Health insurance companies that were requesting to see double-digit rate increases didn't get their way Friday when a New York regulator cut back rate increase requests. The Department of Financial Services approved increases averaging 7.1 percent for individual plans on the marketplace, compared to the average requested increase from health insurers of 10.4 percent. The state department must approve increases in premiums for health plans offered on the state's online marketplace. For small group…
Reported by bizjournals 21 hours ago.
Health insurers wanted double-digit rate increases; state says no
↧
↧
No, The Obamacare 'Lie Of The Year' Didn't Just Become True
WASHINGTON -- Conservative opponents of the Affordable Care Act tried to warn us that it was a government takeover of the health care system.
And while this may come as a surprise to all the privately employed doctors, hospital employees and insurance companies executives across the land, the takeover has apparently already happened, if you believe the Washington Examiner. But you shouldn't believe the Washington Examiner, because it doesn't understand how numbers work.
"Turns out Obamacare is a government takeover," reads the headline of an item published Friday by Philip Klein, the newspaper's managing editor. Big, if true. Except it isn't. Let's review Klein's "argument" first, though.
Using new data released this week by the independent Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Klein points out that the government's share of national health care spending will be higher in the future than it was in the past. Ergo, Obamacare is a government takeover of health care, no matter what those liberals at PolitiFact said when they decreed that exact claim the 2010 Lie of the Year. Klein writes:
In 2007, when Obama launched his presidential campaign and outlined a plan to overhaul the nation's healthcare system, private spending accounted for 60 percent of total U.S. health expenditures, compared with 40 percent coming from government-sponsored spending. By 2024, after a decade of Obamacare's coverage expansion, the government share is projected to reach 47 percent, while the private share is expected to shrink to 53 percent. In that year, CMS predicts government at all levels will spend over $2.5 trillion.
Case closed! There's even a pair of fetching pie charts to drive home this unassailable point.
Except it's easy to assail. In 2009 -- more than a year before the Affordable Care Act passed in Congress and nearly five years before spending on the law's coverage expansion began to kick in -- those same actuaries predicted more rapid future growth in the government's share of the health care spending pie even though there was no Obamacare!
On Feb. 24, 2009, I wrote a story in The Hill headlined: "Gov’t nearing 50 percent of health spending total." From the article:
The government will shell out for more than half of the nation’s healthcare spending by the final year of President Obama’s second term in office, according to federal auditors. ... The combined share of government healthcare spending will cross the historic 50 percent threshold in 2016 and, in 2018, reach 51.3 percent of the $4.35 trillion in projected healthcare spending. That same year, healthcare spending will make up 20.3 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) of the United States.
That's right: In 2009, the Medicare and Medicaid actuaries predicted the government would own half of the nation's health care bill by 2016. Now, they're forecasting that the government share of health care spending will still be less than half nine years from now. In other words, the government is currently spending a smaller chunk of national health expenditures than these experts thought it would, even though millions more people now have health insurance.
That's quite a government takeover!
(Klein assures his readers he's aware Obamacare isn't a government takeover, right before he declares that, in fact, the government has taken over health care: "To be clear, it's fair to acknowledge that Obamacare didn't instantly turn the United States into Britain, where government runs the hospitals, pays the doctors, and provides nearly all the healthcare services. But it did put the healthcare system on the path to single-payer." Okay, got it.)
The fun thing about slogans like "government takeover of health care" is that they can be used qualitatively to mean whatever you want them to mean. So new federal regulations on health insurers that require them to, say, cover anyone regardless of pre-existing conditions can be described as a "takeover" without being demonstrably, factually incorrect. Using language like this is a good way to avoid ever being proved wrong about things like, for instance, predicting the Affordable Care Act would result in a government takeover of health care.
But where you can be proved demonstrably, factually incorrect is when you attempt to use a phrase like "government takeover of health care" in a quantitative manner. Klein is correct that 47 is larger than 40. But it's also smaller than than the 50 percent the actuaries predicted for a world without Obamacare. Which is kind of a shame, because somebody at the Examiner put a lot of effort into making those charts.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 19 hours ago.
And while this may come as a surprise to all the privately employed doctors, hospital employees and insurance companies executives across the land, the takeover has apparently already happened, if you believe the Washington Examiner. But you shouldn't believe the Washington Examiner, because it doesn't understand how numbers work.
"Turns out Obamacare is a government takeover," reads the headline of an item published Friday by Philip Klein, the newspaper's managing editor. Big, if true. Except it isn't. Let's review Klein's "argument" first, though.
Using new data released this week by the independent Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Klein points out that the government's share of national health care spending will be higher in the future than it was in the past. Ergo, Obamacare is a government takeover of health care, no matter what those liberals at PolitiFact said when they decreed that exact claim the 2010 Lie of the Year. Klein writes:
In 2007, when Obama launched his presidential campaign and outlined a plan to overhaul the nation's healthcare system, private spending accounted for 60 percent of total U.S. health expenditures, compared with 40 percent coming from government-sponsored spending. By 2024, after a decade of Obamacare's coverage expansion, the government share is projected to reach 47 percent, while the private share is expected to shrink to 53 percent. In that year, CMS predicts government at all levels will spend over $2.5 trillion.
Case closed! There's even a pair of fetching pie charts to drive home this unassailable point.
Except it's easy to assail. In 2009 -- more than a year before the Affordable Care Act passed in Congress and nearly five years before spending on the law's coverage expansion began to kick in -- those same actuaries predicted more rapid future growth in the government's share of the health care spending pie even though there was no Obamacare!
On Feb. 24, 2009, I wrote a story in The Hill headlined: "Gov’t nearing 50 percent of health spending total." From the article:
The government will shell out for more than half of the nation’s healthcare spending by the final year of President Obama’s second term in office, according to federal auditors. ... The combined share of government healthcare spending will cross the historic 50 percent threshold in 2016 and, in 2018, reach 51.3 percent of the $4.35 trillion in projected healthcare spending. That same year, healthcare spending will make up 20.3 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) of the United States.
That's right: In 2009, the Medicare and Medicaid actuaries predicted the government would own half of the nation's health care bill by 2016. Now, they're forecasting that the government share of health care spending will still be less than half nine years from now. In other words, the government is currently spending a smaller chunk of national health expenditures than these experts thought it would, even though millions more people now have health insurance.
That's quite a government takeover!
(Klein assures his readers he's aware Obamacare isn't a government takeover, right before he declares that, in fact, the government has taken over health care: "To be clear, it's fair to acknowledge that Obamacare didn't instantly turn the United States into Britain, where government runs the hospitals, pays the doctors, and provides nearly all the healthcare services. But it did put the healthcare system on the path to single-payer." Okay, got it.)
The fun thing about slogans like "government takeover of health care" is that they can be used qualitatively to mean whatever you want them to mean. So new federal regulations on health insurers that require them to, say, cover anyone regardless of pre-existing conditions can be described as a "takeover" without being demonstrably, factually incorrect. Using language like this is a good way to avoid ever being proved wrong about things like, for instance, predicting the Affordable Care Act would result in a government takeover of health care.
But where you can be proved demonstrably, factually incorrect is when you attempt to use a phrase like "government takeover of health care" in a quantitative manner. Klein is correct that 47 is larger than 40. But it's also smaller than than the 50 percent the actuaries predicted for a world without Obamacare. Which is kind of a shame, because somebody at the Examiner put a lot of effort into making those charts.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 19 hours ago.
↧
New York health insurance rates will jump 7% in 2016: state
New York health insurance rates will jump an average of 7% in 2016, the state announced Friday.
Reported by NY Daily News 12 hours ago.
↧
Weekly Address: Celebrating Fifty Years of Medicare and Medicaid
President Barack Obama tapes the Weekly Address in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, July 23, 2015. (Official White House Photo by Amanda Lucidon).
In this week's address, the President celebrated the 50th birthdays of Medicare and Medicaid, which together have allowed millions to live longer and better lives. These programs are a promise that if we work hard, and play by the rules, we'll be rewarded with a basic measure of dignity, security, and the freedom to live our lives as we want. Every American deserves the sense of safety and security that comes with health insurance. That's why the President signed the Affordable Care Act, and that's why he will continue to work to ensure that Medicare and Medicaid, programs that are fundamental to our way of life, stay strong.
Transcript | mp4 | mp3 Reported by The White House 5 hours ago.
In this week's address, the President celebrated the 50th birthdays of Medicare and Medicaid, which together have allowed millions to live longer and better lives. These programs are a promise that if we work hard, and play by the rules, we'll be rewarded with a basic measure of dignity, security, and the freedom to live our lives as we want. Every American deserves the sense of safety and security that comes with health insurance. That's why the President signed the Affordable Care Act, and that's why he will continue to work to ensure that Medicare and Medicaid, programs that are fundamental to our way of life, stay strong.
Transcript | mp4 | mp3 Reported by The White House 5 hours ago.
↧
Ian's Pizza will expand to Seattle, take over pizza joint closed due to $15 minimum wage
Ian's Pizza, the Madison and Milwaukee pizza chain known for its mac'n'cheese-topped slices, is moving west, opening in a Seattle pizza place that reportedly shuttered due to the city's $15 minimum wage raise. As Capitol Hill Seattle Blog reports, former occupant Zpizza closed after the city announced plans to raise its minimum wage to $15, sparking "I-told-you-so" sentiments from many critics. But to Madison-based Ian's, where employee health insurance and environmental sustainability are part…
Reported by bizjournals 3 hours ago.
↧
↧
Number of unpaid hospital bills shrinks under Obamacare
The number of unpaid medical bills is shrinking across the United States thanks to the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act. As more people sign up for private health insurance, and as more states expand Medicaid programs for low-income Americans, hospital companies are reporting lower e...
Reported by Raw Story 2 days ago.
↧
Cambia Health Solutions Names Scott Powers President of Government Programs
Cambia Health Solutions recently promoted Scott Powers to President of Government Programs, with accountability for overall performance of the company’s Medicare and Federal Employee Programs (FEP) lines of business.
Portland, Ore. (PRWEB) August 03, 2015
Cambia Health Solutions has promoted Scott Powers to President of Government Programs, with accountability for overall performance of the company’s Medicare and Federal Employee Programs (FEP) lines of business.
Government programs are a key focus of Cambia’s strategy to deliver better health for members. In this role, Scott is responsible for overseeing the growth, finance and operations of Cambia’s government programs to achieve improved patient outcomes, better patient satisfaction and lower health care costs.
“Scott is a proven leader focused on transforming health care,” said Jared Short, president of Regence Health Insurance Services. “He is the ideal candidate to lead our focus on delivering a world-class health care experience, resulting in better health management and healthier members. His track record in anticipating and hearing customer and stakeholder needs is essential to our mission of providing a differentiated customer experience.”
Scott joined Cambia in 2010 as Vice President of Strategic Finance and assumed responsibility for the operational activities of Cambia’s insurance division in 2011, rising to the post of Chief Operating Officer before taking on his current role. Before joining Cambia, Scott was Managing Director of Alverez & Marshal, LLC; Director of Finance at Intel Corp.; and CEO of Commerce Route, Inc.
Scott is active in the Portland community, including his role as a Board Member for Self Enhancement Inc. (SEI). He is a graduate of Arizona State University with a bachelor’s degree in finance and a Master of Business Administration degree, and is a Certified Management Accountant.
About Cambia Health Solutions
Cambia Health Solutions, headquartered in Portland, Oregon, is a health solutions company dedicated to transforming health care by creating a person-focused and economically sustainable system. Cambia’s growing family of companies range from software and mobile applications, health care marketplaces, non-traditional health care delivery models, health insurance, life insurance, pharmacy benefit management, wellness and overall consumer engagement. Through bold thinking and innovative technology, we are delivering solutions that make quality health care more available, affordable and personally relevant for everyone. To learn more, visit cambiahealth.com or twitter.com/cambia. Reported by PRWeb 1 day ago.
Portland, Ore. (PRWEB) August 03, 2015
Cambia Health Solutions has promoted Scott Powers to President of Government Programs, with accountability for overall performance of the company’s Medicare and Federal Employee Programs (FEP) lines of business.
Government programs are a key focus of Cambia’s strategy to deliver better health for members. In this role, Scott is responsible for overseeing the growth, finance and operations of Cambia’s government programs to achieve improved patient outcomes, better patient satisfaction and lower health care costs.
“Scott is a proven leader focused on transforming health care,” said Jared Short, president of Regence Health Insurance Services. “He is the ideal candidate to lead our focus on delivering a world-class health care experience, resulting in better health management and healthier members. His track record in anticipating and hearing customer and stakeholder needs is essential to our mission of providing a differentiated customer experience.”
Scott joined Cambia in 2010 as Vice President of Strategic Finance and assumed responsibility for the operational activities of Cambia’s insurance division in 2011, rising to the post of Chief Operating Officer before taking on his current role. Before joining Cambia, Scott was Managing Director of Alverez & Marshal, LLC; Director of Finance at Intel Corp.; and CEO of Commerce Route, Inc.
Scott is active in the Portland community, including his role as a Board Member for Self Enhancement Inc. (SEI). He is a graduate of Arizona State University with a bachelor’s degree in finance and a Master of Business Administration degree, and is a Certified Management Accountant.
About Cambia Health Solutions
Cambia Health Solutions, headquartered in Portland, Oregon, is a health solutions company dedicated to transforming health care by creating a person-focused and economically sustainable system. Cambia’s growing family of companies range from software and mobile applications, health care marketplaces, non-traditional health care delivery models, health insurance, life insurance, pharmacy benefit management, wellness and overall consumer engagement. Through bold thinking and innovative technology, we are delivering solutions that make quality health care more available, affordable and personally relevant for everyone. To learn more, visit cambiahealth.com or twitter.com/cambia. Reported by PRWeb 1 day ago.
↧
Los Angeles Periodontists Comment on Rising Dental Emergency Room Trips
Dr. Alexandre-Amir Aalam and Dr. Alina Krivitsky of the Center for Advanced Periodontal & Implant Therapy in Los Angeles discuss the need for improved access to basic dental care and better oral health education in order to reduce the number of patients turning to ERs for emergency dental treatment in the U.S.
Los Angeles, CA (PRWEB) August 03, 2015
A July 9 article from USA Today has revealed a disturbing trend has emerged among U.S. emergency rooms in recent years, according to the American Dental Association. According to a study by the American Dental Association, from 2000 to 2012, the number of dental emergency visits went from 1.1 million in a single year to 2.2 million a year. Dentists and ADA officials all point to limited dental health insurance as the main cause. Unfortunately, by the time most patients turn to the ER for dental issues, the problem has progressed so far that hospital stays are necessary to protect the patients' lives. One such patient, Christopher Smith, whose story was covered by the USA Today article, suffered such a severe tooth infection that his emergency room visit turned into a lengthy stay at the University of Louisville Hospital intensive care unit with a ventilator and feeding tube. The periodontists at the Center for Advanced Periodontal & Implant Therapy provide insight into these difficult circumstances.
“Patients should not have to put off basic dental care or feel that the emergency room is their only resort once their dental issue has gotten worse,” said Dr. Alina Krivitsky of the Center for Advanced Periodontal & Implant Therapy. “Sadly, the cost or lack of health insurance is such a strong deterrent for many that they will put their health at risk rather than go directly to a dentist. Regular care is essential for preventing serious issues, but many insurance plans do not help patients afford the care they need. For example, Medicare does not typically cover dental care.”
Reggae singer and security system installer Christopher Smith's story illustrates just how costly - physically, emotionally and financially - delayed dental treatment can be. Having gone several years without a visit to the dentist, when a filling became loose and fell out from one of his molars, he attempted to repair the filling himself. The molar eventually became infected and had to be removed. The infection spread to his throat, where the swelling began to shut off his windpipe. Doctors were able to drain the swelling, but he spent a week in the hospital recovering.
“Emergency physicians can only offer temporary dental care, but by the time a patient finally goes in for help, antibiotics or pain medication won't be enough to tackle a serious infection or break,” said Dr. Alexandre-Amir Aalam from the Center for Advanced Periodontal & Implant Therapy. “Patients often have a tooth extracted at an ER that could have otherwise been preserved through experienced periodontal reconstruction services.”
The trend in ER dental visits has not gone unnoticed, however. The ADA reported that the number of emergency room visits for dental issues decreased between 2012 and 2014 in the state of Maryland, thanks to reforms that improve the Medicaid insurance reimbursements offered to dentists. The ADA continues to push for increased dental coverage for adults under Medicaid and other government health insurance plans.
Dr. Aalam and Dr. Krivitsky offer restorative and cosmetic treatments to strengthen and preserve their patients' oral health as well as address any cosmetic issues. “We are proud to offer a number of financing options for our patients to ensure that cost or insurance does not get in the way of quality dental care,” said Dr. Aalam, “We also gladly work on behalf of our patients to prepare and submit the appropriate paperwork for your dental benefits.”
Dr. Alexandre-Amir Aalam and Dr. Alina Krivitsky are board-certified periodontists specializing in dental implants and gum and tissue diseases. They opened The CENTER, a periodontal office focused on providing patients with excellent and skilled care at affordable prices, with the goal of restoring oral health and aesthetic appearance. They are alumni of the prestigious Ostrow School of Dentistry at USC and are still heavily involved in academia and giving back to future periodontists at USC. They are also the only two board-certified periodontists in the Brentwood area of Los Angeles.
For more information on the RejuvaGum Lift™ treatment for gum recession, please call the CENTER For Advanced Periodontal and Implant Therapy at 310-504-1845 and visit ImpantPerioCenter.com. Reported by PRWeb 1 day ago.
Los Angeles, CA (PRWEB) August 03, 2015
A July 9 article from USA Today has revealed a disturbing trend has emerged among U.S. emergency rooms in recent years, according to the American Dental Association. According to a study by the American Dental Association, from 2000 to 2012, the number of dental emergency visits went from 1.1 million in a single year to 2.2 million a year. Dentists and ADA officials all point to limited dental health insurance as the main cause. Unfortunately, by the time most patients turn to the ER for dental issues, the problem has progressed so far that hospital stays are necessary to protect the patients' lives. One such patient, Christopher Smith, whose story was covered by the USA Today article, suffered such a severe tooth infection that his emergency room visit turned into a lengthy stay at the University of Louisville Hospital intensive care unit with a ventilator and feeding tube. The periodontists at the Center for Advanced Periodontal & Implant Therapy provide insight into these difficult circumstances.
“Patients should not have to put off basic dental care or feel that the emergency room is their only resort once their dental issue has gotten worse,” said Dr. Alina Krivitsky of the Center for Advanced Periodontal & Implant Therapy. “Sadly, the cost or lack of health insurance is such a strong deterrent for many that they will put their health at risk rather than go directly to a dentist. Regular care is essential for preventing serious issues, but many insurance plans do not help patients afford the care they need. For example, Medicare does not typically cover dental care.”
Reggae singer and security system installer Christopher Smith's story illustrates just how costly - physically, emotionally and financially - delayed dental treatment can be. Having gone several years without a visit to the dentist, when a filling became loose and fell out from one of his molars, he attempted to repair the filling himself. The molar eventually became infected and had to be removed. The infection spread to his throat, where the swelling began to shut off his windpipe. Doctors were able to drain the swelling, but he spent a week in the hospital recovering.
“Emergency physicians can only offer temporary dental care, but by the time a patient finally goes in for help, antibiotics or pain medication won't be enough to tackle a serious infection or break,” said Dr. Alexandre-Amir Aalam from the Center for Advanced Periodontal & Implant Therapy. “Patients often have a tooth extracted at an ER that could have otherwise been preserved through experienced periodontal reconstruction services.”
The trend in ER dental visits has not gone unnoticed, however. The ADA reported that the number of emergency room visits for dental issues decreased between 2012 and 2014 in the state of Maryland, thanks to reforms that improve the Medicaid insurance reimbursements offered to dentists. The ADA continues to push for increased dental coverage for adults under Medicaid and other government health insurance plans.
Dr. Aalam and Dr. Krivitsky offer restorative and cosmetic treatments to strengthen and preserve their patients' oral health as well as address any cosmetic issues. “We are proud to offer a number of financing options for our patients to ensure that cost or insurance does not get in the way of quality dental care,” said Dr. Aalam, “We also gladly work on behalf of our patients to prepare and submit the appropriate paperwork for your dental benefits.”
Dr. Alexandre-Amir Aalam and Dr. Alina Krivitsky are board-certified periodontists specializing in dental implants and gum and tissue diseases. They opened The CENTER, a periodontal office focused on providing patients with excellent and skilled care at affordable prices, with the goal of restoring oral health and aesthetic appearance. They are alumni of the prestigious Ostrow School of Dentistry at USC and are still heavily involved in academia and giving back to future periodontists at USC. They are also the only two board-certified periodontists in the Brentwood area of Los Angeles.
For more information on the RejuvaGum Lift™ treatment for gum recession, please call the CENTER For Advanced Periodontal and Implant Therapy at 310-504-1845 and visit ImpantPerioCenter.com. Reported by PRWeb 1 day ago.
↧
Deloitte Report: Health Insurance Exchanges May Spark Consumerism
NEW YORK, Aug. 3, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- People who obtain health insurance through the public exchanges (HIX) show signs of acting more like savvy shoppers versus passive patients when engaging the health system, according to the Deloitte report, "Public Health Exchanges –...
Reported by PR Newswire 1 day ago.
↧
↧
Growing Wealth Inequality Could Slow the Promising Growth of Older Entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurs are an integral part of a dynamic economy. Starting and running one's own business allows many people to better utilize their skills and talents, all while providing good jobs for hardworking Americans. Self-started small businesses provide households with the opportunity to take hold of their own economic security, strengthen their communities, and bolster the economy as a whole.Entrepreneurship is a key driver towards a more prosperous economy. Yet, entrepreneurship has been stagnant overall and declining among younger households.Entrepreneurship, though, has been expanding among older households -- those 50 years old and older -- especially since the late 1990s. In a recent report for the Center for American Progress, my colleagues and I show that the share of older households who owned and managed a small business that was worth at least $5,000 (in 2013 dollars) grew from 8.68 percent in 1998 and to 9.8 percent in 2013.Entrepreneurship has been thriving among older households, even while it has been declining among younger ones. This rise in entrepreneurship among older households is substantial. After all, Americans are getting older and entrepreneurship has been growing even faster than this aging population. Moreover, entrepreneurship has been growing faster than other employment options, such as wage and salary employment and independent contracting.Two story lines exist to explain the growth of older entrepreneurship, especially after the late 1990s. The first is that older workers have increasingly been caught in a bind. By the early 2000s, well-paying jobs with good benefits were harder to come by. Thus, older workers saved more and were pushed into self-employment. The recession of 2001 in fact marks a clear break for entrepreneurship among older households, which could support this storyline. Entrepreneurship was much higher after 2000 than before. At the same time, other labor market indicators such as length of unemployment and wage growth showed that wage and salary employment became much less secure.Alternatively, the other explanation is that some older households saw especially large gains in their savings as a result of the stock market run up of the 1980s and 1990s and the burgeoning housing market that started in the mid-1990s. These households could now be pulled into entrepreneurship because significant gains in wealth made it easier to face the risks associated with entrepreneurship.In our report, my co-authors and I considered nationally representative data on household finances to see which one of these two story lines was more plausible. The bottom line is that no evidence suggests that labor market pressures--a weak labor market and a growing need to save more for retirement--pushed older households into entrepreneurship.Rather, the data shows that older entrepreneurship grew alongside two factors: household savings and capital income. Older entrepreneurs increasingly relied on their own savings for collateral for their business and they also received more capital income--capital gains, dividends, and interest payments--than was the case for non-entrepreneurs. Older entrepreneurs had a safety cushion to rely on that allowed them to take business risks, which younger households and non-entrepreneurs typically did not have.But the chance to use their own savings for a business was increasingly concentrated among a particular group of older households: White, married, and high-income households saw much larger wealth gains from 1998 forward than was the case for all other older households. Not surprisingly, close to 90 percent of older entrepreneurs are white, more than 80 percent are married, and about half of all older entrepreneurs have incomes that put them in the top fifth of the income distribution. Communities of color, single women, and lower-income households are significantly underrepresented among older entrepreneurs.This research suggests two productive venues for policy that can create more entrepreneurship opportunities for underrepresented household groups. First, policymakers can make it easier for many households to save and to use those savings for a new or existing business venture. But a second and likely more expeditious solution is for policymakers to give older households who want to start and grow a small business access to a safe stream of income beyond programs such as Social Security or the Unemployment Insurance system. For example, many researchers already think that the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, will boost entrepreneurship by providing a safety net. Access to cash income should have an even larger impact on entrepreneurs than health insurance since households can use cash in more flexible ways, such as for their business or to pay their own bills.America is a country full of people with great business ideas and the drive to make these ideas a reality. Everybody should have the chance to bring their ideas to fruition and policymakers can quickly create many such opportunities.
-- 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 1 day ago.
-- 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 1 day ago.
↧
Long-Term Care: The Retirement Family's Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
I recently celebrated my birthday, and while another birthday is always better than the alternative (if you get my meaning), as a benefits professional, I can't help but realize that as a continually aging baby boomer, my need for long-term care (LTC) services is becoming a more-real thing for me with every day that passes.
So it was surprising for me to find out that two out of three Americans aged 40 and older are not saving for long-term care, despite studies that show seven in 10 of those 65 and older will need it, according to a poll by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. You read it right! Almost 70% of people turning 65 will need such care at some point in their lives!
There is a lot of talk about retirement readiness these days, and outliving one's savings. People need to factor in the potential need for long-term care. What financial resources are available to you? Do you have enough to pay for several years in a nursing home, an assisted living facility, or home health care?
The decision about how to pay for potential LTC expenses is a serious concern for individuals and their families. Unfortunately, with the high cost of LTC, and the high cost of long term-care insurance policies, there is no easy answer. For most U.S. citizens, the costs are increasingly beyond reach. The median cost of nursing home care is more than $90,000 per year, according to a report from the insurer Genworth Financial. One year of visits from home-health aides costs over $45,000 annually. It is estimated that only 5% to 7% of people 45 and older have coverage. Staggering statistics to say the least!
The Associated Press-NORC survey also found that about 25% of Americans mistakenly believe that Medicare or standard private insurance will cover their LTC needs. Remember, Medicare DOES NOT cover what is primarily under the umbrella of long-term care services, that being what is referred to as custodial care. If you're over 65, don't rely on Medicare or private health insurance. Medicare doesn't pay for "custodial care," and private health insurance rarely pays any of the cost of long-term care. In the U.S. today, Medicaid -- the federal-state insurance program for low-income Americans -- pays for some of the long-term care. Some people also may be assuming, incorrectly, that they will qualify for government assistance to help them pay for nursing-home care. Rules are in place to disqualify many who won't meet the strict conditions required.
So, what is long-term care? Generally speaking, long-term care refers to a range of services and supports you may need to meet your personal care needs. Most long-term care is not medical care, but rather assistance with the basic personal tasks of everyday life, sometimes called Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), which are basic actions that independently functioning individuals perform on a daily basis: bathing, dressing, using the toilet, transferring (to or from bed or chair), eating, and caring for incontinence.
Other common LTC services include assistance with everyday tasks, sometimes called Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADLs), which includes items like housework, managing one's finances, taking medications, shopping for groceries, caring for pets, and other similar activities.
Many public programs determine eligibility for services according to a person's need for help with these items, while many long-term care insurance policies use the inability to perform independently a certain number of ADLs as criteria for paying benefits.
Having had two parents (at separate times) reside in assisted-living homes, it became clear to me that unless you have so little money that you will qualify for Medicaid, or so much money that you can pay the bills out of your own pocket, you should consider buying long-term care insurance. Neither one had such a policy; it was unfortunate to see so much of their lifetime savings be drained.
However, long-term-care insurance is expensive. In a recent Wall Street Journal article, "Why People Don't Buy Long-Term-Care Insurance," researchers suggested that a deeper problem may be that consumers are looking at long-term-care policies the wrong way. In addition, just as important, insurers may be missing opportunities to adjust their products in ways that might address and overcome some of the root causes of those misunderstandings.
For instance, one study found that many people regard long-term-care insurance as having no real value if ultimately the payouts aren't needed. That is, instead of looking at long-term care insurance primarily as financial protection, many people think of it as an investment (and a bad one at that). They don't think about the catastrophic losses a policy could help them avoid.
From a behavioral economics viewpoint, which I have discussed previously in several blogs, including a few entries on the impact of behavioral economics on total rewards programs, the research suggested that some consumers' rejection of long-term care insurance is based on what psychologists call "narrow framing," or people's tendency to exclude key factors when making decisions, particularly when involving complex decisions. In the study, narrow framers were only half as likely to buy such insurance, regardless of other demographics considered.
While the authors' findings suggest that there are consumer attitudes that need to be overcome, they also believe that insurers could better position their products in the marketplace by providing more and better education and information to consumers regarding the high probability and high costs of needing LTC. They especially see an opportunity for insurers to focus much of their efforts on educating adult children (the so called "sandwich generation") who may have caregiving responsibilities and decision-making regarding their aging parents.
Some employers offer the access to such coverage via voluntary benefits programs, but the number of employers is low, and even lower, is the percentage of participants. Employers are in a good position to offer such coverage, but doing so requires more players, more choices and certainly more education. Many insurance carriers have gotten out of the business and there needs to be more plan design choices. Did you know that employees can use HSAs to set aside tax-deductible funds that can be used to pay for LTC premiums? Distributions from HSAs can cover qualified LTC premiums.
Long-term care expenditures are among the main reasons an individual's retirement plan might fail to meet his or her full retirement needs. New strategies need to be examined for improving long-term care security in retirement. One potential strategy is for more employers to offer this benefit. However, to do so there needs to be more players in the marketplace, which means better underwriting tools to learn to price the product appropriately, while offering more consumer options.
Offering more tax incentives and best practices that can be leveraged in order to increase employer-sponsored long-term care insurance participation? For those people with individual financial planners, are they advising you about the reality of the need and perhaps the importance of the benefit?
Retirement preparedness ... are we REALLY prepared?!?
-- 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 1 day ago.
So it was surprising for me to find out that two out of three Americans aged 40 and older are not saving for long-term care, despite studies that show seven in 10 of those 65 and older will need it, according to a poll by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. You read it right! Almost 70% of people turning 65 will need such care at some point in their lives!
There is a lot of talk about retirement readiness these days, and outliving one's savings. People need to factor in the potential need for long-term care. What financial resources are available to you? Do you have enough to pay for several years in a nursing home, an assisted living facility, or home health care?
The decision about how to pay for potential LTC expenses is a serious concern for individuals and their families. Unfortunately, with the high cost of LTC, and the high cost of long term-care insurance policies, there is no easy answer. For most U.S. citizens, the costs are increasingly beyond reach. The median cost of nursing home care is more than $90,000 per year, according to a report from the insurer Genworth Financial. One year of visits from home-health aides costs over $45,000 annually. It is estimated that only 5% to 7% of people 45 and older have coverage. Staggering statistics to say the least!
The Associated Press-NORC survey also found that about 25% of Americans mistakenly believe that Medicare or standard private insurance will cover their LTC needs. Remember, Medicare DOES NOT cover what is primarily under the umbrella of long-term care services, that being what is referred to as custodial care. If you're over 65, don't rely on Medicare or private health insurance. Medicare doesn't pay for "custodial care," and private health insurance rarely pays any of the cost of long-term care. In the U.S. today, Medicaid -- the federal-state insurance program for low-income Americans -- pays for some of the long-term care. Some people also may be assuming, incorrectly, that they will qualify for government assistance to help them pay for nursing-home care. Rules are in place to disqualify many who won't meet the strict conditions required.
So, what is long-term care? Generally speaking, long-term care refers to a range of services and supports you may need to meet your personal care needs. Most long-term care is not medical care, but rather assistance with the basic personal tasks of everyday life, sometimes called Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), which are basic actions that independently functioning individuals perform on a daily basis: bathing, dressing, using the toilet, transferring (to or from bed or chair), eating, and caring for incontinence.
Other common LTC services include assistance with everyday tasks, sometimes called Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADLs), which includes items like housework, managing one's finances, taking medications, shopping for groceries, caring for pets, and other similar activities.
Many public programs determine eligibility for services according to a person's need for help with these items, while many long-term care insurance policies use the inability to perform independently a certain number of ADLs as criteria for paying benefits.
Having had two parents (at separate times) reside in assisted-living homes, it became clear to me that unless you have so little money that you will qualify for Medicaid, or so much money that you can pay the bills out of your own pocket, you should consider buying long-term care insurance. Neither one had such a policy; it was unfortunate to see so much of their lifetime savings be drained.
However, long-term-care insurance is expensive. In a recent Wall Street Journal article, "Why People Don't Buy Long-Term-Care Insurance," researchers suggested that a deeper problem may be that consumers are looking at long-term-care policies the wrong way. In addition, just as important, insurers may be missing opportunities to adjust their products in ways that might address and overcome some of the root causes of those misunderstandings.
For instance, one study found that many people regard long-term-care insurance as having no real value if ultimately the payouts aren't needed. That is, instead of looking at long-term care insurance primarily as financial protection, many people think of it as an investment (and a bad one at that). They don't think about the catastrophic losses a policy could help them avoid.
From a behavioral economics viewpoint, which I have discussed previously in several blogs, including a few entries on the impact of behavioral economics on total rewards programs, the research suggested that some consumers' rejection of long-term care insurance is based on what psychologists call "narrow framing," or people's tendency to exclude key factors when making decisions, particularly when involving complex decisions. In the study, narrow framers were only half as likely to buy such insurance, regardless of other demographics considered.
While the authors' findings suggest that there are consumer attitudes that need to be overcome, they also believe that insurers could better position their products in the marketplace by providing more and better education and information to consumers regarding the high probability and high costs of needing LTC. They especially see an opportunity for insurers to focus much of their efforts on educating adult children (the so called "sandwich generation") who may have caregiving responsibilities and decision-making regarding their aging parents.
Some employers offer the access to such coverage via voluntary benefits programs, but the number of employers is low, and even lower, is the percentage of participants. Employers are in a good position to offer such coverage, but doing so requires more players, more choices and certainly more education. Many insurance carriers have gotten out of the business and there needs to be more plan design choices. Did you know that employees can use HSAs to set aside tax-deductible funds that can be used to pay for LTC premiums? Distributions from HSAs can cover qualified LTC premiums.
Long-term care expenditures are among the main reasons an individual's retirement plan might fail to meet his or her full retirement needs. New strategies need to be examined for improving long-term care security in retirement. One potential strategy is for more employers to offer this benefit. However, to do so there needs to be more players in the marketplace, which means better underwriting tools to learn to price the product appropriately, while offering more consumer options.
Offering more tax incentives and best practices that can be leveraged in order to increase employer-sponsored long-term care insurance participation? For those people with individual financial planners, are they advising you about the reality of the need and perhaps the importance of the benefit?
Retirement preparedness ... are we REALLY prepared?!?
-- 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 1 day ago.
↧
Kantor & Kantor Announces North Cypress Medical Center Must Reimburse Benefits for Mental Health Treatment
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Reverses Decision After Finding No proof That Prior Authorization Was Needed For Mental Health Treatment
Los Angeles, California (PRWEB) August 03, 2015
Kantor & Kantor, LLP announced today that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the firm’s client Rebecca Hamsher, deciding that in accordance with ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act), North Cypress Medical Center must reimburse benefits for Hamsher’s residential treatment for bulimia, depression and other mental health problems.
According to the U.S. Court of Appeal's decision, Hamsher, a nurse employed by North Cypress Medical Center, was admitted to Timberline Knolls Residential Treatment Center in Illinois in May 2011, where she was treated for various mental disorders. North Cypress refused to pay for this treatment, as it concluded that she had neither asked for nor received prior-authorization for “hospital expenses incurred at hospitals other than North Cypress.” In January 2012, Hamsher internally appealed this decision and North Cypress again denied her claim – stating that the evidence in the administrative record showed that she failed to obtain the necessary prior-authorization for hospitalization. At this point, Hamsher filed suit against North Cypress in an attempt to recover the ERISA benefits to which she was entitled.
The appeals court found that North Cypress Medical Center failed to show that Hamsher received her care in a setting that qualified as a “hospital” under its health insurance plan. Because prior authorization is only required for care in a hospital setting, Hamsher is entitled to coverage.
“Unfortunately, too often courts apply ERISA to afford unreasonable deference to the decisions of financially motivated insurers and plan administrators," said Lisa Kantor, of Kantor & Kantor, LLP who represents Hamsher. “Today, the Fifth Circuit took the right step to enforce the statute in the manner to protect insureds as it was originally intended.”
About Kantor & Kantor, LLP
Kantor & Kantor is the largest law firm in the country exclusively representing plaintiffs who have been denied insurance benefits from life, health disability and long-term care policies. The firm has extensive experience with the complex appeals process and federal court litigation of ERISA matters. For more information, log on to our website, call (800) 446-7529, or follow Kantor & Kantor at http://www.californiainsurancelawyerblog.com.
For more information about Lisa Kantor and Eating Disorder Legal Assistance, please visit our website and our Eating Disorder blog, or follow us on Facebook.
Contact: Rachel Teicher
Kantor & Kantor, LLP
818-886-2525
rteicher(at)kantorlaw(dot)net
Rebecca Hamsher v. North Cypress Medical Center Operating Company, LimitedAppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13-CV-1401 Reported by PRWeb 1 day ago.
Los Angeles, California (PRWEB) August 03, 2015
Kantor & Kantor, LLP announced today that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the firm’s client Rebecca Hamsher, deciding that in accordance with ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act), North Cypress Medical Center must reimburse benefits for Hamsher’s residential treatment for bulimia, depression and other mental health problems.
According to the U.S. Court of Appeal's decision, Hamsher, a nurse employed by North Cypress Medical Center, was admitted to Timberline Knolls Residential Treatment Center in Illinois in May 2011, where she was treated for various mental disorders. North Cypress refused to pay for this treatment, as it concluded that she had neither asked for nor received prior-authorization for “hospital expenses incurred at hospitals other than North Cypress.” In January 2012, Hamsher internally appealed this decision and North Cypress again denied her claim – stating that the evidence in the administrative record showed that she failed to obtain the necessary prior-authorization for hospitalization. At this point, Hamsher filed suit against North Cypress in an attempt to recover the ERISA benefits to which she was entitled.
The appeals court found that North Cypress Medical Center failed to show that Hamsher received her care in a setting that qualified as a “hospital” under its health insurance plan. Because prior authorization is only required for care in a hospital setting, Hamsher is entitled to coverage.
“Unfortunately, too often courts apply ERISA to afford unreasonable deference to the decisions of financially motivated insurers and plan administrators," said Lisa Kantor, of Kantor & Kantor, LLP who represents Hamsher. “Today, the Fifth Circuit took the right step to enforce the statute in the manner to protect insureds as it was originally intended.”
About Kantor & Kantor, LLP
Kantor & Kantor is the largest law firm in the country exclusively representing plaintiffs who have been denied insurance benefits from life, health disability and long-term care policies. The firm has extensive experience with the complex appeals process and federal court litigation of ERISA matters. For more information, log on to our website, call (800) 446-7529, or follow Kantor & Kantor at http://www.californiainsurancelawyerblog.com.
For more information about Lisa Kantor and Eating Disorder Legal Assistance, please visit our website and our Eating Disorder blog, or follow us on Facebook.
Contact: Rachel Teicher
Kantor & Kantor, LLP
818-886-2525
rteicher(at)kantorlaw(dot)net
Rebecca Hamsher v. North Cypress Medical Center Operating Company, LimitedAppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13-CV-1401 Reported by PRWeb 1 day ago.
↧
North America deal value leaps on strong US growth
Bureau van Dijk Publishes July 2015 North America M&A Report from Zephyr
New York, NY (PRWEB) August 03, 2015
There was a sharp uptick in the value of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) targeting North American companies in July, boosted by significant growth in the US. The increase in US M&A value offset an 80 percent decrease in the value of deals with Canadian targets over the four weeks.
In all, there were 1,079 transactions worth a combined USD 258,501 million in the region as a whole, compared to 1,464 deals worth a collective USD 165,631 million in June, representing a 56 percent increase in monetary terms. Value was also up on 12 months ago, when deal-making worth a total of USD 186,755 million was announced.
M&A value targeting US companies accounted for 98 percent of regional value with USD 252,190 million, almost double USD 130,554 million in June and 53 percent higher than the same time in 2014. Volume fell 23 percent month-on-month from 1,088 to 834 transactions. Meanwhile, there was a near five-fold decrease in Canadian M&A over the four weeks from USD 35,076 million to USD 7,136 million and was two-thirds lower than the USD 21,858 million announced in July 2014.
Lisa Wright, Zephyr director, said: “The US insurance sector proved to be a hotbed of M&A activity in July, with some sizeable deals. In particular, the country’s health insurance industry is undergoing a major transformation following the Affordable Care Act, which will likely pave the way for further consolidation.”
The value of private equity and venture capital (PE and VC) investments with North American targets decreased by 61 percent month-on-month to USD 12,206 million in July from USD 31,534 million, while volume declined at the slower rate of 31 percent from 503 transactions to 345. In a 12-month comparison, value was 14 percent lower and volume down 50 percent in the four weeks under review (July 2014: 695 deals worth a total USD 14,169 million).
For the full M&A Reports from Zephyr, please visit mandaportal.com
About Zephyr
Zephyr is an information solution containing M&A, IPO and venture capital deals and rumors with links to detailed financial company information. Zephyr, published by Bureau van Dijk, covers various deal types including M&A activity, IPOs, joint ventures and private equity deals. The deals on Zephyr are linked to the company financials and peer reports on BvD's product range, which includes Orbis, Amadeus and Osiris, for company valuation and benchmarking.
Zephyr contains information on over 1 million deals. Over 85,000 deals are added each year depending on levels of deal activity. Zephyr has no minimum deal value. Zephyr's UK and Singapore researchers speak over 40 languages and use native language and English sources in their deal research. http://www.zephyrdealdata.com
About M&A Portal
The M&A Portal is a resource for anyone interested in M&A Deals intelligence and information. We host M&A news, deal commentary, features and research papers written by experts across the globe.
About Bureau van Dijk
Bureau van Dijk (BvD) is the leading provider of private company, corporate ownership and deal information. BvD’s product range combines data from regulatory and other sources, including 120 information partners, with flexible software to allow users to manipulate data for a range of research needs and applications. Its Orbis database provides information on over 160m companies across the globe.
In addition, BvD addresses specific business challenges through its range of Catalysts including transfer pricing, credit, procurement, KYC, client on-boarding, M&A research and valuations, while BvD custom delivers fully bespoke solutions. BvD also publishes the global M&A database, Zephyr.
The company has a global presence with over 30 offices worldwide. For more information on BvD, visit http://www.bvdinfo.com. Twitter: @BvDUS Reported by PRWeb 1 day ago.
New York, NY (PRWEB) August 03, 2015
There was a sharp uptick in the value of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) targeting North American companies in July, boosted by significant growth in the US. The increase in US M&A value offset an 80 percent decrease in the value of deals with Canadian targets over the four weeks.
In all, there were 1,079 transactions worth a combined USD 258,501 million in the region as a whole, compared to 1,464 deals worth a collective USD 165,631 million in June, representing a 56 percent increase in monetary terms. Value was also up on 12 months ago, when deal-making worth a total of USD 186,755 million was announced.
M&A value targeting US companies accounted for 98 percent of regional value with USD 252,190 million, almost double USD 130,554 million in June and 53 percent higher than the same time in 2014. Volume fell 23 percent month-on-month from 1,088 to 834 transactions. Meanwhile, there was a near five-fold decrease in Canadian M&A over the four weeks from USD 35,076 million to USD 7,136 million and was two-thirds lower than the USD 21,858 million announced in July 2014.
Lisa Wright, Zephyr director, said: “The US insurance sector proved to be a hotbed of M&A activity in July, with some sizeable deals. In particular, the country’s health insurance industry is undergoing a major transformation following the Affordable Care Act, which will likely pave the way for further consolidation.”
The value of private equity and venture capital (PE and VC) investments with North American targets decreased by 61 percent month-on-month to USD 12,206 million in July from USD 31,534 million, while volume declined at the slower rate of 31 percent from 503 transactions to 345. In a 12-month comparison, value was 14 percent lower and volume down 50 percent in the four weeks under review (July 2014: 695 deals worth a total USD 14,169 million).
For the full M&A Reports from Zephyr, please visit mandaportal.com
About Zephyr
Zephyr is an information solution containing M&A, IPO and venture capital deals and rumors with links to detailed financial company information. Zephyr, published by Bureau van Dijk, covers various deal types including M&A activity, IPOs, joint ventures and private equity deals. The deals on Zephyr are linked to the company financials and peer reports on BvD's product range, which includes Orbis, Amadeus and Osiris, for company valuation and benchmarking.
Zephyr contains information on over 1 million deals. Over 85,000 deals are added each year depending on levels of deal activity. Zephyr has no minimum deal value. Zephyr's UK and Singapore researchers speak over 40 languages and use native language and English sources in their deal research. http://www.zephyrdealdata.com
About M&A Portal
The M&A Portal is a resource for anyone interested in M&A Deals intelligence and information. We host M&A news, deal commentary, features and research papers written by experts across the globe.
About Bureau van Dijk
Bureau van Dijk (BvD) is the leading provider of private company, corporate ownership and deal information. BvD’s product range combines data from regulatory and other sources, including 120 information partners, with flexible software to allow users to manipulate data for a range of research needs and applications. Its Orbis database provides information on over 160m companies across the globe.
In addition, BvD addresses specific business challenges through its range of Catalysts including transfer pricing, credit, procurement, KYC, client on-boarding, M&A research and valuations, while BvD custom delivers fully bespoke solutions. BvD also publishes the global M&A database, Zephyr.
The company has a global presence with over 30 offices worldwide. For more information on BvD, visit http://www.bvdinfo.com. Twitter: @BvDUS Reported by PRWeb 1 day ago.
↧
↧
Can I Change My Health Insurance Plan Outside of Open Enrollment?
There are few circumstances that qualify you to change your health insurance plan mid-year. Barring these “qualifying events,” you must wait until open enrollment to make policy changes.
Reported by Forbes.com 1 day ago.
↧
Health mergers ‘very bad,’ says ex-insurance commish
The giant health insurance mergers now on the table would reduce the number of major national insurers from five to three.
Reported by ajc.com 1 day ago.
↧
The Cost of Over Insurance: National Health Expenditures Rising Again
Actuaries at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have released their estimates of national health spending for 2014 through 2024.Out-of-pocket spending as a share of personal health care (net of retail sales) dropped from 18 percent in 2007 to 16 percent in 2014, and will continue down to 14 percent in 2024. The administrative burden of over insurance by government and private insurers also increases. This is the added cost due to having claims processed by an administrative bureaucracy that stands between the patient and the provider. For private insurance alone, the net cost of health insurance rose from 18 percent of insurers’ payments to providers in 2007 to 20 percent in 2014, and will rise to 22 percent in 2024.
Reported by Forbes.com 22 hours ago.
↧
Speed-Dating The Republican Candidates
I just finished watching the first "candidates' forum" (don't call it a debate!) of the season, where 14 of the 17 Republicans running for president all appeared on the same stage in New Hampshire. The "one person on the stage at a time" format was an odd one, meant to get around the Republican National Committee's strict rules on how many debates they're going to tolerate this time around (it seems the more the public hears Republicans debate, the more it harms the Republican candidates).
Still, it was a chance to see very short performances of almost all of the candidates, as entry was not limited by poll standings (the way it will be later in the week, at the first official Republican debate). The three candidates who did not appear were: Donald Trump, Jim Gilmore, and Mike Huckabee (no explanation was given why they didn't show up). Three candidates appeared by video linkup, since they were in Washington for a late-day vote on defunding Planned Parenthood. They were: Senators Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz. Interestingly, Senator Lindsey Graham did show up in person, so I guess he must have skipped the vote (this fact was not brought up, though, so that's just speculation). The other candidates appearing tonight: Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, John Kasich, Chris Christie, Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, and George Pataki.
The forum was tight, with 14 people to get to, and was made tighter by the fact that it was held in two full rounds of questioning, with a final 30-second statement allowed by each candidate. So they made the round of all 14 twice, the first time ending with the video linkup candidates and the second beginning with them.
The moderator was a pretty committed right-wing commentator, at least from both his tone and the complete and utter lack of any challenging questions whatsoever. The entire evening was softball after softball, really. Here's a typical question I jotted down, as an example: "Have we become anti-business in America?" I am not exactly complaining about this -- since it is likely what Republican voters really want to see, at this early point -- but instead merely pointing it out. The other truly notable thing about the entire evening was that Donald Trump's name was not mentioned once, either by the moderator or by any candidate.
What follows are my snap reactions, before I've seen what anyone else's reactions are. These are mostly short impressions the candidates made, and aren't in a whole lot of depth. The format used was akin to "speed dating" sessions, where you hear a tiny little bit from a large number of people, so limited impressions were about all that was possible. I've listed my reactions in the order the candidates appeared in the first round of questioning, which was randomly drawn at the forum (although all the video-feed candidates appeared last, for technical reasons). All quotations below were hastily jotted down, and may not be perfectly accurate, I should add (I may have missed the exact wording or phrasing, but the gist of all the quotes is entirely accurate).
*Rick Perry*
Rick Perry certainly sounded better than his last debate performances (especially the one with the infamous "Oops"). Maybe running for president while not taking strong painkillers is the way to go after all, eh? In the first round, Perry dodged a question on whether he'd reduce the number of legal immigrants, and instead did a whole lot of talking about securing the border. In the second round, he came across once again as relaxed, except towards the end when he got a bit loud and angry. The amusing moment was at the beginning of the second round, when the moderator basically asked the "Oops" question again -- which federal agencies would you cut? Perry responded with a funny line: "I've heard this question before." Comedy-wise, his timing and delivery were pretty good, I have to admit.
*Rick Santorum*
Santorum started off a bit hesitantly, but he got a little better by the end of the first round. He touted a (20 percent) flat tax idea (this general idea was popular among several of the candidates), and bragged about the 1990s welfare reform effort he was a part of. Santorum said he'd reduce "unskilled" legal immigration by 25 percent. In the second round, Santorum got a little more strident, but still stayed fairly loose. He was asked about abortion, and said he disagreed with the Supreme Court on both gay marriage and Roe v. Wade, then told the story of Abraham Lincoln ignoring the Supreme Court, before saying he'd essentially do the same thing on both abortion and gay marriage (it was a little vague, but that was the main idea). He got off a funny line when asked if he'd put a woman on the $20 bill, and if so who -- he responded: "Put Carly on the bill!" The moderator then joked that he thought his wife would have been his first choice, to which Santorum responded: "Now you're going to get me into trouble!"
*John Kasich*
Kasich was a very late entry into the field, so many people were seeing him for the first time. He's a fast-talking guy, but also pretty smooth in his presence. I can see why Ohioans like him so much. Kasich was asked about immigration and repeated a line he's used before, which is pretty worrisome when you consider how he views governmental responsibility. When asked about the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in the country, Kasich had a list of things they'd have to do (pay a fine, learn English) and then qualified who'd be allowed to do so (no felons or violent criminals), but he also inserted an odd phrase defining the group he'd let in: those who were "God-fearing." Which means, by extension, that the federal government should only let in immigrants who fear God? That is downright offensive to my ears, and an absolute affront to the Constitution. Of course, my ears aren't exactly his target audience, and I do realize Republican primary voters might react differently. Kasich also came out for a balanced budget amendment, and in the second round talked about morality dictating that Republicans should care about more than just the economy -- "something I think Republicans need to talk more about." Sounded a lot like George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism," in fact. Kasich did have a fairly relaxed time of it, and ended on an upbeat note.
*Lindsey Graham*
Graham is the uber-hawk in the race, and his performance was about par for the course, for him. He repeated twice (for emphasis) in the first round his basic foreign policy view towards other countries: "America should show a clenched fist or an open hand -- you choose." Graham would send American troops to lots of places, at the drop of a hat. Again, no real surprise there. Graham, as always, had a fairly easy-going performance, with plenty of jingoism, snark, and whininess mixed in. He hit Hillary Clinton as hard as he could (and got one funny line off: "I'm fluent in Clinton"), and even hit Bill for "I did not have sex with that woman," just for good measure. Graham came out against a minimum wage hike, and towards the end got another funny line in, when talking about how Tip O'Neil and Ronald Reagan solved the Social Security problem by sitting down and having a drink together: "Maybe we need to drink more in Washington." He did stumble over his own words in his conclusion, grappling with trying to say "he/she" when talking about the next (Republican) president.
*Chris Christie*
Christie came across as strong, but not as belligerent as usual. He agreed with Lindsey Graham that means-testing Social Security would be a great idea. When asked whether a V.A. hospital should be built in New Hampshire ("and one in every state"), he passed up the opportunity to pander to the local voters and instead said "no," preferring instead that every veterans' V.A. medical card be accepted at all hospitals, everywhere. It was an artful dodge, instead of garden-variety pandering. Christie was asked about the heroin epidemic in New Hampshire, and took the opportunity to tout his New Jersey record of not sending first-time offenders to jail but to treatment instead. Christie remained low-key in the second round, and got in a funny line in response to the moderator applauding Christie for holding so many town halls in New Hampshire where he stayed to answer everyone's questions. Christie responded: "I'm like the bad relative you have for Thanksgiving -- I arrive early and stay until you wash the dishes."
*Ben Carson*
Carson's speech cadence is naturally slow, which worked against him in such a carefully-timed event. In the first round of questioning, he was asked mostly about the politics of medical issues. He took the opportunity to slam Obamacare as much as possible, and said his replacement would be "people-oriented," with health savings accounts. He edged towards getting rid of Medicare and replacing it with vouchers, but didn't totally commit to the concept and pulled back at the end. Got in some digs against Planned Parenthood, calling them "depraved" (this was a popular thing to do for many candidates, I should add). He also talked up a "tithe" flat tax of 10 or 15 percent. When asked about who he'd appoint to the Supreme Court, he gave possibly the most generic answer possible -- he'd "look at their judicial history" (as if no other president had ever thought to do so). All-around, a relaxed performance, which is pretty standard for Carson.
*Jeb Bush*
Bush started out by trying to burnish his foreign policy chops -- by basically agreeing with Lindsey Graham's foreign policy of multiple wars, all over the globe. Bush's performance in general was pretty hesitant, I have to say. He stumbled over his words, and didn't seem like he was comfortable being up on stage. He improved a bit at the end of the first round, but went back to being stumbly in the second. His big idea was to boost American economic growth to four percent by doing a bunch of rather vague stuff. He tried to pander to the anti-immigrant wing of the party by stating that he'd be for limiting the rules for family members of citizens to immigrate legally. He also trotted out an anti-Common Core stance, but it was notably weak in specifics. When asked about his presidential brother and father, Bush was ready with: "My dad is probably the most perfect man alive." He ended the night (he was the final candidate in the second round) by stating what a wonderful Republican field it was, each one better than all the Democratic candidates.
*Carly Fiorina*
Carly Fiorina's never going to be seen as a warm and cuddly personality, which she proved once again tonight. Her tone of voice is permanently smarmy and condescending, as she lectures the audience about each issue. As expected, Fiorina was toughest on Hillary Clinton (she feels that as the only Republican woman in the race, she's got the best defense when attacking Clinton). Fiorina not only stated that Clinton "lied about Benghazi," but also stretched reality by saying "She stood over the bodies." Her attitude towards the race in general was summed up as "throw every punch," which she certainly attempted tonight. In the second round of questions, Fiorina was asked about foreign policy and responded by name-dropping as many Middle Eastern leaders as she could -- noting she "knows them personally." Her first act as president would be to pick up the phone and call Netanyahu.
*Bobby Jindal*
Normally, Bobby Jindal has the same problems with slow cadence that Ben Carson has (and, to a certain extent, Rick Perry and Lindsey Graham have as well). Tonight, even with his drawl, he did better than he normally does in interviews, at times even venturing into fast-talking. Jindal came out in favor of uniting America, instead of those dastardly Democrats who divide everyone up into "hyphenated-Americans." He'd be for term limits in Congress, and (somehow) ending lobbying by "paying them all to stay away from Washington." At the end of the first round, Jindal used an odd metaphor when talking about how bad Obama's Iran deal was, something about declaring war on trans-fats? In the second round, Jindal stated the first two things he'd do in office would be to overturn Obama's "amnesty" executive decision, and then "meet with the heads of the military" so they could explain the whole ISIS problem to him. At the end, he trotted out "this is the most important election of our lifetimes" trope. Jindal was noticeably jumpy and jittery in his second performance, and got rather loud at the end for no apparent reason.
*Scott Walker*
Walker came across as an easygoing guy, although he did get a little edgy at times. When asked about climate change and the new Obama plan for the environment, he repeatedly said it would be like a "buzz saw to the economy," which is a rather odd metaphor when talking about the environment (see earlier comment about my perceptions versus Republican voters, I suppose). Walker spent most of the first round talking up his successes in Wisconsin. In the second round, he came out for raising the Social Security retirement age, and expressed his belief that entitlements are going to have to be "reformed." He positioned himself as a Washington outsider (always popular with the Republican base), and then touted his Wisconsin record some more. All in all, a pretty safe but unexciting performance.
*George Pataki*
Also a late entrant into the primary race, this was the first time Pataki has been seen by many American voters. Pataki's record as a blue-state governor (New York) has plenty of weak spots for Republican base voters, but none of this was pointed out by the moderator. Instead, Pataki was able to stick to the conservative script, touting how he shrunk the New York governmental workforce, and badmouthing Obamacare. Pataki came out for a 12 percent flat tax, after stating that the tax code treats veterans and manufacturers badly. He ended his first round with lots of anti-Planned Parenthood talk. Overall, he seemed strong and confident onstage, although this bordered on angry and loud in the second round. His second round started off with the moderator tossing a softball about what it was like to be governor on 9/11. Pataki took this and ran with it, of course. When asked about limits to the Second Amendment, Pataki made some vague statements about mental health. At the very end, in his 30-second freebie, Pataki stumbled and said "If I run..." when he meant "If I win..." which I would chalk up to the fact that he hasn't been officially running for all that long now.
*Rand Paul*
Rand Paul led off the video-feed candidates. He was asked about both issues where he stands apart from the other Republican candidates: foreign policy and government snooping. He strongly stood up for his position on the Fourth Amendment (in essence: no general warrants, snoop on terrorists and not all citizens), and for his view that war should never be "the first choice" of a president, "as if it was a game of Risk." When asked, he stated the first countries he'd visit as president would be China and Russia, due to their global importance. Paul said he'd allow rich people to deduct all college tuition (he didn't put it quite like that, of course), and disagreed with Obama, saying there should be "no free lunch" on education. At the end, he pointed out a strength that few have so far noticed -- Rand Paul's up in the polling over Hillary Clinton in five battleground states, something no other Republican candidate can claim at the moment. Overall, his performance was similar to his normal television interviews -- he came across as heartfelt, if a little loopy.
*Ted Cruz*
Cruz came across as he normally does -- angry, and yelling a lot. It's his whole shtick, really, so it's not surprising in the least. He doubled down on his recent "Obama is the biggest supporter of terrorism" line (since the Iran deal frees up frozen assets). He bragged about his record in the Senate, of "speaking the truth" in Congress, whom he referred to repeatedly as the "Washington cartel" (to be fair, he includes a lot of fellow Republicans in that statement). Oh, and he mentioned Ronald Reagan a lot, in both interview segments. He clearly sees himself as the heir to Reaganism, in his own mind. He'd "repeal every word of Obamacare" and replace it by allowing insurance to be sold across state lines, health savings accounts, and delinking health insurance from employers and employees. He used his time at the end to tout freedom and the promise of America. If he had had another 30 seconds, he likely would have gotten around to apple pie and baseball, as well.
*Marco Rubio*
Marco Rubio started out very smooth and well-spoken. Rubio is probably the most natural politician of the whole bunch (at least, the ones on the stage tonight), and nobody can fast-talk better. But by the second segment, he seemed a little uptight and stumbling, mostly because he was spending his time amping up the fear of terrorism and threats against America. He was asked about Rand Paul's views on the Fourth Amendment, which is what set him off on the subject. Rubio, earlier, was asked the most interesting question of the night (note: this shows my personal bias, I fully admit) about his support for medical marijuana. Rubio began his answer by pointing out he was totally against recreational legalization, even going so far as to link it with the prescription opiate/heroin problem New Hampshire has. But when he got around to addressing medicinal use, he was actually pretty reasonable for a Republican presidential candidate. He said that if marijuana went through the same testing other drugs are subjected to, he wouldn't have a problem with even a federal law allowing medicinal use. Rubio was also asked about immigration (a potential weak spot for him), and agreed that he'd curtain family-based legal immigration in favor of allowing in skilled workers. About the 11 million undocumented immigrants, he'd give them some sort of legal status, and then have a "further conversation" later about even allowing them green cards (not citizenship).
Chris Weigant blogs at:Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on The Huffington Post
-- 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.
Still, it was a chance to see very short performances of almost all of the candidates, as entry was not limited by poll standings (the way it will be later in the week, at the first official Republican debate). The three candidates who did not appear were: Donald Trump, Jim Gilmore, and Mike Huckabee (no explanation was given why they didn't show up). Three candidates appeared by video linkup, since they were in Washington for a late-day vote on defunding Planned Parenthood. They were: Senators Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz. Interestingly, Senator Lindsey Graham did show up in person, so I guess he must have skipped the vote (this fact was not brought up, though, so that's just speculation). The other candidates appearing tonight: Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, John Kasich, Chris Christie, Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, and George Pataki.
The forum was tight, with 14 people to get to, and was made tighter by the fact that it was held in two full rounds of questioning, with a final 30-second statement allowed by each candidate. So they made the round of all 14 twice, the first time ending with the video linkup candidates and the second beginning with them.
The moderator was a pretty committed right-wing commentator, at least from both his tone and the complete and utter lack of any challenging questions whatsoever. The entire evening was softball after softball, really. Here's a typical question I jotted down, as an example: "Have we become anti-business in America?" I am not exactly complaining about this -- since it is likely what Republican voters really want to see, at this early point -- but instead merely pointing it out. The other truly notable thing about the entire evening was that Donald Trump's name was not mentioned once, either by the moderator or by any candidate.
What follows are my snap reactions, before I've seen what anyone else's reactions are. These are mostly short impressions the candidates made, and aren't in a whole lot of depth. The format used was akin to "speed dating" sessions, where you hear a tiny little bit from a large number of people, so limited impressions were about all that was possible. I've listed my reactions in the order the candidates appeared in the first round of questioning, which was randomly drawn at the forum (although all the video-feed candidates appeared last, for technical reasons). All quotations below were hastily jotted down, and may not be perfectly accurate, I should add (I may have missed the exact wording or phrasing, but the gist of all the quotes is entirely accurate).
*Rick Perry*
Rick Perry certainly sounded better than his last debate performances (especially the one with the infamous "Oops"). Maybe running for president while not taking strong painkillers is the way to go after all, eh? In the first round, Perry dodged a question on whether he'd reduce the number of legal immigrants, and instead did a whole lot of talking about securing the border. In the second round, he came across once again as relaxed, except towards the end when he got a bit loud and angry. The amusing moment was at the beginning of the second round, when the moderator basically asked the "Oops" question again -- which federal agencies would you cut? Perry responded with a funny line: "I've heard this question before." Comedy-wise, his timing and delivery were pretty good, I have to admit.
*Rick Santorum*
Santorum started off a bit hesitantly, but he got a little better by the end of the first round. He touted a (20 percent) flat tax idea (this general idea was popular among several of the candidates), and bragged about the 1990s welfare reform effort he was a part of. Santorum said he'd reduce "unskilled" legal immigration by 25 percent. In the second round, Santorum got a little more strident, but still stayed fairly loose. He was asked about abortion, and said he disagreed with the Supreme Court on both gay marriage and Roe v. Wade, then told the story of Abraham Lincoln ignoring the Supreme Court, before saying he'd essentially do the same thing on both abortion and gay marriage (it was a little vague, but that was the main idea). He got off a funny line when asked if he'd put a woman on the $20 bill, and if so who -- he responded: "Put Carly on the bill!" The moderator then joked that he thought his wife would have been his first choice, to which Santorum responded: "Now you're going to get me into trouble!"
*John Kasich*
Kasich was a very late entry into the field, so many people were seeing him for the first time. He's a fast-talking guy, but also pretty smooth in his presence. I can see why Ohioans like him so much. Kasich was asked about immigration and repeated a line he's used before, which is pretty worrisome when you consider how he views governmental responsibility. When asked about the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in the country, Kasich had a list of things they'd have to do (pay a fine, learn English) and then qualified who'd be allowed to do so (no felons or violent criminals), but he also inserted an odd phrase defining the group he'd let in: those who were "God-fearing." Which means, by extension, that the federal government should only let in immigrants who fear God? That is downright offensive to my ears, and an absolute affront to the Constitution. Of course, my ears aren't exactly his target audience, and I do realize Republican primary voters might react differently. Kasich also came out for a balanced budget amendment, and in the second round talked about morality dictating that Republicans should care about more than just the economy -- "something I think Republicans need to talk more about." Sounded a lot like George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism," in fact. Kasich did have a fairly relaxed time of it, and ended on an upbeat note.
*Lindsey Graham*
Graham is the uber-hawk in the race, and his performance was about par for the course, for him. He repeated twice (for emphasis) in the first round his basic foreign policy view towards other countries: "America should show a clenched fist or an open hand -- you choose." Graham would send American troops to lots of places, at the drop of a hat. Again, no real surprise there. Graham, as always, had a fairly easy-going performance, with plenty of jingoism, snark, and whininess mixed in. He hit Hillary Clinton as hard as he could (and got one funny line off: "I'm fluent in Clinton"), and even hit Bill for "I did not have sex with that woman," just for good measure. Graham came out against a minimum wage hike, and towards the end got another funny line in, when talking about how Tip O'Neil and Ronald Reagan solved the Social Security problem by sitting down and having a drink together: "Maybe we need to drink more in Washington." He did stumble over his own words in his conclusion, grappling with trying to say "he/she" when talking about the next (Republican) president.
*Chris Christie*
Christie came across as strong, but not as belligerent as usual. He agreed with Lindsey Graham that means-testing Social Security would be a great idea. When asked whether a V.A. hospital should be built in New Hampshire ("and one in every state"), he passed up the opportunity to pander to the local voters and instead said "no," preferring instead that every veterans' V.A. medical card be accepted at all hospitals, everywhere. It was an artful dodge, instead of garden-variety pandering. Christie was asked about the heroin epidemic in New Hampshire, and took the opportunity to tout his New Jersey record of not sending first-time offenders to jail but to treatment instead. Christie remained low-key in the second round, and got in a funny line in response to the moderator applauding Christie for holding so many town halls in New Hampshire where he stayed to answer everyone's questions. Christie responded: "I'm like the bad relative you have for Thanksgiving -- I arrive early and stay until you wash the dishes."
*Ben Carson*
Carson's speech cadence is naturally slow, which worked against him in such a carefully-timed event. In the first round of questioning, he was asked mostly about the politics of medical issues. He took the opportunity to slam Obamacare as much as possible, and said his replacement would be "people-oriented," with health savings accounts. He edged towards getting rid of Medicare and replacing it with vouchers, but didn't totally commit to the concept and pulled back at the end. Got in some digs against Planned Parenthood, calling them "depraved" (this was a popular thing to do for many candidates, I should add). He also talked up a "tithe" flat tax of 10 or 15 percent. When asked about who he'd appoint to the Supreme Court, he gave possibly the most generic answer possible -- he'd "look at their judicial history" (as if no other president had ever thought to do so). All-around, a relaxed performance, which is pretty standard for Carson.
*Jeb Bush*
Bush started out by trying to burnish his foreign policy chops -- by basically agreeing with Lindsey Graham's foreign policy of multiple wars, all over the globe. Bush's performance in general was pretty hesitant, I have to say. He stumbled over his words, and didn't seem like he was comfortable being up on stage. He improved a bit at the end of the first round, but went back to being stumbly in the second. His big idea was to boost American economic growth to four percent by doing a bunch of rather vague stuff. He tried to pander to the anti-immigrant wing of the party by stating that he'd be for limiting the rules for family members of citizens to immigrate legally. He also trotted out an anti-Common Core stance, but it was notably weak in specifics. When asked about his presidential brother and father, Bush was ready with: "My dad is probably the most perfect man alive." He ended the night (he was the final candidate in the second round) by stating what a wonderful Republican field it was, each one better than all the Democratic candidates.
*Carly Fiorina*
Carly Fiorina's never going to be seen as a warm and cuddly personality, which she proved once again tonight. Her tone of voice is permanently smarmy and condescending, as she lectures the audience about each issue. As expected, Fiorina was toughest on Hillary Clinton (she feels that as the only Republican woman in the race, she's got the best defense when attacking Clinton). Fiorina not only stated that Clinton "lied about Benghazi," but also stretched reality by saying "She stood over the bodies." Her attitude towards the race in general was summed up as "throw every punch," which she certainly attempted tonight. In the second round of questions, Fiorina was asked about foreign policy and responded by name-dropping as many Middle Eastern leaders as she could -- noting she "knows them personally." Her first act as president would be to pick up the phone and call Netanyahu.
*Bobby Jindal*
Normally, Bobby Jindal has the same problems with slow cadence that Ben Carson has (and, to a certain extent, Rick Perry and Lindsey Graham have as well). Tonight, even with his drawl, he did better than he normally does in interviews, at times even venturing into fast-talking. Jindal came out in favor of uniting America, instead of those dastardly Democrats who divide everyone up into "hyphenated-Americans." He'd be for term limits in Congress, and (somehow) ending lobbying by "paying them all to stay away from Washington." At the end of the first round, Jindal used an odd metaphor when talking about how bad Obama's Iran deal was, something about declaring war on trans-fats? In the second round, Jindal stated the first two things he'd do in office would be to overturn Obama's "amnesty" executive decision, and then "meet with the heads of the military" so they could explain the whole ISIS problem to him. At the end, he trotted out "this is the most important election of our lifetimes" trope. Jindal was noticeably jumpy and jittery in his second performance, and got rather loud at the end for no apparent reason.
*Scott Walker*
Walker came across as an easygoing guy, although he did get a little edgy at times. When asked about climate change and the new Obama plan for the environment, he repeatedly said it would be like a "buzz saw to the economy," which is a rather odd metaphor when talking about the environment (see earlier comment about my perceptions versus Republican voters, I suppose). Walker spent most of the first round talking up his successes in Wisconsin. In the second round, he came out for raising the Social Security retirement age, and expressed his belief that entitlements are going to have to be "reformed." He positioned himself as a Washington outsider (always popular with the Republican base), and then touted his Wisconsin record some more. All in all, a pretty safe but unexciting performance.
*George Pataki*
Also a late entrant into the primary race, this was the first time Pataki has been seen by many American voters. Pataki's record as a blue-state governor (New York) has plenty of weak spots for Republican base voters, but none of this was pointed out by the moderator. Instead, Pataki was able to stick to the conservative script, touting how he shrunk the New York governmental workforce, and badmouthing Obamacare. Pataki came out for a 12 percent flat tax, after stating that the tax code treats veterans and manufacturers badly. He ended his first round with lots of anti-Planned Parenthood talk. Overall, he seemed strong and confident onstage, although this bordered on angry and loud in the second round. His second round started off with the moderator tossing a softball about what it was like to be governor on 9/11. Pataki took this and ran with it, of course. When asked about limits to the Second Amendment, Pataki made some vague statements about mental health. At the very end, in his 30-second freebie, Pataki stumbled and said "If I run..." when he meant "If I win..." which I would chalk up to the fact that he hasn't been officially running for all that long now.
*Rand Paul*
Rand Paul led off the video-feed candidates. He was asked about both issues where he stands apart from the other Republican candidates: foreign policy and government snooping. He strongly stood up for his position on the Fourth Amendment (in essence: no general warrants, snoop on terrorists and not all citizens), and for his view that war should never be "the first choice" of a president, "as if it was a game of Risk." When asked, he stated the first countries he'd visit as president would be China and Russia, due to their global importance. Paul said he'd allow rich people to deduct all college tuition (he didn't put it quite like that, of course), and disagreed with Obama, saying there should be "no free lunch" on education. At the end, he pointed out a strength that few have so far noticed -- Rand Paul's up in the polling over Hillary Clinton in five battleground states, something no other Republican candidate can claim at the moment. Overall, his performance was similar to his normal television interviews -- he came across as heartfelt, if a little loopy.
*Ted Cruz*
Cruz came across as he normally does -- angry, and yelling a lot. It's his whole shtick, really, so it's not surprising in the least. He doubled down on his recent "Obama is the biggest supporter of terrorism" line (since the Iran deal frees up frozen assets). He bragged about his record in the Senate, of "speaking the truth" in Congress, whom he referred to repeatedly as the "Washington cartel" (to be fair, he includes a lot of fellow Republicans in that statement). Oh, and he mentioned Ronald Reagan a lot, in both interview segments. He clearly sees himself as the heir to Reaganism, in his own mind. He'd "repeal every word of Obamacare" and replace it by allowing insurance to be sold across state lines, health savings accounts, and delinking health insurance from employers and employees. He used his time at the end to tout freedom and the promise of America. If he had had another 30 seconds, he likely would have gotten around to apple pie and baseball, as well.
*Marco Rubio*
Marco Rubio started out very smooth and well-spoken. Rubio is probably the most natural politician of the whole bunch (at least, the ones on the stage tonight), and nobody can fast-talk better. But by the second segment, he seemed a little uptight and stumbling, mostly because he was spending his time amping up the fear of terrorism and threats against America. He was asked about Rand Paul's views on the Fourth Amendment, which is what set him off on the subject. Rubio, earlier, was asked the most interesting question of the night (note: this shows my personal bias, I fully admit) about his support for medical marijuana. Rubio began his answer by pointing out he was totally against recreational legalization, even going so far as to link it with the prescription opiate/heroin problem New Hampshire has. But when he got around to addressing medicinal use, he was actually pretty reasonable for a Republican presidential candidate. He said that if marijuana went through the same testing other drugs are subjected to, he wouldn't have a problem with even a federal law allowing medicinal use. Rubio was also asked about immigration (a potential weak spot for him), and agreed that he'd curtain family-based legal immigration in favor of allowing in skilled workers. About the 11 million undocumented immigrants, he'd give them some sort of legal status, and then have a "further conversation" later about even allowing them green cards (not citizenship).
Chris Weigant blogs at:Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on The Huffington Post
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 13 hours ago.
↧
↧
The Informed Patient 2.0
Much has been said about the formularies, cost-sharing, and patient burden required of enrollees on the ACA health insurance exchanges. Deductibles averaged nearly $3,000 for silver plans on the exchanges, and cost-sharing for specialty drugs can often reach 40 percent or higher. None of this is new, and this is [...]
Reported by Forbes.com 13 hours ago.
↧
Meritus insurance plan sees enrollments soar in 2015
Meritus has gone from a sizable failure to an insurance success, all in the matter of about eight months. The nonprofit co-op health insurance plan was designed to provide competition for traditional plans under the Affordable Care Act. By the end of last year, it had 869 enrollees, according to KTAR.com Enrollment, however, has spiked, and the provider now says it has 56,000 people on its rolls. It's good enough for 28 percent of the insurance market. Company officials attribute the turnaround…
Reported by bizjournals 13 hours ago.
↧
USA Medical Card Offers a Solution During National Psoriasis Awareness Month
People with psoriasis struggle to afford their prescriptions. USA Medical Card’s free pharmacy discount card can help this issue.
Miramar Beach, FL (PRWEB) August 04, 2015
It is National Psoriasis Awareness Month, and we are reminded that 7.5 million people are living with psoriatic disease and its uncomfortable symptoms such as dry, itching, burning or soreness of skin that may crack or bleed.
Typically, people who suffer from psoriasis bounce from medication to medication before they find what’s right for them. Then, what is effective may stop working, so they have to start all over again. This process can be lengthy and expensive. Some drugs may have magnificent results, but cost exorbitant amounts. Or, maybe an individual finally finds a successful treatment and it gets dropped by their insurance.
To help address these issues, USA Medical Card offers a free pharmacy discount card that makes popular psoriasis medications more affordable, including Clobetasol, Cyclosporine, Desoximetason, Fluocinonide, Methotrexate, Mometasone Furoate, Prednisone, Salicylic Acid, Tazorac, and Triamcinolone.
Some doctors may also recommend that people with psoriasis take daily vitamins and supplements, such as vitamin D3, biotin, and a multi-vitamin. If the doctor provides a signed prescription for these over-the-counter medications, they may also be eligible for savings with the card.
“We don’t think it’s acceptable that people with psoriasis suffer because they can’t pay for their prescription medications,” said USA Medical Card Co-Founder and President Jordan Sessler. “Our free card can help provide prescription discounts. Anyone can get the card and it can instantly save up to 75 percent on prescription psoriasis medications.”
The pre-activated card can be used by people with health insurance to complement their plans—to help fill in gaps of prescription coverage—or the uninsured. It is accepted at more than 60,000 pharmacies across the country—local, regional and national chains such as CVS, Costco, Target, Rite Aid, Walmart and Walgreens. Individuals can locate the participating pharmacy nearest to them by going to USAMedicalCard.com/pharmacy-locator.
Eligible Rx medications include those frequently prescribed for psoriasis, heart disease, hypothyroidism, asthma, diabetes and other health conditions. The card is commonly used on Zolpidem, Amoxicillin, Lisinopril, Metformin and thousands of other popular medications.
Treatment for psoriasis is a holistic process that involves medication, diet, exercise, and healthy habits. It is important for people to remain positive and keep looking for methods that work best for them. USA Medical Card aims to keep treatment options open by making psoriasis medications affordable.
Download a card at http://www.USAMedicalCard.com or text USAMC to 95577 to get one. The card image in this story can also be presented to the pharmacist to obtain Rx savings.
About USA Medical Card
USA Medical Card is a privately held company that was founded to address the need for affordable prescriptions by the estimated over 100 million people in America with inadequate prescription coverage. The company reaches out to families, individuals and seniors who are most at risk, and whose health would be compromised without the value their pharmacy discount card provides. It is able to offer these significant discounts due to the relationships they have established with top Pharmacy Benefit Managers with enormous negotiating power over prescription costs. Savings may vary by state, drug and pharmacy. USA Medical Card does not sell or share personal health information. The company adheres to Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
Media Inquiries: 1-914-629-0059 Reported by PRWeb 8 hours ago.
Miramar Beach, FL (PRWEB) August 04, 2015
It is National Psoriasis Awareness Month, and we are reminded that 7.5 million people are living with psoriatic disease and its uncomfortable symptoms such as dry, itching, burning or soreness of skin that may crack or bleed.
Typically, people who suffer from psoriasis bounce from medication to medication before they find what’s right for them. Then, what is effective may stop working, so they have to start all over again. This process can be lengthy and expensive. Some drugs may have magnificent results, but cost exorbitant amounts. Or, maybe an individual finally finds a successful treatment and it gets dropped by their insurance.
To help address these issues, USA Medical Card offers a free pharmacy discount card that makes popular psoriasis medications more affordable, including Clobetasol, Cyclosporine, Desoximetason, Fluocinonide, Methotrexate, Mometasone Furoate, Prednisone, Salicylic Acid, Tazorac, and Triamcinolone.
Some doctors may also recommend that people with psoriasis take daily vitamins and supplements, such as vitamin D3, biotin, and a multi-vitamin. If the doctor provides a signed prescription for these over-the-counter medications, they may also be eligible for savings with the card.
“We don’t think it’s acceptable that people with psoriasis suffer because they can’t pay for their prescription medications,” said USA Medical Card Co-Founder and President Jordan Sessler. “Our free card can help provide prescription discounts. Anyone can get the card and it can instantly save up to 75 percent on prescription psoriasis medications.”
The pre-activated card can be used by people with health insurance to complement their plans—to help fill in gaps of prescription coverage—or the uninsured. It is accepted at more than 60,000 pharmacies across the country—local, regional and national chains such as CVS, Costco, Target, Rite Aid, Walmart and Walgreens. Individuals can locate the participating pharmacy nearest to them by going to USAMedicalCard.com/pharmacy-locator.
Eligible Rx medications include those frequently prescribed for psoriasis, heart disease, hypothyroidism, asthma, diabetes and other health conditions. The card is commonly used on Zolpidem, Amoxicillin, Lisinopril, Metformin and thousands of other popular medications.
Treatment for psoriasis is a holistic process that involves medication, diet, exercise, and healthy habits. It is important for people to remain positive and keep looking for methods that work best for them. USA Medical Card aims to keep treatment options open by making psoriasis medications affordable.
Download a card at http://www.USAMedicalCard.com or text USAMC to 95577 to get one. The card image in this story can also be presented to the pharmacist to obtain Rx savings.
About USA Medical Card
USA Medical Card is a privately held company that was founded to address the need for affordable prescriptions by the estimated over 100 million people in America with inadequate prescription coverage. The company reaches out to families, individuals and seniors who are most at risk, and whose health would be compromised without the value their pharmacy discount card provides. It is able to offer these significant discounts due to the relationships they have established with top Pharmacy Benefit Managers with enormous negotiating power over prescription costs. Savings may vary by state, drug and pharmacy. USA Medical Card does not sell or share personal health information. The company adheres to Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
Media Inquiries: 1-914-629-0059 Reported by PRWeb 8 hours ago.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
