here. Send tips/stories/photos/events/fundraisers/job movement/juicy miscellanea to huffposthill@huffingtonpost.com. Follow us on Twitter - @HuffPostHill

*DOJ LAWYERS TRYING TO LIFT STAY ON EXECUTIVE IMMIGRATION ACTION* - This way, all the undocumented immigrants can return from their home countries, where they immediately self-deported to after the order was blocked. David Nakamura: "*The Obama administration on Friday urged a federal appeals court to lift a lower court ruling that has blocked the government from implementing the president’s executive actions to shield undocumented immigrants from deportation and to grant them work permits. * In a rare oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, Justice Department lawyers argued that a federal judge in Texas erred in February when he halted President Obama’s deferred-action program as he deliberates over a lawsuit filed by 26 states. 'The district court decision was wrong as a matter of law,' said Benjamin Mizer, the lead attorney for the Justice Department on the case. The Obama administration has appealed Judge Andrew Hanen’s injunction and is asking the appeals panel to stay the order, in hopes that federal agencies can begin enrolling immigrants in the broader deferred-action program." [WaPo]

*RUBIOCARE SAVING LITERALLY TENS OF LIVES* - "Nurse, get me 50 CCs of womp womp, STAT!" Rachana Pradhan: "In 2008, while Democrats were declaring that the time was right for national health care reform, Marco Rubio, the speaker of the Florida House, had a ready response: Florida should build a market-based system that would help contain the cost of insurance and make it more available. Rubio pushed his no-mandate health insurance exchange, dubbed Florida Health Choices, through the state Legislature that year. 'It’s about competition, it’s about choice, and it’s about the marketplace,' he told The Palm Beach Post at the time. *Florida Health Choices, which finally opened last year, now covers 80 people. Obamacare, which Rubio wants to repeal, covers 1.6 million in Florida alone*. And 93 percent of them are subsidized...critics say the struggles of the Florida plan illustrate the vast hurdles that Rubio and other Republican presidential candidates would face in seeking to replace Obamacare with a market-oriented plan — their usual answer to how they would cover the millions of people now insured under the Affordable Care Act. The Florida plan may be voluntary. It may be an easy way to shop online, either for health insurance or smaller dental or vision policies. But it doesn’t subsidize low-income or middle-class families the way Obamacare does." [Politico]
Huge pick-up in Nevada

*2016 HOPEFULS TRAVEL TO NEW HAMPSHIRE TO SAY THINGS ABOUT SEATBELTS, TAXES* - And drink Smuttynose in front of people with cameras. Jonathan Martin: "[W]ith less than 10 months until votes are cast in the Granite State, some of the candidates are feeling more urgency than others to stand out during their allotted 30 minutes at the New Hampshire Republican State Committee’s 'First in the Nation' forum. Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, who has signaled that he intends to stake his hopes on success in New Hampshire, will be among the most closely watched attendees...For the three first-term senators in the race — Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marco Rubio of Florida, each of whom formally began his campaign in the past month — the gathering provides a chance to build on the momentum they have generated so far. A well-received showing could cement them as front-rank candidates, earning them a greater share of news media attention and, quite possibly, a lift in the polls and with fund-raising." [NYT]
Rating presidential doodles

*The Hillary frankenthinkpiece*: Jason Linkins created a composite Hillary essay comprised entirely of other Hillary thinkpieces. [HuffPost]

*ORDER IN THE COURT, CAJUN STYLE* - Totally beat Joe Biden to the punch. Hadas Gold: "The ragin' cajun political consultant James Carville filmed a pilot for a Judge Judy-style courtroom show called 'Carville’s Court,' the On Media blog has learned. *The reality show featured the former Bill Clinton campaign strategist presiding over small claims cases in New Orleans and issuing both legal rulings and moral advice*. In a pilot episode, Judge Carville rules that a man owed $3,800 to a woman for failing to adequately decal her car in Betty-Boop paraphernalia. In another case, Carville denies a woman's request for $1,000 from injuries sustained while she and her future sister-in-law were drunk on a rafting trip." [Politico]

*BECAUSE YOU'VE READ THIS FAR* - Child really needs to learn the word "cat."

*COMFORT FOOD*

- Matthew McConaugheyreacts to the "Star Wars" trailer.

- Beautiful interactive site detailing the threats against 30 endangered species

- Piping hot ball of nickel burns through jawbreaker.

*TWITTERAMA*

@elisefoley: Idea: Debate w/ only questions about weddings. “Would you go to a gay wedding? How many bridesmaids is optimal? Open bar or cash bar?"

@daveweigel: OH Run Ben Run chairman Vernon Robinson: “If you don’t have a dog in this fight, Ben Carson wants to be your dog.”

@jamespmanley: i love @HuffPostHill - despite the fact that the authors are high all the time. congrats on 5th anniversary

*Got something to add? Send tips/quotes/stories/photos/events/fundraisers/job movement/juicy miscellanea to Eliot Nelson (eliot@huffingtonpost.com) or Arthur Delaney (arthur@huffingtonpost.com). Follow us on Twitter @HuffPostHill (twitter.com/HuffPostHill). Sign up here: http://huff.to/an2k2e*

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 18 hours ago.

Robert C. Malone, picked by the board of Connect for Health Colorado earlier this month as the sole finalist for its chief executive position, has withdrawn from consideration, the state's health-insurance exchange announced late Friday. Malone has been CEO of Assist Group, a Lakewood-based company dealing with insurance claims review and resolution, since 2013. Assist Group was acquired by Equian early this year. Previously he held various other executive positions in the insurance field. The… Reported by bizjournals 14 hours ago.

The Connect for Health Colorado board announced Friday it has lost its CEO finalist candidate and is resuming conversations with a short list of active candidatesRobert "Bob" C. Reported by Denver Post 14 hours ago.

Strange but true, the "Scooby van" is now part of our political lexicon. Hillary Clinton herself is apparently to blame for this one, as this was the playful name she came up with for the van she used to get from New York to Iowa this week. The media, as it will be doing for the next year and a half over pretty much any new aspect of Hillary Clinton's campaign (and we do mean "any new aspect at all -- even the laughably trivial"), quite predictably, freaked out.

Looking at the "Scooby van" through the lens of talking points (as we are wont to do, here), we have to say that one thing struck us about Hillary's choice: her inattention to the proper geeky level of detail. Ask any Scooby Doo fan, and they'll tell you the van in question was actually called "The Mystery Machine." Hillary is showing the same level of cultural tone-deafness as when she flubbed her big opening line, saying: "Live from New York, it is Saturday Night!" She may not have been the only guest host in the entire history of the show who failed to properly say "it's" instead of "it is," but she sure was the first one we ever noticed, cringing all the while. Hillary's getting plenty of other grief this week, over all sorts of microscopic things (our favorite: Jimmy Kimmel's alternate logos for Hillary), so we'll quickly move on from that sort of thing. We wouldn't want to get trampled by the rest of the media, chasing after the Scooby van, to put it another way.

We do have to say we feel a little bit sorry for other Democrats out there contemplating a run for the White House. How can any hopeful compete with the blanket coverage all things Clinton will be receiving for the foreseeable future, after all? Lincoln Chafee tried to make news this week with his own contemplation of a presidential bid, but got no traction. Martin O'Malley tried to paint a contrast, but nobody paid much attention. Bernie Sanders is waiting in the wings for the progressive movement to finally realize that Elizabeth Warren is just not going to run this time and by doing so realize that he's actually their best bet to get their message heard, but this has yet to happen according to Salon. The Clinton shadow is long and all-encompassing, eclipsing all others already, it seems.

At least on the left. Over in Republicanland, more and more candidates will be officially jumping in the race in the coming weeks. Harry Reid perhaps summed up the way most Democrats feel about the Republican field, stating bluntly: "I think they're all losers." Now that Reid's announced he'll be stepping down next year, he really has nothing to lose by speaking his mind, so perhaps he'll be the go-to guy for a quote throughout the campaign, who knows?

Time magazine announced their top 100 influential people, and (much to our surprise, since we haven't read Time in decades...) the blurbs about the winners are written by other famous people. OK, whatever sells magazines, we suppose. But it did draw a contrast in the presidential race, as Hillary Clinton was the author of none other than Elizabeth Warren's write-up, while Rand Paul authored the paean to the Koch brothers. Wow -- now that just speaks volumes, doesn't it? Hillary is obviously courting Democratic base voters (those who would agree with the statement "I come from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," in other words), while Rand Paul is shamelessly begging for campaign donations from the ultra-wealthy. That pretty much speaks for itself -- nothing more need be said, really.

Congress spent the week actually -- are you sitting down? -- getting some things done. No, really! Rather than screaming across the aisle, several big deals were struck this week. As with any deal, there was good news and bad news for both sides. The week began with an agreed compromise between the Senate and the White House over giving Congress one shot at derailing whatever Iran deal John Kerry comes up with. They'll have to have a veto-proof majority to do so, the vote will happen within the month after the deal is reached, and they only get one bite at this particular apple -- once the month is over, they can't keep coming back to it (see, for contrast: House, Obamacare votes). President Obama didn't want any Congressional vote, but then again he got a fairly good deal because Republicans won't be allowed to attach all sorts of poison-pill amendments designed to kill any deal before it is struck. So both sides got something out of the compromise.

Congress did perform one bit of breathtaking budgetary responsibility this week, but it wasn't sexy enough for the media to notice. The "doc fix" was permanently fixed. See? Not sexy at all, and has to be explained to most people. But it is significant for two reasons. The first is its honesty. The "doc fix" was nothing more than Congress cooking the books, each and every year. A bad law was passed over a decade ago, to try to rein in Medicare payments. On the books, it saved billions in the budget projections (which go out ten years). But the doctors hated it. So each and every year, the law was "postponed" for another year -- but just a single year, so that the other nine years would magically lower the deficit. These nine years of savings were complete fiction, but they sure helped all the other numbers in the budget look a little better. What happened this week was Congress decided to do away with the fiction and overhaul the original bad law. What this will mean is that we won't have to play fantasyland games each year over a "doc fix," and the budget will reflect a full ten years of reality. The second reason this is significant is that Republicans just voted to raise the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade without offsetting it elsewhere. So maybe they'll be a little more open to reality in all their budget negotiations this year? Well, probably not, but it's something to hope for, in any case.

The other likely deal struck in Congress this week was to move forward on giving President Obama "fast-track" authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership free-trade deal he's negotiating. This is an odd one because it puts Republicans on the side of giving Obama more power (a rarity, you'll have to admit), much to the consternation of the Unions and much of the Democratic base. Of course, there'll still be a vote in Congress over the deal, but now this will happen without the ability of Congress to amend the deal in any way.

Lest you think that Congress has renounced partisan stupidity, however, the House spent the week passing the "Paris Hilton Needs More Money Tax Repeal Act" (or, as the Republicans call it, the "Death Tax Repeal Act"). This would eliminate a tax on the 0.2 wealthiest Americans, which the Washington Post appropriately pointed out is not exactly in tune with all the happy talk from Republican presidential candidates over their worries about income inequality. Good luck squaring that circle, guys!

In odd news (or "odder news," perhaps), a gyrocopter piloted by a disgruntled postal worker landed on the Capitol lawn. Boy, the dark-humor jokes just write themselves on that one, don't they? At least, for anyone who remembers the era when "going postal" entered the American vocabulary. Let's see, what else? Out in California, a lawsuit has been filed in federal court to legalize prostitution on constitutional grounds, so that'll be one to keep an eye on.

Since 4/20 is right around the corner, we'll end with a quick look at the intersection of marijuana and politics. For anyone who thinks marijuana reformers are overblown in their fears of the consequences of the War On Weed, here's a contrast in how different states are treating the matter legally. In Kansas, an 11-year-old stood up for medical marijuana in school. For bravely questioning authority, he was rewarded with a trip to the police station, where they interviewed him for hours (with neither parent present), and then went and raided his mom's home (who suffers from Crohn's Disease) and then for good measure, threatened to award custody of the kid to the child protective services agency. Right next door, in Colorado, the police have taken a page from the Seattle police and will be handing out snack bags at the big 420 festival, with public-service messages on the packages warning to "munch, not drive" after getting high. They'll also have "free arcade games at dispensaries loaded with messages not to drive after smoking." This tactic was, as we mentioned, first used by Seattle police in 2013 (which we noted here, in FTP [269]).

And Vermont legislators are getting in the spirit of 420 as well. In an effort to unfreeze bills to legalize recreational marijuana (which are stuck, procedurally), frustrated pro-marijuana legislators have now introduced a bill to bring back Prohibition, instead. Won't allow a marijuana legalization vote? Well then, how about we make alcohol illegal again, too? This shows, we feel, what might be called "the proper amount of snarkiness."

OK, that's it for this week's roundup, so let's just move right along.

 

A quick *Honorable Mention* is in order here first, for the California Democrats who are pushing a bill in the state legislature to force "crisis pregnancy centers" to stop lying to women, start giving them medically-accurate information, and start referring women to all their legal options -- or forfeit the taxpayer money they receive. Sounds like a great idea, one long overdue.

But the big winner of our *Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week* goes to an organization this week. The Democracy Alliance is an activist group on the liberal side of things, and they've got a new plan which deserves mentioning and honoring. They're aiming to get donors to put money collectively into an effort to get Democrats elected at the state level. Their real target is to improve things by 2020, since that will be when the House of Representatives redistricts again.

Republicans have a clear advantage at the state level, and it got much worse in the 2014 election cycle. Democrats have to begin to pay more attention to these things, because they have big consequences even at the national level. Take just one state, Pennsylvania, as an example. The Keystone State voted twice for President Obama in the last two elections. Obama got 54 percent of Pennsylvania votes in 2008 and 52 percent in 2012. Pennsylvania has 18 House seats. Of them, 13 are held by Republicans -- a whopping 72 percent of the seats. That is the difference House reapportionment (to say nothing of gerrymandering) means, and that is why state-level elections matter. Democrats may never retake control of the House of Representatives until they get some fairer districts to compete in.

That starts with getting Democrats elected at the state level. And Democrats have been heavily outspent and out-organized at this level for a long, long time. For seeing this lack, and for doing something to address it instead of just hand-wringing, the Democracy Alliance is our *Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week*.

This effort comes at a good time, since there may be millions of Democrats out there who don't feel the need to financially support Hillary Clinton's campaign. Either for ideological or personal reasons, or just because people may feel their small donation won't really matter when Hillary's talking about raising 2.5 billion dollars, this could be an alternative way of supporting Democrats this time around. For providing that option and for targeting it where it seems most needed, the Democracy Alliance is easily the best pick for *MIDOTW* this week.

[Congratulate The Democracy Alliance on their official webpage, to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]

 

We've got seven *(Dis-)Honorable Mention* awards to hand out, to the Democrats in the House who voted with the Republicans to give the Paris Hiltons of the world more money. Seriously? You voted for this? Here is the roster of shame: Brad Ashford (NE-02), Sanford Bishop (GA-02), Jim Costa (CA-16), Henry Cuellar (TX-28), Collin Peterson (MN-07), Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-02), and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09). *(Dis-)Honorable Mention* awards, all around.

Our *Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week* award is for silliness, really. We realize others might be more deserving and there are more serious subjects than this, but every so often something comes along that is truly jaw-dropping, and this seems to qualify.

Minnesota Democrats (who are called "Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party" members, up there) just approved maintaining the decorum in their state's upper legislative chamber by continuing the rule which bans any speaker from making eye contact with any others, while debating on the state senate's floor. No, seriously, you just can't make this stuff up, folks. Senate members in Minnesota will continue to be forced to only make eye contact with the presiding officer of the senate, rather than each other.

This is ripe for ridicule, of course, as it should be. The funniest reaction came from fellow D.F.L. Party member Mike Freiberg of Minnesota's house, who tweeted:



Other Senate rules: use secret handshake, speak in iambic pentameter, drag Stone of Shame if you violate a rule



Heh. Couldn't have put it better ourselves. So while there might be other things going on in the political universe, the sheer pomposity and inflated sense of decorum shown by the D.F.L. members of the Minnesota senate, we feel, deserve this week's *Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week* award.

[Contact Minnesota Senate Majority Leader Thomas Bakk (who spoke out in support of the rule) on his official contact page, to let him know what you think of his chamber's rules.]

 

*Volume 342* (4/17/15)

Yet again a mixed bag this week. Since everybody is already exhausted with all the presidential race coverage, we're going to mostly shy away from that sort of thing for now. We've got plenty of time... marathon not a sprint... blah, blah, blah.

In the middle of these talking points, there are three taken from a recent survey by Bloomberg. Salon had the story, or you can take a look for yourself at the survey questions and results [PDF download]. It's a pretty stunning survey, and a pretty good counterargument to the tired old "America's a center-right country" nonsense as well. Talking points three, four, and five are all taken directly from this survey.

OK, that's enough intro. Let's get on with this week's talking points, shall we?

 *   Congress can't handle war power*For all the blathering over foreign policy coming from Republicans these days (the Senate in particular), there's an uncomfortable truth lurking in the background. Point it out.

"Republicans keep making noise about how the Senate and the Congress need to be involved in major foreign policy decisions, but when they get the opportunity, they show over and over again that they can't handle the responsibility. Remember when Republicans were weeping and wailing that Obama's fight against the Islamic State needed congressional approval? That was almost a year ago. President Obama did send a proposed draft for a bill to Congress, and the House is incapable of voting on it. Don't believe me? Here is John Boehner, when asked this week if Republicans would propose their own bills to define Obama's war powers, if they didn't like the president's proposal -- and I quote: As much as I think Congress ought to speak on this issue, it's going to be virtually impossible to do that. Unquote. Why do you think President Obama wants to be able to conduct foreign policy on his own? Because Congress is completely incapable of doing so. We're in a military fight that is approaching its first anniversary, and House Republicans say it is 'virtually impossible' that they can draft their own war powers bill. No wonder Obama didn't wait for them to act."

 *   More Obamacare good news*Once again, if Democrats don't point out the good stats which continue to roll in, people just don't hear about them.

"Yet another quarter's data shows, once again, that Obamacare is doing precisely what it was intended to do: reduce the number of Americans without health insurance. This is the measure of success of the program, and the numbers keep getting better and better. Right before Obamacare took effect, a full 18 percent of Americans didn't have health insurance. That number has plummeted, and has now reached 11.9 percent. That is a drop of over one-third in the first two years of implementation. As time goes by, that number will continue to fall, precisely what the law was designed to achieve. Obamacare is working, and has already gotten one-third of uninsured Americans health insurance they can afford."

 *   Other good poll numbers (part 1)*These next three are from the Bloomberg poll cited in the intro.

"Obamacare is actually polling a lot better these days, too, as more people see the reality instead of all the scare stories they were fed by Republicans. In a recent Bloomberg poll, 51 percent agreed that: "It may need small modifications, but we should see how it works," and a further 12 percent said: "It should be left alone." Only 35 percent said: "It should be repealed." That means 63 percent of Americans think Obamacare should go forward, and should be tweaked when necessary to make it better. Public opinion on Obamacare keeps going up as time goes by."

 *   Other good poll numbers (part 2)*This one should be quoted whenever the Republican presidential campaign is being talked about, because the corner they're painting themselves in just keeps getting smaller and smaller.

"Nearly three-quarters of Americans now believe that sexual orientation should receive the same legal protection from discrimination as race in federal law. That's 74 percent who think the states are going too slow -- or even backward -- on the issue of guaranteeing full rights and protections to gays and lesbians when it comes to employment, housing, and all other aspects of life. Gay rights are civil rights, according to three in four Americans. The Republican position on gay rights is looking more and more out of date as time goes by, and I personally wonder when the party is going to realize how much their backward-looking stance is hurting them with voters -- young voters in particular."

 *   Other good poll numbers (part 3)*OK, this one is just rubbing it in, I fully admit.

"Bloomberg just released a recent poll which was kind of stunning. They listed a number of Republican politicians, and a number of Democratic politicians, and asked whether people had a favorable or unfavorable view of them. Every single Democrat (except Harry Reid, who is retiring next year) was a net positive, with better favorable numbers than unfavorable. Every single Republican (except Rand Paul) was underwater or tied in the favorable/unfavorable rankings. And even Rand Paul was only a single point on the positive side. That's a pretty stunning indictment of the way Republicans have been attempting to govern, especially for those on the list who are running for president. The Republican Party, it seems, has a long way to go to convince people to vote for them next time around."

 *   Chris Christie will renew War On Weed with a vengeance*Chris Christie is much like the other Democratic presidential candidates, in that he is to be pitied for fading so far into the background. Still, he said one thing this week that was worth noting, because he staked out a position all other presidential candidates should be forced to comment upon (which I wrote about Wednesday, in fact).

"I think every candidate for president -- Republican and Democratic alike -- should be asked about Chris Christie's recent call for a gigantic federal crackdown on the states which have legalized any form of marijuana. Christie is stampeding into the past with his call for the feds to start busting everyone in sight in places like Colorado and the other three states which now have legal recreational weed. Is this really what the voters want from their next president? Nancy Reagan's 'War On Weed,' on steroids? I call on everyone now asking for my vote -- from Hillary Clinton to all the Republicans -- to address the issue clearly. What would you do, if elected, about the states which are charting their own path on marijuana laws? No dissembling, please -- just a straightforward answer. Do you support what President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have already done? Would you do anything differently, and if so, what? Remember: millions of votes might just hinge on your response."

 *   Because the D.E.A. is, obviously, so trustworthy...*There was a noteworthy hearing on Capitol Hill this week.

"The head of the Drug Enforcement Agency testified this week in front of a House committee, where she was hauled on the carpet for the agency she controls. This involved what appeared to be dozens of 'sex parties' with drug cartel members, dating back to 2001. Fancy weapons were given as gifts to D.E.A. agents from the cartels, and strippers and prostitutes were provided. Some of these, it appears, were paid for with taxpayer dollars -- what was referred to as 'operational funds' for the D.E.A. I think most Americans would be disgusted at this sort of behavior -- agents spending their tax dollars on hookers in other countries. But what happened to the agents responsible? They were given a slap on the wrist, and then later promoted. None of them were fired. The worst punishment handed down was a 10-day suspension. I've said it before, Michele Leonhart has to go. She should either step down from her leadership of the D.E.A., or President Obama should just go ahead and fire her. Either way, she's obviously incapable of leadership."

 

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

 

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 13 hours ago.

The law signed by President Barack Obama includes a waiver that, starting in 2017, would let states take federal dollars now invested in the overhaul and use them to redesign their own health care systems. For a Republican president, state waivers could be the fallback option to avoid the political cost of dismantling Obama's law and disrupting or jeopardizing coverage for millions of newly insured people, not to mention the upheaval for insurers, hospitals and doctors. "If you were a Republican on record as opposing or wanting to repeal the ACA, but really felt deep down that you couldn't accomplish that even as president, then you could say your second preference would be to use this provision to go down a completely different road," said Stuart Butler, a health policy expert at the nonpartisan Brookings Institution. The state waiver was the idea of Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden, who has a record of crossing party lines in search of ways to tackle health care costs and coverage. In addition to preserving the health law's protection for people with health problems, states would have to cover about the same number of residents while providing comprehensive benefits and financial safeguards against ruinous costs. States could combine the innovation waiver with Medicaid and children's health insurance proposals to create a "super waiver." Reported by SeattlePI.com 3 hours ago.

Father Guilty Of Endangering Daughter's Life By Letting Her Teeth Rot
Father Guilty Of Endangering Daughter's Life By Letting Her Teeth Rot
Headlines
Health
Legal
Has Been Optimized

A father has pleaded guilty to recklessly endangering another person for allowing his 6-year-old daughter’s teeth to rot to the point that she could have died.

Kenneth Wanamaker Jr., 37, of Northampton County, Pennsylvania, made a surprise plea deal just weeks before he was set to face trial. In addition to pleading guilty to recklessly endangering another person, he also pled guilty to false swearing.

He has been sentenced to two months to a year and has been in jail since having his bail revoked in December for not enrolling in drug treatment. He is eligible for immediate release but as part of his plea deal must comply with the Division of Children, Youth and Families, pay a $750 fine, and serve 15 hours of community service.

Wanamaker and his partner Jessica L. Hoffman, the girl’s mother, were accused of allowing their daughter’s teeth to become infected to the point that her life was in danger.

Dentist Eugene McGuire testified in court to the fact that 16 of the girl’s 20 teeth were either abscessed, needed to be pulled, or had severe root and tooth decay, reports The Morning Call.

According to Wanamaker’s defense attorney, Mark Freeman, the parents were waiting to change to a more affordable health insurance before getting their daughter treatment.

The child was scheduled to undergo surgery in March but Wanamaker and Hoffman did not schedule a pre-operation exam so the procedure was never performed.

Wanamaker told ABC 13 that his daughter’s teeth did need some help, but that he and Hoffman were raising a happy, well-adjusted, vibrant child who is involved in many activities, including youth car racing.

He does not believe authorities think his daughter’s life is really in danger.

"What law enforcement agency would wait six months and file these charges? It's all an act for me to comply, and do these requirements, and jump through hoops of the system,” Wanamaker said.

The child has been scheduled to have the surgery this summer.

Wanamaker is still under investigation for the deaths of his other children. His infant son died in 2011 of pneumonia, and there were two stillborn deliveries in 2007, one of which was linked to Hoffman’s drug use.

Sources: ABC 13, The Morning Call / Photo Source: WFMZ

1
Comments: 
Likes: 
Shares: 
Combined FB: 
Video Piece: 
Regular Piece
OV in Depth:  Reported by Opposing Views 1 day ago.

The law signed by President Barack Obama includes a waiver that, starting in 2017, would let states take federal dollars now invested in the overhaul and use them to redesign their own health care systems. For a Republican president, state waivers could be the fallback option to avoid the political cost of dismantling Obama's law and disrupting or jeopardizing coverage for millions of newly insured people, not to mention the upheaval for insurers, hospitals and doctors. "If you were a Republican on record as opposing or wanting to repeal the ACA, but really felt deep down that you couldn't accomplish that even as president, then you could say your second preference would be to use this provision to go down a completely different road," said Stuart Butler, a health policy expert at the nonpartisan Brookings Institution. The state waiver was the idea of Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden, who has a record of crossing party lines in search of ways to tackle health care costs and coverage. In addition to preserving the health care law's protection for people with health problems, states would have to cover about the same number of residents while providing comprehensive benefits and financial safeguards against ruinous costs. States could combine the innovation waiver with Medicaid and children's health insurance proposals to create a "super waiver." Reported by SeattlePI.com 7 hours ago.

LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- On this March afternoon, the smell of fried food hits you as soon as you open the doors of Our Lady of Lourdes, a Catholic parish in Jefferson County that hosts popular fish fry dinners during Lent.

Actually, this is far more than just a dinner. There's a book sale and pint-sized Girl Scouts selling cookies and desserts. Down the hall, there's a DJ hosting a dance party for the energetic kids who manage to stop running around for a few minutes to do the hula hoop contest.

But to get to the main attraction, you first have to hand over some money and place your order with Michael DeLeon, before receiving your food from Greg Bourke.

Bourke and DeLeon are two of the parish's most active members. They're also the lead plaintiffs in one of the same-sex marriage cases going before the Supreme Court this month.

The Catholic Church hasn't historically been a welcoming environment for same-sex couples. But at Our Lady of Lourdes, Bourke, DeLeon and their two children -- Bella, 16, and Isaiah, 17 -- are just like any other family. Bourke, a consultant at the health insurance company Humana, and DeLeon, who works in information technology at General Electric, have been attending the church for nearly 30 years.

"I've been here almost four years, and there might be a handful of people who are uncomfortable," said Father Scott Wimsett, the pastor of Our Lady of Lourdes. "But [Bourke and DeLeon] are loved and respected and people call them. They're involved, and you see how they fit in."

"They're just good people," Wimsett went on. "And that's kind of what it's all about, isn't it?"

Michael Eckert, a member of the parish who was also helping out at the fish fry, has known Bourke and DeLeon for years, since their sons were in Boy Scouts together. Eckert, a former judge, said he's been paying close attention to the couple's Supreme Court case.

"It's hard to fathom how an informed individual could look at what's going on and not have an understanding of the rights of these individuals to be married," said Eckert.

Bourke and DeLeon met nearly 33 years ago as students at the University of Kentucky, at what was then pretty much the only gay bar in Lexington. They started seeing each other regularly and spending time with each other's families.

"His parents and my parents became good friends," said Bourke during a recent interview in their home. "Our families are all very close. Just like any other married couple."
Michael DeLeon and Greg Bourke, 1986.

Bourke and DeLeon live on a quiet street just a few blocks away from Our Lady of Lourdes, in a home filled with family photos. Awards and signs from various marriage-equality events hang in the living room.

Their decision to marry in 2004 was, in part, a reaction to the wave of anti-gay sentiment and legislation then sweeping the country. While some states, like Massachusetts, were heading toward marriage equality, in other states there was a vehement backlash. Conservative legislatures were pushing for state amendments to bar same-sex marriage, and then-President George W. Bush endorsed changing the U.S. Constitution to do the same.

Bourke and DeLeon's own state of Kentucky outlawed same-sex marriage in November 2004. The two men decided to respond with an act of love.

Bourke, DeLeon and their two children took a vacation to Niagara Falls, Canada, since marriage equality still wasn't legal anywhere in the United States. In a room overlooking the falls, they wed in the presence of a few family members who had also flown up for the trip.

"We had a very nice wedding," said Bourke. "Our children were part of it. They were dressed for it as part of the party. And we just really had a great time."Bourke and DeLeon at their wedding in Niagara Falls, Canada, March 2004.

But their marriage still isn't legal in the state of Kentucky, and that's the issue bringing them to the Supreme Court: Does the 14th Amendment require a state to recognize same-sex marriages that were lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

While they wait, they still have to deal with the very real consequences of having a marriage that's recognized by the federal government but not by their own state. For example, only DeLeon is listed as the legal parent of Bella and Isaiah.

Their Supreme Court brief argues that if "Michael dies, Greg’s lack of a permanent parent/child relationship with the children would threaten the stability of the surviving family."

That legal distinction makes itself felt in day-to-day life in unexpected ways. For example, if Bella and Isaiah need passports, DeLeon will be the one to go with them, because in the eyes of the law, he's their only parent.

"We usually take the path of least resistance. I'm on the birth certificate, so that's going to be my thing to do," said DeLeon. "Whereas if we were both on it, either one of us could do it with no trouble."Bourke and DeLeon with their children, Isaiah and Bella, in 2003.

Tax season has also been, well, taxing.

Bourke and DeLeon filed a joint return with the federal government, but filed separately with the state government. Last year was the first time they could file their federal taxes jointly, since the Supreme Court overturned the federal government's ban on recognizing same-sex marriages in June 2013.

Bourke calculated that last year, they saved $1,700 in federal taxes by being able to file jointly. This year, it was about $2,400.

It's important to speak out about these inequalities, they say, so the public can understand why same-sex marriage needs to be legalized.

Bourke and DeLeon had their marriage involuntarily thrust into the public spotlight three years ago, when Bourke lost his position as the local Boy Scout leader because of his sexual orientation.

Both men were involved in Scouting growing up and loved it. But when Isaiah came home in first grade with flyers to join Cub Scouts, they were nervous. They knew about the Boy Scouts' policies of non-inclusion and discrimination, and didn't want their son to be part of such a group.

A year later, Isaiah, now in second grade, asked again to become a Scout, since his friends were doing it and having a great time.

"We kind of reluctantly agreed to enroll him in Cub Scouts," said Bourke.

Before he knew it, Bourke was heavily involved in Scouting again as well. He served as a leader for years in both the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. Isaiah, for his part, recently became an Eagle Scout.Bourke and Isaiah in 2013.

At one point, Bourke emailed an executive at the local Boy Scouts Council and informed him that he's gay.

"I wanted to open a dialogue about how we can get the membership policy changed so it's more inclusive," said Bourke, adding that in retrospect, he felt naive not to realize the can of worms he was opening. "And then all hell broke loose. They got very nasty very quickly and did everything they could get to get me out. And ultimately, they were successful."

But the community rallied behind Bourke. His troop and Wimsett, his pastor, stood up for him and refused to make him leave.

"The Boy Scouts did the one thing they could do that was left in their arsenal... Our troop charter would have been revoked if I didn't leave," said Bourke. "So because I love the troop and I love the boys and I love scouting... I resigned reluctantly."

In 2013, the Boy Scouts changed their policy, saying they would allow openly gay Scout members but not leaders. The local council did not return a request for comment on Bourke's case.

Ann Russo, who runs the Girl Scouts at Our Lady of Lourdes, was one of the few people who could keep up with the energetic Daisies and Brownies running around the dessert table at last month's fish fry. She's known Bourke and DeLeon for years and supported them during the Scouting controversy.

At the fish fry, she was looking for Bourke to give him a special Girl Scouts patch for his years of service to the organization.

"I have a lot of admiration for Greg and Michael," said Russo. "They're probably one of the first gay couples that I've gotten to know personally. And the fact that they've been together for so long just -- I mean, they were just meant to be together. It's been fun watching them post on Facebook -- their anniversaries and birthdays and things like that."

She said she was proud to be a member of the parish when Wimsett stood behind Bourke and disagreed with the Boy Scouts' policy.

"I think that any of us, as parents, want to be involved with our kids," she said. "As a Girl Scout leader, I don't talk about my sex life with any other leaders, much less children. That would never have come up."

"Gay people are not pedophiles," she went on. "And I think it's been hard for people that don't know Michael and Greg in particular -- not so much around here, because they're very accepting -- but I think in broader instances, maybe people aren't as understanding."

The Boy Scouts case was heavily covered in the local press, where Bourke found himself increasingly speaking out on issues of equality for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. He and DeLeon are now both involved in Scouts for Equality, a group that advocates for equal treatment in the organization.

So in 2013, when the Fauver Law Office in Louisville was looking for plaintiffs to challenge the state's marriage equality ban, Bourke and DeLeon seemed like a perfect fit.

"We were out at work. We've both been involved with GLBT alliances at work. We're out with all our family, supported by nearly all of our family, out amongst our kids' friends," said DeLeon. "So it wasn't a big decision -- the coming out. We were already out."

Bella and Isaiah likewise said they weren't worried about being put into the spotlight.

"I don't think we were really nervous about it," said Bella. "Probably more proud than anything, because it's kind of a hard thing to do -- to come out like that to pretty much everyone."

"It's kind of heroic for them to do it," said Isaiah. "They could have just sat by and not done anything. But instead, they're fighting for what they believe in."The Bourke-DeLeon family, 2014.

On Feb. 12, 2014, U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II ruled in Bourke and DeLeon's favor, finding that Kentucky must respect same-sex marriages legally performed in other states. But in November, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled in favor of the state of Kentucky, upholding the ban. The issue is now in the hands of the Supreme Court.

Bourke and DeLeon said they haven't had much time to sit back and think about how they could be helping to change history and make marriage equality legal in the United States.

"It hasn't really sunk in," said Bourke.

But the two are already getting invitations to talk to the media and speak at events. They're also going to be grand marshals at the Louisville Pride Parade this spring. They'll be in Washington, D.C., for the April 28 arguments at the Supreme Court, but as of now, they're planning to stay in Kentucky for the actual decision and attend local events.

Bourke and DeLeon have always been optimistic that same-sex marriage would become legal during their lifetimes. When they wed in Canada in 2004, they said, their hope was that it would just be a matter of time before their home state recognized their marriage.

"And sure enough," said Bourke, "that's the way it looks like it's going to work out."

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 3 hours ago.

DETROIT -- On a Monday last month, Michigan couple Jayne Rowse and April DeBoer were camped out at their kitchen table, using one of the few afternoons they both had off work to deal with family business. DeBoer was on the phone, sorting out a health care issue for one of their kids. She and Rowse were also chatting and joking with Dana Nessel, sounding more like old friends than an attorney and her clients preparing for a U.S. Supreme Court case.

Rowse and DeBoer first met Nessel in 2011 to file what they assumed would be simple paperwork. After facing a driving scare when a truck nearly collided with their van head-on, they felt new urgency about drawing up plans for what should happen to their children if one or both of the women were to die.

But they quickly learned that, as lesbian parents of adopted children, standard estate planning wouldn't be simple. There was no legal assurance that their kids, each adopted by only one parent, would be allowed to stay with the other if the official parent died, Nessel explained. This set off the chain of events that will take Rowse and DeBoer to the Supreme Court this month for a landmark marriage equality case.

Justices will hear their case challenging the constitutionality of Michigan’s gay marriage ban, as well as related complaints from couples in Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.

Unlike many states, Michigan's adoption code doesn't allow for joint or second-parent adoption, which also affects heterosexual unmarried couples. Some lawmakers have attempted to change the restrictions over the years, with no success.

Rowse and DeBoer never imagined their case would reach the highest court, and were initially reluctant plaintiffs -- Nessel was the one who encouraged the couple to take the approach of suing the state, and their 2012 lawsuit was only intended to address adoption, not marriage.

“It’s been a journey, an accidental journey. We’re accidental activists,” DeBoer told The Huffington Post. “We're just an ordinary family who would do anything to protect our kids.”
Jayne Rowse, April DeBoer and their four children.

The DeBoer-Rowse family lives in a modest home in Hazel Park, a Detroit suburb. The nurses work at two different hospitals on midnight shifts; DeBoer's mother, Wendy, helps out with the childcare.

When Wendy DeBoer arrived at the home, grandkids in tow, cheerful chaos interrupted the grownup business. Nolan, 6, was asked to produce a folder from his backpack. "Bribery snacks" were evenly distributed. Rylee, 2, clung to April DeBoer, but was persuaded with a hug and a warning countdown to play in the other room with 6-year-old Jacob and 5-year-old Ryanne. A rescue bulldog is the final member of the DeBoer-Rowse clan.

Rowse is the legal parent of the boys, and April DeBoer is the legal parent of the girls. They adopted their first child in 2009, 10 years after they met. They kept their relationship friendly for several years while they each attended nursing school, but started dating seriously in 2005 and then fell in love. They held a commitment ceremony in 2008 that they consider as serious as a marriage.

“It’s been that long?” DeBoer asked Rowse, the one who keeps track of meaningful dates. “Time flies when you’re having lots of kids,” Rowse replied.

Adopting their third child, Jacob, after two years as his foster parent, was one of the moments DeBoer regards as pivotal to her decision to take an active role in the fight for LGBT rights.

“The night before we adopted him, I sat in my room and I cried,” she said. “Although he would be ours, I would lose all legal rights to him at that point. So what should have been the happiest day of our lives -- which it was -- [also had] a sad undertone.”Jayne Rowse and son Jacob attend a news conference on March 6 in Los Angeles. (Photo by Valerie Macon/Getty Images)

The legal relationship is important for a variety of things most parents would take for granted, and not having it could prevent a parent from things like putting their child on their health insurance, making medical decisions or signing a school permission slip.

Nessel said it’s a “bizarre irony” that adoption restrictions coexist with laws that allow her clients to jointly foster, and with a state agency that often asks for their help when foster children require special care.

DeBoer and Rowse have fostered children who require special care, and two of their children have developmental disabilities. Rylee, who spent less than an hour playing with her siblings that Monday before she crawled back into DeBoer’s lap, has some difficulties hearing and is still learning to talk, though her parents have seen improvement each month since they adopted her in the fall.

“These are people who just can’t say no to a child in need,” Nessel said. “If these women jointly are good enough to be foster care parents to these children, why are they not both good enough to be adoptive parents?”
Jayne Rowse gets a hug from her attorney Dana Nessel while attending a rally on Oct. 16, 2013, in Detroit.DeBoer and Rowse are hopeful about the outcome of their case, but careful not to get overeager after experiencing a series of unwelcome surprises from the courts.

“We felt that [U.S. District Court Judge Bernard Friedman] ... would just see our way and abolish it and be done, and we would walk out all happy and go about our merry lives," Rowse said.

Friedman instead suggested their case actually hinged on same-sex marriage, and invited them to amend their complaint to challenge the ban voters enshrined in the state constitution in 2004.

Jay Kaplan, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan's LGBT Project, said his organization was also caught off guard by Friedman’s move. At the time, national marriage equality advocates didn’t consider Michigan a viable place for a lawsuit, Kaplan said, in part because of the conservative-leaning appeals court. Those factors made some worry about what precedent would be set for future case if the court ruled against DeBoer and Rowse.

“It was something new, and it was hard to predict what might happen,” Kaplan said. “It was great to see a judge wanted to address the issue of marriage equality, but it was also scary.”

DeBoer, Rowse and their attorneys -- a small team working pro bono -- felt they had little choice but to do as Friedman said, and the lawsuit went to trial last year. For several days, the plaintiffs sat quietly in court as experts for the state explained research that implied their children would be better off with heterosexual parents. Friedman ultimately decided in the plaintiffs' favor, refuting much of the state's expert testimony and the argument that the gay marriage ban was enacted by voters and therefore shouldn't be decided in the courts.

"In attempting to define this case as a challenge to 'the will of the people,' state defendants lost sight of what this case is truly about: people," Friedman wrote in his decision.
Photo of Jayne Rowse, April DeBoer and three of their children.

Same-sex couples had a brief window to legally marry before the case was appealed the following day. Several county clerks performed more than 300 weddings on a Saturday. Those newlyweds marked their one-year anniversary last month.

DeBoer, Rowse and Nessel can't hide their disappointment about having spent years on a case that has yet to change to their situation or change the law that won’t let them jointly adopt. The couples who married last year, however, are a tangible reminder of why their effort has been worthwhile.

“The driving thing is the people who say, ‘Thank you for allowing us to get married on that one day, to show the world our 27 and a half years counted,’” Rowse said.

She, DeBoer and their children will all go to Washington to hear oral arguments in the Supreme Court case.

“The closer we get to the arguments and the decision, the more emotional it gets for both of us,” DeBoer said. “Jayne usually keeps me grounded. I’m known to be the one who cries. … To get her to cry is very, very unusual, and we have succeeded twice in the last couple weeks.”
Jayne Rowse looks at April DeBoer as she reacts during a news conference in Ferndale, Michigan, after a federal judge struck down the state's ban on gay marriage on March 21, 2014.

The kids are too young to understand exactly what’s at stake, but they know enough to be filled with anticipation for the day when, as they think of it, the whole family will get married -- preferably at a big party with clowns and balloon animals.

“Every time we leave the house dressed up, Ryanne asks, ‘Is today the day? Are we going to get married today?’” DeBoer said. “We’re like, ‘No, we’re just going to a meeting,’ and she’s like, ‘Well, when is that day?’”

“Now we get to tell her, ‘Hopefully in June.’”
April DeBoer holds up a sign in Detroit as she and her partner Jayne Rowse attend a rally in favor of same-sex marriage on October 16, 2013.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 3 hours ago.

While Obamacare's health insurance exchanges stumble, private exchanges are thriving. They offer companies and patients access to high-quality care at reduced cost. Yet these private exchanges -- like so much else that’s actually working in the private healthcare market -- are at risk because of the heavy government hand of Obamacare. Reported by Forbes.com 2 hours ago.

Some of tech's top investors think Oscar Health is just what the doctor ordered. Today, the New York health insurance start-up announced it raised $145 million dollars in a Series B round. The Oscar team would not comment on valuation, but sources close to the deal said the funding values Oscar [...] Reported by Forbes.com 27 minutes ago.

Oscar, a new health insurance company, has closed a $145 million round of financing.

A source close to the company says the new round brings Oscar's valuation to $1.5 billion, making it the latest tech company to join an expanding list of valuable startups known as tech "unicorns." Unicorns are private tech companies with billion-dollar+ valuations.

Oscar is rumored to be generating hundreds of millions in annual revenue and it has raised nearly $300 million from investors to date. It was founded a few years ago but launched publicly in July 2013.

Right now, Oscar has 40,000 customers in New York and New Jersey, the only two states where the service is currently available. That's up from 15,000 one year ago. Users can buy health insurance coverage from the marketplaces created under the Affordable Care Act. The company uses technology and design to make its statements and services easy for anyone to understand.

Founded in 2013 by entrepreneur and venture capitalist Joshua Kushner, Microsoft's former director of health care Kevin Nazemi, and former McKinsey & Company computer scientist Mario Schlosser, Oscar rivals established health insurance companies like Aetna and UnitedHealth.

Oscar lets users talk to doctors on the phone for free, and it was the first insurance company to give fitness trackers to its customers to let them get rewards for walking a certain number of steps in a day.

Oscar's new funding was led by both Peter Thiel and Brian Singerman from Founders Fund. Li Ka-shing of Horizon Ventures, the Wellington Management Company and Goldman Sachs also participated in the new round of funding. Thiel and Singerman are longtime supporters of Oscar, CEO Mario Schlosser says. "They came aboard for the first time in May 2013 when we had just 1,000 members signed up."

Schlosser says that in New York, its market share is upwards of 12%. "The biggest reason why we now decided to raise a new round of capital is that we think the opportunity we originally saw is even bigger than we realized early on," Schlosser tells Business Insider. "We started three years ago with the very distinct idea of creating a better user interface for healthcare, and most specifically health insurance."

Schlosser says his team is 185 people right now, and he expects that number to grow this year. In addition, he says, Oscar is working with regulators in other states to expand Oscar's coverage with the end goal to get Oscar into as many members' hands as possible. 

Schlosser says Oscar oversees $200 million in healthcare spending. "We really have been growing about twice as quickly as we thought, and we'll continue going up from here," he says. "The rest of the healthcare system is so damn complicated and complex that if you really navigate it on your own you're sort of out of luck. So we're your trusted guide to help you through the system, so you can get connected to the right doctors and hospitals." 

*SEE ALSO: These are five of New York's most highly anticipated startups you need to know*

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's what it's like to slingshot with a parachute out of a hot air balloon at 16,000 feet Reported by Business Insider 1 hour ago.

The company has raised $145 million, drawing fans among investors with its approach built on technology and friendlier customer service. Reported by NYTimes.com 49 minutes ago.

Reported by Breaking News 59 minutes ago.

Vermont Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders appeared on Fox News yesterday and Chris Wallace asked him why his own state had abandoned all plans to implement single payer health insurance – something that is apparently allowed under Obamacare. Since Sanders is a self-described “socialist,” you would expect him to be up to [...] Reported by Forbes.com 18 minutes ago.

Reported by MarketWatch 17 minutes ago.

By the time you read this article, I will be on my way to Kansas City, MO or heading back home to Louisiana after volunteering at a massive free medical clinic. This is not my first time working with the National Association of Free and Charitable Clinics (NAFC) as a volunteer and definitely won't be my last for several reasons. Firstly, I enjoy volunteering and assisting the hundreds of medical and non-medical staff who simply come out to help those who can't access quality affordable health care. Secondly, even if the Affordable Care Act (ACA) aka Obamacare were to roll out flawlessly, there will still be millions of hard working Americans who can't afford health insurance.

As the Supreme Court prepares to decide the future of the ACA, the conversation has focused on the potential impact of the outcome. Specifically, that striking down federal subsidies for policy holders could create a nation of haves and have nots -- those with coverage and those without. What's lost in this debate is that when it comes to health care coverage, this already is a nation of haves and have not's, and the ACA hasn't solved that. The law does a great job for some people, but it leaves an incredible number of hard working Americans -- as many as 30 million, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office -- falling through very large cracks.

As of March 2015 16 states have opted out of expanding Medicaid, leaving large gaps in coverage available for nearly 4 million adults. Lacking other options, many of these patients are currently receiving care in one of America's 1,200 Free or Charitable Clinics, which are part of the NAFC. These organizations -- which provided over 6 million patients visits last year alone -- are driven by a volunteer workforce of doctors, dentists, nurses, therapists, pharmacists, nurse practitioners, technicians and other health care professionals.

After volunteering for my sixth massive one-day clinic, I truly understand their significance. One of the most common misconceptions about how the United States will look after the full implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is that there will no longer be a need for these clinics to continue to provide charity care as a member of the safety net. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Despite the implementation of Obamacare, many of the clinics have seen a 40 percent increase in patient demand over the past two years.

A 2014 Kaiser Family Foundation update reported that two-thirds (66 percent) of people in the coverage gap are in a family with a worker and 54 percent are working themselves. These patients aren't freeloaders. They are hard-working people. They are people with jobs -- often more than one -- who are trying to take care of their families. They are freelancers and millennials; they are service industry workers, professionals, and everyone in between. Most importantly, they are people who shouldn't be financially ruined just because they need to pay for a health care expense.

In states that have expanded Medicaid, there may be some relief when it comes to purchasing health insurance given that adults under the age 65 can earn up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level and qualify for Medicaid. However the federal poverty level for this year is only $11,670 for individuals, which means one would need to earn less than $16,243 to receive Medicaid coverage. This is hardly wealthy by most standards.

The ultimate irony is that under the ACA, people earning more than $16,243 can receive subsidies to purchase insurance through the exchanges and to lower their out-of-pocket costs. However, individuals are still reporting to our clinics that even with the subsidies they can't afford medication, find a doctor for a timely appointment and can still not access dental care. In fact 70 percent of our clinics are reporting that patients are returning to them for help even after that have found coverage.

The Affordable Care Act was just a first step in providing access to affordable health coverage for some Americans; it was not a final step in providing care for ALL Americans. Currently in our health care system there are those who still have to make the choice between putting food on the table or paying for health care. For them, it is quite literally a matter of life and death. For those people, I will continue to volunteer and the Free and Charitable Clinics will still be here, continuing to build a healthy America, one patient at a time.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 23 hours ago.