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

Self-Funded Pharmacy Plans Becoming More Popular Among Large Employers

$
0
0
UBA Survey Finds Self-Funded Pharmacy Plans Have Increased Nearly 30 percent in Five Years

Indianapolis, IN (PRWEB) September 03, 2015

As a result of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) triggering cost increases for fully insured employer-sponsored health insurance plans, more employers are moving to a self-funded model for pharmacy plans, particularly among large employers (1,000+ employees), according to data released from the 2014 United Benefit Advisors (UBA) Health Plan Survey.

UBA’s survey, the nation’s largest benchmarking survey with nearly 10,000 employers responding, shows that self-funded pharmacy plans have increased 29.8 percent (from 8.4 percent) in the last five years and fully insured pharmacy plans have decreased 2.7 percent (from 91.6 percent). Although fully funded pharmacy plans still dominate with 89.1 percent of the market, self-funded pharmacy plans now make up 10.9 percent of all plans, as of 2014.

“Despite the large amount of capital necessary to pay for fluctuating claim costs, self-funding can be more affordable for pharmacy benefits,” says a representative from TrueNorth Companies/MedOne, a UBA Partner Firm.

The survey finds that 66.1 percent of employers with 1,000+ employees have self-funded prescription plans, while nearly all small employer plans (1 to 99 employees) are fully insured. Regional differences do have a major impact, however. For example, 99 percent of California plans are fully insured with only the state’s largest employers offering self-funded plans. North-central employers, on the other hand, have more self-funded plans at 17.7 percent.

“North-central employers are more likely to self-fund due to the favorable climate for doing so – less competitive workforce, higher-than-average concern for costs, and a greater amount of manufacturing and agricultural businesses,” says TrueNorth Companies/MedOne.

STOP LOSS ALSO ON THE RISE

Not surprisingly, the increase in self-funded pharmacy plans coincides with an increase in stop loss coverage. UBA’s survey finds that 95.3 percent of self-funded pharmacy plans have specific stop loss coverage, an increase of 6.7 percent in the last five years (from 89.3 percent to 95.3 percent).

Similarly, the data shows that 76.7 percent of self-funded pharmacy plans have aggregate stop loss coverage, an increase of 9.1 percent in the last five years (from 70.3 percent to 76.7 percent).

Only 3.7 percent of pharmacy plans have neither specific nor aggregate stop loss coverage, a number that has decreased 64.1 percent in five years (from 10.3 percent to 3.7 percent). Virtually no plans have only aggregate coverage.

In 2014, the average specific stop loss level was $140,235, an increase of 13.8 percent in the last four years (from $123,188 to $140,235).

“With the no annual and lifetime maximum clauses that have come into play, the increased cost of specialty medications, and no pre-authorization, employers/payers have had no choice but to protect themselves by using specific and aggregate loss coverage with the pharmacy included,” says TrueNorth Companies/MedOne. “Particularly, now that pharmacy is being considered an essential health benefit and tracks to out-of-pocket maximums, the dollars spent in pharmacy are more important than ever to the plan’s overall performance.”

“Stop loss coverage is becoming more and more important,” says Mark Kmety, Senior Managing Director/Co-Practice Leader at Mesirow Financial, a UBA Partner Firm. “With the rapid emergence of so many high cost drugs, you can’t continue to provide a prescription drug benefit without stop loss coverage or not be aware of the risks without this protection. Stop-loss coverage is now more critical for financial protection.”

Download a copy of the 2014 UBA Health Plan Survey Executive Summary by visiting http://bit.ly/18jLkDX or contact UBA media representative, Carina Sammartino, at 760-331-3547 or csammartino(a)fishervista.com.

ABOUT THE UBA HEALTH PLAN SURVEY
Data in the 2014 UBA Health Plan Survey is based on responses from 9,950 employers sponsoring 16,467 health plans nationwide. The survey's focus is intended to provide a current snapshot of the nation's employers rather than covered employees. Results are applicable to the small to midsize market that makes up a majority of American businesses, as well as to larger employers, providing benchmarking data on a more detailed level than any other survey. The 2014 UBA Health Plan Survey offers more than just national data and UBA recommends that employers benchmark with local data, which is more effective when adjusting plan design, negotiating rates, and communicating value to employees.

For a customized benchmark report based on industry, region and business size, contact your local UBA Partner Firm. Reported by PRWeb 5 hours ago.

NMHIX initiative seeks to understand why uninsured remain that way

$
0
0
The New Mexico Health Insurance Exchange has released a new request for proposals (RFP) aimed at assessing "consumer behavior and stakeholder engagement" across the state. In short, NMHIX wants to better understand why the uninsured are remaining uninsured. According to Linda Wedeen, senior director of communications, marketing and outreach for NMHIX, while the organization has conducted polls and surveys about the health care market in New Mexico before, they've never engaged in an assessment at… Reported by bizjournals 2 hours ago.

SIGVARIS Supports the Lymphedema Treatment Act to Help Patients with Lymphedema

$
0
0
SIGVARIS recently supported efforts to improve patient health care through advocacy of the Lymphedema Treatment Act.

PEACHTREE CITY, GA (PRWEB) September 03, 2015

For many patients with lymphedema, health insurance does not cover the cost of graduated compression garments. However, graduated compression garments are an effective solution for reducing the medical costs associated with their lymphedema management.

Wound care and lymphedema specialist, Robyn Bjork, was recently sponsored by SIGVARIS for a unique opportunity to meet with Jim Cooper, a congressman in Nashville, Tenn., as part of a team including the Lymphedema Advocacy Group and lymphedema patients. The group provided education about lymphedema, shared personal stories about living with the condition, and explained how compression garments help manage lymphedema and prevent debilitating infections and hospitalizations.

“This was a real win in the fight to manage lymphedema,” says Bjork. “You could feel the sigh of relief and surge of joy from our group when Congressman Cooper responded to our plea with full support. It was such a privilege to actively lobby for this cause, and I’m grateful to SIGVARIS for supporting these efforts.”

Robyn Bjork is the associate director and global liaison for medical innovation at SIGVARIS. She is also a physical therapist who is a Certified Lymphedema & Wound Therapist, founder and CEO of the International Lymphedema & Wound Care Training Institute, and co‐founder and President of ILWTI Medical Missions, an organization dedicated to wound care and lymphedema treatment and training in underserved areas. She works at SIGVARIS to provide medical knowledge on the best treatment options for patients with lymphedema.

“We are proud to support patient needs in regards to better treatment and diagnosis for people with lymphedema and other leg diseases,” says Scot Dubé, SIGVARIS president and CEO for North America. “We believe that regular use of compression and early intervention can improve lives and reduce related long-term health care costs.”

SIGVARIS is a proud supporting sponsor of the Lymphedema Treatment Act. For more information, or to get actively involved, go to http://lymphedematreatmentact.org In addition to these efforts, SIGVARIS North America donates hundreds of compression products every year to patients in need in North and South America and is proud to support efforts to improve healthcare for patients worldwide.

To learn more about how compression products help with Lymphedema, please visit http://sigvarisusa.com. To learn more about ILWTI, please visit http://www.ilwti.com.

About SIGVARIS:
SIGVARIS® North America is part of an internationally active medical device group headquartered in Winterthur, Switzerland that focuses on the development, production and distribution of medical compression garments, including hosiery and socks. With distribution in more than 60 countries on six continents, SIGVARIS is recognized as a global industry leader in the area of compression therapy for the management of chronic venous disorders. SIGVARIS product lines include: SIGVARIS MEDICAL, SIGVARIS WELL BEING and SIGVARIS SPORTS. Our U.S. manufacturing plant is located in Peachtree City, Ga. In 2014, SIGVARIS celebrated its 150th Anniversary. For more information, please visit http://www.sigvarisusa.com. SIGVARIS is a registered trademark of SIGVARIS AG, CH‐9014 St. Gallen/Switzerland and in many countries worldwide. Reported by PRWeb 53 minutes ago.

New Rules Bar Transgender Discrimination In Health Care

$
0
0
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is making a major push for transgender rights by prohibiting health insurance companies and medical providers from discriminating against patients because of their gender identities. 

Under a proposed regulation issued by the Department of Health and Human Services Thursday, transgender people would be entitled to equal treatment in health care and would gain the legal right to make civil rights claims against insurers, doctors, hospitals and others who deny them coverage or necessary care because they are transgender. That includes forbidding health insurers from categorically excluding treatments related to gender transitions.

Transgender people can face significant barriers to getting medical care, as insurers often won't cover treatments such as hormone therapy and mental health counseling, especially when this care is related to transitioning, and health care providers sometimes refuse care. According to a recent survey, more than 4 in 10 female-to-male transgender people reported discrimination in the health care system.

"This proposed rule is an important step to strengthen protections for people who have often been subject to discrimination in our health care system," Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell said in a press release. 

The health care regulation is the latest in a series of actions President Barack Obama has taken to advance transgender rights, including tangible steps like making it easier for people to get new passports that reflect their gender identity and symbolic gestures like mentioning transgender people during his State of the Union address.

The Affordable Care Act already prohibited health insurance companies and medical providers from discriminating against patients based on sex, and the new rules would explicitly extend those protections to transgender people. 

Previously, the administration maintained that protections for transgender people were inherent in the Affordable Care Act's anti-discrimination rules, but advocates urged the Department of Health and Human Services to issue a specific declaration. The regulation announced Thursday is merely a proposal, and must be finalized after the department receives public comment.

The new rules don't force insurers to cover any specific treatment -- including gender confirmation surgery -- but do require them to demonstrate their coverage policies aren't designed to discriminate against people because of their gender identity. The rules also provide patients a legal recourse if they believe they aren't being treated equally.

These stronger protections for transgender people apply to all federal health programs operated by the Department of Health and Human Services, such as Medicare and Medicaid; all insurance companies that sell policies on the Obamacare exchanges or cover Medicare or Medicaid patients; and any hospital or doctor who receives payments for treating Medicare and Medicaid patients.

That leaves out most employer-sponsored health insurance plans, which are the most common source of coverage. The rules also would leave in place exemptions for religious organizations, and would preserve the "conscience clause" allowing medical providers to ignore the rules because of religious beliefs. 

 

-- 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 Is What It's Like To Live On $2 A Day

$
0
0
What's it like to have no source of income? That's life for millions of Americans, although the political debate barely acknowledges that reality. When conversations about poverty take place in Washington, they typically focus on the working poor, rather than the non-working poor.

A new book titled $2.00 A Day: Living On Almost Nothing In America seeks to change the debate. Written by well-respected social scientists Kathryn J. Edin of Johns Hopkins University and H. Luke Shaefer of the University of Michigan, $2.00 A Day looks at the poorest of the poor.

One prominent reviewer has already likened Edin and Shaefer's book to Michael Harrington's The Other America. Many historians believe that 1962 classic of journalism and sociology helped galvanize support for the War on Poverty -- an effort that, for all of its shortcomings, substantially improved living standards for some of the most destitute Americans.Nobody expects a similar effort today. But a presidential campaign is underway, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the Clinton-era program that replaced the old welfare system, is up for reauthorization. Sooner or later, the topic of extreme poverty is bound to arise in the national conversation. A few politicians might even be interested in doing something about it.

So what would that entail?  What's making these people so poor? Why aren't they working? How do they get by and pay for basic necessities? And is there any reason to think public policy could make a difference?

The Huffington Post put those questions to Shaefer. What follows is a lightly edited transcript of that conversation.

*What inspired the book?*

My co-author, Kathy Edin, has been visiting with poor families for more than two decades, and a few years ago, she found herself going into more and more homes where families had no cash income coming in -- something she hadn't seen much of before. Some had food stamps, the program we now call SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program]. A few had housing help. But there was no cash coming into the home, and a lot of the time there was not much hope of getting any.

Kathy mentioned this to me, since I'm a bit of a data nerd. And we decided to see whether the best available data would show an uptick of families living on virtually nothing. As a measuring stick, we used the World Bank's standard for poverty -- $2 per person per day. What we found frankly shocked us. As of 2011, in any given month there were 1.5 million families, with about 3 million children, with cash incomes below this extreme threshold.

When you add in some important non-cash programs, it puts a dent in this number. But we're still very much heading in the wrong direction.

*That's a lot of people, for sure. But is the problem actually getting worse? Are there more extremely poor Americans than there were before?*

Yes. In 1996, about 1.7 percent of all households with kids were under that $2-a-day threshold. It was up to 4 percent in 2011. That's about 1 in every 25 families.HuffPost infographic by Alissa Scheller 

 

*Let's talk about exactly why and how these Americans got so poor. To what extent is it their own personal qualities and failings, and to what extent is it the system around them? Or, to put it a bit more crudely, are these people lazy and irresponsible? Or do they have the deck stacked against them somehow?*

I think Kathy and I were both surprised to find that most of the people we talked to were workers. They had been working -- and wanted to work -- but because of the instability in their jobs and the instability in their family lives, they had lost a job and things had spiraled out of control from there. When we looked back to the nationally representative data, the story it told was much the same. Loss of a job was a primary precursor to a spell of $2-a-day poverty.

*You mentioned family instability. Get a little more specific here. What's going on in these families?*

I want to be clear that this isn't a story about poor families in general, but among those at the very bottom. We found a lot of examples where these people had turned to families and friends for help, and it turned out really badly. These families and friends were actively part of the problem.

One woman, a mother, lost her job because she missed work because a housemate had used up all the gas in the shared car. We also saw many, many examples of abuse -- physical, emotional and sexual. The people we studied are extremely vulnerable, often in shock, and this can lead to victimization.

*What about their employment situation, which you also mentioned? Is the problem that they can't find jobs? Or that they can't find good jobs that pay decently and reliably?*

We saw a lot of examples of wage theft, labor law violations and just plain unsafe working conditions. Take the example of Jennifer Hernandez -- that's a pseudonym, like in the rest of the book.

Jennifer, who lives in Chicago, finally found a house cleaning job after months of searching for one while living at a succession of homeless shelters. But as winter got colder, she ended up mostly cleaning boarded-up foreclosures, trying to scrub clean empty houses and prepare them for resale. There was no heat and no running water. Her team would work in their coats and take their buckets up to the nearest gas station to refill in the bathroom. Eventually she started getting sick, and as she started to call in sick too often, her hours got cut. Eventually, she decided she needed to leave the job so she could get healthy and take the necessary time to look for another one.

Fluctuations in work hours are really common, and there's a rising prevalence of "on-call" shifts -- when workers have to be ready to go in if needed, but they're not paid unless they're called in. Shifting the timing of work from week to week is hard to handle when you have kids. It all adds up.

*You picked 1996 as a date of comparison, and that's right before welfare reform took effect. How much is this a story about changes in the welfare system, as opposed to changes in the economy?*

We think it's definitely a matter of both, but there's no denying this is linked to the changes we made to our welfare system. In the data, we see that the old cash welfare system [Aid to Families with Dependent Children] was lifting more than a million families above the $2-a-day threshold in early 1996. In many parts of the country, the replacement program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, is all but nonexistent, with only a handful of people getting help.

To us, the two things you mention are linked. The new safety net is supposed to be based on work. But work -- the kind of work these people can get -- makes for a very shaky foundation.

*What about welfare reform has made this happen? Is it TANF's time limits? The cash value of the assistance people are getting? The way states are using their allotted moneys from the block grant?*

It's a little bit of all-of-the-above. But I think a lot of it boils down to how the program is structured. The law puts some pretty stiff requirements on states, in terms of making benefits available only to people who are working. And if the states don't spend money on helping people with cash assistance, they get to use the funds for other, related purposes with fewer restrictions.

So the states have both an easy way to keep people off the rolls and a motive to do so. In some states, they've reallocated TANF dollars to things like the child welfare and foster care systems, which are certainly worthy but on which they would probably have spent money anyway. In these cases, TANF is acting as a welfare program for states instead of people.

We also heard of people being turned away from TANF, and we are dead sure these people were actually eligible. We also heard a lot of people who didn't even know about TANF, because it's become so uncommon.*Did welfare reform do any good at all? The idea was to get people back into the workforce, partly by supplying them with supports they didn't have before. Are there signs that other people -- maybe not the ones in your book -- are better off?*

That's an important question. In a lot of ways, we increased aid to poor families during the 1990s, most importantly with an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit. The EITC gives a big wage supplement to low-income working families, a group that didn't get much help before that. We expanded health insurance for low-wage working families too, with the passage of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. All of these things have done a lot to improve the lives of poor families with children where the adults work, when they are working, and that's an important piece of the puzzle. Kathy's got a book on the EITC called It's Not Like I'm Poor. We think that's a companion piece to our book.

*But $2.00 a Day is about the folks who we think were left behind. Now there's less aid for families at the very bottom, and the aid that's available comes in the form of in-kind assistance, not cash. In effect, we argue that the transformation of the safety net in the 1990s largely took us in the right direction, but it's incomplete, with dire consequences. We think it's time to finish the job.*

*One obvious question is how these people and their families get by. These people aren't dying in the streets from hunger and exposure, right?*

We really found that the families we followed were very entrepreneurial in finding ways to get that little bit of cash to keep going to the next day. Selling blood plasma, selling your food stamps, sometimes selling sex -- whatever it takes. But these survival strategies come with a lot of risks. Many of them constitute felonies. And they take time, which pulls people away from the work of finding a job in the formal economy.

There is also a lot of hunger, too. Rae McCromick from Cleveland sometimes goes for days without eating, and Tabitha, who recently turned 18 and spent much of her childhood in $2-a-day poverty, said that going hungry makes you "feel like you want to be dead."

*So let's pretend that Hillary Clinton or Paul Ryan or, heck, Donald Trump called you in and said, 'Hey, we want to help these people.' What would you suggest they try? How much of this seems possible in a world of constrained government spending and a near total lack of bipartisan trust?*

One thing that came out very clearly when we talked to families was their desire to work -- and the extent to which working made other problems better. For example, we'd hear a lot from parents with mental health issues that, when they were working, those issues seemed most at bay. When they had jobs, they had a routine, a way to contribute. That's why our first policy priority really should be to expand work opportunity for families at the very bottom of the labor market.

I think there are ways of doing that that could get bipartisan support, even in this political environment. There was a temporary federal program a few years back that gave states funds to partner with employers to create jobs for people like those in our book. A majority of states participated, and it was well-liked by the states, participants and employers. Let's start by bringing that back.

But simply creating jobs may not be enough. Some of these folks need some support in order to maintain jobs. That will require some new investment. But from what they tell us -- and there's some solid research to back this up -- these programs could pay for themselves, frankly, in improved outcomes. One program that provided work supports and a guaranteed job in Milwaukee significantly increased marriage rates among never-married mothers. The program didn't have anything to do with marriage! It was all about work!

Clearly we have to do something about the affordable housing crisis in this country. And we should have a functioning cash safety net. But in my mind, it all starts with expanding work opportunity.

-- 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 21 hours ago.

In Defense of Planned Parenthood: My Personal Story

$
0
0
When I first moved to New York City, I knew one person. A beautiful, well-educated young woman, working as a struggling model, who at age 24 had never had a PAP test or a gynecological exam.

She did not have health insurance. Was afraid the doctor visit would be too expensive. Was terrified of seeing a gynecologist, having been raised Catholic, still a virgin, and fearing the process of such an intimate exam. She did not know where to go. She did not have a personal doctor in New York, having also moved here from Miami, only a few short years earlier.

I encouraged her to book an appointment at our local Planned Parenthood in New York City, the Margaret Sanger Center on Bleeker Street. There she received excellent care, a full battery of tests, including a breast exam, by professional, compassionate doctors. For $140.

She was not pregnant. She did not need an abortion.

She needed good, quality healthcare, done by compassionate and caring doctors (hers happened to be a woman) who would walk this young lady through the process, calm her fears, and give her the healthcare that she needed.

Now my own, more personal story. I was recently traveling in Northern California. I still live in New York City. I am a mother of a seven-year-old daughter, and I am fortunate enough to have access to some of the best doctors in the world here. My obstetrics and gynecology doctors here deliver the babies and provide healthcare for some of the most well-known ladies in the world.

But I wasn't in New York City. I was in Sacramento and I didn't know a soul.

I was feeling unwell, and I knew that something was wrong with my body. It was a Saturday, in the summer, and I had made the horrible and embarrassing mistake that caused me to have a feminine health issue (a mistake many women, including my own ob/gyn admitted to having done once before too). I was terrified that if left unattended during the duration of my trip, I could develop toxic shock syndrome, which could land me in the hospital and left untreated could lead to a fatal infection within 48 hours, as later confirmed by my own doctor.

My first thought was: even if I do call my doctor back home, she can't help me.
My second thought was to Google the nearest Planned Parenthood in the area.

With all of the options I have, being an affluent New Yorker, I knew that I could trust Planned Parenthood to give me the urgent care that I needed, in any town, in our great country.

They would be open on a Saturday. Clean, reliable, available; and they absolutely were.

I was not pregnant. I did not need an abortion. But boy was I happy that Planned Parenthood existed; I could have died.

An emergency room was of course an option, but I would have waited hours, possibly expose myself to other illnesses and God only knows what that little mistake would have cost me.

Planned Parenthood, *is not* an "abortion clinic," contrary to what many are brainwashed to believe. Only three percent of what they do is terminate pregnancies.

Also contrary to what many would like you to think, no federal funds are used to pay for abortions.

Those two statements are just facts. Period. No matter what politicians with agendas would try to lead you to believe. *Any politician who tells you otherwise, is lying to you.*

The most recent Planned Parenthood fetal tissue videos, I must admit, were initially jarring. I can see why people would be upset. I am a pro-choice woman, on the side of life, who has supported Planned Parenthood both vocally and financially for over a decade. I am determined to continue to do so.

Why? Because after my emotional reaction to the videos, I listened, and actually thought about it.

Abortion is legal. I am grateful for that and will defend a womans' right to choose until my final days. Fetal tissue being donated for medical research is also legal. If this weren't about politics, why not just fight to ban the use of fetal tissue for medical studies? Why defund Planned Parenthood completely?

This is the big red flag, and how you know that this is just another way to chip away at womans' rights, and access to affordable health care. This "gotcha" video goes far beyond fetal tissue research, it is quite simply, old business-as-usual politics.

Do I think that what those Planned Parenthood employees did was right on those videos? Initially, I will admit -- it did make me uncomfortable. I was disappointed that an organization I loved so much had seemingly let me down, I felt, morally. That they had not been more careful, and respectful of a woman's body, and that these particular employees had not upheld the values and standards I had always known that Planned Parenthood upheld.

Then I thought some more. The mistake they made was not in the transaction of sending off fetal tissue for medical research, it was perhaps in the way the doctors discussed it. Think about it. Whether you are for or against a woman's right to have an abortion, what do you think should happen to that tissue after it is removed? Is a garbage can a better place for it? A red medical waste bag? Should you burn it? What do you think happens to tissue that is removed from a body after surgery? Heart surgery, biopsies, tumors? Where does that tissue go?

Now, I know that this is a highly sensitive subject. It should be treated as such. The beliefs on both sides of this fight have very personal, legitimate, strong opinions and beliefs, and *both *should be respected. As a mother, I hear you. I empathize with your opinion.

However, abortion is legal, and that fetal tissue is going to medical research. Medical research to perhaps find a cure for serious illnesses that an infant may be born with. That fetal tissue, by being examined rather than discarded may be the key to cure Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, or perhaps cancer. This argument has been made with stem cell research also, which has unlocked mysteries and provided great strides in finding a cure for Parkinson's disease and many other illnesses.

Essentially, of an emotionally painful and difficult experience, good can come. Scientific, medical progress. We can not experiment, nor would we ever, on live babies. But fetal tissue can unlock the door to saving millions of lives of other children.

Planned Parenthood has made it clear that any monetary exchange was merely for the transportation and care of this tissue. There is overhead, it must be absorbed somehow.

Planned Parenthood is a non profit organization, and despite what many misinformed may believe, let me state this again: taxpayer money is not used to fund abortions. The Hyde Amendment, which was passed in 1976 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s1488/text, prevents federal money from funding abortions.

So how, exactly, is "defunding Planned Parenthood" anything but an attack on women receiving contraception, wellness information, breast exams, pap exams, cancer screenings, counseling and keeping women healthy?

Planned Parenthood provides excellent, accessible, medical care for millions of women. Women who have no other options and some like me, who do.

You see, Planned Parenthood is actually the opposite of what these anti-women politicians are trying to tell you: Planned Parenthood is in the business of keeping women strong, healthy, and with safe affordable options. So that if we choose, we may bring healthy babies into the world.

Caring for their mothers while providing a safe alternative for those who choose to take control of their own bodies, and decide when the time is right for them to start or continue to grow a family, is what they do.

They are the ONLY option for millions of pregnant women who want to keep their babies, but do not have access to doctors to perform sonograms and the many tests that are needed to ensure that their baby is healthy and growing strong. Although, each affiliate differs with levels of prenatal care, perhaps due to their already limited funding, they do also offer counseling and help mothers without insurance, get insurance, and then they refer them to top care medical clinics where they can carry out a safe pregnancy, and deliver healthy babies.

Planned Parenthood is in the business of healthy moms, and healthy babies.
They are in the business of strong, informed, healthy women.

*That is who Planned Parenthood is.*

And if you take that away from us, you take away a critical option, that many mothers, many women, will no longer have.

I don't know about you, but I am not interested in having a group of old male politicians decide what happens to my body, or have the government tell me what my options are for self-care and wellness. I want options.

*DEFUNDING PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS A HUGE MISTAKE*, and we must never allow that to happen.

They provide invaluable medical care to all socio-economic groups of women. They serve all who enter and need care. They provide information, knowledge and contraception. Want fewer abortions? Me too. That is where you start.

Planned Parenthood is a critical resource for all women. Pro-choice, anti-choice, they are here to keep women healthy. They are an organization that we should fight for, as women. *An organization that I will fight for, and I am asking you to fight alongside me*, because you never know when you, or your daughters, may need them someday.

I will not stop supporting them and fighting for them until they are protected. Just as they have protected millions of women like me, before me, and after me.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 20 hours ago.

New Smart Phone Food Apps Are Not One Size Fits All--Will Insurance Cover Them?

$
0
0
Will health insurance cover the kind of smart apps crucial for some but not all? (AP Photo/Richard Drew) One night this spring my 10 year old son began to vomit for no apparent reason. He turned pale, began to sweat, and broke out in an ultra-fine rash all over his body. It [...] Reported by Forbes.com 16 hours ago.

America's Biggest Health Insurance Providers

$
0
0
Reported by Forbes.com 16 hours ago.

Can Employers Help Workers Better Manage Their Money?

$
0
0
Despite an improved economy and rising employment, the picture is far from rosy for the average low- to moderate-income worker. Wages have stagnated or fallen. One in four jobs pays a low-wage of less than $23,283 a year and often lacks benefits such as health insurance, retirement accounts and paid sick leave.

For these workers, steady employment does not translate into financial security. Even families with solid middle class incomes struggle to save for a more prosperous future. A remarkable 44 percent of U.S. households are "liquid asset poor," meaning they don't have enough savings to live at the poverty level for just three months if faced with a job loss or other emergency, according to research by my organization, the Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED). One in five of these families earns $56,111 to $91,356 annually.

These households face a level of financial stress that not only stifles their financial futures, but can also affect job performance. Stress -- especially financial stress -- has long been associated with diminished worker productivity, including more missed days of work. One study found that 15 percent of workers face so much financial stress that their productivity suffers. Significant links have also been found between financial stress and personal and work satisfaction.

Employers can't afford to ignore this problem. Helping workers better manage their finances and save more effectively should be part of any comprehensive work benefits package.

The workplace is an ideal setting for addressing financial challenges since many employees already meet with human resource or finance personnel to discuss personal finance matters such as direct deposit, retirement benefits and health insurance.

A survey by the Society for Human Resource Management found that a little more than half of employers do offer at least some type of financial education to those on their payroll. But employers need to do more than provide a few lunch-hour financial education sessions to workers.

Research consistently shows that programs focused solely on financial literacy rarely lead to behavioral changes. Instead, workplace financial wellness programs should build financial knowledge while providing the services and resources employees need to effectively navigate their financial lives. These programs need to help workers become financially capable, not simply more financially literate.

Offering employees the services of a financial coach is a good place to start. Coaches assist clients in changing their financial behaviors and taking small steps to improve finances. For example, a state-sponsored program in Delaware called $tand By Me is used by employers to offer customized financial coaching that meets the needs of individual workers. Results show significant payoffs for employees, including reduced debt and improved credit scores among participants. Employers who have made a financial coach available report increased job retention and happier employees.

Workplace-based financial capability programs can also play an important role in connecting workers with appropriate and affordable financial products. This includes helping consumers gain access to bank accounts, non-predatory loans and retirement savings accounts. The State Employee Credit Union in North Carolina, for instance, offers short-term loans with low interest rates to state employees as alternatives to predatory payday loans. This allows employees to cover unexpected costs without being charged exorbitant fees and interest rates that trap them in a cycle of debt.

Finally, employers should connect workers to programs that encourage savings. According to the U.S. Financial Diaries just 7% of households are able to meet their emergency savings goals. Programs like myRA, which is administered by the U.S. Department of Treasury, allow employees to automatically contribute to a savings account through payroll deductions. Although the accounts are primarily for retirement savings, contributions can be withdrawn at any time without penalties.

Offering financial capability services to workers should not be seen as a substitute for quality jobs that provide a livable wage. Instead, they should be part of a comprehensive package of workplace benefits that provide employees with the tools they need to succeed financially and become more effective on the job.

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

CenseoHealth Supports Health Insurance Marketplace Plans with Health Assessment Programs

$
0
0
DALLAS, Sept. 3, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- CenseoHealth an industry leader of physician-performed health assessment solutions for Medicare Advantage plans, has partnered with Health Insurance Marketplace (HIX) and Commercial plans in 2015 to provide their members health assessments at... Reported by PR Newswire 16 hours ago.

A.M. Best Special Report: Top U.S. Health Insurers Looking to Increase Scale and Diversify Operations, Revenue Streams

$
0
0
A.M. Best Special Report: Top U.S. Health Insurers Looking to Increase Scale and Diversify Operations, Revenue Streams OLDWICK, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--In the wake of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), there has been a flurry of announcements of planned consolidation talks and agreements among several of the industry’s largest health insurance companies in recent months. A.M. Best attributes this increased interest to the combination of the need for diversification given the lack of organic growth in the commercial/employer sector, the recent expansion in government-sponsored programs, such as Reported by Business Wire 3 hours ago.

Free Flu Shots Offered for Uninsured in Stamford

$
0
0
Free Flu Shots Offered for Uninsured in Stamford Patch Stamford, CT -- Flu shots will be available at no cost for eligible residents over the age of 18 without health insurance. Reported by Patch 1 hour ago.

Free Flu Shots Offered for Uninsured in Norwalk

$
0
0
Free Flu Shots Offered for Uninsured in Norwalk Patch Norwalk, CT -- Flu shots will be available at no cost for eligible residents over the age of 18 without health insurance. Reported by Patch 57 minutes ago.

Free Flu Shots Offered for Uninsured in Danbury

$
0
0
Free Flu Shots Offered for Uninsured in Danbury Patch Danbury, CT -- Flu shots will be available at no cost for eligible residents over the age of 18 without health insurance. Reported by Patch 1 hour ago.

My Stolen Life

$
0
0
My handbag was stolen two months ago. It happened in seconds in a mall in Turin , Italy. I never saw the thief, and neither did my husband, sitting two meters from the scene of the crime a fast food Japanese restaurant. 

How is such criminal skill even possible? There was almost nobody around.  Now, after two months, I do vaguely remember though a nice young woman, sitting with a child, next to my table. Was it she who grabbed my bag off the back of a chair and escaped with it?  

A week later, I read that a gang of four women, convicted of serial handbag thefts in Italy, was finally put behind the bars.  Even though found guilty several times, they were always released from custody because they had either small children or were pregnant.  So maybe they relied on the handbags of other women to feed their numerous children?! 

But that would be a topic for a novel, and not what I want to write about. I will focus on this accident from a different angle. Because it can only be compared to an accident, a personal disaster, as if a truck ran over me.  No use asking, was it my fault?  Should I blame myself for leaving my chair to order a second beer to go with my sushi?  And why on earth did I center my earthly life inside one rather small handbag?   Why did I visit  a shopping mall taking with me all of my traveling documents, credit cards, checkbook,  USB backup, health insurance card, iphone, address book, prescriptions, etc. 

I used to carry everything in one bag during the bombings in Belgrade, Serbia, or during political demos when I might have been arrested. But in those dire-straits years, in the Nineties, my home was never bombed and I was not jailed by the Serbian police. I didn't even lose my bag. 

However, in 2004, during a pleasant event in Amsterdam, in peace, my handbag was stolen in a bar.  I was traveling, so I lost pretty much lost the same set of documents, meaning all I could carry to support my life on the road.   I lost cash, credit cards, phone, some jewelry, my diary, my address book, my passport, my visa.  But the damage I suffered 11 years ago cannot be compared to the damage I suffered a month ago.  The thieves have gotten much better.

Within half an hour, they managed to rush to ATM machines with my bank cards and, without a PIN or a credit limit, they robbed the banks of far more money than I could legally withdraw myself.  These "forchetta" hacks, which involve some kind of ATM hacking gadget, are getting pretty well known.  But of course the banks don't want to take responsibility for these thefts.  They prefer to pretend that the ATMs are secure, and want me to absorb the loss.

Then there are travel documents.  In 2004 I could replace them without much fuss, but this is an age of terrorism.  So, far as my documents are concerned: Italian, Serbian and American: for each piece of plastic that I've carried for years on end, I have to go to the original country to have my biometrics redone.  I must pay all the  uncomfortable costs of travel without  any documents, while waiting for the new ones, being interrogated about my life! As if I weren't already in their databases; as if they had never heard of me, as if I had never existed!  I was robbed, so I am the suspect.

This disaster crippled my daily life for the following two months.  I still cannot travel as I want, work, or pay .  I realize how vulnerable we are nowadays, since we're supported by data and electronic gates and barriers. My USB key contained non encrypted backup of my computer's hard disk. I carefully backed up all my books, essays, mail, films,  photos, music  and various secrets. Published and unpublished.  I am exposed totally, these thieves, if they bother to look, can know everything about me.  They have my email addresses, they know my friends and foes.   They even have the keys to my front door.

In some ways, losing access to your home and documents is worse than having your home and documents physically destroyed.  Because it means that someone can interfere with my life, they have stolen the power to spy on me at will.  My daily life has been hacked, and somebody else is, if not living my stolen life through fake ID, then at least surveilling it. I live in subconscious fear of blackmail, threats, violence!

The police told me theft like mine happens everyday, to many people.  And indeed, sometimes hackers steal entire databases of people's names, addresses, credit cards -- colossal leaks of a quarter of a million people at once.  Even American spies with security clearances have had their security declarations stolen by the Chinese.  How humiliating to be a SONY executive and have your business emails leaked by tools of the North Koreans.  Or to be an activist stalked by political enemies who want to aggressively "dox" you and your family.  

Will I ever get my dear purse back?  Often the victims get their documents back through some weird channels, or just from the trash collectors.  But not in my case.

I am still waiting for the second shoe to drop. I have a feeling this is not the end. It depends on the fantastic skill of the thieves and my legal ability to fight them back and re-assert my existence to bankers, police and immigration bureaus. I could write a novel on a twilight struggle of this kind.  

One feels that the stakes are growing and the pace of the trouble is accelerating.  Still, I will never forget that July 6th between 1.30 and 2.00 PM.  A very close friend of mine died that very day at that very hour.  It was an unlucky, scarifying moment, although no one killed me, no one struck me or bruised me,  I was stripped of my virtual identity.  The impact of  that loss is like a virtual rape, a small death in itself.

Oh yes, one small detail: during the war times I carried sleeping pills in my bag: enough to put me to sleep forever, if I had to avoid torture.  (I had read that Freud family did the same during World War II, and it seemed like a wise precaution.)   Sometimes, in conditions of real fear, it is a psychological comfort to feel that one can put a clean end to one's self.    But what about my virtual life?  What unknown antitheft device could ever put a clean end to that?

-- 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 33 minutes ago.

These 34 State Lawmakers are Opting Out of the General Assembly Health Insurance Plan

$
0
0
These 34 State Lawmakers are Opting Out of the General Assembly Health Insurance Plan Patch Yorkville, IL -- Latest list of Illinois state representatives and senators foregoing their health insurance plans. Reported by Patch 22 hours ago.

Burnout: Tips on How to Overcome the Feelings of Helplessness, Loss of Motivation and Stress at Your Job

$
0
0
Burnout has been described as the erosion of the soul, a cross between helplessness and hopelessness, a severe loss of motivation and/or a mismatch between the requirements of the employer and the capabilities of the employee. Burnout can come about as the result of stress, low morale, poor working conditions, a bad boss, or simply having too much to do and not enough time to do it.

Burnout can occur at every level of an organization from the mailroom to the boardroom. It's commonly found among helping professionals like nurses, teachers, and social workers but it is also found among police officers, lawyers, EMS workers, factory workers, white collar executives, customer service people, middle-level managers, and salespeople.
The profile of an employee who suffers from burnout may surprise you. It is often a person who cares deeply about his or her job but hits a roadblock somewhere along the way and simply stops caring -- sometimes as a matter of self-defense. And it is often the rising stars within the organization that are at the greatest risk for burning out. These are people whose careers were on fire at one point -- fueled by idealism, dreams, and the desire to really make a difference in the world.

Sometimes burnout occurs when the workload is overwhelming. The deadlines keep coming, the next crisis is always looming on the horizon and the employee never gets a sense of completion at the end of the day. In this competitive atmosphere there is often an emphasis on quantity over quality. Add downsizing, and inadequate training to the mix and you have a perfect recipe for burnout.

In bureaucratic organizations, burnout can result from too little stimulus. Workers complain that the job has gone stale. That it's repetitive, monotonous and simply doesn't challenge them enough. Bureaucracy and red tape only add to this burned out workers sense of futility. Eventually he or she just loses interest, doesn't care and begins biding his or her time -- doing just enough to get by. These workers are called ROAD warriors. Retired on active duty.

Burned out workers feel cynical, withdrawn, exhausted, ineffective, unmotivated, angry, depressed, and stressed.

The five working conditions that can lead to burnout are:
· Too much to do and not enough time to do it. You feel overwhelmed all the time, like Sisyphus rolling a huge boulder up a hill every day only to have it roll back down every night.
· Not enough control. You feel powerless and not in control of simple ground level decisions that affect how you do your job. Your hands are tied.
· Not worth it. Low pay, unpaid overtime or the salary isn't worth the hassles.
· Treated unfairly. Raises, perks or promotions are handed out unfairly.
· Value conflict. Your values and your employers values don't match up.
*What can I do about burnout right now?*
1. Take a one-month vacation or leave of absence. School teachers suffering from burnout often recover every year over summer break.
4. Work on something new. Find something that you perceive as challenging and see if management will let you do it. Try taking on a task that takes you outside your comfort zone.
7. Create a support group. If you don't want to switch jobs but there are issues that need addressing at your company, like unsafe working conditions, get together with other workers and see if you can get your grievances addressed.
10. Change jobs. Look for a new employer with employee-friendly policies like family leave, on-site daycare, health insurance, and retirement. Chances are these are places that care about your welfare.
13. Reinvent yourself. Personal growth and development is often a cure for burnout. You are a work in progress. Find a new hobby, enroll in a community college class that teaches you some new marketable skill.

-- 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 21 hours ago.

Born in the U.S.A.

$
0
0
Every year, four million children are born in this country and gain the right of American citizenship. But if several candidates for president and Members of Congress have their way, they would end this constitutionally guaranteed right and throw the entire system into chaos by requiring a parent's immigration or citizenship status to be verified by some new government bureaucracy prior to the issuance of a birth certificate for every single child born in this country.

And let's be clear at the outset: there is really only one group of people in this country that would be harmed by this proposal - children.

If we wish to continue to be a world leader in a global economy, we must embrace all of our nation's children - regardless of their gender, race, income, parents' immigration status, etc. These babies and toddlers are absolutely critical to America's future success, but only if we, as a society, support and invest in our children and don't cast a chunk of them into the shadows as potential stateless non-citizens.

As demographer William Frey explains in his book Diversity Explosion: How New Racial Demographics Are Remaking America:
. . .a growing diverse, globally connected minority population will be absolutely necessary to infuse the aging American labor force with vitality and to sustain populations in many parts of the country that are facing population declines. Rather than being feared, America's new diversity - poised to reinvigorate the country at a time when other developed nations are facing advanced aging and population loss - can be celebrated.
Consequently, there is a critically important agenda that our nation needs to be discussing with respect the lives of our children. The next generation's ability to successfully contribute to our country's future will depend on the opportunities they are given and the skills they have developed.

Fortunately, Americans understand that we need to be making investments in children in order to guarantee a bright future for the nation. In an American Viewpoint poll in December 2013, over 75 percent of voters said they found the following two statements as convincing reasons why our nation should support increased investments in children.
· "Spending on children and education now in an investment in jobs for the future by guaranteeing that our children will be prepared to compete in a global economy, develop the innovations and technologies that will power the America's economy in the future, and have the skills for the jobs of tomorrow."· "America is a great nation because we have always investment in the future. But now, some in Congress want to cut investments in children's education, health care, and nutrition. Politicians should remember what makes this country a success and create a budget that invests in the future: our children."And, Americans are deeply concerned about our children's future. According to a George Washington University Battleground Poll in May by the Tarrance Group and Lake Research, by a 69-25 percent margin, American voters said they do not believe the next generation will be better off economically than the current generation.

Unfortunately, rather than focusing on an agenda to improve the lives of our nation's children, to lift the 1 in 5 children in this country out of poverty, and to invest in their education, early childhood, health coverage, and safety, some politicians are pushing a political agenda built on fear that is both anti-immigrant and racially divisive. Columnist Michael Gerson describes the agenda, as personified by Donald Trump as a "War on America's Demography." As Gerson says:
. . .by leading off with the issue of immigration, by proposing to narrow the protections of the 14th Amendment, by representing undocumented Mexicans as rapists, criminals and sources of infectious disease, by pledging to construct a wall across a continent, by promising the roundup and forced deportation of 11 million people, Trump has made looking on the bright side pretty difficult.
Trump's agenda seeks to "resuscitate a century-old nativism. . . ," says Frey. "Given that the United States is undergoing a demographic diversity explosion, our workforce - our very future - is tied to people that Trump is rallying support against."

Some child advocates are hoping to avoid what is a rather nasty debate, but we must engage in that discussion because, with 1 in 4 of our nation's children living in immigrant families, punitive measures directed at immigrants will disproportionately harm children. Specifically, Trump's call for repeal of birthright citizenship - echoed in a blog by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) for The Hill - negatively harms just one group: children born in the U.S.A.

It is shocking that the nation, which just has been engaged in a very important policy debate about the benefits of the DREAM Act, is suddenly discussing the possibility of repealing the Constitution's Citizenship Clause, which states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

Ending birthright citizenship would subject hundreds of thousands of children every year to potential deportation, statelessness, or force them into the shadows of society. In the words of Trump, "We're going to keep the families together, but they have to go." As for the children who have lived their whole lives in America and know no other life or country, Trump demands, "They have to go."

Reporter Alec MacGillis perfectly summed up how rapid and unfortunate for children this debate has shifted.


Remarkable how fast the GOP debate has shifted from whether to grant citizenship to kids not born in US to stripping it from those who were.

— Alec MacGillis (@AlecMacGillis) August 19, 2015


Explaining the ramifications of such a policy change, Garrett Epps, contributing editor for The Atlantic, says:
[Trump] proposes a policy that will by design intern innocent children who are American citizens, and remove them to countries where they have never before set foot. On this scale, we are not talking about immigration policy; we are talking (I don't have time for political correctness here) about a crime against humanity.
To justify such a radical policy change, Sen. Vitter wrongly claims that ending birthright citizenship is necessary because it is a "huge magnet for more illegal crossings" into the country.

First, as Republican Linda Chavez explains, there is no evidence to back up such a claim. In response to an almost identical argument put forth by Trump, she writes that a study of the births to undocumented mothers in 2009-2010 found that "91 percent had been in the country for at least two years, and two-thirds had arrived at least five years before giving birth."

The fact is that there is so such "magnet" because undocumented immigrant parents don't really benefit from their child's U.S. citizenship. A child cannot sponsor his or her parents for lawful immigration status until they are at least 21 years of age.

And, whether you call these children either "beautiful" or "innocent," as Vitter and Epps do, respectively, the fact is that denying these babies their constitutionally-guaranteed right to citizenship would have disastrous consequences for both them and our country in both the short- and long-term.

As attorney Margaret D. Stock wrote for the Cato Journal:
The change would create a large class of stateless children who are born and raised in the United States but who do not have strong ties to any other nation. Some will voluntarily leave the United States as children or perhaps upon reaching adulthood. Some will be deported (at taxpayer expense). Those of the group who stay in the United States will have the right to attend public school through the end of high school, but upon graduating, they won't be eligible to join the U.S. military, get jobs, run for political office, contribute to Social Security, purchase health insurance, or do a myriad of other mundane daily activities that young American citizens do - and which keeps the U.S. economy going.
And, beyond the negative economic repercussions of having large numbers of young people living in the shadows of society, Stock adds that it will be harmful to all children and families - not just the children of immigrants - who are born in the country. She explains:
Once a change to the Citizenship Clause goes into effect, newborns claiming U.S. citizenship will necessarily be required to demonstrate not just the fact of their birth in the United States, but also the citizenship and immigration status of their parents at the moment of birth - and presumably, newborns will have to demonstrate this fact to some bureaucracy that has the technical and legal capacity to determine what their parents' status was at the moment of their birth.
Stock estimates this will "cost American households about $2.4 billion per year" and that is a conservative estimate because it doesn't even include the potential costs of having to hire a lawyer to deal with the paperwork, submit the legal documents, and litigate a problematic bureaucratic interpretation. As she points out:
If proponents of changing the Fourteenth Amendment have their way, every baby born in America will now face a bureaucratic hurdle before he or she gets a birth certificate - and clearing the bureaucratic hurdle will often require expert legal services.
Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton adds:
Not only would ending birthright citizenship hurt all Americans, it would be logistically and financially unrealistic. The costs associated with thousands of trials, administrative proceedings, and the massive bureaucracy that would have to be developed would add an entirely new layer in the government - a fact that is conveniently ignored by the supposedly small-government conservative candidates leading the charge.
This is because immigration law is incredibly complicated. As just one example, in 2013, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who is a graduate of Harvard Law School, found out from the Dallas Morning News that he was actually a dual citizen of both the United States and Canada. Sen. Cruz and his family were clueless about this fact and had to hire attorneys to help him renounce his Canadian citizenship before he could run for president in this country.

If citizenship and immigration law is complicated and uncertain even for somebody like Sen. Cruz, a former Solicitor General of Texas and law clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, eliminating the bright line that birthright citizenship now provides to children would put hundreds of thousands of children at risk annually, particularly low-income and middle-class children. And, this would be "downright un-American," says Chavez.

Stock concludes:
Changing the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause to set up a new two-tiered American caste system may get a presidential candidate some quick applause in a debate - but thoughtful conservatives and libertarians will want to take a hard look at the future social, economic, and political consequences such a rejection of America's traditional birthright principle.
As for the impact this change would have on children, the new types of bureaucracy, legal complexity, and cost would undoubtedly cause significant delays in ascertaining a child's citizenship status and result in barriers to services and real harm to a child's health, early childhood, education, housing, and safety.

Trump likes to speak to "common sense." But, if you actually care about and value the lives of children and the future of our nation, his proposal is anything but.

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

It's Time for Conservatives to Reject Judicial Restraint

$
0
0
Amongst conservatives, nominating judges committed to "judicial restraint" used to be as uncontroversial as seeking to elect the next Ronald Reagan. Today, an increasing number of conservatives are embracing an alternative approach. In an essential article in the latest issue of the Weekly Standard, legal scholars Randy Barnett and Josh Blackman make five recommendations to Republican presidential candidates seeking to appoint constitutional conservatives to the bench. Among them: "Reject clichéd calls for judicial restraint." Barnett and Blackman highlight and criticize Governor Jeb Bush's recent promise that, if elected, he would "appoint justices with 'a proven record of judicial restraint' and a 'proven record of not legislating from the bench.""These are clichéd talking points that didn't work 20 years ago," the authors write, urging instead that presidential candidates seek out judges who will "engage and enforce the Constitution against the other branches."

This is wise counsel, and conservatives should heed it. Those concerned about the unprecedented growth of government in recent years owe it to themselves to cast counterproductive calls for judicial restraint into the dustbin of history.

Judicial restraint holds that judges should generally defer to the choices of the political branches, presuming those choices to be legitimate and only invalidating them when they are clearly unconstitutional. Different advocates of judicial restraint have embraced restraint for different reasons. The first vigorous early proponents of judicial restraint were political progressives, who in the late 19th and early 20th century railed against what they perceived to be a reactionary Supreme Court thwarting New Deal policies by clinging to outmoded notions of federalism and individual rights. Beginning in the late 1950s, political conservatives took up the mantle of restraint and criticized the Warren Court for its "activist" imposition of liberal values on the rest of the nation. Since the days of Miranda, Griswold, and (later) Roe, praise of "judicial restraint" and criticism of "judicial activism" have been an integral part of the conservative catechism.

Opposition to "activism" led conservatives to push for judicial nominees (including, unsuccessfully, Judge Robert Bork) who were committed to restraint. Chief Justice John Roberts' own appointment cannot be understood except in the context of a conservative legal movement that touted restraint as a supreme judicial virtue. Reading the transcript of his confirmation hearings, one finds Roberts emphasizing his modesty, his humility, and his unwillingness to second-guess the elected branches of government.

Roberts has proven as good as his word, and the results have not been good for constitutionally limited government. In NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), the Court transformed the Affordable Care Act's requirement that Americans purchase government-approved health insurance from a mandate enforced by a financial penalty into an option either to purchase government-approved health insurance or pay a small additional tax. Although Congress and the President had insisted that the individual mandate was not a tax, and despite the fact that the ACA refers to the mandate as a "penalty" some 18 times, Roberts construed the mandate as a tax in order to uphold it. Roberts considered it his duty to base his ruling not on the "most natural interpretation of the law" (his words) but on any "fairly possible" interpretation that would "save the statute from unconstitutionality."

Recently, in King v. Burwell, Roberts again helped the Court to salvage the ACA. Congress wanted states to set up their own health insurance exchanges, but, lacking the constitutional authority to force them, incentivized states to set up their own insurance exchanges by authorizing tax credits to help qualifying individuals purchase health insurance "through an Exchange established by the State." As a fallback, Congress authorized federal bureaucrats to set up exchanges in states that declined to set up their own. When, contrary to expectations, 34 states declined, the IRS issued tax credits through federal exchanges, triggering taxes against employers and individuals from federal-exchange states under the ACA's employer and individual mandates. The question for the Court in King was whether, in effect, the IRS could interpret "Established by the State" as "Established by the State or the federal government."

Again departing from "the most natural interpretation" of the law's language, Roberts, writing for the Court, undertook to rescue Congress from what he described as "inartful drafting." Divining that Congress' overriding purpose was to "improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," the Court sought to interpret the statute consistently with that purpose "if at all possible." As before, Roberts performed what Justice Scalia called "somersaults of statutory interpretation" to avoid saying "no" to the political branches.

The irony is bitter indeed. In the name of deference to Congress, Roberts usurped its prerogatives. He committed the cardinal sin for which conservatives had long condemned the Court--he legislated from the bench.

Roberts' votes to preserve the greatest expansion of federal power since the New Deal were not the product of mere interpretive errors--they were the product of a judicial approach rooted in false premises about the role of judiciary. The judiciary serves as the last place of redress for Americans whose rights have been violated by legislators or executives (or both) who have betrayed the trust of those whom they are duty-bound to serve, and serves as a bulwark against executive or legislative overreach. If the Constitution is to be effectively enforced against the political branches when the chips are down and the stakes are high, we must have judges who are committed to judicial engagement: conscientious, impartial truth-seeking in every constitutional case, without unwarranted deference to the political branches.

The Constitution itself says nothing about the proper posture of judges in constitutional cases--whether they should be engaged or restrained. But constitutional conservatives must consider what approach to judging is most likely to produce decisions that are consistent with the Constitution's plan for limiting government. The lesson of the Roberts appointment is that judicial restraint is not a solution to the problem of out-of-control government; it is part of the problem. Presidential candidates who are serious about addressing the problem of overweening government must take Barnett and Blackman's advice and steer clear of judges whose records disclose a willingness to place a finger (much less a palm or an elbow) on the government's side of the ledger.

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

Five federal judges rebuke court: don’t tell the Little Sisters how to be Catholic

$
0
0
Denver, Colo., Sep 4, 2015 / 03:38 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- In an unusual move, five federal judges have said their court should have given greater attention to the Little Sisters of the Poor’s religious freedom lawsuit against an Obama administration mandate that requires them to violate their Catholic beliefs, or face heavy fines.

“When a law demands that a person do something the person considers sinful, and the penalty for refusal is a large financial penalty, then the law imposes a substantial burden on that person’s free exercise of religion,” five judges with the Denver-based Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals said in a Sept. 3 dissent.

The judges said their court’s earlier panel ruling against the sisters is “clearly and gravely wrong – on an issue that has little to do with contraception and a great deal to do with religious liberty.”

On July 14 a majority of the three-judge panel had ruled against the sisters. The sisters had filed a lawsuit challenging the mandate which requires employers to offer health insurance plans covering contraception, sterilization, and some drugs that can cause early abortions.

Employers who fail to comply with the mandate face crippling penalties. In the case of the Little Sisters, the fines could amount to around $2.5 million a year, or about 40 percent of the $6 million the Sisters receive each year in order to run their ministry.

The court panel said that the 2014 Supreme Court decision protecting Hobby Lobby and other objecting companies from the mandate did not apply in the Little Sisters' case. The panel said the 2014 decision was based on the lack of a religious accommodation for for-profit companies, and argued that the Little Sisters should take advantage of the religious accommodation the Obama administration had granted to non-profit employers.

The sisters have insisted the accommodation is insufficient, and they responded to the court panel’s decision with an appeal to the Supreme Court.

On its own initiative, the Tenth Circuit voted on whether the entire court of 12 judges should re-hear the case. The court on Sept. 3 still voted against a re-hearing, prompting the five judges to write their dissent.

Mark Renzi, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and lead counsel for the Little Sisters of the Poor, welcomed the action.

“These judges understand that courts and bureaucrats should not be telling nuns what the Catholic faith requires,” Renzi said Sept. 4. He said the five judges’ opinion offered “important support” for the Little Sisters’ appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Becket Fund characterized the five judges’ action as “almost unprecedented.”

The sisters are among several hundred plaintiffs who have challenged the federal contraception mandate, including several Catholic dioceses, Catholic Charities affiliates, universities, and the EWTN Global Catholic Network.

The Little Sisters of the Poor do not qualify for a full religious exemption to the mandate because they are not affiliated with a particular house of worship.

The federal government’s putative accommodation means that faith-based employers can sign paperwork to pass the burden of providing the objectionable coverage to insurers, who must then offer it directly to employees without cost.

The Little Sisters obtain their health coverage from Catholic organizations, Christian Brothers Services, and Christian Brothers Employee Benefit Trust. They have said the alleged accommodation still requires them and their Catholic partners to cooperate in providing drugs and procedures whose use Catholic teaching recognizes as sinful.

The five judges said the panel majority refused to acknowledge the religious sisters’ belief that it would be sinful to use the accommodation. Rather, the panel “reframes their belief.”

The dissenting judges objected: “it is not the job of the judiciary to tell people what their religious beliefs are.”

Other parties to the sisters’ lawsuit include the Christian Brothers benefits provider and the Baptist ministries GuideStone, Reaching Souls, and Truett-McConnell College.

Sister Loraine Marie Maguire, mother provincial of the Little Sisters of the Poor, said the religious women “dedicate our lives to serving the neediest in society, with love and dignity.”

“We perform this loving ministry because of our faith and simply cannot choose between our care for the elderly poor and our faith, and we shouldn’t have to,” she said July 23. “We hope the Supreme Court will hear our case and ensure that people from diverse faiths can freely follow God’s calling in their lives.”

The Little Sisters of the Poor have cared for the elderly poor and dying around the world for 175 years. Reported by CNA 17 hours ago.
Viewing all 22794 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images