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

How to Get Health Insurance Outside Open Enrollment Period

$
0
0
How to Get Health Insurance Outside Open Enrollment Period Filed under: Health Care, Health Insurance, Financial Education

*Alamy*

By Ellen Chang

For consumers who want health insurance but missed the open enrollment deadline under the Affordable Care Act and its extensions, your best bet is to purchase short-term health insurance to protect you against major medical debt in case of emergencies.

Unpaid medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the U.S., said Egon Smola, a senior vice president at GetInsured, a Palo Alto, California, health insurance broker. If you are between 25 and 34 years old, you have a 5 percent chance of incurring medical bills of at least $27,000 this year and a 10 percent chance of medical bills of at least $13,000, he said.

Short-term health insurance does not cover preventative care or pre-existing conditions, so it does not meet the requirements for minimum essential coverage under the act. That means you'll pay a tax penalty.

*Accident or Critical Injury Policies*

Other options include accident or critical injury insurance policies, but they don't meet your coverage requirements under the law either, said Carrie McLean, director of customer care at eHealth.com, an online health insurance exchange in Mountain View, California. Insurance companies can decline you or a family member for such policies based on your personal medical history.

Still, they are "much cheaper than if you become gravely sick while uninsured and go into serious debt or worse, bankrupt," said Michael Stahl, a senior vice president HealthMarkets, a North Richland Hills, Texas online health insurance exchange company.

*Life-Changing Events?*

Some people can sign up for insurance outside the open enrollment window. If you turn 27 and were insured through your parents, get a new job, move to a new city or get divorced, you qualify to buy insurance, because such scenarios are considered qualifying life events. The other exceptions include getting married, losing coverage from your employer if you quit, get fired or laid off.

If you get a new job and your employer offers coverage for you or your spouse, you may have the opportunity to enroll in a group health insurance plan. Most employer-sponsored health plans will meet your coverage requirements under the act. Keep in mind that you cannot use government subsidies to help reduce your premiums under employer-sponsored plans, but you have the option to opt out and buy insurance from private companies or the government yourself.

*Or You Can Negotiate or Appeal to the Crowd*

If you decide against buying short-term or critical illness coverage, you still have some options, such as talking to your doctor or hospital about negotiating their fees. "It is not an easy task, but it can result in big savings," said Noah Lang, founder of Stride Health, a San Francisco health insurance exchange. "Medical bill advocates like CoPatient in Boston can also help do this negotiating for you. Make sure to check your medical bills for errors like duplicate charges. Finally, you could turn to crowdfunding sites like YouCaring to crowd-source money for high medical costs."

The next nationwide open enrollment period for Affordable Care Act policies runs Nov. 1 to Dec. 7. The tax penalties for being uninsured during 2015 are higher than they were in 2014, when the penalty for not having insurance was either $95 or 1 percent of your annual income, whichever was greater. In 2015, that penalty skyrockets to the greater of $325 an adult, and $162.50 a child or 2 percent of household income.

 

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

This Is What The Latest Obamacare Supreme Court Case Is All About

$
0
0
President Barack Obama’s big health care reform law is back at the Supreme Court. Justices are expected to issue a decision in June on a new challenge to the law. Depending on which way they rule, either nothing will change or people across the country will start losing their health insurance and the already heated politics of Obamacare will get even more fiery.

*Obamacare is at the Supreme Court? Is this a rerun?*

Nope. Although the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate in 2012 (and weakened the law’s birth control coverage provisions last year), that wasn’t the end of Obamacare’s legal troubles. Justices heard arguments in March about another lawsuit, King v. Burwell, and this one isn’t about whether Obamacare is constitutional but whether the federal government correctly implemented the law. King v. Burwell is at least as big a deal as the 2012 case, because health insurance coverage for millions of people is at stake.

*What is this new lawsuit about anyway?*

The plaintiffs, a group of regular people recruited by conservative and libertarian think tanks opposed to the Affordable Care Act, claim that there’s a brief phrase in the law that makes health insurance tax credit subsidies illegal unless they go through a health insurance exchange -- that is, an online marketplace for health plans -- that was set up by a state government. That leaves out the 34 states where the federal government runs the exchange instead.

King v. Burwell is one of several basically identical lawsuits arguing that the IRS broke the law when it published a regulation allowing subsidies to go to people in states with federally created exchanges. Not surprisingly, Republican officials eventually embraced this lawsuit as a cool, new way to ruin Obamacare.

*And how has the Obama administration responded to this?*

“That’s nonsense!” would be a good way to summarize the legal response to this lawsuit, but of course it’s more complicated than that. What the government argues is that isolating the phrase “an exchange established by the state” from the rest of the lengthy statute is absurd because many other parts of the law assume subsidies are available nationwide, no matter who runs the exchange. Defenders of Obamacare have also emphasized that this is what Obama and the Democrats who wrote the law in Congress always said the Affordable Care Act would do.

*How is the Supreme Court expected to rule?*

Even though the high court is split between five Republican appointees and four Democratic ones, they won't necessarily decide the case along partisan lines. Of course, during oral arguments, conservatives like Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Samuel Alito seemed more inclined to accept the plaintiffs' contention that the plain language of the law can't be ignored. Meanwhile, liberals such as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Elena Kagan made comments suggesting they agree with the Obama administration that the greater context of the law makes it clear subsidies were intended nationally, and that the IRS has the authority to interpret the language that way. And Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Republican appointee seen as a swing vote, expressed concern that reading the law in the manner favored by the plaintiffs would create a "constitutional problem," since it would leave states a choice between establishing exchanges or seeing their insurance markets seriously damaged. Chief Justice John Roberts, who was the deciding vote in the 2012 case, barely spoke that day.

*What happens if Obama wins the case?*

Things stay the way they are now: Obamacare enrollees can keep their subsidies, and the politicians can continue yelling at each other about whether that’s good or bad.

*And what if the plaintiffs win?*

The first thing that would happens is those subsidies would disappear for about 7.5 million people in the 34 states that have federal health insurance exchanges. Those tax credits only go to people with low or moderate incomes -- up to about $47,000 for a single person or $97,000 for a family of four. Without that assistance, most of these enrollees wouldn’t be able to afford their insurance anymore and would probably drop it, especially those with the lowest incomes receiving the biggest subsidies.

The subsidies would cease within weeks of a Supreme Court ruling for the plaintiffs, unless the justices decided to “stay” their ruling -- that is, build in a delay in order to give politicians time to maybe do something to protect those people. Absent such protections, the Rand Corp. estimates that 8 million people who have health coverage today would wind up uninsured.

*Does any of this affect me in any way?*

If don’t get your health insurance from a federal exchange created by the Affordable Care Act, then it doesn’t, no matter what the Supreme Court decides. That means anybody whose health plan comes from a job or a government program like Medicare or Medicaid. It also means anybody whose insurance came from an Obamacare exchange their home state set up, which includes people in California, Idaho, Kentucky and 13 other states, as well as in the District of Columbia.

If you used an Obamacare exchange in those other states, though, a ruling against Obama is going to hit you in the wallet big-time, and that’s probably true even if you don’t get subsidies. Experts predict that when millions of people drop their coverage, the sickest ones will be most willing to pay the unsubsidized prices, because they need it more. That, in turn, will drive up expenses for insurance companies, and they’ll respond by raising rates.

*Are Obama and the Republicans in Congress really going to let that happen?*

It’s hard to predict how the politics would play out, but it would be ugly no matter what. The Obama administration says it can’t do anything about people losing their subsidies unless a new law is passed giving the administration the power to do so. Meanwhile, the Republicans who control Congress can't reach a consensus about what to do. Some of them want to do nothing and just allow the subsidies to go away and premiums to go up, while others want to offer temporary relief as they go about dismantling the rest of Obamacare. Since Obama doesn’t want Obamacare dismantled and he doesn’t want people to lose their subsidies, he probably wouldn’t go for either of those options.

*What about my state? Can the governor do anything?*

States have always had the option of creating a health insurance exchange for their residents under the Affordable Care Act. Most of them didn’t, in part because of intense opposition to Obamacare in a lot of places and in part because it takes a lot of work and a lot of money. And while states could try to protect their citizens by rushing to get new exchanges in place after the Supreme Court ruling, there isn’t a lot of time and money to go around. Plus, every one of the states subject to the high court’s decision has a Republican governor and/or legislature, except Delaware.

*Is it really that hopeless for people who’d lose their subsidies?*

Not necessarily. If enough political pressure builds on Congress, Republicans might go along with at least a temporary restoration of the subsidies with few or no strings attached, if they were willing to take heat from conservatives about “endorsing” Obamacare. And despite its assertions, the Obama administration might be able to fast-track the approval of new exchanges in states where the politics compel Republicans to do so (although none of the ways the administration could theoretically do this have ever been tried, and their legality isn't even totally clear).

Got more questions about the Affordable Care Act and the Supreme Court? Join Huffington Post reporters Jonathan Cohn and Jeffrey Young for a chat on the HuffPost Politics Facebook page June 2.

-- 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 20 hours ago.

GOP likely to feel the heat if court decision guts Obamacare

$
0
0
WASHINGTON (AP) — A Supreme Court ruling due in a few weeks could wipe out health insurance for millions of people covered by President Barack Obama’s health care law. But it’s Republicans — not White House officials — who have been talking about damage control. A likely reason: Twenty-six of the 34 states that would […] Reported by Seattle Times 18 hours ago.

Millions Likely to Drop Obamacare if Subsidies Fall: WSJ

$
0
0
The affordability of health insurance - both for those who receive federal subsidies and those who do not - hinges greatly on the outcome of the Supreme Court's looming decision about whether it's legal to provide subsidies to residents in 37 states that didn't set up their own healthcare exchanges. Reported by Newsmax 18 hours ago.

Price's Empowering Patients First Act Gets Better with Age

$
0
0
Congressman Tom Price, MD, introduced his first post-Obamacare bill as early as 2009 and has reintroduced an updated version in every Congress since then. The latest Empowering Patients First Act (H.R. 2300), introduced this month, is the fourth iteration. The most important improvement is a universal tax credit, adjusted by age, to every American who chooses to buy individual health insurance: $1,200 for those aged 18 to 35, $2,100 for those between 35 and 50, $3,000 for those over 50 and $900 per child. Dr. Price’s previous bill had tax credits, which were not adjusted by age, but by income. Of course, Obamacare's tax credits phase out by income, which causes very high effective marginal income tax rates at certain income thresholds. Reported by Forbes.com 16 hours ago.

Can We Head Off a Long Hot Summer of Riots and Rebellion?

$
0
0
The nation's attention has been focused on the recent riots in Baltimore, but the harsh truth is that they could have happened in any major city. Indeed, we could see a long hot summer of urban (and, as in places like Ferguson, suburban) riots that would make the two-day disturbances in Baltimore seem trivial in comparison.

We can surely expect more turmoil next year, too, if social and economic conditions continue to deteriorate, and if candidates for president and Congress fail to make specific suggestions for addressing the suffering and hardship facing the nation.

But promises can only quell riots for so long. Hope soon turns to frustration, and then anger, unless there's real action to change conditions.

The turmoil in Baltimore followed the trajectory of the urban riots of the 1960s (in Detroit, Newark, Los Angeles, and 161 other cities) and subsequent civil disorders in Miami (1980), Los Angeles (1992) and elsewhere. It typically begins with an incident of police abuse against an African-American resident. Outraged members of the black community organize nonviolent protests, the police over-react and the protests become violent and threatening.

In Baltimore, the death of Freddie Gray, a 25-year-old unarmed black man, at the hands of the police, triggered the demonstrations, but the city was already a powder keg of economic and racial grievances. The same is true in cities across America.

Fixing racist police practices and bias in our criminal justice system is important. But the underlying cause of riots is the hopelessness that comes with persistent poverty, unemployment, slum housing, widespread sickness, underfunded schools and lack of opportunity to escape such intolerable conditions.

Since Baltimore exploded, many pundits have taken to quoting Martin Luther King, who once said that "a riot is the language of the unheard." But few pundits have discovered another one of King's profound insights: "There is no noise as powerful as the sound of the marching feet of a determined people."

Riots are not truly political protests. They are expressions of hot anger -- outrage about social conditions. They do not have a clear objective, a policy agenda or a strategy for bringing about change. They are a wake-up call to those in power.

In contrast, social movements reflect cold anger. They are intentional and strategic. They take place when people are hopeful -- when people believe not only that things should be different, but also that they can be different.

Riots tell us what desperate people are against. Social movements tell us what hopeful people are for.

To avoid a long hot summer this year and in the future, but also to address the underlying causes and tensions in our communities, we need to do two things. First, strengthen and invest in the social movements -- grassroots organizing and coalition building -- that have emerged in cities across the country. Second, engage the country in a policy conversation about full employment, and then take action to guarantee every American a good job.

*Invest in Grassroots Organizing and Coalition Building*Visiting the U.S. in the 1830s, Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America, was impressed by the outpouring of local voluntary organizations that brought Americans together to solve problems, provide a sense of community and public purpose, and tame the hyper-individualism that he considered a threat to democracy.

Every fight for social reform since then -- from the abolition movement to the labor movement's fight against sweatshops in the early 1900s, to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, to the environmental and women's movements of the past half century -- has reflected elements of the self-help spirit that Tocqueville observed.

America's struggling families -- including the residents of poor communities, like inner city Baltimore -- need stronger vehicles to gain a voice in their cities and the larger society. This is the most effective alternative to riots.

Studies show that voluntary associations and interest groups today are titled toward affluent Americans. As political scientist Martin Gilens demonstrates in Affluence and Influence, America's policymakers respond almost exclusively to the policy preferences of the economically advantaged. But under specific circumstances -- especially during impending elections, and when ordinary Americans are well-organized -- the preferences of the middle class and the poor do matter.

Around the country, there are thousands of local nonprofit community groups that organize and mobilize people around their everyday concerns -- from the lack of stop signs at dangerous intersections, to police misconduct and racial profiling, to the proliferation of killings by people with assault weapons, to environmental and health hazards in poor communities, to predatory bank lending and the epidemic of foreclosures, to the repression of basic voting rights, to inadequate funding for public schools, to the shortage of decent affordable housing, to the lack of jobs and decent pay.

Groups such as the Moral Monday movement in North Carolina, the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment and the fledgling Black Lives Matter movement (created in 2012 after Trayvon Martin's murder in Florida) channel people's anger into constructive action around specific policy demands. Some of these groups are part of regional and national advocacy networks, such as the Center for Community Change, National People's Action, the Partnership for Working Families, US Action, PICO, the Industrial Areas Foundation and the Center for Popular Democracy.

Most of these organizations, however, operate on shoe-string budgets. In addition to dues and bake sales, they rely on private foundations to help them hire staff, maintain an office, conduct research and, occasionally, engage a lawyer. Their funding for organizing, research, publicity, policy advocacy and other tasks is minuscule when compared with big corporations that have armies of high-paid lobbyists, donate billions in campaign contributions and have huge war chests devoted to public relations and propaganda.

Despite a playing field that is tilted heavily in favor of big business and wealthy people, grassroots organizing groups and advocacy networks have won some significant victories at the local, state and federal levels.
· A growing number of cities, including Seattle and Los Angeles, have adopted municipal wages that will reach $15 an hour within a few years.

· In response to pressure from community groups and its own employees, Walmart -- the nation's largest private employer with 1.3 million workers -- earlier this year, announced that it would boost pay for its lowest-level workers to at least $9 an hour starting this spring, and raise that to $10 next year. Walmart estimated that about 500,000 employees will receive a raise, totaling roughly $1 billion a year. In April, McDonald's announced its own wage increases -- also in response to protests by employees and community groups, as well as support from elected officials. The company said that, beginning July 1 of this year, starting wages at company-owned McDonald's would be one dollar over the locally mandated minimum wage.

· Last year, minimum wage increases passed by wide margins in five states, including decidedly red states like Arkansas, Alaska, South Dakota and Nebraska. Paid sick time passed by a wide margin in Massachusetts and in three cities.· New York is moving rapidly toward high quality, free, full-day pre-kindergarten educational options for every family -- every child, rich, middle and poor.

· In California, there are significant efforts to curb carbon emissions and explicitly link those efforts to job creation and investment in low-income communities.

· The criminal justice reform movement has secured breakthroughs on "ban the box" that open up employment opportunities for the formerly incarcerated

· The immigrant rights movement has successfully pushed 20 states to authorize in-state college tuition for undocumented students

· The Black Lives Matter movement is connecting criminal justice and police reform to the "Fight for $15" among low-wage workers of color.These and other movements represent a powerful convergence of constituencies and social forces with the potential to reshape the national agenda. But to be effective, they need more resources to hire staff, reach more people in their communities and workplaces, and get their voices heard in the corridors of power.

America's foundations -- which are funded by wealthy people and corporations that get generous tax breaks for their philanthropic giving -- donate about $55 billion a year to a wide variety of causes. They devote less than to 10 percent of that amount to groups engaged in organizing and advocacy for social justice.

Perhaps not surprisingly, most foundations allocate the vast bulk of their donations to institutions (such as elite colleges and universities, hospitals, museums and others arts organizations) that primarily serve the affluent. It is time for these tax-exempt foundations to invest in organizations that promote grassroots organizing and help give working families and the poor a stronger voice in our democracy.

*Inequality, Poverty, Joblessness and Economic Insecurity*Ironically, while most of the media were focusing on the Baltimore riots, it was John Angelos, the Baltimore Orioles's chief operating officer, who seized the opportunity to redirected attention to the root causes of the city's turmoil. He tweeted:
My greater source of personal concern, outrage and sympathy beyond this particular case is focused neither upon one night's property damage nor upon the acts, but is focused rather upon the past four-decade period during which an American political elite have shipped middle class and working class jobs away from Baltimore and cities and towns around the U.S. to third-world dictatorships like China and others, plunged tens of millions of good, hard-working Americans into economic devastation, and then followed that action around the nation by diminishing every American's civil rights protections in order to control an unfairly impoverished population living under an ever-declining standard of living and suffering at the butt end of an ever-more militarized and aggressive surveillance state.

The shape of the current crisis is by now very familiar. The harsh reality is that no other wealthy nation allows the level of sheer destitution and misery found in the United States, including poverty, hunger, slums, homelessness and ill-health.

About 50 million Americans live below the official poverty line. One-third of the country-- over 100 million people-- cannot make ends meet. They don't earn enough to sustain their families. One in three American households say they are living paycheck to paycheck, continuously on the brink of financial disaster. A staggering 36 percent say that they or someone else in their household had to reduce meals or cut back on food to save money during the past year.

Because incomes and wages have declined, a record number of Americans are in debt. They mortgage their future to pay for their homes, a college education, and, with credit cards, day-to-day expenses

Some $7 trillion of Americans' household wealth evaporated in the housing crash that began in 2007. The burden has fallen disproportionately on African American and Latino families, who saw more than half of their total wealth disappear as a result of Wall Street's risky and reckless practices.

The current official unemployment rate is 5.4 percent, but it varies considerably by race. It is 4.7 percent for whites compared with 6.9 percent for Hispanics, and 9.6 percent for African-Americans. But several years into the so-called "recovery," the real unemployment rate -- which also includes discouraged workers who've given up trying to find a job and those who are employed part time but not able to secure full-time work -- is double the official rate.

Almost one-third of America's jobless have been out of work for 27 weeks or more. Among those lucky enough to have jobs, women earn only 78 percent of what men make. African American women make 64 percent and Hispanic women 54 percent of men's earnings.

The United States is the most unequal of the world's wealthiest societies. The richest one percent of all Americans take home approximately 20 percent of the country's total income and owns 40 percent of the nation's wealth. Since 1979, wages for the richest one percent have increased by 138 percent; in contrast, wages for the bottom 90 percent have increased just 15 percent. In the last few years, as the country has struggled to recover from the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression, this top tier has received nearly all of the added income generated from economic growth.

A recent report by the Institute for Policy Studies found that the $26.7 billion in bonuses handed to 165,200 executives by Wall Street banks in 2013 would be enough to more than double the pay for all 1,085,000 Americans who work full time at the current federal minimum wage of $7.25-per-hour.

The low wages paid by many employers cost taxpayers about $153 billion each year by forcing employees to rely on public assistance to afford food, healthcare and other basic necessities, according to a recent study conducted by the University of California's Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education. This is more than the annual budgets of the U.S. Department of Education and Health and Human Services combined.

*A Policy Agenda for Good Jobs and Shared Prosperity
*

Fortunately, this situation can be fixed. In previous periods of American history when we faced an economic and moral crisis -- the Gilded Age of the late 1800s, the Depression of the 1930s, and the explosive racial divide of the 1960s -- reform movements mobilized new constituencies to promote bold solutions that changed public opinion and pushed elected officials to adopt new policies. Ideas that were once considered radical -- the minimum wage, Social Security, women's suffrage, the Voting Rights Act, consumer and environment protection laws and many others -- became viewed as common sense.

In response to our current crisis, a new wave of advocacy groups and policy experts has emerged to put new ideas on the table.

With the support of local advocacy groups, a growing wave of progressive mayors and other local officials in Pittsburgh, San Francisco, Newark, Minneapolis, Seattle, Los Angeles and elsewhere have sought to address the widening economic divide and persistent poverty in order to build an economy that works for all families. The growing number of cities with municipal minimum wage laws is only one aspects of this crescendo of conscience in favor of shared prosperity.

Think tanks like the Center for American Progress, the Roosevelt Institute, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, the Center for Economic and Policy Research, and the Economic Policy Institute have released reports that provide bold prescriptions to the problems of inequality, poverty and joblessness.

A growing number of enlightened business leaders now recognize that we need policies that invest in good jobs, rather than our current short-term focus on enriching the already rich, especially those in the financial sector that caused the economic crash in the first place. Many now recognize that we cannot put most of our hopes simply in improving skills and education. Over the past generation, overall skills and educational levels have increased, but wages (even for those with college degrees) have stagnated.

Earlier this month, in the wake of the Baltimore uprising, and in anticipation of the next election cycle, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz released a 115-page report, Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy, that offered proposals to address income inequality and poverty. The "trickle-down" economics that has prevailed since 1980 has "decimated America's middle class," according to the report. "It's time to try something new," Stiglitz said, taking aim at excessive executive compensation, declining wages and labor standards, weak regulation of the financial industry and generous tax rates for the wealthy. They also called for universal pre-kindergarten, a federal paid family leave policy and a $15-an-hour federal minimum wage.

Also, last month, a coalition of advocacy groups -- including the Center for Community Change, Center for Popular Democracy, Jobs With Justice, Working Families Organization and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights -- launched a national campaign to advance the idea that every American should and can have access to a good job. Their plan, called Putting Families First: Good Jobs for All, is both audacious and simple: Everyone who wants a job should have assured access to a good job that provides dignity, a voice on the job, fair wages and good benefits.

A good job means one that pays enough to allow a family to buy or rent a decent home, put food on the table and clothes on their backs, afford health insurance and child care, send the kids to college, take a yearly vacation and retire with dignity. A good job means that parents don't have to juggle two or three jobs to stay afloat, and that they still have time to spend with their kids.

As a society, we have to make sure that people who work can support their families and assure that everyone can retire in dignity.

During this election cycle, and over the next few years, this coalition of conscience hopes to inject the goal of a good job for all into the political debate and the national conversation. It is proposing solutions commensurate with the scale of the challenge -- rather than tinkering at the margins. The Putting Families First agenda has five key elements:
· *Guaranteeing Good Wages and Benefits*. Requiring every job in the United States to meet a minimum standard of quality -- in wages, benefits, and working conditions -- and offer unhindered access to collective representation and a real voice for workers.
· *Unlocking Opportunity in the Poorest Communities*. Investing resources on a large scale to restart the economy in places where racial bias and sustained disinvestment have produced communities of concentrated poverty.
· *Taxing concentrated wealth*. Funding new investments in job creation, care, and economic renewal by taxing those who benefit most from the current economic model - investors, financiers, wealth managers, and individuals in the highest income brackets.
· *Building a Clean Energy Economy*. Using the large-scale investments required for transition to a clean energy future to create millions of good jobs that are accessible to all Americans, especially those hardest hit by hard times -- workers of color, women, and economically distressed communities.
· *Valuing Families*. Ending the systematic devaluation of care work, which disproportionately keeps women in poverty, by making high quality child care available to all working parents, raising the quality of jobs in the early childhood education and care fields, transforming homecare and providing financial support to unpaid caregivers.These are not pie-in-the-sky ideas. Many of them have already been adopted in cities and states, such as municipal minimum wage laws, paid family leave policies, green jobs ordinances, and state laws to improve conditions for nannies, maids, and other domestic workers. In many other countries, including the social democracies of Europe, Australia and Canada, most of these ideas are taken for granted.

It may appear paradoxical to propose a bold agenda for change at a time when Congress is paralyzed and the immediate prospect of bold federal action appears dim. But the moment is ripe. America seems to be holding its breath, trying to decide what kind of country it wants to be. We seem to be at one of those crossroad moments when attitudes are rapidly shifting, and significant reform is possible.

Americans are upset with widening inequality, the political influence of big business and declining living standards. Public opinion is generally favorable toward greater government activism to address poverty, inequality and opportunity. A national survey by the Pew Research Center last year found that 60 percent of Americans -- including 75 percent of Democrats, 60 percent of independents, and even 42 percent of Republicans -- think that the economic system unfairly favors the wealthy. The poll discovered that 69 percent of Americans believe that the government should do "a lot" or "some" to reduce the gap between the rich and everyone else. Nearly all Democrats (93 percent) and large majorities of independents (83 percent) and Republicans (64 percent) said they favor government action to reduce poverty.

Over half (54 percent) of Americans support raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations in order to expand programs for the poor, compared with one third (35 percent) who believe that lowering taxes on the wealthy to encourage investment and economic growth would be the more effective approach. A new national poll found that 63 percent of Americans support raising the federal wage threshold to that level.

These are clear signs of a tectonic shift in our national thinking. But public opinion, on its own, doesn't translate into public policy. It has to be mobilized. As Cong. Keith Ellison of Minnesota has said: "Being right is not enough! We've got to organize."

The coalition behind the Putting Families First: Good Jobs for All plan intends to engage millions of Americans in multiple layers of civic action -- organizing, demonstrating, voting and advocating for legislation. They also want to encourage opinion leaders -- faith leaders, enlightened businesspersons, academics and policy analysts, columnists and editorial writers, and others -- to participate in a broad and deep national conversation about shifting our country's priorities toward full employment, clean energy and the other components of their agenda.

No time is better to do this than during a national election season, when the country is focusing on what candidates for president and Congress have to say about America's problems and potential.

If the voices and concerns of ordinary Americans aren't at the center of this debate, we can expect the ticking time bomb of urban unrest to explode in more and more communities. Without major reforms, the recent upheavals in Ferguson and Baltimore may simply be a precursor to a wave of 21st century riots.

To avoid more turmoil in our streets, and to address the growing frustration of a large segment of our society, we must focus the nation's attention on bold policy prescriptions to address the roots causes of poverty, inequality, joblessness and economic insecurity.

This isn't just an insurance policy against future riots. It is also a blueprint for a more livable, prosperous, and healthier society.

*Peter Dreier is the E.P. Clapp Distinguished Professor of Politics and chair of the Urban & Environmental Policy Department at Occidental College. His recent books include The 100 Greatest Americans of the 21st Century: A Social Justice Hall of Fame and Place Matters: Metropolitics for the 21st Century (with John Mollenkopf and Todd Swanstrom).
*

-- 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 16 hours ago.

Premier Eye Care more than doubles space, moves to Boca Raton

$
0
0
Health insurance provider Premier Eye Care will more than double its space as it relocates its operations center to Boca Raton. Avison Young’s Keith O’Donnell and Jonathan Senn represented the landlord of Meridian Center, at 6501 Park of Commerce Blvd., in signing a 19,450-square-foot lease with Premier Eye Care. The managed care company for optometry and ophthalmology will leave its 8,000-square-foot space at 4205 W. Altantic Ave. in Delray Beach. Founded in 1994, Tampa-based Premier Eye Care… Reported by bizjournals 15 hours ago.

Many Of Us Are Placing Bad Bets In the Obamacare Exchange Casino

$
0
0
Here's the good news: 74 percent of people nationwide who enrolled in health insurance plans through the Obamacare exchanges rate their coverage as excellent or good. That's according to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey released last Thursday.

Here's the not so good news: There's a better than even chance that many of those folks did not pick the plan that is best suited to their needs. As a consequence, they very likely will be paying more in premiums or out-of-pocket costs--or both--because their health-plan picking skills leave a lot to be desired. That's according to a study published earlier this month by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

Unfortunately for those folks, they'll keep paying more than they should. And they'll not have a clue that they could be saving quite a bit of cash if they had the ability or took the time to become better insurance shoppers. That's according to both organizations.

One of the goals of the Affordable Care Act was to make it easier for people to comparison shop for coverage. Prior to the availability of the exchanges created by the law, that was next to impossible for people who didn't have access to employer-sponsored coverage. There was no single place to go to shop, and there were no requirements that health plans provide information in understandable language and in a format that enabled customers to make apples-to-apples comparisons. And of course there was another problem: before Obamacare, insurers wouldn't sell them any kind of policy at any price if they'd been really sick in the past.

It's little wonder, then, that the vast majority of people who have enrolled in health plans through the exchanges feel good about their selections, especially when you consider the way the health insurance world used to be. The marketplace is considerably more consumer-friendly today.

That said, buying coverage post-Obamacare is no walk in the park. It's useful to think of the American health insurance marketplace, even with the consumer protections in the law, as a big casino--but without the ambience and excitement. And it's also useful to think of many American health insurance shoppers as first- timers in Las Vegas. They might get lucky, but the odds are with the house.

When we buy health insurance, we are forced to gamble, to make bets with the house (the insurance company) that will affect our ability to pay for care if and when we need it. When we are at the point of enrolling in a plan, we have to place a bet on whether we'll be able to go another year without coming down with some dread disease or getting hit by a semi. Should we pick a plan with lower premiums and higher deductibles or one with higher premiums and lower deductibles? Do we really want to take the time to see if the hospitals we would want to go to are "in network" or to see if the drugs we might need to take are in tier one, two, three or four? How much fun is that?

It was no surprise to me that the Kaiser survey found that 69 percent of the people who bought coverage on an Obamacare exchange in 2014 stayed with that plan in 2015. Employers that offer coverage have for years found the same inertia among their workers during open enrollment. Very few employees take the time to see if there might be an option available that would be a better deal for them.

In my 20 years in the insurance industry, I never once heard anyone tell me they were looking forward to open enrollment. The process is such a drag that most people are more willing to leave money on the table than spend time trying to figure out which of the 50-plus coverage choices represent the best value. And if they haven't had to test the limits of their coverage during the past year, to find out just how much they would have to pay out of their own pockets if something really bad happened, they'll likely tell themselves and Kaiser Family Foundation surveyors that they're happy campers.

One of the reasons growing numbers of us are underinsured, as I wrote last week, is because we made bad choices when picking health plans. The researchers who conducted the NBER study found that the choices made by health plan enrollees "reflect a severe deficit in health insurance literacy and naïve considerations of health risk and price, rather than a sensible comparison of plan value." They also found that older workers, women, and low earners were especially likely to choose unwisely.

They concluded that their findings "raise doubts whether recent health reforms will deliver their promised benefits."

Those doubts are justified. As long as we have to buy coverage in a casino, those promised benefits are not likely to materialize.

This post was published initially by the Center for Public Integrity. You can find more about Wendell Potter here.

-- 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 14 hours ago.

Texas State Senate OKs Latest Set Of Abortion Restrictions

$
0
0
The Republican-controlled Texas state Senate gave preliminary approval on Monday to a set of new restrictions on minors seeking abortions without a parent or legal guardian's consent.

The legislation, which originated in the state House, amends the “judicial bypass” process, or the legal mechanism that allows minors to get court approval for an abortion if obtaining consent from a parent would endanger their safety. About 200 to 300 minors in Texas use this process each year in instances where asking a parent or guardian for consent could lead to sexual, physical or emotional abuse.

Republicans who supported the Texas Right to Life-backed bill said it is meant to fix loopholes in the current judicial bypass system and provide judges with more clarity. But they also suggested the bill was aimed at reducing the number of abortions performed in the state.

“Protecting the life of the unborn is one of the most important acts we can take as elected officials,” Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) said in a statement after the Senate vote.

The bill's opponents say it would endanger vulnerable minors who experience familial abuse, as well as those whose parents have died, been deported, are incarcerated or have substance abuse issues. Reproductive rights advocates protested the bill on social media platforms with the hashtag #HereForJaneTX, since pregnant minors seeking judicial bypasses are referred to as "Janes" -- as in "Jane Doe" -- for the purpose of court records.

Currently, minors can seek the bypass in any of the state's counties. The legislation would require minors to file for a bypass in their home county, unless it has a population of less than 10,000 people. In those instances, the minor would be permitted to file in the county where the procedure would be performed or in a neighboring county. Currently, a bypass is automatically granted if a court does not rule within two days; if the bill is signed, the court would have five days to make its decision. The bill would also increase the standard of proof imposed on minors from a “preponderance of the evidence” to the higher threshold of the “clear and convincing” standard.

The legislation would also require judges to report any abuse alleged by a minor seeking a judicial bypass to local law enforcement. Since law enforcement would then be required to investigate the claims, abusers could become aware of their child or ward's pregnancy, potentially putting the pregnant minors in danger of further abuse, as RH Reality Check pointed out.

Jane's Due Process, a nonprofit that helps minors obtain judicial bypasses, said the legislation invites a lawsuit, since the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a judicial bypass must be confidential and expeditious.

“For many teens, this would make judicial bypass entirely unattainable,” Tina Hester, the executive director of Jane’s Due Process, said in a statement. “The judicial bypass is in place to protect abused and neglected pregnant teens who cannot safely turn to a parent or cannot find a parent. When a minor is forced to go to her local courthouse in rural communities her confidentiality is near impossible to protect.”

The state Senate didn't approve every one of the House bill's provisions: Republican Sen. Charles Perry modified a controversial section that would have asked abortion providers to assume a patient was a minor unless the patient could provide government-issued identification indicating otherwise. The provision had led to charges that lower-income and minority Texans who lack a valid form of identification would be blocked from having the procedure.

Under the new law, clinics would instead have to use “due diligence” to determine a patient's age and report to the state's health department how many abortions it had provided without obtaining identification. Perry, who sponsored the legislation in the upper chamber, said the revised language about identification “gives physician more latitude” to determine a patient's age.

The legislation must now be approved by the House before Friday. The lower chamber must either agree to the Senate’s amendments to its measure or meet in a joint House-Senate conference to resolve their difference, which must be adopted by June 1.

In debate over a separate abortion rights-related bill, Republican legislators in the House got into a confrontation over legislation from the Senate banning state health insurance plans from covering abortion.

After the House Calendars Committee voted against putting the bill on the legislative calendar, Republicans from the committee held another vote without those who had initially opposed adding the bill to the calendar. That bill is to be debated Tuesday.

-- 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 14 hours ago.

Health Care in the Shadows of Immigration Policy

$
0
0
*by Gabriel R. Sanchez, Francisco I. Pedraza and Edward D. Vargas*

One of the most troubling concerns for any democracy is the extent to which sub-populations of its citizenry "live in the shadows." Living in the shadows or social exclusion (i.e. lack of access to a state identification card, bank accounts and healthcare) is the process in which individuals are reluctant to fully engage in public life in order to avoid scrutiny because of their minority status (ethnicity, citizenship, religious beliefs and/or sexual orientation).

We examined Latino populations living in the shadows within the United States, and to the extent to which they may be avoiding public life because they do not want to be discriminated against due to their citizenship status, and/or the citizenship status of their loved ones. Our analyses rely upon the groundbreaking National Latino Health and Immigration Survey, a new survey sponsored by the RWJF Center for Health Policy at the University of New Mexico and implemented by Latino Decisions. We recently showcased this dataset on a webinar for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Human Capital Network blog as well as a previous post here showcasing the content more focused on the Affordable Care Act.

The survey of 1,505 Latino adults was fielded from January 29 to March 12, 2015, and provides some of the most comprehensive data on Latinos' attitudes related to health care and immigration in the ACA era. Although there is tremendous depth to this study, we focus specifically on a selection of questions that address the notion of "living in the shadows."

*Are Latinos Living in the Shadows?*

The question that we wanted to pursue with this line of inquiry is essentially: How many Latinos are "living in the shadows," and among Latinos, who are most likely to be reluctant to step out of the shadows and fully engage in public life? To get an answer we started by simply asking: "Have you ever avoided the following activities because you don't want to be bothered or asked about your citizenship status?" We asked specifically about daily life activities like taking public transportation, renewing or applying for a driver's license, talking with teachers and school officials, reporting crime to police and visiting a doctor or clinic.

Results from the survey indicate that the majority of Latinos, 70 percent overall, are not concerned by inquiries about their immigration status. This figure makes sense, given that the majority of Latinos in our sample are U.S. citizens, and a majority of Latinos who are not U.S. citizens are lawful permanent residents. Nevertheless, we do find evidence that a substantial percentage of Latinos do report adjusting aspects of their day-to-day life because they do not want to be bothered or asked about their citizenship status. In fact, we learned that overall, about seven percent of Latino adults shy away from contact with educators, nine percent avoid taking public transportation, nine percent steer clear of visiting health care providers, and 13 percent pass on reporting crime to police.

One of the most important sources of variation in this battery is language use. We find that Spanish-dominant Latinos (58 percent of the sample) are more likely to avoid certain aspects of life due to fears of being harassed about their immigration status. More specifically, 15 percent of Spanish dominant Latinos responded that they avoided contact with educators, 19 percent avoided taking public transportation, 16 percent avoided going to a doctor, and 19 percent avoided reporting crime to the police because they did not want to be bothered or asked about their citizenship status. These results signal a deep-rooted problem in our society and should be of concern for public servants and health care service delivery personnel interested in eliminating social and health disparities.

*What does immigration mean for Latino access to health care?*

Given our emphasis on the health care industry, we unpack how our findings affect the community of stakeholders in health care. Looking at the average count of self-reported visits to health care providers, we find that those living in the shadows -- measured as having avoided at least one of the activities that we ask about -- systematically report fewer health care visits. And this contrast appears sharpest for Latinos who are 30-34 years old, precisely the age demographic most needed in the risk pool to make health insurance through the ACA affordable for everyone.

Another important component of this survey is that we are able to provide perspective on an important question: Does fear of being tracked by the government for immigration reasons impact Latino take-up of health insurance through the ACA marketplaces or exchanges? We know that privacy and sharing personal information was a concern raised by Latinos during the launch of the healthcare.gov website. The administration addressed this very concern in March of 2014 in an interview on Univision, the Spanish language cable news network. In that interview, President Obama assured Latinos that the healthcare.gov website, and the CuidadoDeSalud.com version in Spanish, is not to be used to collect information for immigration enforcement agencies, such as U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement. To assess Latino reactions, we asked respondents which statement they agree with more:

1) "Personal information I provide to my doctor and health care providers is secure and kept private" or;

2) "Personal information I provide to my doctor and health care providers is sometimes shared and not always secure."

Approximately 24 percent of respondents stated that the personal information they provide their doctors and health care providers is sometimes shared and not always secure. However, if respondents personally knew someone that has been detained or deported (36 percent of the sample), this sentiment of feeling that your personal information is notsecure increases to 29 percent. Our interpretation of these results suggests that the externalities and consequences of immigration enforcement through mass deportations are spilling over to the health care arena and are undermining much of the hard work going into the administration's key domestic policy program.

One of the key lessons that we have gleaned from our investigation based on the 2015 National Latino Health and Immigration Survey is that Latinos may not view government as compartmentalized by policy area. Their lived experiences are much more complex. Latinos are simultaneously the targets of two of the largest bureaucracy developments in history: one charged with the provision of health care, the other for the purpose of enforcing immigration law.

There is already clear indication that health care practitioners are customizing their outreach and delivery systems to address the spill-over effects of immigration to health care provision. This is wise of physicians and nurses because the daily lives of many of their Latino clients are located at the confluence of the immigration and health policy streams. Whether policy makers and immigration enforcement officials modify their approach to take into account the collateral impact of their policies on the health of their fellow countrymen and women remains an open question.

For better or worse, the take-away from our study is that immigration policy is health policy, and health policy is immigration policy. This is directly in line with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's new priority of establishing a culture of health, where health and well-being is thought of comprehensively. Our findings suggests the need for public servants (teachers, police officers, school administrators) and health care providers to better understand the role social stigma plays in pushing hard to reach populations in the shadows to better engage our collective concerted effort to reduce health disparities.

Gabriel R. Sanchez is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of New Mexico, Executive Director of the RWJF Center for Health Policy at UNM and Director of Research for Latino Decisions. Francisco I. Pedraza is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Texas A&M University, and is a recent alumni of the Robert Wood Johnson Scholars in Health Policy Research Program at the University of Michigan. Edward D. Vargas is a Postdoctoral scholar at the Center for Women's Health and Health Disparities Research in the School of Medicine and Public Health at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

-- 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.

Finding travel insurance policies to fit your needs

$
0
0
Dale Cody looks at photos to remind him of the gorgeous views he saw while rock climbing in Thailand, but needs no reminder when it comes to the part of the trip he says he'll never forget."I was in serious trouble," Cody said. "I had a huge fever, chills, freezing cold, then broiling hot in a tropical climate. All my bones and joints just ached like crazy. "[WEB EXTRA: More info on travel insurance company comparisons: SquareMouth | Insure my trip | Lonely Planet Travel Insurance | Travel insurance ]

Dale came down with a mysterious infection, and when he reached a small private medical clinic, he said, "One of their main concerns was, 'Are we going to get paid?'"Fortunately for Cody, he had purchased travel insurance for his trip. And when his condition worsened in the clinic, he said that "behind the scenes, the insurance company worked to arrange a stay at Bangkok Hospital at Phuket, which is a world class hospital."Having a health advocate to deal with foreign medical care is one of many benefits of travel insurance, because regular health insurance may not cover services out of the United States."About 20 percent of people whose trips have been impacted by a medical emergency or other type of emergency had travel insurance. That means that 80 percent of those impacted did not," said Linda Kundell, Spokesperson of the U.S. Travel Insurance Association.The travel insurance association spokesperson says a slew of lesser known coverage options include reimbursement for being stuck on the tarmac, missed connections and interrupting, delaying or even canceling an entire trip because of illness or injury that affects you or a family member on vacation or at home.She said there are also "plans that also add on or include assistance services such as help with lost passports, legal advice" and even medical evacuation back to the U.S."If you have to be medically evacuated, it can cost up to $100,000 or more," Kundell said.Experts say certain credit cards offer free travel insurance, but those policies may not be comprehensive. Industry experts caution against buying travel insurance from an airline, cruise company or tour operator, because you're not covered if they go bankrupt."For a very inexpensive trip, let's say a $1,000 trip somewhere, you might not want to get travel insurance. Travel insurance is really better for those trips that you cannot afford to lose the value of, for example, a $10,000 cruise," said George Hobica, president of AirfareWatchdog.com.As for Cody, he never imagined the $360 premium would pay him back in ways beyond covering medical bills."I highly credit the insurance company with taking all the actions that I was unable to take because I was so sick, to save my life," Cody said.Travel experts recommend several websites that can help compare the different plans available and the pricing, which is generally based on the cost of the trip.
  Reported by Click Orlando 4 hours ago.

Don't make this costly mistake when you turn 65

$
0
0
*FA Insights is a daily newsletter from Business Insider that delivers the top news and commentary for financial advisors.*

*Avoid this mistake when enrolling for Medicare (The Motley Fool)*

Anyone who is receiving Social Security before the age of 65 is likely automatically enrolled in Medicare, but those who aren't should make sure to enroll for the program on their own. The Motley Fool notes, "The initial enrollment period for Medicare begins three months before you turn 65 and ends three months after your 65th birthday." Missing this enrollment period will lead to a 10% increase in your Part B premiums for every 12 months that go by without enrolling, and you will be stuck with the increased costs for the rest of your life. Special enrollment periods might help you avoid those penalties. One such qualifier would be if you are working when you turn 65.   

**A look at the Greek debt drama (Bloomberg)**

Greece owes the International Monetary Fund 1.6 billion euros over the next month, and the government has said it will have trouble making the payments. According to Bloomberg, "A person with direct knowledge of the country’s liquidity position said Greece has enough cash at least for the payment due June 5. A prompt payment then would buy Greek officials and representatives of creditor institutions another week of time to negotiate an agreement which will unlock bailout funds and solve the problem, before the next payment is due." If a payment is missed the country could be downgraded to 'default' by the major credit rating agencies, which would almost surely make the country ineligible for emergency cash. An exit from the euro is possible, but not a forgone conclusion.  

*Financial websites that prepare you for the trading day (The Trading Coach)*

The Trading Coach asked its newest trainees to share some of the websites they use to prepare for the trading day. Business Insider's "10 things you need to know before the opening bell" made the cut. For the entire list, click the link above. 

*5 things to do if you are nearing retirement (Fox Business)*

Michael H. Milarski, a partner and senior financial advisor for Signature Financial Planning told Fox Business, “Retirement is such an important transition for an individual and, oftentimes, people are so busy with their day-to-day lives that they don’t sit down to begin planning for this transition until they are a few months from their desired retirement date. As a result, they find themselves scrambling to try and get all of their ducks in a row at the last minute.” So what does he suggest you should do in the five years leading up to retirement? Make sure you have an idea of your monthly expenses, and develop a plan for when to begin receiving your retirement income. Also, make sure there is no lapse in your health insurance coverage as a missed deadline might prevent you from receiving coverage until the next enrollment period. Finally, make sure your estate plan is up to date, and your life insurance coverage is reduced to cover only what is needed.

*3 things people get wrong about Social Security (Financial Planning)*

Financial Planning notes most people have trouble resisting the urge to wait on social security, and instead choose to receive payments as soon as they are eligible. The three most common reasons for this approach other than not being able to afford to wait include: wanting their money back, not wanting to use money from their savings and the belief the system will go broke. The article also notes Social Security benefits grow at approximately 8%, meaning anyone who dips into the money early will have trouble matching these types of returns. Those who become eligible for social security have trouble avoiding the instant cash.  

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's what happens when you get bitten by a black widow Reported by Business Insider 11 hours ago.

FINANCIAL ADVISOR INSIGHTS: Don't make this costly mistake when you turn 65

$
0
0
*FA Insights is a daily newsletter from Business Insider that delivers the top news and commentary for financial advisors.*

*Avoid this mistake when enrolling for Medicare (The Motley Fool)*

Anyone who is receiving Social Security before the age of 65 is likely automatically enrolled in Medicare, but those who aren't should make sure to enroll for the program on their own. The Motley Fool notes, "The initial enrollment period for Medicare begins three months before you turn 65 and ends three months after your 65th birthday." Missing this enrollment period will lead to a 10% increase in your Part B premiums for every 12 months that go by without enrolling, and you will be stuck with the increased costs for the rest of your life. Special enrollment periods might help you avoid those penalties. One such qualifier would be if you are working when you turn 65.   

**A look at the Greek debt drama (Bloomberg)**

Greece owes the International Monetary Fund 1.6 billion euros over the next month, and the government has said it will have trouble making the payments. According to Bloomberg, "A person with direct knowledge of the country’s liquidity position said Greece has enough cash at least for the payment due June 5. A prompt payment then would buy Greek officials and representatives of creditor institutions another week of time to negotiate an agreement which will unlock bailout funds and solve the problem, before the next payment is due." If a payment is missed the country could be downgraded to 'default' by the major credit rating agencies, which would almost surely make the country ineligible for emergency cash. An exit from the euro is possible, but not a forgone conclusion.  

*Financial websites that prepare you for the trading day (The Trading Coach)*

The Trading Coach asked its newest trainees to share some of the websites they use to prepare for the trading day. Business Insider's "10 things you need to know before the opening bell" made the cut. For the entire list, click the link above. 

*5 things to do if you are nearing retirement (Fox Business)*

Michael H. Milarski, a partner and senior financial advisor for Signature Financial Planning told Fox Business, “Retirement is such an important transition for an individual and, oftentimes, people are so busy with their day-to-day lives that they don’t sit down to begin planning for this transition until they are a few months from their desired retirement date. As a result, they find themselves scrambling to try and get all of their ducks in a row at the last minute.” So what does he suggest you should do in the five years leading up to retirement? Make sure you have an idea of your monthly expenses, and develop a plan for when to begin receiving your retirement income. Also, make sure there is no lapse in your health insurance coverage as a missed deadline might prevent you from receiving coverage until the next enrollment period. Finally, make sure your estate plan is up to date, and your life insurance coverage is reduced to cover only what is needed.

*3 things people get wrong about Social Security (Financial Planning)*

Financial Planning notes most people have trouble resisting the urge to wait on social security, and instead choose to receive payments as soon as they are eligible. The three most common reasons for this approach other than not being able to afford to wait include: wanting their money back, not wanting to use money from their savings and the belief the system will go broke. The article also notes Social Security benefits grow at approximately 8%, meaning anyone who dips into the money early will have trouble matching these types of returns. Those who become eligible for social security have trouble avoiding the instant cash.  

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's what happens when you get bitten by a black widow Reported by Business Insider 12 hours ago.

The Fix: Texas lawmakers almost come to blows over abortion

$
0
0
An abortion restriction bill was unexpectedly hung up in Texas on Sunday, but not before things got heated and nearly came to blows.During a Sunday night session, state Reps. Jonathan Stickland (R) and Byron Cook (R) almost got into a fight after Senate Bill 575 -- a measure barring many private health insurance plans from covering the cost of abortions -- failed a critical procedural vote. That vote determined whether the bill could be sent to the full House before the legislative session ends on May 30. Reported by Washington Post 10 hours ago.

Legislature 2015: Why one 'small group' bill raised one insurance exec's hackles

$
0
0
A bill pending in the Oregon Legislature that affects group health insurance raises concerns about “artificial manipulation” of the market. So says Dawn Bonder, CEO of Health Republic Insurance, who calls the bill "a really big deal” that's being passed off as a housekeeping measure. "This is a boondoggle for carriers that have been in the market for a long time," Bonder said. "I find it not only to have a negative impact on all of Oregon's small group business, but it's incredibly anti-competitive." Currently,… Reported by bizjournals 10 hours ago.

HUFFPOST HILL - Politicians Follow Weekend Of Barbecues And Troop Thanking With Barbecues And Troop Thanking

$
0
0
Bernie Sanders' second campaign announcement is a reminder that the “official” campaign launch is the dumbest political development since the prebuttal. George Pataki will announce his White House bid on Thursday, really shaking up the race to be Jeb Bush’s commerce secretary. And back in D.C., the Capitol was evacuated after a fire alarm sounded. This being recess, it only affected a couple hungover dudes in polo shirts. This is HUFFPOST HILL for Tuesday, May 26th, 2016:

*IN OBAMACARE, PROBLEM* - Robert Pear: "They are only four words in a 900-page law: 'established by the state.' But it is in the ambiguity of those four words in the Affordable Care Act that opponents found a path to challenge the law, all the way to the Supreme Court. How those words became the most contentious part of President Obama’s signature domestic accomplishment has been a mystery. Who wrote them, and why? Were they really intended, as the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell claim, to make the tax subsidies in the law available only in states that established their own health insurance marketplaces, and not in the three dozen states with federal exchanges? The answer, from interviews with more than two dozen Democrats and Republicans involved in writing the law, is that the words were a product of shifting politics and a sloppy merging of different versions…. *'I don’t ever recall any distinction between federal and state exchanges in terms of the availability of subsidies,' said Olympia J. Snowe* , a former Republican senator from Maine who helped write the Finance Committee version of the bill." [NYT]

*LANDRIEU MAKES PREDICTABLE CAREER MOVE* - The oil and gas lobby should be mindful of how many former senators it hires: the wind generated by the revolving door could be harnessed to power the entire country. Bruce Alpert: "*Former Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., is joining the Washington lobbying firm Van Ness Feldman...Landrieu said she will join Van Ness Feldman as a senior policy advisor, working closely with another recent hire, former Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., the former top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee*...[Landrieu] can't lobby colleagues until January, 2017. But she can lobby members of the executive branch, and is free to provide Van Ness Feldman clients with strategic advice. Landrieu said the job will provide her with the 'flexibility' to continue her work for the Walton Family Foundation, advocating on education issues, such as support for charter schools in New Orleans, Baton Rouge and nationally...Landrieu said she'll be working on coastal restoration issues, as well as energy policy matters, for Van Ness Feldman, a firm that includes both Democratic and Republican lobbyists." [Times-Picayune]

*Haircut*: Christine Conetta (h/t Amanda Terkel), Neil Campbell (h/t Dan Curran)

*DAILY DELANEY DOWNER* - Stephen Ohlemacher: "Thieves used an online service provided by the IRS to gain access to information from more than 100,000 taxpayers, the agency said Tuesday. The information included tax returns and other tax information on file with the IRS. The IRS said the thieves accessed a system called 'Get Transcript.' In order to access the information, the thieves cleared a security screen that required knowledge about the taxpayer, including Social Security number, date of birth, tax filing status and street address." [AP]

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

*FEDERAL COURT WON'T LIFT IMMIGRATION RULING HOLD* - Court affirms legally questionable halt to legally questionable action on legally untenable situation. "*A federal appeals court refused Tuesday to lift a temporary hold on President Barack Obama's executive action that could shield as many as 5 million immigrants illegally living in the U.S. from deportation*. The U.S. Justice Department had asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a Texas judge who agreed to temporarily block the president's plan in February, after 26 states filed a lawsuit alleging Obama's action was unconstitutional. But two out of three judges on a court panel voted to deny the government's request. It wasn't immediately clear if the government would appeal, either to the full appeals court in New Orleans or to the U.S. Supreme Court." [AP]

For only $5,000 you can attend Barbara Bush's 90th birthday in Kennebunkport. You can also book a first-class trip to Ibiza. Unclear which has more men in Speedos.

*GEORGE PATAKI TO LAUNCH PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN THURSDAY*

[Fade into CHADBOURNE & PARKE law firm in NEW YORK CITY where former Governor GEORGE PATAKI is idling in his corner office. The only audible sounds are the low din of an air conditioner and the squeak of his LAZZARO LEATHER CHAIR as he shifts his weight to and fro.]

Pataki holds up right hand, his thumb and index finger curled into the shape of a mouth*PATAKI, in falsetto*

You should run, George!Pataki holds up left hand, also in shape of a mouth*PATAKI, in deep voice*

The country needs you!Pataki holds up portrait of Nelson Rockefeller*PATAKI, bobbing Rockefeller portrait up and down*

Only you can bring the country together, George!
[PATAKI leans back in his LAZZARO LEATHER CHAIR and crosses his arms. A satisfied grin creeps across his lips. PATAKI twirls chair around to face the NEW YORK skyline.]

[NY Post]

*MORE LIKE TOM DE-GAY* - Dana Liebelson: "'Homosexuality is a behavior. Not a civil right.' So argues Restrain the Judges, a conservative coalition that has sponsored billboard ads proclaiming this message. The group, which is pushing Congress to prevent federal judges from ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, has attracted attention for its ads' controversial comparison of people 'born' black, Asian or Latino with gay people 'not born this way.' Less well-known is the fact that the group is advised by a man once among the most powerful in Washington: former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas).'" [HuffPost]

*OH GODDAMNIT IT'S BLOOMBERG PRESIDENTIAL SPECULATION TIME AGAIN* - Someone wrote about someone writing about a speculative Michael Bloomberg presidential campaign and now we're writing about someone writing about someone writing about a speculative Michael Bloomberg presidential campaign and though we can't tell you with absolute certainty he won't run for president, we can tell you with certainty that life is utterly pointless and we are all haphazard assemblages of stardust with stardust mouths that eat stardust hamburgers. [WaPo]

Stardust Hamburger is also our brass quintet David Bowie cover band.

Alex Pareene has a very good takedown of needless presidential hype about hizzoner.

*The Clinton campaign is marketing a line of mock-pantsuit t-shirts*. Between the Hillary Pantsuit tee and the now defunctRand Paul-branded Ray-Bans, The nation turns its lonely eyes to Rick Santorum's merchandise page for sweater vest beer coozies. [Politico]

*Bernie Sanders's 404 page is quite clever*. "The good news is you're on the right website, and it's a really good website," an uncharacteristically kempt Sanders says in a video that pops up. "The bad news is, you're on the wrong page." Sanders then says to "just scoot down to the bottom of the page where and you'll find your way back home to where you should be." Typical socialist telling you where you should and shouldn't be. [Sick earned media, bro]
Our office coffee mug game is strong.

*ANN KIRKPATRICK TO SEEK MCCAIN'S SENATE SEAT* - It's never easy telling the old man that he shouldn't go into the office anymore, but at least he still has his car privileges -- not everyone does. Emily Cahn: "*Kirkpatrick made calls Monday to inform people of her plans, the source told CQ Roll Call. Her bid also opens up Arizona’s 1st District, a GOP-leaning seat spanning the northeast quadrant of the state*...Kirkpatrick, 65, won re-election last fall in this district against all odds, defying a GOP wave that felled fellow moderate House Democrats. She has strong ties to the district’s Native American population, which made her uniquely able to carry the seat...Democratic operatives speculate that if the current congressional map is tossed by the court, fellow Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema could also look at a Senate bid. Republicans would likely make her 9th District, located in the Phoenix suburbs, less competitive for the Democrats." [Roll Call]

@RussOnPolitics: In all of Sen. John McCain's #AZsen campaigns, not one of his Dem opponents has been a member of Congress. Anne Kirkpatrick changes that.

*WALKER MAY SKIP FLORIDA* - Technically, this adheres to our maxim, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you… and do the exact opposite of whatever Giuliani '08 did," so we give Walker a good grade for the shrewdness of this move. "If we get in as a candidate, we're going to make a strong play in Iowa," Walker told Laura Ingraham. *"Actually the main thing being around the country if we chose to get in, I don't think there's a state we wouldn't play in, other than maybe Florida where Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are* -- listen some of the polls are essentially tied and they're going to eat up a lot of that financial advantage that Gov. Bush is going to have." Bonus points for the royal "we," governor! [HuffPost's Igor Bobic]

This sort of thing is cheap politics (almost as cheap as the photo-ops themselves) but, that said, cheap politics puts food on our table, so check out this collection of Republicans grinning with Josh Duggar.

*CAPITOL EVACUATED* - For every five tourists alarmed by this kind of thing, there's at least one leadership staffer relieved he gets to leave a fly-in meeting with a bunch of dairy industry reps he didn't want to see. Alan Fram: "Police briefly evacuated hundreds of workers and tourists from the U.S. Capitol and its adjacent visitors’ center on Tuesday *in a problem officials tentatively blamed on a faulty exhaust fan in a visitor center kitchen*. Within an hour after alarms sounded, employees returned to the building. Tourists were readmitted shortly after that...The U.S. Capitol Police told congressional workers in an email that two alarms were triggered in the visitors’ center, which they said was apparently caused by 'a known problem with environmental controls with the kitchen exhaust fan.' It provided no additional detail." [AP]

*BECAUSE YOU'VE READ THIS FAR* - Here's a bird taking a bath.

*TODAY IN LEDES* - There's a "burying the lede" quip somewhere that even we aren't shameless enough to formulate. Penn Live: "A couple that rides together, stays together. So goes the motorcycle couple's credo. But sometimes, they also die together. Such tragedy befell a Harley-riding couple in Fleetwood, Pa., Sunday. Citing Fleetwood police, the Associated Press reports that Michael McCulley, 56, and Luann McCulley, 57, of Berks County, were pronounced dead at the scene of a motorcycle-SUV crash." [Penn Live]

*COMFORT FOOD*

- Dan Rather explains internet slang.

- The pizza box of the future.

- James Harden hit the year's most impressive three-pointer that didn't count.

*TWITTERAMA*

@MEPFuller: Meanwhile, in his most elaborate heist yet, Danny Ocean and gang are breaking into a Capitol room and appropriating themselves $1 billion.

@Bencjacobs: Starting to get the feeling that people at the Bernie Sanders rally don't like the Koch Brothers

relatablefuuu: I publish my latest column 'Can Obama Lead? Bloomberg Will.' The Acela derails from all the hooting and hollering my column brings.

*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 9 hours ago.

GOP On Edge As Obamacare's Fate Hangs In The Balance

$
0
0
GOP On Edge As Obamacare's Fate Hangs In The Balance GOP On Edge As Obamacare's Fate Hangs In The Balance
GOP On Edge As Obamacare's Fate Hangs In The Balance
Has Been Optimized

The Affordable Care Act is back in the Supreme Court, but this time 8 million people could lose their health insurance and GOP lawmakers are worried.

The newest case, which was brought by people who were recruited by conservative and libertarian think tanks, argues that there’s a phrase in the Affordable Care Act that makes the tax credit subsidies illegal if they don’t go through an online market for health plans created by individual state governments. The federal government runs the exchange in 34 states and 26 of those states have Republican governors. Additionally, 22 of the 24 Republican Senate seats that will be up in 2016 are in those states.

This means that, if the Supreme Court decides to rule in favor of those citizens, the millions of people who would lose their insurance might blame the GOP, causing them to vote for more liberal lawmakers in 2016. Most states haven’t set up their own exchange because of the intense divide over the Affordable Care Act, so they rely on the federal government’s enrollment program.

Former Kansas insurance commissioner Sandy Praeger said the results of the Supreme Court’s decision could be “ugly.”

"People who are reasonably healthy would just drop coverage," she said. "Only the unhealthy would keep buying health care. It would really exacerbate the problem of the cost of health insurance.”

Some Republicans are preemptively trying to start damage control. Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin has introduced a bill that would continue the subsidies for current customers who used the federal exchange until Sep. 2017. The bill has been co-sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

The Supreme Court will make their decision in late June.

Sources: The Huffington Post (2) Image via Will O’Neill/Flickr

1
Comments: 
Likes: 
Shares: 
Combined FB: 
Video Piece: 
Regular Piece
OV in Depth:  Reported by Opposing Views 8 hours ago.

Drug Addiction Treatment Hard To Get, Overdose Deaths Soar

$
0
0
Drug Addiction Treatment Hard To Get, Overdose Deaths Soar Drug Addiction Treatment Hard To Get, Overdose Deaths Soar
Drug Addiction Treatment Hard To Get, Overdose Deaths Soar
Health
PrescriptionPainKillersMap
Has Been Optimized

More Americans die these days from drug overdoses than from automobile or firearm deaths.

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), there were 33,084 traffic deaths and 33,636 gun deaths in 2013.

USA TODAY notes there are almost 44,000 deaths every year from drug overdoses in the U.S., and the "death rate from drug overdoses more than doubled from 1999 to 2013, according to the CDC."

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration found that 11% of 22.7 million people who needed treatment for alcohol and drugs got the help they needed in 2013.

Thomas Frieden, director of the CDC, told USA TODAY that American doctors dispensed about 259 million prescriptions for pain killers in 2012.

Obamacare mandates that health insurance plans provide a base coverage for substance abuse treatments, but many insurance plans nickel and dime patients, and place strict limits, even less than Medicaid.

There is also an extreme disconnect between science and reality in America when it comes to drug addiction.

The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University
found in a 2012 study that one-third of Americans think addiction is a "lack of willpower or self-control," noted The Huffington Post.

While the beliefs of drug addiction are a fantasy for millions of Americans, the cost is real.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse website states:



Substance abuse costs our Nation over $600 billion annually and treatment can help reduce these costs. Drug addiction treatment has been shown to reduce associated  health and social costs by far more than the cost of the treatment itself. Treatment is also much less expensive than its alternatives, such as incarcerating addicted persons. For example, the average cost for 1 full year of methadone maintenance treatment is approximately $4,700 per patient, whereas 1 full year of imprisonment costs approximately $24,000 per person.



The Obama administration requested $133 million in February to combat heroin and prescription medication overdoses in the U.S.

According to The Hill, "The new funds would expand access to treatment, build up the national system for monitoring prescriptions and better train emergency responders, administration officials added. The plan would also tighten prescription drug use under Medicare Part D, requiring 'high-risk beneficiaries' to get their medication only from specific providers and pharmacies."

However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Hysingla ER, which "is up to 24 times more powerful than a single Vicodin" in November 2014, noted the Los Angeles Times.

Sources: Centers for Disease Control, USA TODAY, The Huffington Post, National Institute on Drug Abuse, The Hill, Los Angeles Times
Image Credit: CDC

1
Comments: 
Likes: 
Shares: 
1
Combined FB: 
1
Video Piece: 
Regular Piece
OV in Depth:  Reported by Opposing Views 3 hours ago.

​Hawaii Health Connector board postpones vote on corrective action plan - again

$
0
0
The Hawaii Health Connector board has postponed a board meeting to discuss and approve a “corrective action plan” for the health insurance exchange by a week, the head of the nonprofit confirmed to PBN Tuesday. Ongoing conversations triggered the delay, Hawaii Health Connector Executive Director Jeff Kissel told PBN. “We’re having ongoing discussions with the federal government and administration,” he said, declining to provide details before the public board meeting set for June 1. "All… Reported by bizjournals 3 hours ago.

Seattle Pain Relief is Now Accepting All LifeWise PPO Plans for Treatment with the Double Board Certified Provider

$
0
0
The top Northwest pain center, Seattle Pain Relief, is now accepting all LifeWise PPO plans for treatment. The Double Board Certified Seattle pain management doctor offers over 25 unique treatment options, with over 90% pain relief success.

Seattle, Washington (PRWEB) May 27, 2015

The top Northwest pain center, Seattle Pain Relief, is now accepting all LifeWise PPO plans for treatment. The Double Board Certified Seattle pain management doctor offers over 25 unique treatment options, with over 90% pain relief success. Call (855) WASH-PAIN for more information and scheduling.

LifeWise health insurance is the leading plan for individuals in the state of Washington, with over 100,000 individuals being covered. Seattle Pain Relief provides state-of-the-art pain therapies for patients, and both medication management and interventional procedures are offered. Some of the treatments provide over a year of consistent pain relief, such as radiofrequency ablation. The procedure has been revolutionary for chronic back and neck pain, and is now being used to relieve migraines, knee pain and abdominal/pelvic pain.

Additional treatments include medial branch blocks, joint injections, selective nerve blocks, Botox injections, occipital blocks and several types of epidural injections to name a few. All types of pain conditions are treated, including neuropathy, spinal stenosis, failed back surgery, arthritis, migraines, scoliosis, fibromyalgia, back/neck pain and more.

By offering over 25 unique treatments, each patient receives a customized regimen that improves success rates. The vast majority of patients are able to achieve relief and avoid the need for potentially risky surgery.

In addition to LifeWise health plan, insurances also accepted include United, Aetna, Humana, Medicare, Cigna, BCBS, Premera, FirstChoice, Regence, Uniform Medical, Workers Compensation and Personal Injury claims.

Patients are seen from a broad area including metro Seattle, Federal Way and Tacoma. Call (855) WASH-PAIN to schedule with the top pain management doctors in Seattle and the Northwest. Reported by PRWeb 26 minutes ago.
Viewing all 22794 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images