Republican leaders vowed not to let Thursday's Supreme Court ruling on health insurance subsidies be the last word on the Affordable Care Act.
Reported by Christian Science Monitor 16 hours ago.
GOP digs in heels following Obamacare ruling
↧
↧
SCOTUSCare Post Mortem: Goldman Warns Healthcare Costs Will Continue To Rise
Via Goldman Sachs,· The US Supreme Court upheld the Obama administration's interpretation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This resolves most of the uncertainty regarding the subsidies under the law, though a few less significant legal challenges continue to work their way through the system. *Congress looks unlikely to make any significant changes to the ACA this year, though a few smaller changes, like repeal of the medical device tax, are possible.*
· While there was some uncertainty regarding the outcome of today's ruling, we do not expect it to lead to the same kind of rise in health employment that the resolution of uncertainty may have spurred in mid-2014. That said, *continued strength in health employment and consumption seems likely*.
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday (June 25) *in favor of the Obama Administration's current implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)*, denying claims from challengers that health insurance subsidies were improperly paid for enrollees in states that did not operate their own health insurance exchanges.
*Q: What was the case about?*
By way of background, the ACA (also known as "Obamacare") provides subsidized insurance coverage for low- and middle-income individuals through two main channels: an expansion of the existing Medicaid program to cover individuals with incomes up to about $16,000 and the establishment of a new system of “health exchanges” providing standardized insurance, which is subsidized for individuals with incomes up to about $47,000. To maximize coverage, the law requires insurers to provide coverage to anyone who applies for it, individuals face tax penalties for failure to purchase it, and employers face penalties for failing to provide it.
The case that the court ruled on today, King v. Burwell, hinged on the interpretation of one phrase in the ACA: *the challengers contended that, when Congress stipulated in the law enacted in 2010 that subsidies would be allowed for insurance purchased through an "Exchange established by the State,” Congress intended that benefits would not be subsidized if purchased through the federally operated exchanges that operate in 34 states.* The Obama Administration argued that the broader context of the law makes clear that insurance from both types of exchanges are eligible for subsidies and that other aspects of the law would be impossible or pointless to implement under the alternative interpretation.
*Q: What did the court rule?*
In a 6-3 ruling, the court sided with the Obama Administration's interpretation. The court took two steps to reach this conclusion. First, it showed that although the plain text of the legislation (i.e., the meaning of "established by the State") is straightforward, the meaning becomes ambiguous in the context of the broader law. Second, in light of this ambiguity, it judged the alternative interpretations of the purpose of this phrase put forth by the challengers to be "implausible."
*The upshot is that the current system of subsidies is maintained and the Obama Administration will not need to make any changes to the program.* The strong wording of the ruling also suggests that future administrations would have little flexibility in interpreting it differently. (This had been an open question prior to the ruling, though as a political matter the likelihood that a future administration would want to wade back into this debate was low in any case.)
*Q: Will there be any more legal challenges?*
*Other legal challenges to the ACA are waiting in the wings.* In May, the Federal District Court for DC heard another challenge to the law brought by House Republicans (House of Representatives v. Burwell). In that case, the challengers claim that the subsidies provided to low-income individuals to lower deductibles and other cost-sharing—these are separate from the premium tax credits at issue in the case decided today—were never specifically appropriated by Congress. The dollars at stake in this challenge are smaller (around $10bn in FY2016) but without these subsidies the cost-sharing associated with the insurance offered through exchanges would become unaffordable, and could lead to much lower enrollment (and hence lower subsidy payments in general). In addition to this challenge, a few other ACA-related cases are pending in federal courts, though they generally look unlikely to have a significant effect on the law.
*Q: How will Congress respond?*
*Congressional Republicans will not be able to repeal the law this year or next, but might still try to block a few aspects of it.* In theory, congressional Republicans might be able to use the budget "reconciliation" process to repeal major sections of the law. In their annual budget resolution earlier this year, they laid the groundwork for using this process, which allows Senate passage with a simple majority rather than the 60 votes normally required. However, such a strategy faces three hurdles. First, important parts of the law, like the requirement that insurers must grant any applicant insurance regardless of health status, probably cannot be repealed using this approach because it is reserved for budget-related matters. Second, repeal of the law is estimated to add $353 billion to the deficit over ten years ($137bn when macroeconomic feedback or "dynamic scoring" is included). Third, and most importantly, President Obama would surely veto a repeal of his signature health care law, and Congress would lack the votes to override it. The upshot is that until at least 2017, we can see no viable legislative path for major changes to the program.
*Short of repeal, congressional Republicans may still aim to make incremental changes to the law.* One of the annual spending bills winding its way through Congress would make it more difficult for the Administration to backstop risk in exchange plans (so-called "risk corridors"). The House has also recently passed legislation to repeal a tax on medical devices, and another bill to eliminate the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which the ACA established to set the payment rates necessary for Medicare to stay under a given growth rate each year—these would take effect automatically unless overturned by Congress. Repeal of the medical device tax later this year is slightly more likely than not, in our view, though how and when remain unclear. By contrast, IPAB repeal seems unlikely.
*Q: How could this affect spending and employment in the health sector?*
*Relieving residual uncertainty should support continued strong hiring in the sector. *Uncertainty in 2013, ahead of insurance changes and the onset of ACA subsidies in 2014, may have been an important factor behind slow hiring in the health sector, shown in the left panel of Exhibit 1. The sharp rally in the stocks of health care providers following today's ruling suggests that the outcome was perceived as genuinely uncertain. That said, the consensus among investors and the health industry seemed to lean toward the court ruling as it did today, and the level of uncertainty surrounding this ruling seems to have been far lower than in 2013. Likewise, while health consumption may have been pulled forward from early 2014 to late 2013 in anticipation of ACA-related disruptions (for example, consumers may have wanted to have less time-sensitive services performed in late 2013 before they changed insurance at year-end), public awareness of this legal challenge was much lower and seems unlikely to have affected spending plans. *The upshot is that employment and consumption trends in the health sector are already strong, and today's ruling should do little to change them.* Reported by Zero Hedge 14 hours ago.
↧
This startup wants to use special toothbrushes that track your brushing habits to help you save on health insurance
With fitness trackers and smartphone apps, people increasingly have the opportunity to dive deep into the minutia of health data.
But one place the trend toward data crunching hasn’t quite caught on is personal hygiene — and more specifically, teeth brushing. But Beam Technologies wants change that by using free Bluetooth toothbrushes to make dental insurance more efficient, Fortune reports.
Beam debuted a smart toothbrush two years ago, but ran into a slight market problem. Bluetooth toothbrushes might be fun to try out, but they don’t really seem like a necessity for the average person.
But now Beam thinks it has found a perfect use for its brushes: dental insurance. Beam aims to become a leaner type of health insurance company by using data mined from toothbrushes that it will give to customers, Beam CEO Alex Frommeyer told Fortune.
By tracking how often you brush and for how long, customers will be able to receive discounts on their insurance premiums.
Frommeyer also plans to use rewards for things like brushing twice daily, which could also include discounts on premiums. This is similar to health insurance startup Oscar, which gives its customers fitness trackers and rewards them for walking a certain amount per day. Oscar recently raised $145 million at a valuation of $1.5 billion.
Fortune reports that Frommeyer was quick to emphasize that these rewards will be positive, not negative. “Nothing changes for the worse,” he said.
But some of that is semantics. Discounts and penalties are financially the same when a customer is assessing how much an insurance plan will cost them. The real question is whether the data analysis will make Beam’s insurance better and cheaper than others competing insurance plans.
Beam’s new insurance plan, set to start in August, will be similar to those offered by other providers — just 10% to 25% cheaper.
Right now, Beam’s brushes can tell how long you brush, but soon they will be able to tell what teeth you spend the most time on, and how much pressure you apply when brushing. These improvements fit into Beam’s basic theory: more data, more savings.
*SEE ALSO: A developer has a genius way to turn the Apple Watch into a video game controller*
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: This Smart Toothbrush Will Tell You What Parts Of Your Mouth To Brush More Real Time Reported by Business Insider 14 hours ago.
But one place the trend toward data crunching hasn’t quite caught on is personal hygiene — and more specifically, teeth brushing. But Beam Technologies wants change that by using free Bluetooth toothbrushes to make dental insurance more efficient, Fortune reports.
Beam debuted a smart toothbrush two years ago, but ran into a slight market problem. Bluetooth toothbrushes might be fun to try out, but they don’t really seem like a necessity for the average person.
But now Beam thinks it has found a perfect use for its brushes: dental insurance. Beam aims to become a leaner type of health insurance company by using data mined from toothbrushes that it will give to customers, Beam CEO Alex Frommeyer told Fortune.
By tracking how often you brush and for how long, customers will be able to receive discounts on their insurance premiums.
Frommeyer also plans to use rewards for things like brushing twice daily, which could also include discounts on premiums. This is similar to health insurance startup Oscar, which gives its customers fitness trackers and rewards them for walking a certain amount per day. Oscar recently raised $145 million at a valuation of $1.5 billion.
Fortune reports that Frommeyer was quick to emphasize that these rewards will be positive, not negative. “Nothing changes for the worse,” he said.
But some of that is semantics. Discounts and penalties are financially the same when a customer is assessing how much an insurance plan will cost them. The real question is whether the data analysis will make Beam’s insurance better and cheaper than others competing insurance plans.
Beam’s new insurance plan, set to start in August, will be similar to those offered by other providers — just 10% to 25% cheaper.
Right now, Beam’s brushes can tell how long you brush, but soon they will be able to tell what teeth you spend the most time on, and how much pressure you apply when brushing. These improvements fit into Beam’s basic theory: more data, more savings.
*SEE ALSO: A developer has a genius way to turn the Apple Watch into a video game controller*
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: This Smart Toothbrush Will Tell You What Parts Of Your Mouth To Brush More Real Time Reported by Business Insider 14 hours ago.
↧
CONWED Wins 2014-2015 Wellness By Design Award
Conwed receives award for wellness and sustainability efforts
Minneapolis, Minnesota (PRWEB) June 26, 2015
Conwed, the leading plastic netting manufacturer in the world, was one of the organizations in Hennepin County winning the 2014-2015 Wellness by Design Awards. Headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Conwed received the Platinum + Green Award for excellence in worksite wellness and sustainability efforts. Barb Levercom, Benefits & Wellness Coordinator, and Bob Cody, Director of Human Resources, represented Conwed and received the award at the Earle Brown Heritage Center in Brooklyn Center on June 25, 2015.
Wellness by Design is a Public Health Promotion initiative by Hennepin County that endorses active living, healthy eating and tobacco-free lifestyle. The ultimate goal is to reduce chronic diseases and associated health-care costs. This year, the county added a green designation to recognize worksites that take initiatives to minimize their impact on the environment.
Honored with an award for the fourth consecutive year, Conwed is committed to creating a working culture and environment that supports the good health of its employees. “Modifying plan designs and shifting costs to employees were no longer options to control health insurance costs without negatively impacting our ability to attract and retain employees”, said Cody. “With little control over the price tag on health insurance, we chose to focus on what we could control in collaboration with our employees”.
A firm believer in promoting employee engagement to make wellness initiatives succeed, Barb Levercom, who leads the wellness program at Conwed, understood each company location sought and welcomed health programs. “We introduced wellness as a win-win solution for both employees and Conwed. We’d like our team to adopt a long-term commitment to healthy lifestyles and reach our ultimate goal of reducing health risks.”
The Conwed wellness program - LIVE WELL. WORK WELL™ - promotes a healthy work environment and strives to find innovative ways to achieve this goal. In addition to incorporating and switching options to their wellness program to keep employees engaged, Conwed also offers a wide range of activities to increase participation and appeal to different employee interests. “We have expanded our program every year. From bike rides, walks and runs to healthy pot-luck gatherings, sponsored fruit baskets and supporting tools to promote employees’ exercise, we are definitely committed to maintain our health efforts. It is amazing how fast this program has grown and how many success stories we’ve seen among our team. We’re happy for this recognition and it only encourages us to continue with our wellness efforts”, said Levercom.
For additional information about Conwed and its LIVE WELL. WORK WELL™ program, visit http://www.conwedplastics.com/wellness
About Conwed
Conwed is the leading plastic netting manufacturer in the world. Conwed manufactures extruded, oriented and knitted netting with unique customization capabilities. Headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Conwed has five manufacturing locations on two continents and a global distribution network. Reported by PRWeb 15 hours ago.
Minneapolis, Minnesota (PRWEB) June 26, 2015
Conwed, the leading plastic netting manufacturer in the world, was one of the organizations in Hennepin County winning the 2014-2015 Wellness by Design Awards. Headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Conwed received the Platinum + Green Award for excellence in worksite wellness and sustainability efforts. Barb Levercom, Benefits & Wellness Coordinator, and Bob Cody, Director of Human Resources, represented Conwed and received the award at the Earle Brown Heritage Center in Brooklyn Center on June 25, 2015.
Wellness by Design is a Public Health Promotion initiative by Hennepin County that endorses active living, healthy eating and tobacco-free lifestyle. The ultimate goal is to reduce chronic diseases and associated health-care costs. This year, the county added a green designation to recognize worksites that take initiatives to minimize their impact on the environment.
Honored with an award for the fourth consecutive year, Conwed is committed to creating a working culture and environment that supports the good health of its employees. “Modifying plan designs and shifting costs to employees were no longer options to control health insurance costs without negatively impacting our ability to attract and retain employees”, said Cody. “With little control over the price tag on health insurance, we chose to focus on what we could control in collaboration with our employees”.
A firm believer in promoting employee engagement to make wellness initiatives succeed, Barb Levercom, who leads the wellness program at Conwed, understood each company location sought and welcomed health programs. “We introduced wellness as a win-win solution for both employees and Conwed. We’d like our team to adopt a long-term commitment to healthy lifestyles and reach our ultimate goal of reducing health risks.”
The Conwed wellness program - LIVE WELL. WORK WELL™ - promotes a healthy work environment and strives to find innovative ways to achieve this goal. In addition to incorporating and switching options to their wellness program to keep employees engaged, Conwed also offers a wide range of activities to increase participation and appeal to different employee interests. “We have expanded our program every year. From bike rides, walks and runs to healthy pot-luck gatherings, sponsored fruit baskets and supporting tools to promote employees’ exercise, we are definitely committed to maintain our health efforts. It is amazing how fast this program has grown and how many success stories we’ve seen among our team. We’re happy for this recognition and it only encourages us to continue with our wellness efforts”, said Levercom.
For additional information about Conwed and its LIVE WELL. WORK WELL™ program, visit http://www.conwedplastics.com/wellness
About Conwed
Conwed is the leading plastic netting manufacturer in the world. Conwed manufactures extruded, oriented and knitted netting with unique customization capabilities. Headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Conwed has five manufacturing locations on two continents and a global distribution network. Reported by PRWeb 15 hours ago.
↧
A Health Care Expert Explained The Obamacare Decision On Reddit
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Affordable Care Act on Thursday, preserving nationwide tax subsidies to help poor and middle-class Americans retain full coverage under the exchange system. The 6-to-3 ruling saved as many as 8.2 million people from losing their health care coverage, according to a report by the Urban Institute.
Though the Obamacare ruling affects many, the complexity of the case makes its impact hard to grasp. So Ben Sommers, an assistant professor of health policy and economics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and one of the foremost researchers on the Affordable Care Act, took to Reddit to answer questions about what the Supreme Court decision means for the country and the consumer.
*Here are the five biggest takeaways:*
Reminder: Ben Sommers will answer questions about the #AffordableCareAct over @reddit at 11:00 http://t.co/MmYy4nsqBI pic.twitter.com/RG7mATrGR2
— HarvardPublicHealth (@HarvardChanSPH) June 25, 2015
*1. More people say the Affordable Care Act has helped rather than hurt them -- even in conservative states. *
In a study published this month in Health Affairs, Sommers and his team surveyed attitudes toward the enrollment experience among low-income adults in three conservative-leaning states -- Arkansas, Kentucky and Texas. They found that far more health care applicants felt positively about the law's impact: 29.6 percent of applicants from Arkansas, 40.1 percent from Kentucky and 20.5 percent from Texas felt the ACA had helped them. In comparison, only 16.8 percent of the applicants from Arkansas, 12.3 percent from Kentucky and 13.7 percent from Texas said that the ACA hurt them.
*2. Overall, the Affordable Care Act is saving the U.S. money. *
One of the claims most frequently made by Obamacare opponents is that the program is expensive and will add to the federal deficit. This is only half true, Sommers told Redditors: While it costs billions of dollars to pay for new insurance coverage plans, the ACA offsets this new spending with both revenue (such as taxes on high-income Americans and penalties for people who opt out of coverage) as well as spending cuts (like the reductions in what Medicare pays to private insurance plans).
"When you take all of these factors together, the Congressional Budget Office says the ACA actually reduces net federal spending (i.e. the revenues are larger than the costs)," Sommers wrote.
Indeed, a CBO report released last week found that Obamacare reduces the deficit by at least $137 billion.
*3. Expanding Medicaid in every state would make the Affordable Care Act more effective.*
"Right now, there's a huge gap in accessibility to health insurance," Sommers told Redditors. Currently, 19 states have not yet expanded Medicaid under the ACA, and two are still in discussions about expansion. Expanding Medicaid nationwide would help get health insurance to those who need it most and can't afford to purchase insurance on the exchange.
"Low-income adults in these states can't get covered, while subsidized insurance is available to higher income people in the same states. From a basic concern about disparities and equity in health care, this is really troubling," he said.
*4. High-deductible "bronze plans" aren't perfect, but they are better than not having insurance at all.*
There have been a lot of complaints about less generous ACA plans, which fall into the "bronze" and sometimes "silver" categories. They can carry deductibles upwards of $5,000 before health insurance coverage kicks in. From a personal standpoint, paying $5,000 out of pocket might be financially ruinous or downright impossible for low-income people. From a public health standpoint, however, millions of newly insured people with any form of coverage is an improvement.
"With any policy evaluation, the key question has to be, 'Compared to what?'" Sommers responded to one Redditor's question. Compared to being uninsured, "population-level surveys from the federal government and private foundations show that at the national level the ability of Americans to get the care they need and pay their medical bills has improved significantly under the ACA."
*5. Households with mixed immigration statuses present a roadblock to Latino enrollment. *
According the Health Affairs study, only 75.2 percent of Latino applicants were successfully enrolled in the ACA, compared with 90.7 percent of non-Latino whites, even after adjusting for taking the survey in Spanish.
Living in a mixed-immigration status household -- for example, children who are U.S. citizens living with parents who are non-citizens -- presents a unique challenge for health care applicants. They may be concerned about immigration enforcement in their household, which can lead to a "chilling effect" on Medicaid enrollment in mixed-status households.
"It's important to remember that families and households have complex arrangements, and studies suggest that immigration concerns do affect whether people sign up for coverage." Sommers wrote."For legal immigrants, they have to use a longer application to verify their legal status in the U.S., which can also reduce enrollment rates even when eligible."
To read more, or enroll in health care, go here.Follow Us On Pinterest
|
Like Us On Facebook |
Follow Us On Twitter
-- 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.
Though the Obamacare ruling affects many, the complexity of the case makes its impact hard to grasp. So Ben Sommers, an assistant professor of health policy and economics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and one of the foremost researchers on the Affordable Care Act, took to Reddit to answer questions about what the Supreme Court decision means for the country and the consumer.
*Here are the five biggest takeaways:*
Reminder: Ben Sommers will answer questions about the #AffordableCareAct over @reddit at 11:00 http://t.co/MmYy4nsqBI pic.twitter.com/RG7mATrGR2
— HarvardPublicHealth (@HarvardChanSPH) June 25, 2015
*1. More people say the Affordable Care Act has helped rather than hurt them -- even in conservative states. *
In a study published this month in Health Affairs, Sommers and his team surveyed attitudes toward the enrollment experience among low-income adults in three conservative-leaning states -- Arkansas, Kentucky and Texas. They found that far more health care applicants felt positively about the law's impact: 29.6 percent of applicants from Arkansas, 40.1 percent from Kentucky and 20.5 percent from Texas felt the ACA had helped them. In comparison, only 16.8 percent of the applicants from Arkansas, 12.3 percent from Kentucky and 13.7 percent from Texas said that the ACA hurt them.
*2. Overall, the Affordable Care Act is saving the U.S. money. *
One of the claims most frequently made by Obamacare opponents is that the program is expensive and will add to the federal deficit. This is only half true, Sommers told Redditors: While it costs billions of dollars to pay for new insurance coverage plans, the ACA offsets this new spending with both revenue (such as taxes on high-income Americans and penalties for people who opt out of coverage) as well as spending cuts (like the reductions in what Medicare pays to private insurance plans).
"When you take all of these factors together, the Congressional Budget Office says the ACA actually reduces net federal spending (i.e. the revenues are larger than the costs)," Sommers wrote.
Indeed, a CBO report released last week found that Obamacare reduces the deficit by at least $137 billion.
*3. Expanding Medicaid in every state would make the Affordable Care Act more effective.*
"Right now, there's a huge gap in accessibility to health insurance," Sommers told Redditors. Currently, 19 states have not yet expanded Medicaid under the ACA, and two are still in discussions about expansion. Expanding Medicaid nationwide would help get health insurance to those who need it most and can't afford to purchase insurance on the exchange.
"Low-income adults in these states can't get covered, while subsidized insurance is available to higher income people in the same states. From a basic concern about disparities and equity in health care, this is really troubling," he said.
*4. High-deductible "bronze plans" aren't perfect, but they are better than not having insurance at all.*
There have been a lot of complaints about less generous ACA plans, which fall into the "bronze" and sometimes "silver" categories. They can carry deductibles upwards of $5,000 before health insurance coverage kicks in. From a personal standpoint, paying $5,000 out of pocket might be financially ruinous or downright impossible for low-income people. From a public health standpoint, however, millions of newly insured people with any form of coverage is an improvement.
"With any policy evaluation, the key question has to be, 'Compared to what?'" Sommers responded to one Redditor's question. Compared to being uninsured, "population-level surveys from the federal government and private foundations show that at the national level the ability of Americans to get the care they need and pay their medical bills has improved significantly under the ACA."
*5. Households with mixed immigration statuses present a roadblock to Latino enrollment. *
According the Health Affairs study, only 75.2 percent of Latino applicants were successfully enrolled in the ACA, compared with 90.7 percent of non-Latino whites, even after adjusting for taking the survey in Spanish.
Living in a mixed-immigration status household -- for example, children who are U.S. citizens living with parents who are non-citizens -- presents a unique challenge for health care applicants. They may be concerned about immigration enforcement in their household, which can lead to a "chilling effect" on Medicaid enrollment in mixed-status households.
"It's important to remember that families and households have complex arrangements, and studies suggest that immigration concerns do affect whether people sign up for coverage." Sommers wrote."For legal immigrants, they have to use a longer application to verify their legal status in the U.S., which can also reduce enrollment rates even when eligible."
To read more, or enroll in health care, go here.Follow Us On Pinterest
|
Like Us On Facebook |
Follow Us On Twitter
-- 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.
↧
↧
What Does The Supreme Court's Obamacare Ruling Mean For UnitedHealth?
On Thursday, June 25, the Supreme Court upheld the healthcare subsidies allowed by the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, a big victory for supporters of the legislation. While the impact that Obamacare would have on health insurance companies was initially uncertain, the market now clearly views it as a positive, as evidenced by a 3% jump in morning trading for the stock of UnitedHealth Group, the country’s largest insurer.
Reported by Forbes.com 13 hours ago.
↧
How the Supreme Court ruling impacts the finances of same-sex couples
*How the Supreme Court ruling impacts the finances of same-sex couples*
Same-sex couples stand to gain considerable financial benefits from the Supreme Court’s decision today effectively legalizing their marriages nationwide. Now, no matter where they live or were married, couples can file their state taxes jointly, file for spousal and survivor benefits through Social Security, and enjoy other financial perks that previously belonged only to heterosexual couples or same-sex couples living in states that recognized their marriages. Among the changes:
Couples now have the option to file both state and federal tax returns as married filing jointly, or married filing separately. In the past two years, the IRS recognized same-sex marriages nationwide and allowed for those options, but states that didn’t recognize their residents’ marriages required same-sex couples to file returns either as individuals or heads of household. That mismatch was confusing and costly, as couples had to file three returns and spend time and money with tax professionals figuring out the discrepancies. (Filing jointly is a double-edged sword; it often, but not always, leads to tax savings.)
An employee no longer has the potential to be taxed extra on the value of employer-provided, family health insurance. In the past, same-sex couples living in a state that did not recognize their marriage could find that benefit taxed on the state level as ordinary income; health benefits for heterosexual couples were not similarly taxed. (Federal taxation of health benefits was eliminated after the last Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage in 2013.)
One spouse can now file for spousal and survivor retirement benefits on the work record of the other spouse, and potentially take advantage of sophisticated claiming strategies that can add thousands to their retirement benefits. In the past two years since the last, somewhat ambiguous, Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage, Social Security had said it would only allow those claims from couples that were domiciled in states that recognized their marriages.
Karen Loewy, a senior attorney for Lambda Legal, national legal organization advocating for the LGBT community and people living with HIV, noted that Social Security still needed to clarify how the new ruling would affect some prior claims for same-sex spousal and survivor benefits. For example, someone living in a state that did not recognize same-sex marriage at the time he or she applied for survivor benefits still might be at risk of not receiving those benefits. "We’re hoping that the Social Security Administration will recognize that basing their spousal determinations on state laws that are now held unconstitutional are similarly impermissible,” Loewy said. Lambda Legal is involved in two pending cases on that topic, in federal district courts in the Illinois and the District of Columbia.
*Married couples get some nice financial perks. Read more about the tax benefits of marriage*
Couples already benefit from the federal gift-tax exclusion (currently $14,000 per year), allowing each partner to give that amount to any number of relatives without incurring the gift tax. Now those gifts are eligible for applicable state gift-tax exclusions, too.
The decision could encourage more people who physically or financially could not travel to wed out of state to get married locally, Loewy noted. As a result, more people could now gain access as beneficiaries to private retirement accounts, or to previously-denied spousal benefits through state and local government employers. “For folks who hadn’t been able to marry, being able to marry now will hopefully give them access to greater retirement protections,” Loewy said. “To be able to just go to city hall and have those protections in place can have a huge impact.”
Lambda Legal has partnered with several organizations to outline the impact—financial and otherwise—of today's decision.
—Tobie Stanger (@TobieStanger on Twitter)
*Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers on this website. Copyright © 2006-2015 Consumers Union of U.S.*
*Subscribe now!*
Subscribe to *ConsumerReports.org* for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.
--------------------
Update your feed preferences
Reported by Consumer Reports 1 hour ago.
Same-sex couples stand to gain considerable financial benefits from the Supreme Court’s decision today effectively legalizing their marriages nationwide. Now, no matter where they live or were married, couples can file their state taxes jointly, file for spousal and survivor benefits through Social Security, and enjoy other financial perks that previously belonged only to heterosexual couples or same-sex couples living in states that recognized their marriages. Among the changes:
Couples now have the option to file both state and federal tax returns as married filing jointly, or married filing separately. In the past two years, the IRS recognized same-sex marriages nationwide and allowed for those options, but states that didn’t recognize their residents’ marriages required same-sex couples to file returns either as individuals or heads of household. That mismatch was confusing and costly, as couples had to file three returns and spend time and money with tax professionals figuring out the discrepancies. (Filing jointly is a double-edged sword; it often, but not always, leads to tax savings.)
An employee no longer has the potential to be taxed extra on the value of employer-provided, family health insurance. In the past, same-sex couples living in a state that did not recognize their marriage could find that benefit taxed on the state level as ordinary income; health benefits for heterosexual couples were not similarly taxed. (Federal taxation of health benefits was eliminated after the last Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage in 2013.)
One spouse can now file for spousal and survivor retirement benefits on the work record of the other spouse, and potentially take advantage of sophisticated claiming strategies that can add thousands to their retirement benefits. In the past two years since the last, somewhat ambiguous, Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage, Social Security had said it would only allow those claims from couples that were domiciled in states that recognized their marriages.
Karen Loewy, a senior attorney for Lambda Legal, national legal organization advocating for the LGBT community and people living with HIV, noted that Social Security still needed to clarify how the new ruling would affect some prior claims for same-sex spousal and survivor benefits. For example, someone living in a state that did not recognize same-sex marriage at the time he or she applied for survivor benefits still might be at risk of not receiving those benefits. "We’re hoping that the Social Security Administration will recognize that basing their spousal determinations on state laws that are now held unconstitutional are similarly impermissible,” Loewy said. Lambda Legal is involved in two pending cases on that topic, in federal district courts in the Illinois and the District of Columbia.
*Married couples get some nice financial perks. Read more about the tax benefits of marriage*
Couples already benefit from the federal gift-tax exclusion (currently $14,000 per year), allowing each partner to give that amount to any number of relatives without incurring the gift tax. Now those gifts are eligible for applicable state gift-tax exclusions, too.
The decision could encourage more people who physically or financially could not travel to wed out of state to get married locally, Loewy noted. As a result, more people could now gain access as beneficiaries to private retirement accounts, or to previously-denied spousal benefits through state and local government employers. “For folks who hadn’t been able to marry, being able to marry now will hopefully give them access to greater retirement protections,” Loewy said. “To be able to just go to city hall and have those protections in place can have a huge impact.”
Lambda Legal has partnered with several organizations to outline the impact—financial and otherwise—of today's decision.
—Tobie Stanger (@TobieStanger on Twitter)
*Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers on this website. Copyright © 2006-2015 Consumers Union of U.S.*
*Subscribe now!*
Subscribe to *ConsumerReports.org* for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.
--------------------
Update your feed preferences
Reported by Consumer Reports 1 hour ago.
↧
Why Are Some Legal Analysts So Surprised at the Supreme Court's Decision in King v. Burwell?
In a surprising twist to many, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 in favor of the defendants in the landmark King v. Burwell case. This is good news for the millions of Americans who depend on federal subsidies to purchase health insurance on a health insurance exchange run by the federal government. Why? To put it simply: They get to keep their subsidies.
While it is good for these individuals and families, it is not good for their employers. Why not? Employers must pay hefty penalties if their employees get federal subsidies for individual coverage. No more subsidies for policies purchased on the federal exchange would have freed many employers from penalties.
*Law Had Seemed to Give States the Freedom to Choose*
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) had seemed to give states the freedom to choose whether or not they preferred that their citizens be able to get subsidies, or that their employers be able to avoid penalties. If a state wanted to be business-friendly, it would choose not to set up a state exchange. People would still be able to get health insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions, but they wouldn't be able to get subsidies and their employers wouldn't be liable for a penalty.
Why did analysts think that the law gave that freedom of choice to states? Because in more than one place, the law explicitly noted that subsidies would be available for policies purchased through a "state" exchange. It did not say that subsidies would be available for policies purchased through the federal exchange.
Judges generally use canons of construction, or guidelines for interpretation, when reading a law. A long-standing canon is "unius est exclusio alterius" (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another) - a guideline used by judges when clarifying legislation on multiple entities in the same class. According to the principle, if the law expressly names provisions that apply to one item, they should not be applied to the other item if they are not mentioned.
And that had seemingly been the case here. Subsidies were mentioned for state exchanges but not for the federal exchange. Per "unius est exclusio alterius," subsidies should not be applied to the federal exchange.
This issue had been understood for a long time. Professor James Blumstein from Vanderbilt University, for example, testified to Congress about it on September 12, 2012. (Note: Professor Blumstein was a professor of mine in law school).
This is why the Court's ruling is a surprise to so many analysts. Many would argue that giving the states the freedom to make decisions like this is part of what makes the U.S. so great. No matter the intelligence of our policymakers, the actual outcome of a policy is difficult to predict. Giving states the freedom to try different approaches allows for better learning and more effective policy-making in the long-term. With the Supreme Court's ruling, however, states will not have the freedom to choose between being business-friendly or subsidy-friendly.
*Many Positives from the Court's Ruling*
Despite that loss, there are a lot of benefits from the Court's ruling. Besides individuals keeping their subsidies, the ruling is also good news for hospitals across the country. Had the court ruled differently, it's possible that many patients would have decided to drop their health insurance plans, forcing hospitals to absorb the costs of care for the uninsured. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, hospitals provided more than $50 billion in uncompensated care in 2013 -- a number that is down from years past in part due to Medicaid expansion and the ACA. Likewise, insurance companies can also worry less about possibly losing customers who would have lost their subsides had the ruling gone the other way.
There will be more lawsuits, but it is looking more and more like health care providers, employers, families and individuals can plan with confidence that the ACA is here to stay.
-- 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.
While it is good for these individuals and families, it is not good for their employers. Why not? Employers must pay hefty penalties if their employees get federal subsidies for individual coverage. No more subsidies for policies purchased on the federal exchange would have freed many employers from penalties.
*Law Had Seemed to Give States the Freedom to Choose*
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) had seemed to give states the freedom to choose whether or not they preferred that their citizens be able to get subsidies, or that their employers be able to avoid penalties. If a state wanted to be business-friendly, it would choose not to set up a state exchange. People would still be able to get health insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions, but they wouldn't be able to get subsidies and their employers wouldn't be liable for a penalty.
Why did analysts think that the law gave that freedom of choice to states? Because in more than one place, the law explicitly noted that subsidies would be available for policies purchased through a "state" exchange. It did not say that subsidies would be available for policies purchased through the federal exchange.
Judges generally use canons of construction, or guidelines for interpretation, when reading a law. A long-standing canon is "unius est exclusio alterius" (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another) - a guideline used by judges when clarifying legislation on multiple entities in the same class. According to the principle, if the law expressly names provisions that apply to one item, they should not be applied to the other item if they are not mentioned.
And that had seemingly been the case here. Subsidies were mentioned for state exchanges but not for the federal exchange. Per "unius est exclusio alterius," subsidies should not be applied to the federal exchange.
This issue had been understood for a long time. Professor James Blumstein from Vanderbilt University, for example, testified to Congress about it on September 12, 2012. (Note: Professor Blumstein was a professor of mine in law school).
This is why the Court's ruling is a surprise to so many analysts. Many would argue that giving the states the freedom to make decisions like this is part of what makes the U.S. so great. No matter the intelligence of our policymakers, the actual outcome of a policy is difficult to predict. Giving states the freedom to try different approaches allows for better learning and more effective policy-making in the long-term. With the Supreme Court's ruling, however, states will not have the freedom to choose between being business-friendly or subsidy-friendly.
*Many Positives from the Court's Ruling*
Despite that loss, there are a lot of benefits from the Court's ruling. Besides individuals keeping their subsidies, the ruling is also good news for hospitals across the country. Had the court ruled differently, it's possible that many patients would have decided to drop their health insurance plans, forcing hospitals to absorb the costs of care for the uninsured. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, hospitals provided more than $50 billion in uncompensated care in 2013 -- a number that is down from years past in part due to Medicaid expansion and the ACA. Likewise, insurance companies can also worry less about possibly losing customers who would have lost their subsides had the ruling gone the other way.
There will be more lawsuits, but it is looking more and more like health care providers, employers, families and individuals can plan with confidence that the ACA is here to stay.
-- 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.
↧
Gay Marriage, Racism and Obamacare: The Challenge of Caring
My wife cried when she read the notice on her cell phone this morning that the Supreme Court had recognized the right of gay people to marry. She told me the news in a choking voice, and I promptly cried and choked up as I reflected back the news to her. "So much needless suffering for so many years" she correctly said. I nodded, and appreciated once again my wife's good heart.
We are doing a lot of that recently. We teared up at the news that Obamacare had withstood that latest round of attack and millions of people would now keep their health insurance. We teared up at the news of the mass murder in Charleston.
So much needless suffering.
The content is very different, as are the specific reasons for the emotions, but in a deep way all three show the challenge we face as a human community.
We have a psychological problem in our country and in our world. Superficially it shows up as racism, or homophobia, or disregard of the problems of the poor. I've watch the TV commentators struggle with why. Here is a piece of if: The human mind is wired to respond with empathy, but it is not wired with a sense of common humanity or an openness to pain.
All three are needed -- empathy, humanity, openness. Only one is wired in. That is a problem.
Even non-human animals respond with fear when they see fear. Throughout our nervous system mirror neurons respond to the plight of others much as we would if the plight was our own. We suffer when we see suffering. The human brain is especially social. James Coan, a University of Virginia affective neuroscientist has a nice way of saying it: to the human brain, it is we, not me.
There is a simple reason for that. Humans evolved in bands and tribes and the good of the group requires that we be sensitive to the plight of others.
But here is a sick fact: if you see the pain of others, and their group membership is not obviously linked to you, you can seemingly reduce the pain of seeing others in pain by defining them as "other". You can attack their common humanity.
That is why an empathetic reactions can cause people to increase prejudice and the objectification of others. Gay people are "other." The back man running across a lawn to avoid being shot in the back by a policeman is "other." The poor person sitting in an ER is "other." Not because we don't care, but because we do and it is painful.
Dehumanization "solves" our wired-in empathy problem because it moves those who suffer out of our group. No tears need to be shed. They are not like us.
As Donald Trump said a few days ago, undocumented immigrants, are mostly bad people, criminals, and rapists. They are not like us.
A few years ago a study showed that if you know that the pain of the holocaust continues inside Jewish families to this very day, prejudice against Jews goes up, not down, provided you can't get away with lying about it. They are "other." They probably deserved it. In a sick twist, if you can get away with lying, then knowing of Jewish people's current day pain from the holocaust also leads to claims of lower prejudice. In other words, you then lie to avoid seeing this form of self-defense, perhaps even to yourself. 1
In the modern world you cannot avoid empathy. Just turn on the TV. The rest is wired in.
But in the interconnected modern world you also simply cannot afford the self-soothing of defining people who suffer as "other." We cannot have a peaceful, just, and diverse society if black lives do not matter. We cannot afford a healthcare system if we are paying for the routine healthcare of the uninsured through emergency room care. We are all impacted. We are no longer living in small bands and tribes.
This leads to the last process we know is critical: openness. If I am not going to solve the pain of caring by denying common humanity, what am I going to do with it?
Well, how about this: feel it. Sit with it. Learn from it. Do something healthy about it.
Work to reduce racism, poverty, or prejudice against gays.
We have shown in our research that you will not enjoy the company of others, and you will objectify and dehumanize others, if you cannot sit with your own pain. 2
The problem is that the modern world is incredibly poor at teaching people to open up. There are flashes of cultural hope (the movie "Inside Out" for example; or the recent interest in mindfulness) but it is being overwhelmed by commercial products used to dampen down feelings: alcohol, materialism, excessive use of pharmaceuticals, you name it.
If it is true that empathy is wired in and is amplified by the modern media, we need to do the two harder things to set this right. 1. increase the sense of common humanity. For example, make sure victims are given a voice. The stories of committed gay couples being forced to live outside law rapidly shifted public opinion. "They" became "us." Do that.
But what is most needed and is most absent is this: 2. the media and behavioral scientists need to teach people how to sit with pain, and then to do something healthy with it. Teach people to feel more fully and these problems will improve. We have shown that in controlled research. 3
Racism, homophobia, and disregard for the poor are just examples of a common set of processes. We have a psychological problem in our country and in our world. We know some of what it is. It is time to solve it.References
1. Imhoff, R., & Banse, R. (2009). Ongoing victim suffering increases prejudice: The case of secondary anti-Semitism. Psychological Science, 20(12), 1443-1447.
2. Vilardaga, R., Estévez, A., Levin, M. E., & Hayes, S. C. (2012). Deictic relational responding, empathy and experiential avoidance as predictors of social anhedonia: Further contributions from relational frame theory. The Psychological Record, 62, 409-432.
Levin, M. E., Luoma, J., Vilardaga, R., Lillis, J., Nobles, R., & Hayes, S. C. (manuscript under review). Examining the role of psychological inflexibility, perspective taking and empathic concern in generalized prejudice.
3. Hayes, S. C., Bissett, R., Roget, N., Padilla, M., Kohlenberg, B. S., Fisher, G., Masuda, A., Pistorello, J., Rye, A. K., Berry, K. & Niccolls, R. (2004). The impact of acceptance and commitment training and multicultural training on the stigmatizing attitudes and professional burnout of substance abuse counselors. Behavior Therapy, 35, 821-835. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(04)80022-4
-- 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.
We are doing a lot of that recently. We teared up at the news that Obamacare had withstood that latest round of attack and millions of people would now keep their health insurance. We teared up at the news of the mass murder in Charleston.
So much needless suffering.
The content is very different, as are the specific reasons for the emotions, but in a deep way all three show the challenge we face as a human community.
We have a psychological problem in our country and in our world. Superficially it shows up as racism, or homophobia, or disregard of the problems of the poor. I've watch the TV commentators struggle with why. Here is a piece of if: The human mind is wired to respond with empathy, but it is not wired with a sense of common humanity or an openness to pain.
All three are needed -- empathy, humanity, openness. Only one is wired in. That is a problem.
Even non-human animals respond with fear when they see fear. Throughout our nervous system mirror neurons respond to the plight of others much as we would if the plight was our own. We suffer when we see suffering. The human brain is especially social. James Coan, a University of Virginia affective neuroscientist has a nice way of saying it: to the human brain, it is we, not me.
There is a simple reason for that. Humans evolved in bands and tribes and the good of the group requires that we be sensitive to the plight of others.
But here is a sick fact: if you see the pain of others, and their group membership is not obviously linked to you, you can seemingly reduce the pain of seeing others in pain by defining them as "other". You can attack their common humanity.
That is why an empathetic reactions can cause people to increase prejudice and the objectification of others. Gay people are "other." The back man running across a lawn to avoid being shot in the back by a policeman is "other." The poor person sitting in an ER is "other." Not because we don't care, but because we do and it is painful.
Dehumanization "solves" our wired-in empathy problem because it moves those who suffer out of our group. No tears need to be shed. They are not like us.
As Donald Trump said a few days ago, undocumented immigrants, are mostly bad people, criminals, and rapists. They are not like us.
A few years ago a study showed that if you know that the pain of the holocaust continues inside Jewish families to this very day, prejudice against Jews goes up, not down, provided you can't get away with lying about it. They are "other." They probably deserved it. In a sick twist, if you can get away with lying, then knowing of Jewish people's current day pain from the holocaust also leads to claims of lower prejudice. In other words, you then lie to avoid seeing this form of self-defense, perhaps even to yourself. 1
In the modern world you cannot avoid empathy. Just turn on the TV. The rest is wired in.
But in the interconnected modern world you also simply cannot afford the self-soothing of defining people who suffer as "other." We cannot have a peaceful, just, and diverse society if black lives do not matter. We cannot afford a healthcare system if we are paying for the routine healthcare of the uninsured through emergency room care. We are all impacted. We are no longer living in small bands and tribes.
This leads to the last process we know is critical: openness. If I am not going to solve the pain of caring by denying common humanity, what am I going to do with it?
Well, how about this: feel it. Sit with it. Learn from it. Do something healthy about it.
Work to reduce racism, poverty, or prejudice against gays.
We have shown in our research that you will not enjoy the company of others, and you will objectify and dehumanize others, if you cannot sit with your own pain. 2
The problem is that the modern world is incredibly poor at teaching people to open up. There are flashes of cultural hope (the movie "Inside Out" for example; or the recent interest in mindfulness) but it is being overwhelmed by commercial products used to dampen down feelings: alcohol, materialism, excessive use of pharmaceuticals, you name it.
If it is true that empathy is wired in and is amplified by the modern media, we need to do the two harder things to set this right. 1. increase the sense of common humanity. For example, make sure victims are given a voice. The stories of committed gay couples being forced to live outside law rapidly shifted public opinion. "They" became "us." Do that.
But what is most needed and is most absent is this: 2. the media and behavioral scientists need to teach people how to sit with pain, and then to do something healthy with it. Teach people to feel more fully and these problems will improve. We have shown that in controlled research. 3
Racism, homophobia, and disregard for the poor are just examples of a common set of processes. We have a psychological problem in our country and in our world. We know some of what it is. It is time to solve it.References
1. Imhoff, R., & Banse, R. (2009). Ongoing victim suffering increases prejudice: The case of secondary anti-Semitism. Psychological Science, 20(12), 1443-1447.
2. Vilardaga, R., Estévez, A., Levin, M. E., & Hayes, S. C. (2012). Deictic relational responding, empathy and experiential avoidance as predictors of social anhedonia: Further contributions from relational frame theory. The Psychological Record, 62, 409-432.
Levin, M. E., Luoma, J., Vilardaga, R., Lillis, J., Nobles, R., & Hayes, S. C. (manuscript under review). Examining the role of psychological inflexibility, perspective taking and empathic concern in generalized prejudice.
3. Hayes, S. C., Bissett, R., Roget, N., Padilla, M., Kohlenberg, B. S., Fisher, G., Masuda, A., Pistorello, J., Rye, A. K., Berry, K. & Niccolls, R. (2004). The impact of acceptance and commitment training and multicultural training on the stigmatizing attitudes and professional burnout of substance abuse counselors. Behavior Therapy, 35, 821-835. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(04)80022-4
-- 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.
↧
↧
Mississippi Gov. Opposes 'Socialist' Obamacare While Uninsured Numbers Grow In His State
Republican Gov. Phil Bryant of Mississippi expressed his anger yesterday about the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to keep subsidies available for Americans who live in states where Obamacare exchanges have not been set up.Those citizens are able to purchase private insurance coverage with subsidies via the federally-funded Obamacare website.
According to the Associated Press, this decision means about 75,000 people in Mississippi will be able to keep their subsidies to buy private health insurance, which infuriated Bryant.
Bryant said in a statement on his website:
Today’s decision does not change the fact that Obamacare is a socialist takeover of health care forced down the throats of the American people without proper review, and it does not slow the massive and unprecedented transfer of wealth that is at the heart of the subsidy system.
However, Obamacare is not socialized health care, but rather a set of federal guidelines for private health insurance.
The Huffington Post reported in 2014 that Bryant and state Republicans took $1.3 billion out of the state school system (over a period of six years), but gave $1.3 billion in corporate tax breaks to Nissan.
Bryant voiced no opposition to this massive wealth transfer and corporate subsidies.
On Thursday, Bryant added:
Make no mistake—Obamacare is not about helping those in need or improving health care delivery. It is about destabilizing our health care system, ceding more control to centralized government and replacing individual liberty with government dependence.
Bryant could not name one specific instance of any liberty being replaced. Nor did he mention that the number of uninsured Americans under Obamacare is now at the lowest rate since 1999, reported UPI in March.
Bryant promised to continue to oppose any state exchange for Obamacare, even though his state has seen an increase in uninsured residents:
Mississippi was right, as were numerous other states, not to willingly entrench Obamacare by establishing a state-based exchange, and I will continue to resist any efforts that attempt to shove Obamacare deeper into this state.
Bryant has also refused to expand Medicaid to poor people in his state via Obamacare.
In 2014, when he was confronted with a WalletHub report about the rising number of uninsured Mississippians (3.34 percentage points), Bryant actually blamed the increase on Obamacare, which he blocked.
"If statistics show that the ill-conceived and so-called Affordable Care Act is resulting in higher rates of uninsured people in Mississippi, I’d say that’s yet another example of a broken promise from Barack Obama," Bryant told the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal.
Bryant did not provide any proof to back up his claim.
Mississippi News Now reported in 2014 that the number of uninsured in the state increased per data from the U.S. Census Bureau, and stood at about half a million.
Sources: GovernorBryant.com, Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal, UPI, WalletHub, Associated Press, The Huffington Post, Mississippi News Now
Image Credit: U.S. Department of Agriculture Reported by Opposing Views 11 hours ago.
↧
Fitch Downgrades Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York to 'BB+'; Withdraws Rating
CHICAGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Fitch Ratings has downgraded Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York's (HIP) Insurer Financial Strength rating to 'BB+' from 'BBB-'. The Rating Outlook is Stable. Concurrent with today's rating action, Fitch has withdrawn the rating for commercial reasons. KEY RATING DRIVERS The rating downgrade primarily reflects HIP's and its subsidiary's Group Health Inc.'s (GHI) poor 2014 and first quarter 2015 financial results and corresponding losses in capital and surplus tha
Reported by Business Wire 11 hours ago.
↧
4 Must-Have Insurances & Tips for Choosing the Right Kind
Being an adult comes with many responsibilities, and among the most important is purchasing the right type of insurance plans. There are four basic insurance plans a person needs: Life, Health, Car and Rental/Homeowners.The problem is, with so many different options to choose from, it can be difficult to decide which company and plan will offer you the most benefits without exceeding your budget. Below is a breakdown of each type of insurance you need, and some useful, money-saving tips to help make the process a little easier.
*Car Insurance*
Did you know that it's possible to get lower car insurance rates if you are married? The reasoning behind this is that married people tend to be more responsible. Because it isn't common for people to file multiple claims at once, if you and your spouse have more than one policy purchased through the same company, you can get lower rates and reduced premiums.
If you're single, there are still ways to save money on car insurance plans. One way is through AAA, the American Automobile Association. With a membership, drivers benefit from free towing and roadside assistance, but they also have a list of partner car insurance companies that, when purchased from one, members can get a group discount on auto insurance plans.
Another way to save money on car insurance is by taking a traffic school course. Yes, this will cost money, but it is very minimal considering the discounts that can stem from it. Most classes can be taken either online or at night, and the discounts can last as long as five years after taking the course.
*Home Owners/ Renter's Insurance*
The most pressing reason to get home owners or renter's insurance is so you're financially compensated in the event of a fire, burglary, or other unexpected disaster. Obviously, the type you get will depend on whether you rent or own.
It's not just the physical home or apartment you are insuring against--but your belongings and personal possessions as well. Renter's insurance is one of the most important investments you can make to ensure your personal property that isn't protected under the landlord's insurance will be covered. If you're renting, it is important to know that the landlord or homeowner's insurance does not necessarily cover your belongings. You need a separate policy under your own name to cover clothing, appliances, tools, furniture, etc.
If you're looking for the best homeowner's insurance plan, it is best to get one that includes guaranteed replacement costs. Policies that do not include this will leave you with the financial value of your home at the time of purchase. However if it has increased in value, that is a lot of money you would be missing out on.
Tip: Take out a lower premium and higher deductible on your homeowner's insurance.
*Health Insurance*
Until you are 26, you are typically covered under parents' insurance. But as an adult, you are either looking for an individual health plan or a family health plan. Many fulltime employees are covered under a group plan by their company. But not always.
When shopping for a health insurance plan, ask questions and explore your options. Don't just go with the one that seems the most affordable. Your financial situation is not the only thing you have to take into account. What about your family health history? Think ahead, and prepare for the worst. Look for any loopholes they aren't telling you about. For example, with one plan you might get free vaccines and cheap co-pays at doctors' appointments, but it's possible something like mental health issues aren't covered.
Also, what are their policies for pre-existing conditions? Some companies will deny individuals based on their preexisting conditions. The quickest solution is often to get on a group plan, but if that is not an option, you can sometimes get covered through Medicaid.
Tip: Pay attention to your deductibles. When you raise your deductible, often time your premium will go down. What does this mean? You must pay the amount of the deductible out of pocket before you benefit from the premium. But this is also why it is never a good idea to set your deductible to a higher amount than you would be able to pay right now.
*Life Insurance*
As much as 33% of U.S. adults are currently without life insurance coverage. No one wants to think about dying. But if something unexpected were to ever happen, you want to make sure your loved ones are protected. The last thing you would want your family to have to deal with in the wake of your death is financial burdens, or to find themselves in desperate circumstances. When it comes to life insurance coverage, a general rule of thumb is to make sure you set somewhere between 8 to 10 times your yearly income aside.
You can get whole or term life insurance. With a whole life policy, full payout is guaranteed and offers the option of borrowing against the policy. It is a lifelong coverage plan with the ability to increase the cash-value amount tax-free. Unfortunately, these often carry premiums that can be quite costly--sometimes as much as 10 times the amount of term.
Term life insurance, on the other hand, is less expensive, but only covers you for a designated period of time--usually in 10, 15, 20, or 30 year increments. You can pay the fixed premiums monthly, quarterly or annually. Most people take this option because it is more affordable upfront, and still ensures your family will be financially protected if you were to die.
There is a benefit to purchasing a life insurance policy young, since the costs tend to much lower and you could get a 20 or 30 year policy that is still in place if/when you have kids. But if you're young and don't have a family, it may be okay to hold off on life insurance until you get a better idea of your future.
Finding the right insurance plans can be a strenuous process, but it doesn't have to be. The most important thing is that you take enough time to do as much research as possible. Sites like USInsuranceAgents.com can make the process quick and easy by helping you get free insurance quotes, and find the right agents and companies by comparing customer reviews, pricing and rates, and coverage plans.
Remember, regardless of the type of insurance you're looking for, the most expensive insurance mistake you can make... is not having any at all.
-- 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 10 hours ago.
*Car Insurance*
Did you know that it's possible to get lower car insurance rates if you are married? The reasoning behind this is that married people tend to be more responsible. Because it isn't common for people to file multiple claims at once, if you and your spouse have more than one policy purchased through the same company, you can get lower rates and reduced premiums.
If you're single, there are still ways to save money on car insurance plans. One way is through AAA, the American Automobile Association. With a membership, drivers benefit from free towing and roadside assistance, but they also have a list of partner car insurance companies that, when purchased from one, members can get a group discount on auto insurance plans.
Another way to save money on car insurance is by taking a traffic school course. Yes, this will cost money, but it is very minimal considering the discounts that can stem from it. Most classes can be taken either online or at night, and the discounts can last as long as five years after taking the course.
*Home Owners/ Renter's Insurance*
The most pressing reason to get home owners or renter's insurance is so you're financially compensated in the event of a fire, burglary, or other unexpected disaster. Obviously, the type you get will depend on whether you rent or own.
It's not just the physical home or apartment you are insuring against--but your belongings and personal possessions as well. Renter's insurance is one of the most important investments you can make to ensure your personal property that isn't protected under the landlord's insurance will be covered. If you're renting, it is important to know that the landlord or homeowner's insurance does not necessarily cover your belongings. You need a separate policy under your own name to cover clothing, appliances, tools, furniture, etc.
If you're looking for the best homeowner's insurance plan, it is best to get one that includes guaranteed replacement costs. Policies that do not include this will leave you with the financial value of your home at the time of purchase. However if it has increased in value, that is a lot of money you would be missing out on.
Tip: Take out a lower premium and higher deductible on your homeowner's insurance.
*Health Insurance*
Until you are 26, you are typically covered under parents' insurance. But as an adult, you are either looking for an individual health plan or a family health plan. Many fulltime employees are covered under a group plan by their company. But not always.
When shopping for a health insurance plan, ask questions and explore your options. Don't just go with the one that seems the most affordable. Your financial situation is not the only thing you have to take into account. What about your family health history? Think ahead, and prepare for the worst. Look for any loopholes they aren't telling you about. For example, with one plan you might get free vaccines and cheap co-pays at doctors' appointments, but it's possible something like mental health issues aren't covered.
Also, what are their policies for pre-existing conditions? Some companies will deny individuals based on their preexisting conditions. The quickest solution is often to get on a group plan, but if that is not an option, you can sometimes get covered through Medicaid.
Tip: Pay attention to your deductibles. When you raise your deductible, often time your premium will go down. What does this mean? You must pay the amount of the deductible out of pocket before you benefit from the premium. But this is also why it is never a good idea to set your deductible to a higher amount than you would be able to pay right now.
*Life Insurance*
As much as 33% of U.S. adults are currently without life insurance coverage. No one wants to think about dying. But if something unexpected were to ever happen, you want to make sure your loved ones are protected. The last thing you would want your family to have to deal with in the wake of your death is financial burdens, or to find themselves in desperate circumstances. When it comes to life insurance coverage, a general rule of thumb is to make sure you set somewhere between 8 to 10 times your yearly income aside.
You can get whole or term life insurance. With a whole life policy, full payout is guaranteed and offers the option of borrowing against the policy. It is a lifelong coverage plan with the ability to increase the cash-value amount tax-free. Unfortunately, these often carry premiums that can be quite costly--sometimes as much as 10 times the amount of term.
Term life insurance, on the other hand, is less expensive, but only covers you for a designated period of time--usually in 10, 15, 20, or 30 year increments. You can pay the fixed premiums monthly, quarterly or annually. Most people take this option because it is more affordable upfront, and still ensures your family will be financially protected if you were to die.
There is a benefit to purchasing a life insurance policy young, since the costs tend to much lower and you could get a 20 or 30 year policy that is still in place if/when you have kids. But if you're young and don't have a family, it may be okay to hold off on life insurance until you get a better idea of your future.
Finding the right insurance plans can be a strenuous process, but it doesn't have to be. The most important thing is that you take enough time to do as much research as possible. Sites like USInsuranceAgents.com can make the process quick and easy by helping you get free insurance quotes, and find the right agents and companies by comparing customer reviews, pricing and rates, and coverage plans.
Remember, regardless of the type of insurance you're looking for, the most expensive insurance mistake you can make... is not having any at all.
-- 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 10 hours ago.
↧
Ready or Not, Millennials Are Changing How We Do Business Forever
In the next 20 years, Millennials will receive over $20 trillion in inheritance, with over $7 trillion being passed along by 2020, according to Bloomberg Business. This is the largest wealth transfer our country has ever seen, and the impact will be seismic. Businesses that are traditionally run by and focused on Baby Boomers and Gen X'ers will be forced to adapt to the newest generation of customers in ways they'd never imagined. This is due to Millennials' expectations regarding technology, social responsibility, and instant gratification.
Boomers, those born between 1945-1964, grew up in an era of relative economic stability, and prospered despite numerous recessions and expansions. Typified by the "self-made" man, this past generation works a 40-hour workweek at a stable, long-term job; he owns a house in the suburbs, has a wife with two kids, and a solid retirement plan. This generation is often referred to as "Ben Franklin" investors - as they're slow and steady in the way they save and spend their money.
Gen X'ers stand as the "middle child" in this equation, and range from ages 35-49. They've been introduced to technology and are able to work hand in hand with it, but deem it much less of a necessity rather an addition to their lives. So how does this compare to the newer generation?
Millennials are a less structured, less long-term version of the Boomers and Gen X'ers, born between 1980 and 2000. According to data from the 2012 US Census Bureau, Millennials are the largest generation America has ever seen, exceeding over 92 million individuals.
The Millennials' distinctly different value set permeates all aspects of their life, and will affect businesses in the way they communicate with their customers. Over 85 percent of Millennials use a smartphone, according to a study conducted by Nielsen Holdings.
So, what does this mean for businesses? With these changes comes the need for businesses to rethink and reshape the way they appeal to this newer generation. Values in what they consume, how they consume it, and why they consume it are all beginning to be redefined. [1]
According to a study conducted by Bentley University, 66 percent of Millennials feel misunderstood by their elders- and since their elders are the ones driving a majority of the work force, this disconnect cannot continue. Businesses will need to recreate their image to encompass the values of this new age of consumers.
At the end of the day, if a business doesn't work side by side with technology, they will be less appealing to consumers and Millennials will be much more reluctant to, well, consume.
*What can companies to do cater to this new generation of consumers?
*
Above all else, technology has influenced this generation the most. As Millennials grew up, technology was always there alongside them. Millennials and technology stand as a single entity, and the technological mentality shapes the millennial consumer generation.
"A lot of people who aren't Millennials talk about how Millennials view technology differently. I don't even think they view it as something external- it's simply part of their lives," said Jeff Watson, Partner at Monitor360, a company who specializes in Narrative Analytics.
As technology is such a crucial player in most Millennials' lives, they will expect it to work hand and hand with any device, anytime, and anyplace. For example, upon receiving pay for their work, this generation expects to deposit checks by snapping a photo on their phones, or better yet, to eradicate the perforated slips altogether and use direct deposit or the more informal system of money transferring services such as Venmo, Square Cash and Google Wallet. Between 2013 and 2014, almost 2 million Millennials joined credit unions over banks, and here's why. Take Jeff, a 27 year-old Millennial who is looking for advice on refinancing his home and buying a car. Why is Jeff attracted to the company, Navy Federal, much more than Bank of America? The answer is fairly simple. Credit Unions have a reputation of: being more customer friendly and more straight forward, requiring a lower credit score, and incorporating mobile banking into their system. Jeff can now use his smartphone to snap a picture of a check and deposit it straight into his account without having to fill out paper-work or spend time getting to the actual bank.
Businesses need to be able to tap into the tech-savvy expectations of this new generation and weave it into making every day actions accessible through technology.
"Technology is the how Millennials live their lives, view the world, and interact with each other," Watson said.
Considering what we now know about Millennials, it seems safe to say that a brand or company that leans into trends, or is even up to date with them, will be followed, appreciated, and trusted by the millennial generation.
Let's take the health insurance industry- a sector known for its unimaginative and archaic practices. Though many brands fail to meet Millennials' expectations, some, like Oscar Health Insurance, are thriving- and here's why.
They lead with the quote, "Better care starts with technology." Seeing that the younger generation flock to companies that are both easily accessible and work seamlessly with technology, Oscar Health Care did just that. They made their website easy to find, easy to use, and easy to trust. By instilling methods that make the "experience" of purchasing and having health insurance simpler and less intimidating, Oscar was able to target much of the millennial generation.
Oscar Health is a company that was not only innovative, but attentive to the needs and desires of Millennials. Health insurance is now available through an app that is easily downloadable on any smartphone. They even offer a free "fitness tracker" watch, and when you meet your daily fitness goal, you earn $1 towards your health insurance.
*As business will be woven into technology, technology will be woven into business
*
Another bland, and boring example of a business at risk of retiring is the banking industry.
According to a study conducted by Scratch Viacom Media Networks, the banking industry is at the highest risk of disruption as it continues to be transformed by the millennial generation. A study conducted by Study Glass Onion showed that seventy one percent of Millennials reported they'd rather "go to the dentist" than be forced to to listen to what banks are saying.
What have banks done about this? Wells Fargo, for example, came up with easily downloadable applications on smartphones to make methods of payment and money transfers simpler. This feature is intuitive and captivating to many because of its tech-savviness and its ability to work seamlessly with the banking company.
Let's look at another business that will go through tremendous changes - the mortgage loan sector and all the associated industries. It's a space we know intimately from developing Lenda. This is an industry that is not far from becoming outdated. With 100-page documents to sign and persistent telemarketing, the millennial generation will look at this industry and see fossils. Unless they find a way to incorporate technology with applying for loans and refinancing, this industry will decay and die a slow, painful death.
Upon applying for financial aid or to jobs, or to universities' admissions offices, this demographic is burdened by finding old-school faxes to transmit paperwork; many their smartphones again, to snap photos of important paperwork and scan, fax and email from there. Upon buying or refinancing a home, Millennials expect the same streamlined process, but are sometimes running into "old-fashioned" processes of meeting bankers face-to-face, being emotionally jerked to and fro with phone conversations of the loan's process, and feeling as though they are unable to see the process and progress of their transaction.
In hindsight, companies like Lending Club work to make the process of refinancing and applying for personal loans pain free and simple. Forbes called it, "A unique and creative way to get a loan that boasts lower interest rates than most banks and credit card companies." Not only did it reach out to encompass peer-to-peer lending, but it also, as Ari Levens wrote in an article for CNN, "creates programmatic underwriting and connects borrowers with individual lenders."
Since many Millennials face student loan debt, companies like SoFi have emerged into the marketplace offering refinancing online. According to Forbes, student loan debt now stands at around $789 billion- exceeding credit card debt. According to a study done by Wells Fargo, the student loan application process has become so tiring that one out of three Millennials say they'd rather have worked straight out of high school than to have to deal with paying for college tuition. This being said, for businesses in the mortgage and loan industry to weave technology in with the process of applying and refinancing is crucial in targeting Millennial consumers.
This younger generation has instigated a shift from an era of social stability, to an era of social responsibility. The focus is shifting from "save for the future" to "save the future." Businesses will need to cope to fit the demands of their social-responsibility-preaching customers. Millennials not only want to consume, but they also want to feel connected with their purchases. Buying a product now means buying into a product. Buying organic foods, investing in greener technology, and purchasing fair trade clothing all funnel into helping the greater good in one way or another.
Much of the Millennial consumer society values taking a more "temporary" route in their purchases. A study conducted by Goldman Sachs showed 30 percent of Millennials did not intend to purchase a car in the near future, while only 15 percent declared it extremely important. We are experiencing a shift from an era of social stability to social responsibility- and transportation is a major player in that shift. Author and Economist Jeremy Rifkin stated, "25 years from now, car sharing will be the norm, and car ownership an anomaly."
Car companies that have made quick transportation convenient, personalized, and technologically dependent have thrived in attracting those of the Millennial era. Uber, for example, completely redefines the way people think about temporary transportation vehicles. It gives riders the freedom of choice, and creates something unique and posh out of something deemed ordinary and unextravagant. Uber has effectively meshed together technology with transportation in aims to make the entire process of hiring a cab or car easier.
Not only do business need to keep in mind Millennials' need for technology and their shift toward social responsibility, they also must appeal to the generation's demands for practicality.
Millennials value social responsibility, and by making public transportation appealing through the use of technology and giving the option of hiring eco-friendly cars, Uber, a taxi company, succeeded in taking Millennials' values and using them to reinvent the way they make their business more attractive.
Let's take Jeff, the Millennial mentioned earlier above, as an example in a different scenario. Jeff is coming home from work, and needs to catch a taxi cab- but he has a problem, he has no cash on him. What does he do? Uber gives their customers the option to pay through their credit cards (which can be done via smartphone), and gives clear pricing estimates based on their current location and the final destination. Jeff is able to select an eco-friendly car from the list of car choices, and is aware of the cost he will be paying at the end of his journey.
*With entertaining a new generation comes the need for change
*
Whether businesses revamp their websites to make them appealing to Millennials, market themselves as socially responsible employers, or simply keep up with the latest social media trends, it's clear that the old business-to-consumer models and employment methods, much like the Baby Boomers, are beginning to retire.
-- 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 10 hours ago.
Boomers, those born between 1945-1964, grew up in an era of relative economic stability, and prospered despite numerous recessions and expansions. Typified by the "self-made" man, this past generation works a 40-hour workweek at a stable, long-term job; he owns a house in the suburbs, has a wife with two kids, and a solid retirement plan. This generation is often referred to as "Ben Franklin" investors - as they're slow and steady in the way they save and spend their money.
Gen X'ers stand as the "middle child" in this equation, and range from ages 35-49. They've been introduced to technology and are able to work hand in hand with it, but deem it much less of a necessity rather an addition to their lives. So how does this compare to the newer generation?
Millennials are a less structured, less long-term version of the Boomers and Gen X'ers, born between 1980 and 2000. According to data from the 2012 US Census Bureau, Millennials are the largest generation America has ever seen, exceeding over 92 million individuals.
The Millennials' distinctly different value set permeates all aspects of their life, and will affect businesses in the way they communicate with their customers. Over 85 percent of Millennials use a smartphone, according to a study conducted by Nielsen Holdings.
So, what does this mean for businesses? With these changes comes the need for businesses to rethink and reshape the way they appeal to this newer generation. Values in what they consume, how they consume it, and why they consume it are all beginning to be redefined. [1]
According to a study conducted by Bentley University, 66 percent of Millennials feel misunderstood by their elders- and since their elders are the ones driving a majority of the work force, this disconnect cannot continue. Businesses will need to recreate their image to encompass the values of this new age of consumers.
At the end of the day, if a business doesn't work side by side with technology, they will be less appealing to consumers and Millennials will be much more reluctant to, well, consume.
*What can companies to do cater to this new generation of consumers?
*
Above all else, technology has influenced this generation the most. As Millennials grew up, technology was always there alongside them. Millennials and technology stand as a single entity, and the technological mentality shapes the millennial consumer generation.
"A lot of people who aren't Millennials talk about how Millennials view technology differently. I don't even think they view it as something external- it's simply part of their lives," said Jeff Watson, Partner at Monitor360, a company who specializes in Narrative Analytics.
As technology is such a crucial player in most Millennials' lives, they will expect it to work hand and hand with any device, anytime, and anyplace. For example, upon receiving pay for their work, this generation expects to deposit checks by snapping a photo on their phones, or better yet, to eradicate the perforated slips altogether and use direct deposit or the more informal system of money transferring services such as Venmo, Square Cash and Google Wallet. Between 2013 and 2014, almost 2 million Millennials joined credit unions over banks, and here's why. Take Jeff, a 27 year-old Millennial who is looking for advice on refinancing his home and buying a car. Why is Jeff attracted to the company, Navy Federal, much more than Bank of America? The answer is fairly simple. Credit Unions have a reputation of: being more customer friendly and more straight forward, requiring a lower credit score, and incorporating mobile banking into their system. Jeff can now use his smartphone to snap a picture of a check and deposit it straight into his account without having to fill out paper-work or spend time getting to the actual bank.
Businesses need to be able to tap into the tech-savvy expectations of this new generation and weave it into making every day actions accessible through technology.
"Technology is the how Millennials live their lives, view the world, and interact with each other," Watson said.
Considering what we now know about Millennials, it seems safe to say that a brand or company that leans into trends, or is even up to date with them, will be followed, appreciated, and trusted by the millennial generation.
Let's take the health insurance industry- a sector known for its unimaginative and archaic practices. Though many brands fail to meet Millennials' expectations, some, like Oscar Health Insurance, are thriving- and here's why.
They lead with the quote, "Better care starts with technology." Seeing that the younger generation flock to companies that are both easily accessible and work seamlessly with technology, Oscar Health Care did just that. They made their website easy to find, easy to use, and easy to trust. By instilling methods that make the "experience" of purchasing and having health insurance simpler and less intimidating, Oscar was able to target much of the millennial generation.
Oscar Health is a company that was not only innovative, but attentive to the needs and desires of Millennials. Health insurance is now available through an app that is easily downloadable on any smartphone. They even offer a free "fitness tracker" watch, and when you meet your daily fitness goal, you earn $1 towards your health insurance.
*As business will be woven into technology, technology will be woven into business
*
Another bland, and boring example of a business at risk of retiring is the banking industry.
According to a study conducted by Scratch Viacom Media Networks, the banking industry is at the highest risk of disruption as it continues to be transformed by the millennial generation. A study conducted by Study Glass Onion showed that seventy one percent of Millennials reported they'd rather "go to the dentist" than be forced to to listen to what banks are saying.
What have banks done about this? Wells Fargo, for example, came up with easily downloadable applications on smartphones to make methods of payment and money transfers simpler. This feature is intuitive and captivating to many because of its tech-savviness and its ability to work seamlessly with the banking company.
Let's look at another business that will go through tremendous changes - the mortgage loan sector and all the associated industries. It's a space we know intimately from developing Lenda. This is an industry that is not far from becoming outdated. With 100-page documents to sign and persistent telemarketing, the millennial generation will look at this industry and see fossils. Unless they find a way to incorporate technology with applying for loans and refinancing, this industry will decay and die a slow, painful death.
Upon applying for financial aid or to jobs, or to universities' admissions offices, this demographic is burdened by finding old-school faxes to transmit paperwork; many their smartphones again, to snap photos of important paperwork and scan, fax and email from there. Upon buying or refinancing a home, Millennials expect the same streamlined process, but are sometimes running into "old-fashioned" processes of meeting bankers face-to-face, being emotionally jerked to and fro with phone conversations of the loan's process, and feeling as though they are unable to see the process and progress of their transaction.
In hindsight, companies like Lending Club work to make the process of refinancing and applying for personal loans pain free and simple. Forbes called it, "A unique and creative way to get a loan that boasts lower interest rates than most banks and credit card companies." Not only did it reach out to encompass peer-to-peer lending, but it also, as Ari Levens wrote in an article for CNN, "creates programmatic underwriting and connects borrowers with individual lenders."
Since many Millennials face student loan debt, companies like SoFi have emerged into the marketplace offering refinancing online. According to Forbes, student loan debt now stands at around $789 billion- exceeding credit card debt. According to a study done by Wells Fargo, the student loan application process has become so tiring that one out of three Millennials say they'd rather have worked straight out of high school than to have to deal with paying for college tuition. This being said, for businesses in the mortgage and loan industry to weave technology in with the process of applying and refinancing is crucial in targeting Millennial consumers.
This younger generation has instigated a shift from an era of social stability, to an era of social responsibility. The focus is shifting from "save for the future" to "save the future." Businesses will need to cope to fit the demands of their social-responsibility-preaching customers. Millennials not only want to consume, but they also want to feel connected with their purchases. Buying a product now means buying into a product. Buying organic foods, investing in greener technology, and purchasing fair trade clothing all funnel into helping the greater good in one way or another.
Much of the Millennial consumer society values taking a more "temporary" route in their purchases. A study conducted by Goldman Sachs showed 30 percent of Millennials did not intend to purchase a car in the near future, while only 15 percent declared it extremely important. We are experiencing a shift from an era of social stability to social responsibility- and transportation is a major player in that shift. Author and Economist Jeremy Rifkin stated, "25 years from now, car sharing will be the norm, and car ownership an anomaly."
Car companies that have made quick transportation convenient, personalized, and technologically dependent have thrived in attracting those of the Millennial era. Uber, for example, completely redefines the way people think about temporary transportation vehicles. It gives riders the freedom of choice, and creates something unique and posh out of something deemed ordinary and unextravagant. Uber has effectively meshed together technology with transportation in aims to make the entire process of hiring a cab or car easier.
Not only do business need to keep in mind Millennials' need for technology and their shift toward social responsibility, they also must appeal to the generation's demands for practicality.
Millennials value social responsibility, and by making public transportation appealing through the use of technology and giving the option of hiring eco-friendly cars, Uber, a taxi company, succeeded in taking Millennials' values and using them to reinvent the way they make their business more attractive.
Let's take Jeff, the Millennial mentioned earlier above, as an example in a different scenario. Jeff is coming home from work, and needs to catch a taxi cab- but he has a problem, he has no cash on him. What does he do? Uber gives their customers the option to pay through their credit cards (which can be done via smartphone), and gives clear pricing estimates based on their current location and the final destination. Jeff is able to select an eco-friendly car from the list of car choices, and is aware of the cost he will be paying at the end of his journey.
*With entertaining a new generation comes the need for change
*
Whether businesses revamp their websites to make them appealing to Millennials, market themselves as socially responsible employers, or simply keep up with the latest social media trends, it's clear that the old business-to-consumer models and employment methods, much like the Baby Boomers, are beginning to retire.
-- 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 10 hours ago.
↧
↧
Here's How Thursday's ACA Decision Will Affect 6.4 Million People
Millions of Americans who rely on federal subsidies to afford their health insurance breathed a sigh of relief Thursday when the Supreme Court affirmed the Affordable Care Act’s provision to deliver subsidies to people who need them.
Thanks to the court's interpretation of the ACA’s provision for federal subsidies when the state doesn’t provide any, an estimated 6.4 million across 34 states will be able to keep their insurance premiums low and affordable.
North Carolina resident Lucia De Ratmiroff, 64, is just six months away from qualifying for Medicare. If the Supreme Court had decided against federal subsidies, she was planning to go without insurance until then. Thankfully, she doesn’t have to worry about that anymore.
“I’m just thrilled, because otherwise I would have had to just relinquish my insurance and hope nothing happened to me,” De Ratmiroff said. “Either that or use the emergency room.”
De Ratmiroff said she currently pays just $106 per month for her premium, which would normally cost over $600. Before signing on with a health insurance plan through the ACA in 2014, she was paying $620 per month for her own insurance, and it was about to get even more expensive.
“I’m lucky because I’m so close to Medicare,” she concluded. “But what about people in their fifties, whose premiums really start to rise? They were the ones hanging by a thread with this decision.”
When the ACA was signed into law in 2010, it mandated that people above a certain income level who don’t have health insurance through employment would need to purchase policies -- or else face increasing yearly penalties. To help people pay for these mandated insurance policies, states that had set up health insurance marketplaces offered subsidies to those who couldn't afford to pay their entire health insurance premium. But U.S. residents like De Ratmiroff, who live in states where no such state marketplaces exist, have to rely on a federal marketplace and federal subsidies to afford their premiums.
Mandating that everyone purchase insurance or face a fine, and providing subsidies to help people pay for those plans, are two policies that help stabilize the health insurance market and make premiums more affordable for everyone, explained Christine Eibner, a senior economist at the RAND Corporation.
If the health insurance mandate wasn't in the ACA, health insurance companies wouldn’t be able to comply with one of the most popular features of the law: that everyone be allowed to purchase an insurance policy, regardless of pre-existing conditions.
Before the ACA, young and healthy people tended to opt out of health insurance, leaving the sickest people with the most expensive needs in the policies. This led to health insurance companies rejecting people with pre-existing illnesses, as they assumed, rightly, that they would incur the highest costs to the company.
Subsidies for health insurance premiums are crucial for helping people pay for those mandated health insurance policies. Without subsidies, more people would drop out of the insurance market, which would lead to an increase in costs for everyone that’s left, Eibner explained.
"We have estimated that if the subsidies were to be eliminated, premiums would increase by 47 percent,” said Eibner. “We predict that those two policies together, especially the subsidies, have a stabilizing effect. They do bring younger and healthier people into the market, and they keep premiums lower than they would otherwise be."
-- 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 10 hours ago.
Thanks to the court's interpretation of the ACA’s provision for federal subsidies when the state doesn’t provide any, an estimated 6.4 million across 34 states will be able to keep their insurance premiums low and affordable.
North Carolina resident Lucia De Ratmiroff, 64, is just six months away from qualifying for Medicare. If the Supreme Court had decided against federal subsidies, she was planning to go without insurance until then. Thankfully, she doesn’t have to worry about that anymore.
“I’m just thrilled, because otherwise I would have had to just relinquish my insurance and hope nothing happened to me,” De Ratmiroff said. “Either that or use the emergency room.”
De Ratmiroff said she currently pays just $106 per month for her premium, which would normally cost over $600. Before signing on with a health insurance plan through the ACA in 2014, she was paying $620 per month for her own insurance, and it was about to get even more expensive.
“I’m lucky because I’m so close to Medicare,” she concluded. “But what about people in their fifties, whose premiums really start to rise? They were the ones hanging by a thread with this decision.”
When the ACA was signed into law in 2010, it mandated that people above a certain income level who don’t have health insurance through employment would need to purchase policies -- or else face increasing yearly penalties. To help people pay for these mandated insurance policies, states that had set up health insurance marketplaces offered subsidies to those who couldn't afford to pay their entire health insurance premium. But U.S. residents like De Ratmiroff, who live in states where no such state marketplaces exist, have to rely on a federal marketplace and federal subsidies to afford their premiums.
Mandating that everyone purchase insurance or face a fine, and providing subsidies to help people pay for those plans, are two policies that help stabilize the health insurance market and make premiums more affordable for everyone, explained Christine Eibner, a senior economist at the RAND Corporation.
If the health insurance mandate wasn't in the ACA, health insurance companies wouldn’t be able to comply with one of the most popular features of the law: that everyone be allowed to purchase an insurance policy, regardless of pre-existing conditions.
Before the ACA, young and healthy people tended to opt out of health insurance, leaving the sickest people with the most expensive needs in the policies. This led to health insurance companies rejecting people with pre-existing illnesses, as they assumed, rightly, that they would incur the highest costs to the company.
Subsidies for health insurance premiums are crucial for helping people pay for those mandated health insurance policies. Without subsidies, more people would drop out of the insurance market, which would lead to an increase in costs for everyone that’s left, Eibner explained.
"We have estimated that if the subsidies were to be eliminated, premiums would increase by 47 percent,” said Eibner. “We predict that those two policies together, especially the subsidies, have a stabilizing effect. They do bring younger and healthier people into the market, and they keep premiums lower than they would otherwise be."
-- 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 10 hours ago.
↧
Understanding Payer Decision-Making is Key for Future Growth in Pharmaceutical Industry
CHAPEL HILL, N.C., June 26, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling this week in support of the Affordable Care Act was good news for the health insurance industry. If the court had ruled against the government, insurers were at risk of losing millions of...
Reported by PR Newswire 8 hours ago.
↧
Guest Post: America's Obamacare Nightmare Is Just Beginning
Submitted by Robert E Moffit via TheNationalInterest.org,This week the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could continue to subsidize health-insurance coverage through Healthcare.gov, the federal exchanges. *An ecstatic President Obama declared that Obamacare is “here to stay.”*
*No, it’s not.*
*A judicial victory doesn’t automatically translate into a political victory, let alone a policy success. *Once they’ve quaffed their celebratory champagne, the president and White House staff will need to suit up and get ready to play some hard-nosed defense.
*Here’s why.* The driving force behind health reform has been the desire to control rising health-care costs. From 2008 onwards, President Obama promised that his reform agenda would reduce the annual cost for the typical American family by no less than $2,500. After a while, it became a rather tiresome talking point. But it was pure nonsense from the start.
Health-care spending increases were slowing down well before Congress enacted Obamacare. But with the onset of Obamacare, health-insurance premiums in the exchanges jumped by double digits, while deductibles increased dramatically. If you liked your doctor, you would be able to keep you doctor, the president insisted, but maybe not, in reality, depending upon whether or not your physician networks narrowed. Looking toward 2016, health insurers say premium costs will soar.
In the days, weeks and months leading up to the King v. Burwell decision, commentators obsessed over the roughly 6.4 million persons who could lose health-insurance subsidies. With the Court’s ruling, they can keep the federal subsidies. But that doesn’t come close to ending the debate.
Roughly 6.4 million persons in thirty-four states could have been negatively affected if the Court struck down the federal exchange subsidies. But there is a much wider universe of persons adversely affected by the law: the roughly 15 million persons in the individual and small group market who don’t get—and won’t get—the federal government’s health-insurance subsidies. *Under Obamacare, millions of Americans are forced to pay more for their government standardized coverage, regardless of whether they like it or not, whether they want it or not, or whether or not it forces them to pay for medical procedures that violate their ethical, moral or religious convictions. *
*So, the debate will intensify over the primary issue: costs.* In every state, the fundamental components of state health-care costs—the demographics, the underlying costs of care delivery and the competitiveness of the markets—are juiced up by expensive federal benefit mandates and individual and group insurance rules and regulations. These all drive costs skyward. As my Heritage colleagues have demonstrated, this regulatory regime forces young people to pay up to 44 percent more in premiums. Washington’s subsidies simply try to hide the true costs of the law; they don’t control them.
*The law remains unworkable. *The complicated insurance subsidy program itself has been a mess. H&R Block reported that about two thirds of subsidy recipients had to repay money back to the government because they got bigger than allowable subsidies. With the individual mandate, the administration has been granting lots of exemptions to insulate most of the uninsured from any penalty. That’s rather predictable; after all, even candidate Barack Obama argued that an individual mandate was unfair and unenforceable.
*As for the employer mandate—another fractured cornerstone of Obamacare—the administration has delayed it for one year. *Even liberal supporters now want to repeal it, fearing damage to the labor markets.
And what about those big “savings” from the Medicare payment reductions? They were earmarked to help cover the costs of the insurance subsidies. *Yet the Medicare Actuary and the CBO have both routinely dismissed the massive Medicare payment cuts as either unrealistic or unsustainable.*
*Meanwhile, other problems mount.* The state exchanges are financially troubled. Coverage is still insecure, especially when loss of employment is tantamount to a loss of a health plan. Bureaucracy, red tape and paperwork plague the system, increasing costs and frustrating doctors and patients alike. All of those problems are getting worse, not better.
*This is the second time in two years that President Obama has declared the debate over Obamacare to be “over.”* Here’s a better prediction: America is entering into the next phase of an equally contentious but broadly educational debate over the direction of the nation’s health-care future.
*In a free society, debate is over only when the people decide it’s over.* Reported by Zero Hedge 8 hours ago.
↧
Health care: Work remains to make coverage universal
On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected yet another attack on the Affordable Care Act [“Supreme Court upholds cornerstone of Obamacare,” Page One, June 26]. The court’s decision is good news for everyone in Washington state and across the country, protecting the tax credits that now make health insurance affordable for millions. But we should […]
Reported by Seattle Times 8 hours ago.
↧
↧
States Eye Health Exchange Options
The Supreme Court ruling upholding subsidies on the federal health-insurance exchange may prompt state-run exchanges to forge regional networks or use the federal marketplace.
Reported by Wall Street Journal 3 hours ago.
↧
The Affordable Care Act Is Here To Stay, For Now
The Affordable Care Act has been forced to overcome obstacles since long before it was signed into law. In the immediate aftermath of the law’s passage, conservatives were outraged over the “individual mandate” that requires all U.S. citizens to buy health insurance. When the law was deemed constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, frustrated lawmakers and civilian activists had to go back to the drawing board. Their best shot at defeating Obamacare hinged on the decision of another Supreme Court case, King v. Burwell. Yesterday, the Court issued another ruling in favor of Obamacare. As the signs of protesters in Washington read, it appears as if finally the “ACA is here to stay.” President Obama had a similar message in his speech following the 6-3 decision. “As the dust has settled, there can be no doubt this law is working,” Obama said, according to CBS News. “After multiple challenges to this law before the Supreme Court, the Affordable Care Act is here to stay. This morning, the court upheld a critical part of this law - the part that’s made it easier for Americans to afford health insurance no matter where you live.” The Court’s decision guarantees that health-insurance subsidies provided by the ACA can continue in all 50 states. According to The Atlantic, the plaintiffs in the case were claiming that the words “established by the state” in the ACA meant that subsidies should be available to people in states with state-run exchanges rather than federal exchanges. If the Supreme Court’s decision had gone the other way, 6.4 million Americans would have lost their health insurance.
The decision is a success story for the Obama administration, which has spent the majority of its time in office fighting for the survival of the repeatedly challenged health care law. The Supreme Court’s multiple rulings confirm that the law is, indeed, constitutional. By Obama’s own estimates, it’s also working. According to the Washington Post, more than seven million people are enrolled in federal health insurance marketplaces.
The law, of course, is far from perfect. The challenges it will face are far from over. Almost every candidate in the 2016 GOP presidential race is running on a platform to repeal and replace Obamacare. The law also faces criticism from the Democratic side. Sen. Bernie Sanders, who voted for the ACA, claims that he favors a single-payer health care system. Whether or not he'd do anything to change health care if elected remains to be seen.
This week has been characterized by historic Supreme Court rulings. On Thursday, the Court guaranteed that 6.4 million Americans can keep their health insurance. On Friday, the Court guaranteed that gay marriage will be recognized in all 50 states. Both of these rulings have faced considerable outrage from conservative politicians and citizens. Yet the rulings are definitive. The Affordable Care Act, at least for now, is in effect and working. It’s impossible to say that it’s “here to stay” forever, but it’s going to take a much more significant effort to dismantle it.
Sources: CBS News, The Atlantic, The Washington Post
Image Source: The Washington Post Reported by Opposing Views 7 hours ago.
↧
Hawaii businesses blocked from health care subsidies until state finalizes eligibility process
Any new Hawaii businesses that have not yet signed up for Affordable Care Act qualified health insurance plans may be blocked from receiving federal subsidies until an eligibility determination system is put in place by the state. State officials are working with insurers and the federal government to ensure there will not be a lengthy gap in businesses’ accessibility to subsidies, the governor’s office said Friday. The Hawaii Health Connector closed its Small-business Health Options Program,…
Reported by bizjournals 6 hours ago.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
